[250] Compare with figures presented in [Part I], [p. 86]. While the amount given above covers all housing relief granted by the Associated Charities for the period from June 1, 1907, to June 1, 1909, the $55,963.50 mentioned in [Part I] relates to expenditures for moving or repairing cottages during the entire period of the relief work.
4. RELIEF REFUSED
The policy behind a refusal to aid measures the quality of relief as well as the policy which shapes giving. The cases to which material aid was refused have therefore been segregated and an attempt is here made to state what the records show concerning the basis and utility of such refusal. It will be remembered that 5951 cases applied for relief and that 1704 of these were refused aid. The following table gives the number refused who had or who had not lived in the burned area and the number who had not made application for rehabilitation aid before June, 1907.
TABLE 111.—APPLICANTS FOR AID FROM THE ASSOCIATED CHARITIES TO WHOM AID WAS REFUSED, CLASSIFIED AS HAVING LIVED OR NOT HAVING LIVED IN THE BURNED AREA. JUNE 1, 1907, TO JUNE 1, 1909[251]
| Classes of applicants | APPLICANTS REFUSED AID | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Per cent | |
| Applicants who had lived in burned area | ||
| With rehabilitation record | 571 | 35.4 |
| Without rehabilitation record | 604 | 37.4 |
| Total | 1,175 | 72.8 |
| Applicants who had not lived in burned area | 439 | 27.2 |
| Grand Total | 1,614 | 100.0 |
[251] Data are not available as to the former place of residence of 90 of the 1,704 refused aid.
It must be borne in mind that the total number of applications made to the Associated Charities on the part of applicants who had been burned out was, 1,880 by those who had had a rehabilitation record before June, 1907, and 2,116 by those who had had no such record. The percentage of refusals is seen to be, therefore, very nearly the same,—about 30 per cent of refusals for the first class, 29 per cent for the second.
Although many of these applicants had rations until, and shelter perhaps for months after they had secured work, to refuse further aid to 1,175 applicants burned out, or 29 per cent of those who made application from June, 1907, to June, 1909, called for an exercise of courage and a holding firm to the well-defined principles of the relief administrators.
The following criticisms are typical of those that had to be answered:
A woman prominent in labor circles, speaking of a rejected case, said to one of the managers of the Associated Charities and voiced a rather widespread sentiment: “I can’t see the justice of this picking and choosing. My friend was burned out and was just as good as some of those who received help—and there was plenty of money! Who was it for, if not for the refugees?” Another in writing to the office said: “Mrs. X—— is old and ought not to have to work any more. Surely some of that relief money can be found for her.” The bitterness of the refugees themselves made, however, the loudest plaint in the chorus of discontent.