establishment of workhouses in each township proved to be impracticable.

The next legislation on this subject (in 1799) required the overseer to farm out poor persons who were a public charge to the lowest bidder. The farmers of the poor were To prevent

entitled to keep them at moderate labor. injustice, the overseer had power to examine into the grounds of any complaint made by, or on behalf of, any pauper; and if the pauper had been insufficiently provided for or ill-treated, it was lawful for him to withhold a part of the compensation. Overseers were required to make returns to the county commissioners, who were authorized to levy a tax equal in amount to that for which the poor were sold.'

Here was a step toward local centralization. The burden of the public poor was shifted from the separate townships to the county as a whole. This remained the practice until 1897. In 1803 the power to levy the poor tax was transferred from the county commissioners to the court of common pleas in each county; and two years later the authority to appoint the overseers of the poor was conferred upon the same court.3

The Constitution of 1816 made it the duty of the General Assembly "to provide one or more farms to be an asylum for those persons who, by reason of age, infirmity or other misfortunes, may have a claim upon the aid and beneficence of society; on such principles, that such persons may therein find employment and every reasonable comfort, and lose by their usefulness the degrading sense of dependence."

The General Assembly, in 1818, re-enacted the territorial laws regulating the care of the poor. The only changes 1 Terr. Laws, 1803, p. 63.

'Chase, i, pp. 284-5.

Ibid., 1805, p. 15. In 1813 these powers were given to the associate judges of the circuit court. Ibid., 1813, p. 124 et seq.

4 Constitution of 1816, art. ix, sect. 4.

made were the transference to the county commissioners of the authority to appoint for each township two overseers of the poor; and the granting to overseers the power to bind out poor children as apprentices.1

A privilege still conceded to applicants for aid was first granted in 1821. Poor persons who believed themselves entitled to relief which the overseers refused to grant, were given the right to apply to the board of county commissioners. The latter, if they thought proper, might direct the overseers to put them upon the poor list. A larger degree of discretion was given to the county commissioners in 1823. They were authorized to grant to paupers of mature years and sound mind, who would from their general character probably be benefited thereby, an allowance equal to the estimated charge of their maintenance. This sum was to be under the immediate control and direction of the recipients.3 The first effort to carry out the constitutional provision relating to the poor, was made in 1821. Though limited in its application to a single county, it was the practical beginning of the county poor-farm system. It provided for the establishment of a house for the employment and support of the poor of Knox County. Three directors, one retiring annually, were to be elected by the qualified voters for a term of three years. They were created a "body politic and corporate in law to all intents and purposes whatsoever relating to the poor" of Knox County, and were styled "directors of the poor." to apprentice poor children, to ants, and to make rules for the Before going into force these

1 Laws, 1817-8, pp. 154-157.

3 Laws, 1822-3, pp. 140-1.

They were granted power employ officers and attendgovernment of the "house". regulations had to receive the

5 The law of 1795 (see p. 143), providing for houses of employment seems never

to have been put into operation.

approval of the Circuit Court. The county commissioners were required to provide the sum needed for purchasing land and erecting the necessary buildings. The directors were to account annually to the county commissioners for all receipts and expenditures. They also reported, at least once annually, to the Circuit Court and grand jury of the county a list with the number, ages and sex of the inmates of the house of employment; and also a list of the children bound out as apprentices with the names of their masters and mistresses, and their trade, occupation or calling. They were further required to submit to inspection and examination by such visitors as the Circuit Court might appoint from time to time. One of the directors was to visit and inspect the house once each month. ings were completed, all the poor of be removed thither; and the office of overseer of the poor for Knox county was abolished thereby. Here was the first attempt to secure regular reports of statistical information and to require official inspection and examination. Indeed,

As soon as the buildeach township were to

the act seems quite modern in spirit. Within that decade seven other counties' were given the same rights with slight qualifications; only permanent charges were to be placed in the county asylum, and the office of the overseer of the poor was to be retained, presumably to furnish relief to those temporarily dependent. In the main, these special laws. were successful in their operation, although the act relative to the Knox county asylum was repealed in 1828 and the general laws again made applicable to that county.

The prevailing way of dealing with the poor was still the farming-out method. The character of the poor relief

'The counties of Clark, Harrison, Wayne, Jefferson, Washington, Dearborn and Floyd. Rev. Stat., 1824, pp. 283-4; Laws, 1829–30, pp. 7–8; Special Law s 1830-1, pp. 6-7.

Laws, 1827-8, p. 69.

*

system and the consequences of its operation were carefully reviewed by Governor Ray in his message of 1825. After quoting the fourth section of the ninth article of the Constitution,' he proceeded to say: "The uniform silence of our legislature on this subject is sufficient to induce a belief that the benevolent provision has not yet received the consideration to which it is entitled. *The existing law for the support of the poor is radically defective in the principles of humanity as well as in economy of expenditure. These unhappy objects of public charity are sold like merchandise or cattle in a public market to persons who are generally induced to become their purchasers from motives of gain or avarice, rather than humanity and benevolence." This "mode of relief is calculated to lacerate anew the already wounded sensibility, to increase the sense of degradation, and changes the unfortunate dependent from an object of public charity into a means of private speculation." He recommended "dividing the State into districts of counties, or larger, and making provisions for the establishment of an asylum in each, where under the care of a single superintendent, made responsible for his conduct, the poor, deaf, dumb and unfortunate of the district may be collected; and those of them, of capability, occupied in some useful employment contributory to their subsistence." He believed that such a system would cost little more than onehalf the amount expended under the existing arrangement, "besides affording abundantly the milk of human kindness." 2 A committee of the Senate reported a resolution in favor of an act to divide the State into three districts, in each of which a farm should be purchased to carry into effect the humane principles of the Constitution.3 The bill failed to become a law, but the General Assembly was sufficiently 1 See page 144 above.

impressed to call for information from the clerks of the Circuit Courts in respect to the amount of expenditures for poor relief together with the "number and kind of paupers and indigent persons who received charity." The law was disregarded by most of the clerks; but fourteen made return returns to the Secretary of State. These were sufficient to show that the system was expensive.2

I

The inhabitants of Indiana, acting collectively either as a State or as local communities, were reluctant to impose upon themselves the burden of taxation which was necessary to supply adequate funds for the purpose of poor relief. Moreover, they beheld many thousands of acres of government lands lying unoccupied within the State. In that day of national liberality it did not seem inconsistent nor improper to appeal to the general government for aid. And besides, they had before them the conspicuous examples of Federal generosity in favor of schools and public improvements. Accordingly, the fifteenth General Assembly addressed a memorial to the Congress of the United States, requesting that an act be passed granting one section of land for each county in the State which, or the proceeds of which, should be applied to erect asylums and provide farms to receive all persons found to be objects of charity; two sections to be applied to benefit the deaf and dumb within the entire State, and also one section to erect and sustain a "lunatic asylum." "Indiana repudiates the idea of selfishness," and wishes only "to take upon herself the responsibility of an agent, empowered to administer consolation to all whom casualty or misadventure may render dependent on benevolent protection." 3 As a further ground for asking this donation, the memorial pointed out that many of the unfortunates in the State were

1 Laws, 1825-6, p. 49.

Special Laws, 1830-1, pp. 188-9.

House Journ., 1826-7, pp. 60-1.