centage would be 25. There was no almshouse in Tolland county, but 3 in Fairfield, and 4 in Middlesex. Windham reported 5, Hartford, New London, and Litchfield 6 each, while New Haven led with 7. Eighty-six towns supported paupers by contractors, 46 by selectmen, while 2 used both methods.1 Nine towns without almshouses were supporting 30 or more paupers, the largest number being 56, cared for by the contractor in Windsor." Eight towns with almshouses had 50 or more paupers. New Haven headed the list with 539, followed by Hartford with 300, Norwich with 223, and New London with 116.

The towns with almshouses reported 517 pauper children 10 years old and under. Of these, New Haven had 184, while Hartford and one other town reported 40 each. It was not stated how many of these were actually in the almshouses.

As a result of their investigation, the committee recommended the substitution of relief by counties for the town system. They were convinced

that were the paupers of the several towns congregated at proper points in larger numbers, much benefit, now lost, might be derived from their judiciously directed labor, aside from many other advantages, and aside also from a more economical mode of support, as well as a more humane method of moral and social treatment.*

They recommended that each county support all born within it, unless they had resided for a fixed period, five or six years, in the county where they came to want; and that an equitable proportion of the expense for paupers without

settlements be paid by the state upon the finding of the county commissioners. They believed that

such a plan would conduce. . ., to the much more economical support of the unfortunate poor, . . . to a more humane and comfortable mode of care and treatment, by allowing facilities for classification, arrangement, and general method and order; ... and to an entire discontinuance of the present evils of litigation so continually arising from this source. . . Mere food and raiment, are not enough. The virtuous, aged, and infirm, should be fostered with respect, and in substantial ease and comfort; the sick should have kind and careful ministrations; the able should be required to labor for the common support, according to their real strength and ability; the young should be properly trained and educated, and all should be surrounded by a genial, moral and social home influence.1

This report was too advanced and nothing was done. While it may possibly have erred in suggesting too great comfort, its adoption would have simplified the system, saved expense, equalized burdens, and secured the differentiation which in part came many years later and in part is yet to come.

The report of the commission appointed in 1874 to revise the poor laws was of less value, for they secured returns from only 87 towns, containing two-fifths of the population of the state. No report was received from Hartford, New Haven, New London, or Norwich.

The number of paupers reported was 3,312. If this was typical, the total for the state was 7,830. On the basis of the 3,680 paupers reported by 133 towns in 1851, the state then contained 4,100. That would indicate an increase of 91 per cent. in 23 years. By like calculations, the cost of

'Rep. of 1852, pp. 12, 13.

town paupers had risen from $89,700 in 1851 to $317,000 in 1874, an increase of 250 per cent.1

The cost of supporting paupers varied from 75 cents a week in Hebron to $3.50-$4.50 a week in Wallingford, while East Haddam reported its cost as from $2 to $8 a week.2 For the whole state, the calculated average was about $2.50 a week. The commission stated that in some adjoining states, with the county system, the cost ranged from $1 to nothing a week and the paupers received better care than in Connecticut."

Nineteen towns relieved entirely at almshouses, Stamford caring thus for the largest number, 30. Twelve towns relieved entirely in the paupers' homes. Sixteen towns, including Hebron, cared for their paupers by contract with the lowest bidder. Nine supported their poor on town farms. Seven hundred and thirty-seven out of 3,312 paupers were in the almshouses, or 22 per cent.*

The avails of pauper labor reported were $3,925, of which $3,000 was from Bridgeport."

There was no report from New Haven, but the commission stated that its almshouse, with 150 inmates, had for several years paid its expenses and left a handsome balance. They saw no reason why county almshouses, systematically conducted, would not be equally successful. Their recommendation that the town farms be sold and the proceeds used to secure county almshouses, was not adopted; but their report regarding the laws of settlement was, and it will be considered in the next chapter.

The figures for the expenditures of the state for paupers since 1845 are available and present some strange irregularities. In 1849 the amount was $1,100, while the next year,

7

1Rep. of Commission to Revise the Pauper Laws, 1875, pp. 5-8.

Ibid.
'Ibid., p. 10.
Ibid., pp. 10-11.

'Ibid., pp. 5-8.

'Ibid.

"Vid. P. A. for years in question.

1850, it more than doubled, reaching $2,229. This was the maximum until 1873. The average for the years 1845-1867 was $1,717, during the last ten of which the cost was fairly regular, being $1,578 at the close. Then began a curious fluctuation. The figures for the remaining years to 1874 were as follows:

I have been unable to discover in the laws any changes which even suggest the causes of the fluctuations.

Hitherto the laws regarding sickness have been of so general application that they have been considered with the methods of poor relief. Before the close of the period 1784-1838 their application was restricted to the sick and they now come under special legislation.

4. EXEMPTION FROM TAXES

Several changes were made in the laws regarding the abatement of taxes. The assessors and board of relief retained their power to abate the poll-tax of indigent, sick, and infirm persons in their towns, not to exceed one-tenth of the taxable polls. Reasonable notice of the time and place of the meeting for this purpose was to be given.1 The amount of the tax varied. In 1838 polls were listed at $20. In 1843 they were reduced to $10 and in 1860 placed at $300. In 1868 it was enacted that the poll-tax for state and town purposes should not exceed one dollar." C. 15, § 2.

11875, 160, § 42. 'C. 103.

* C. 43.
* 1875, 154, § 10.

No abatement of state taxes was permitted at the close of the period. The revision of 18661 had provided that "the selectmen . . . shall cause the gross amount of the tax . . . to be paid into the treasury of the state . . . without any abatement or deduction." The revision of 1875 had a similar provision.2

Local officials retained the power to abate local taxes. In its final form, the section read:

The selectmen of towns, the mayor and aldermen of cities, the warden and burgesses of boroughs, . .. may abate the taxes assessed by their respective communities upon such persons as are poor and unable to pay the same; and shall present to each annual meeting . . . a list of all persons whose taxes they have abated in the preceding year.3

...

A statute of 1844* exempted from taxation the personal and real estate of persons of color. This remained on the statute books until its repeal in 1871."

5. LEVY OF TAXES

The power of selectmen to levy taxes for town purposes, including the care of paupers, if the town neglected to grant the necessary tax, remained the same. In 1854* the selectmen were also given authority to appoint a tax collector if the office became vacant or the town failed to appoint such an officer."

IV. SPECIAL LEGISLATION

I. VAGRANCY

The first topic under the head of special legislation is that of workhouse laws, for the separation of vagrants, tramps, and petty criminals from paupers.