chusetts statute of 1693,' required towns to support these sufferers in case "no relations appear that will undertake the care of providing for them, or that stand in so near a degree, as that by law they may be compelled thereto." " This clause was meaningless, for until 1715 there was no provision to define or to enforce this obligation."

2

4. IDLENESS

While Connecticut was slow in enforcing the obligation to support relatives, it early attempted to prevent one fruitful cause of poverty, idleness. The code of 1650 contained a law under the title "Idleness":

that no person, householder or other, shall spend his time idly or unprofitably, under pain of such punishment as the court shall think meet to inflict; and for this end . . . the constable of every place shall use special care and diligence to take knowledge of offenders in this kind. . . and present the same unto any magistrate, who shall have power to hear and determine the case or transfer it to the [next] court.*

'Cf. post, p. 47.

Col. Rec., iv, 285; 1702, 54.

Massachusetts had provided for this in Province Laws, 1692–93, c. 28, § 9. The obligation of a town to support one who had obtained a settlement by a three months' residence, was limited by the proviso, "Unless the relations of such poor impotent person in the line or degree of father or grandfather, mother or grandmother, children or grandchildren be of sufficient ability; then such relations respectively shall relieve such poor person in such manner as the justices of the peace in that county where such sufficient persons dwell shall assess, on pain that every one failing therein shall forfeit twenty shillings for every month's neglect, to be levied by distress and sale of such offender's goods." Acts and Res., Prov. Mass. Bay, i, 67. Connecticut enacted the Massachusetts law with only slight changes.

'Col. Rec., i, 528.

2

In 1673 this duty was placed also upon the grand jury,1 and the trial was to be before the next magistrate, or (1702) a justice of the peace. In the original act three classes of persons were specifically mentioned as deserving attention, common coasters, unprofitable fowlers, and tobacco takers," but in 1673 these phrases were stricken out.

66

The laws of 1673 and 1702 also gave selectmen power to put out to service or otherwise dispose of any single persons, inmates within towns, who lived an "idle and riotous" life. These might appeal to the next county court."

5. INTEMPERANCE

Somewhat similar in its purpose was a law enacted in May, 1676. This required selectmen and constables "to take special care and notice of all . . . persons frequenting public houses" where liquor was sold, "and spending their precious time there, and thereupon to require him or them to forbear frequenting such places." If after this they were found in such places, they were to forfeit, on conviction, 5s. or to sit in the stocks one hour for each offense. Selectmen and constables were also to "give notice to the keepers of such houses of entertainment that they suffer no such noted person in any of their houses, upon penalty

'The grand jurors were the local prosecuting officers, chosen by the towns to discover and bring before the magistrate offenders against the laws.

31702, 53.

'1673, 31. 1673, 66, par. 2; 1702, 112, par. 2. 'See note 2, p. 29. Judge Sherman W. Adams, in Memorial Hist. Hart. Co., i, 110, declares that from 1666 to 1698 the county courts were composed of one assistant and 3 or 4 commissioners. These were appointed as magistrates in towns where there was no assistant. They later developed into justices of the peace. Under a law of January, 1697(98) (Col. Rec., iv, 235 et seq.), the county courts were composed of one judge and three justices of the peace.

of twenty shillings for every such defect."

Fines were

to be paid to the county treasury. This act was not retained in the revision of 1702, and for over one hundred years the only laws against intemperance as a cause of poverty were those imposing penalties for drunkenness.

6. SUPPORT OF SLAVES

Closely connected with the obligation to support one's family is the duty to care for one's household, including servants and slaves. Attention was turned to this early in the eighteenth century. The preamble of a law passed in May, 1702, read:

... it is observed that some persons in this colony having purchased negro or malatta servants or slaves, after having spent the principal part of their time and strength in their masters' service, do set them at liberty, and the said slaves not being able to provide necessaries for themselves may become a charge and burthen to the towns where they have served.

To remedy this evil, it was enacted that if any owner

shall set such servant or slave at liberty to provide for him or herself, if afterward such servant or slave shall come to want, every such servant shall be relieved at the only cost and charge of the person in whose service he or she was last retained or taken, and by whom set at liberty, or at the only cost of his or her heirs, executors, or administrators, any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding."

This relieved the towns from the support of emancipated slaves, but, as was discovered, the masters were not disposed to obey the new law. Hence, in 1711 a further act was passed which applied not only to released slaves, but

'Col. Rec., ii, 282.

1 Ibid., iv, 375 et seq.

also to "all negro, malatto, or Spanish Indians, . . . servants. . . for time" who come to want after the expiration of their term of service. The important provision was that in case those responsible refused to care for them, they should be relieved by the selectmen of the towns to which they belonged, who might "recover of the said owners or masters, their heirs, executors, or administrators, all the charge and cost they were at for such relief, in the usual manner as in the case of any other debts.' With such authority, the selectmen were to blame if these servants and slaves were allowed to suffer.

7. BASTARDY

It was not many years after the settlement of Connecticut that the birth of bastards compelled attention. Laws against fornication were enacted. The earliest penalty was one or more of the following: "enjoyning to marriage, or fine, or corporal punishment." 2 In 1702 the punishment was made either a fine of £5 or ten stripes, inflicted on each party.3

The support of bastards received careful consideration. At first each case was decided on its merits. Thus, in 1645 the general court ordered the mother and reputed father of such a child to be whipped, but placed the entire support of the child upon the father.*

The need of a general law was seen, and in the revision of 1673 it was included. Its special purpose was to define the requirements for the conviction of the father.

For the child's support, the law provided that

where any man is legally convicted to be the father of a

bastard child, he shall be at the care and charge to bring up the same, by such assistance of the mother as nature requireth, and as the court from time to time (according to circumstances) shall see meet to order.

This principle of joint support has ever since been followed.

To convict, it was enacted that if on the trial the court was not satisfied as to the identity of the father by confession or "manifest proof", "then the man charged by the woman to be the father, she holding constant in it (especially being put upon the real discovery of the truth of it in the time of her travail)," should "be the reputed father, and accordingly be liable to the charge of maintenance as aforesaid . . . notwithstanding his denial"; unless the circumstances of the case and pleas in his behalf led the court to acquit him, and "otherwise dispose of the child and education thereof; provided always in case there be no person accused in the time of her travail, it shall not be available to abate the conviction of a reputed father."

This method of adjudging a man the reputed father and obliging him to assist the mother in supporting the child became the regular method, and was retained until 1902. It should be noted that this law did not make the accusation during travail essential to conviction.

Several changes were made by the laws of 1702. The interests of the defendant were guarded by requiring the examination of the mother at the trial to be upon oath and by making the accusation in time of travail necessary to conviction. The provision of the law of 1673 for a conviction by confession or "manifest proof" was stricken out, perhaps because it was found impossible ever to secure such.

On the other hand, the person convicted was required ' 1673, 6.