Two classes then, in one or other of which many San Franciscans are today, quarreled with this policy of investigating the claims of the refugees; on the one hand, those who held theoretically that all who had felt the blow should, if they asked, receive help; on the other, those who held concretely that they themselves, having been losers, had a “right” to a portion of the relief fund.
The natural desire to give generously to the limits of one’s capacity, especially to those whom disaster has robbed of competence, is what constructive charity work always has to face from those who “cease not to give without any regard.” As years make it possible to view without prejudice the aim and result of the more cautious, less emotional policy pursued, it seems demonstrable that time will vindicate the much criticized deliberation of the Rehabilitation Committee and the Associated Charities. As has been considered in [Part I], the extent of need and of the sum to meet it were both unknown, and what was foreseen happened,—that a portion of the fund was needed to be held in reserve for those who at first courageously refrained from asking help, but who as the strain proved too great necessarily appealed. The dual risk of giving to the sham refugee and of carrying the man who could help himself and who was inclined to lean on relief could only be avoided by careful investigation and treatment, even though both raged at the refusals of an “unjust” committee. The final argument is that no relief should be so generous as to dry up the normal sources of aid in a community. That aid is wisest which rouses all the neighborhood and civic sources of help into effective action.
It is undeniable that the records show a certain number of persons to have been refused aid who seemed as entitled to help as some who by influence or persistence got at least a minimum. “Influence” is used with no invidious intention. In San Francisco as in every other community a certain number of wholly disinterested persons bear an enormous share of the burden of the charity work. When these asked aid for a case and gave their word that it was deserved, it was difficult, often impossible, to deny the aid. The Associated Charities did give help in a good many instances where in its own judgment aid could have been refused and the cases left for reconstruction to neighborship and individual capacities. [Table 112] shows the causes for refusal to aid.
The first three reasons for refusal and the ninth and tenth could be brought under the heading “thirst for relief money,” and make the total for the type, 516, or 30.3 per cent of the refusals. The attitude of mind was expressed collectively by the naïve Italian woman who said frankly that she “thought they could get something nice,” and by the Irish woman who said with equal naïveté “they could get something for the asking.” The 77 applicants who asked for money for purposes of relief no longer being granted, asked aid too late for the building of a cottage or for the moving of a house or for furniture. Twenty-seven of these had not been burned out, and about two-fifths of the remaining 50 had had rehabilitation before June, 1907.
TABLE 112.—REASONS FOR NOT GIVING AID FROM ASSOCIATED CHARITIES TO APPLICANTS
| Reason for not giving aid | APPLICANTS WHO HAD LIVED IN BURNED AREA | Applicants who had not lived in burned area | Applicants whose former place of residence is doubtful | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| With rehabil- itation record | Without rehabil- itation record | ||||
| Applicant merely seeking more relief money | 54 | 36 | 21 | 3 | 114 |
| Applicant has already had as much money as is justified | 29 | 4 | 1 | .. | 34 |
| Applicant able to get along without help | 143 | 149 | 61 | 15 | 368 |
| Applicant has relatives who can help or have helped | 27 | 54 | 30 | 2 | 113 |
| Money no longer given for use desired | 19 | 31 | 25 | 2 | 77 |
| Applicant would not accept aid offered | 24 | 27 | 11 | 3 | 65 |
| Applicant’s plan unpracticable | 19 | 14 | 26 | 1 | 60 |
| Applicant withdrew application | 25 | 30 | 43 | 5 | 103 |
| Case reported without knowledge of applicant | 10 | 3 | 13 | 8 | 34 |
| Pauperization feared | 7 | 3 | 3 | .. | 13 |
| Applicant a professional beggar | 31 | 14 | 11 | 2 | 58 |
| Applicant lazy | 4 | 12 | 4 | .. | 20 |
| Applicant vicious | 5 | 11 | 8 | 1 | 25 |
| Applicant a drunkard | 34 | 17 | 4 | 3 | 58 |
| Applicant unthrifty | 3 | 11 | 4 | .. | 18 |
| Applicant could not be found | 13 | 40 | 36 | 14 | 103 |
| Aid received from other sources or case referred to other societies | 53 | 68 | 73 | 19 | 213 |
| Disposal of application not known | 71 | 80 | 65 | 12 | 228 |
| Total | 571 | 604 | 439 | 90 | 1,704 |
In reading some of the cases of families burned out who had no rehabilitation record in the group of 368 “able to get along without aid,” the question often mooted was, “If these were not given, why were others?” This may be a feeling, not a judgment. It is probable that the records, though relatively complete, do not tell enough to permit a fair judgment, but it is one of the regrets of the analyst of these cases that in justice to the difficulties of the current work they could not be re-visited. The protest of the office was that re-visits would stir a whole neighborhood to descend upon it again in hope that there was a little more money to be distributed,—a protest voiced concretely by one visitor, who said, “We can scarcely be seen to pass along the street in a given neighborhood without receiving calls a few days later from people eager to know if there is any more relief money to give away.” The objection, based as it was on a recognition of human frailty, had to be respected. Other objections given to a re-visit were that some persons would be found to be so disgruntled that a fair statement could not be got from them; that others were too stupid to understand the questions or too indifferent to care to answer them. An attempt to re-investigate any of these groups would fairly seem to have been a waste of effort and money.
The small number, 13, refused on the ground of fear of pauperization may raise a smile, but the heading is a reflex of the dread in the minds of some of the visitors. “This is a very decent family who have never had aid,” writes one of the visitors, “and I do not think it well to begin for fear of pauperizing them.” It is noteworthy that of the 58 refused as “professional beggars,” 45 had lived in the burned area and of these 31 had rehabilitation records; that of the 58 refused on account of alcoholic habits, 51 had lived in the burned area, 34 of whom had a rehabilitation record. Whether these refugees had acquired the habits of begging and of drinking after the earthquake experience is not shown by the records. The individuals in these last two groups, many of whom were members of families, needed much more than they asked for, but the thorough investigation and constructive treatment they should have received could not be meted out to them at a time when material assistance was the overwhelming issue.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Positive questions have been asked; they have received but few definite answers. It is easy to question, but hard to answer positively, when past efforts are but meagerly recorded, and present efforts are too fresh for an accurate measure to be taken of their results. It is a simple task theoretically to define a line of inquiry; it is a complex one to separate human beings into classes and to determine just what circumstances of character and condition forced each into his appropriate place.