The Dangerous Classes of New York Part 28

A board of trustees for an important charity should represent, so far as is practicable, the different cla.s.ses and professions of society. There is danger in a board being too wealthy or distinguished, as well as too humble. First of all, men are needed who have a deep moral interest in the work, and who will take a practical part in it. Then they must be men of such high character and integrity that the community will feel no anxiety at committing to them--"trust funds." As few "figure-heads"

should be taken in as possible--that is, persons of eminent names, for the mere purpose of making an impression on the public. Men of wealth are needed for a thousand emergencies; men of moderate means, also, who can appreciate practical difficulties peculiar to this cla.s.s; men of brains, to guide and suggest, and of action, to impel. There should be lawyers in such a board, for many cases of legal difficulty which arise; and, if possible, physicians, as charities have so much to do with sanitary questions. Two cla.s.ses only had better not be admitted: men of very large wealth, as they seldom contribute more than persons of moderate property, and discourage others by their presence in the board; and clergymen with parishes, the objection to the latter being that they have no time for such labors, and give a sectarian air to the charity.

It is exceedingly desirable that the trustees or managers of our benevolent inst.i.tutions should take a more active and personal part in their management. The peculiar experience which a successful business career gives--the power both of handling details and managing large interests; the capacity of organization; the energy and the careful judgment and knowledge of men which such a life develops,--are the qualities most needed in managing moral and benevolent "causes."

A trustee of a charity will often see considerations which the workers in it do not behold, and will be able frequently to judge of its operations from a more comprehensive point of view. The great duty of trustees, of course, should be to rigidly inspect all accounts and to be responsible for the pecuniary integrity of the enterprise. The carrying-out of the especial plan of the a.s.sociation and all the details should be left with one executive officer. If there is too great interference in details by the board of management, much confusion ensues, and often personal jealousies and bickerings. Many of our boards of charities have almost been broken up by internal petty cabals and quarrels. The agents of benevolent inst.i.tutions, especially if not mingling much with the world, are liable to small jealousies and rivalries.

The executive officer must throw the energy of a business into his labor of benevolence. He must be allowed a large control over subordinates, and all the machinery of the organization should pa.s.s through his hands.

He must especially represent the work, both to the board and to the world. If his hands be tied too much, he will soon become a mere routine-agent, and any one of original power would leave the position.

Again, in his dealings with the heads of the various departments or branches of the work, he must seek to make each agent feel responsible, and to a degree independent, so that his labor may become a life-work, and his reputation and hope of means may depend on his energy and success. If on all proper occasions he seeks to do full justice to his subordinates, giving them their due credit and promoting their interests, and strives to impart to them his own enthusiasm, he will avoid all jealousies and will find that the charity is as faithfully served as any business house.

The success in "organization" is mainly due to success in selecting your men. Some persons have a faculty for this office; others always fail in it.

Then, having the proper agents, great consideration is due towards them.

Some employers treat their subordinates as if they had hardly a human feeling. Respect and courtesy always make those who serve you more efficient. Too much stress, too, can hardly be laid on frank and unsuspicious dealing with _employes._ Suspicion renders its objects more ign.o.ble. A man who manages many agents must show much confidence; yet, of course, be strict and rigid in calling them to account. It will be better for him also not to be too familiar with them.

CHAPTER x.x.xI.

STATE AID FOR CHARITIES.

An important question often comes up in regard to our charitable a.s.sociations: "How shall they best be supported?"--by endowment from the State or by private and annual a.s.sistance? There is clearly a right that all charities of a general nature should expect some help from the public Legislature. The State is the source of the charters of all corporations. One of the main duties of a Legislature is to care for the interests of the poor and criminal. The English system, dating as far back as Henry VIII, has been to leave the charge of the poor and all educational inst.i.tutions, as much as possible, to counties or local bodies or individuals. It has been, so far as the charge of the poor is concerned, imitated here. But in neither country has it worked, well; and the last relic of it will probably soon be removed in this State, by placing the defective persons--the blind and dumb, and insane and idiot, and the orphans--in the several counties in State inst.i.tutions. The charge of criminals and reformatory inst.i.tutions are also largely placed under State control and supervision.

The object of a State Legislature in all these matters is _bonum public.u.m_--the public weal. If they think that a private charity is accomplis.h.i.+ng a public work of great value, which is not and perhaps cannot be accomplished by purely public inst.i.tutions, they apparently have the same right to tax the whole community, or a local community, for its benefit, that they have now to tax it for the support of schools, or Almshouses, or Prisons, or Houses of Refuge. In such a case it need not be a matter of question with the Legislature whether the charity is "sectarian" or not; whether it teaches Roman Catholicism, or Protestantism, or the Jewish faith, or no faith. The only question with the governing power is, "Does it do a work of public value not done by public inst.i.tutions?" If it does; if for instance, it is a Roman-Catholic Reformatory, or a Protestant House of Refuge, or Children's Aid Society, the Legislature, knowing that all public and private organizations together cannot fully remedy the tremendous evils arising from a cla.s.s of neglected and homeless children, is perfectly right in granting aid to such inst.i.tutions without reference to their "sectarian" character. It reserves to itself the right of inspection, secured in this State by our admirable Board of Inspectors of State Charities; and it can at any time repeal the charters of, or refuse the appropriations to, these private a.s.sociations. But thus far, its uniform practice has been to aid, to a limited degree, private charities of this nature.

This should by no means be considered a ground for demanding similar a.s.sistance for "sectarian schools." Education is secured now by public taxation for all; and all can take advantage of it. There is no popular necessity for Church Schools, and the public good is not promoted by them as it is by secular schools. Where there are children too poor to attend the Public Schools, these can be aided by private charitable a.s.sociations; and of these, only those should be a.s.sisted by the State which have no sectarian character.

Charities which are entirely supported by State and permanent endowment are liable, as the experience of England shows, to run into a condition of routine and lifelessness. The old endowments of Great Britain are nests of abuses, and many of them are now being swept away. A State charity has the advantage of greater solidity and more thorough and expensive machinery, and often more careful organization. But, as compared with our private charities, the public inst.i.tutions of beneficence are dull and lifeless. They have not the individual enthusiasm working through them, with its ardor and power. They are more like machines.

On the other hand, charities supported entirely by individuals will always have but a small scope. The amount of what may be called the "charity fund" of the community is comparatively limited. In years of disaster or war, or where other interests absorb the public, it will dwindle down to a very small sum. It is distributed, too, somewhat capriciously. Sometimes a "sensation" calls it forth bountifully, while more real demands are neglected. An important benevolent a.s.sociation, depending solely on its voluntary contributions from individuals, will always be weak and incomplete in its machinery. The best course for the permanency and efficiency of a charity seems to be, to make it depend in part on the State, that it may have a solid foundation of support, and be under official supervision, and in part on private aid, so that it may feel the enthusiasm and activity and responsibility of individual effort. The "Houses of Refuge" combine public and private a.s.sistance in a manner which has proved very beneficial. Their means come from the State, while their governing bodies are private, and independent of politics. The New York "Juvenile Asylum" enjoys both public and private contributions, but has a private board. On the other hand, the "Commissioners of Charities and Correction" are supported entirely by taxation, and, until they had the services of a Board carefully selected, were peculiarly inefficient. Many private benevolent a.s.sociations in the city could be mentioned which have no solid foundation of public support and are under no public supervision, and, in consequence, are weak and slipshod in all their enterprises. The true policy of the Legislature is to encourage and supplement private activity in charities by moderate public aid, and to organize a strict supervision. The great danger for all charities is in machinery or "plant" taking more importance in the eyes of its organizers than the work itself.

The condition of the buildings, the neat and orderly appearance of the objects of the charity, and the perfection of the means of housekeeping, become the great objects of the officials or managers, and are what most strike the eyes of the public. But all these are in reality nothing compared with the improvement in character and mind of the persons aided, and this is generally best effected by simple rooms, simple machinery, and constantly getting rid of the subjects of the charity. If they are children, the natural family is a thousand times better charity than all our machinery.

The more an Inst.i.tution or Asylum can show of those drilled and machine-like children, the less real work is it doing.

Following "natural laws" makes sad work of a charity-show in an Asylum; but it leaves fruit over the land, in renovated characters and useful lives.

THE MULTIPLICATION OF CHARITIES.

One of the greatest evils connected with charities in a large city is the unreasonable tendency to multiply them. A benevolent individual meets with a peculiar case of distress or poverty, his feelings are touched, and he at once conceives the idea of an "Inst.i.tution" for this cla.s.s of human evils. He soon finds others whom he can interest in his philanthropic object, and they go blindly on collecting their funds, and perhaps erecting or purchasing their buildings. When the house is finally prepared, the organization perfected, and the cases of distress relieved, the founders discover, perhaps to their dismay, that there are similar or corresponding Inst.i.tutions for just this cla.s.s of unfortunates, which have been carrying on their quiet labors of benevolence for years, and doing much good. The new Inst.i.tution, if wise, would now prefer to turn over its a.s.sets and machinery to the old; but, ten to one, the new workers have an especial pride in their bantling, and cannot bear to abandon it, or they see what they consider defects in the management of the old, and, not knowing all the difficulties of the work, they hope to do better; or their _employes_ have a personal interest in keeping up the new organization, and persuade them that it is needed by the people.

The result, in nineteen cases out of twenty, is that the two agencies of charity are continued where but one is needed. Double the amount of money is used for agents and machinery which is wanted, and, to a certain degree, the charity funds of the community are wasted.

But this is not the worst effect The poor objects of this organization soon discover that they have a double source from which to draw their supplies. They become pauperized, and their faculties are employed in deriving a support from both societies.

By and by, one organization falls behind in its charity labors, and now, in place of waiting to carefully a.s.sist the poor, it tempts the poor to come to it. If it be a peculiar kind of school, not much needed in the quarter, it bribes the poor children by presents to abandon the rival school and fill its own seats; if an Asylum, it seeks far and near for those even not legitimately its subjects. There arises a sort of compet.i.tion of charity. This kind of rivalry is exceedingly bad both for the poor and the public. There are evils enough in the community which all our machinery and wealth cannot cure, and thus to increase or stimulate misfortunes in order to relieve, is the height of absurdity.

One effect often is, that the public become disgusted with all organized charity, and at last fancy that societies of benefaction do as much evil as good.

This city is full of multiplied charities, which are constantly encroaching on each other's field; and yet there are ma.s.ses of evil and calamity here which they scarcely touch. The number of poor people who enjoy a comfortable living, derived from a long study and experience of these various agencies of benevolence, would be incredible to any one not familiar with the facts. They pa.s.s from one to the other; knowing exactly their conditions of a.s.sistance and meeting their requirements, and live thus by a sort of science of alms. The industry and ingenuity they employ in this pauper trade are truly remarkable. Probably not one citizen in a thousand could so well recite the long list of charitable societies and agencies in New York, as one of these busy dependents on charity. Nor do these industrious paupers confine themselves to secular and general societies. They have their churches and missions, on whose skirts they hang; and beyond them a large and influential circle of lady patronesses who support and protect them. We venture to say there are very few ladies of position in New York who do not have a numerous _clientele_ of needy women or unfortunate men that depend on them year after year, and always follow them up and discover their residence, however much they may change it. These people have almost lost their energy of character, and all power of industry (except in pursuing the different charities and patronesses), through this long and indiscriminate a.s.sistance. They are paupers, not in Poor-houses, and dependents on alms, living at home. They are often worse off than if they had never been helped.

This trade of alms and dependence on charities ought to be checked. It demoralizes the poor, and weakens public confidence in wise and good charities. It tends to keep the rich from all benefactions, and makes many doubt whether charity ever really benefits.

There are various modes in which this evil might be remedied. In the first place, no individual should subscribe to a new charity until he has satisfied his mind in some way that it is needed, and that he is not helping to do twice the same good thing.

There ought to be also in such a city as ours a sort of "Board" or "Bureau of Charities," where a person could get information about all now existing, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or secular, and where the agents of these could ascertain if they were helping the same objects twice.

Lists of names and addresses of those a.s.sisted could be kept here for examination, and frequent comparisons could be made by the agents of these societies or by individuals interested. One society, formed for a distinct object, and finding a case needing quite a distinct mode of relief or a.s.sistance, could here at once ascertain where to transfer the case, or what the conditions of help were in another a.s.sociation. Here, individuals having difficult, perplexing, or doubtful cases of charity on hand would ascertain what they should do with them, and whether they were merely supporting a person now dependent on an a.s.sociation from such an office. Cases of poverty and misfortune might be visited and examined by experts, in charity, and the truth ascertained, where ordinary individuals, inquiring, would be certain to be deceived. Here, too, the honest and deserving poor could learn where they should apply for relief.

Such a "Bureau" would be of immense benefit to the city. It would aid in keeping the poor from pauperism; it would put honest poverty in the way of proper a.s.sistance; simplify and direct charities, and enable the "charity fund" of the city to be used directly for the evils needing treatment.

Both the public and benevolent a.s.sociations would be benefited by it, and much useless expenditure and labor saved. Under it, each charitable a.s.sociation could labor in its own field, and encroach on no other, and the public confidence in the wise use of charity funds be strengthened.

In such a city as ours it would probably be hardly possible to follow the Boston plan, and put all the offices of the great charities in one building, yet there could easily be one office of information, or a "Bureau of Charities," which might be sustained by general contributions. Perhaps the State "Board of Charities" would father and direct it, if private means supported it.

In one respect, it would be of immense advantage to have this task undertaken by the State Board, as they have the right to inspect charitable inst.i.tutions, and their duty is to expose "bogus charities."

Of the latter there are only too many in this city. Numerous lazy individuals make lucrative livelihoods by gathering funds for charities which only exist on paper. These swindlers could be best exposed and prosecuted by a "State Board."

CHAPTER x.x.xII.

HOW BEST TO GIVE ALMS?

"TAKE, NOT GIVE."

We were much struck by a reply, recently, of a City Missionary in East London, who was asked what he gave to the poor.

"Give!" he said, "we never give now; we take!" He explained that the remedy of alms, for the terrible evils of that portion of London, had been tried _ad nauseam_, and that they were all convinced of its little permanent good, and their great object was, at present, to induce the poor to save; and for this, they were constantly urgent to get money from these people, when they had a little. They "took, not gave!"

So convinced is the writer, by twenty years' experience among the poor, that alms are mainly a bane, that the mere distribution of gifts by the great charity in which he is engaged seldom affords him much gratification. The long list of benefactions which the Reports record, would be exceedingly unsatisfactory, if they were not parts and branches of a great preventive and educational movement.

The majority of people are most moved by hearing that so many thousand pairs of shoes, so many articles of clothing, or so many loaves of bread are given to the needy and suffering by some benevolent agency.

The experienced friend of the poor will only grieve at such alms, unless they are accompanied with some influences to lead the recipients to take care of themselves. The worst evil in the world is not poverty or hunger, but the want of manhood or character which alms-giving directly occasions.

The English have tried alms until the kingdom seems a vast Poor-house, and the problem of Pauperism has a.s.sumed a gigantic and almost insoluble form. The nation have given everything but Education, and the result is a vast mult.i.tude of wretched persons in whom pauperism is planted like a disease of the blood--who cannot be anything but dependents and idlers.

In London alone, twenty-five million dollars per annum are expended in organized charities; yet, till the year 1871, no general system of popular education had been formed.

This country has been more fortunate and wiser. We had room and work enough, we provided education before alms, and, especially among our native-born population, have checked pauperism, as it never was checked before in any civilized community.

No one can imagine, who has not been familiar with the lowest cla.s.ses, how entirely degraded a character may become, where there is an uncertain dependence on public and organized alms. The faculties of the individual are mainly bent on securing support by other means than industry. Cunning, deception, flattery, and waiting for chances, become the means of livelihood. Self-respect is lost, and with it go the best qualities of the soul. True manhood and true womanhood are eaten away.

The habit of labor, and the hope and courage of a self-supporting human being, and the prudence which guards against future evils, are almost destroyed. The man becomes a dawdler and waiter on chances, and is addicted to the lowest vices; his children grow up worse than he, and make sharpness or crime a subst.i.tute for beggary. The woman is sometimes stripped of the best feelings of her s.e.x by this dependence. Not once or twice only have we known such a woman steal the clothes from her half-starved babe, as she was delivering it over to strangers to care for. There are able-bodied men of this kind in New York who, every winter, as regularly as the snow falls, commit some petty offense, that they may be supported at public expense.

When this disease of pauperism is fairly mingled in the blood of children, their condition is almost hopeless. They will not work, or go to school, or try to learn anything useful; their faculties are all bent to the tricks of a roving, begging life; the self-respect of their s.e.x, if girls, is lost in childhood; they are slatternly, lazy, and dissolute. If they grow up and marry, they marry men of their own kind, and breed paupers and prost.i.tutes.