Franklin Repository

Our County Poor House, p 2, c 1-2

The expense of maintaining this institution is, undeniably, becoming a great charge to our taxpayers--much heavier indeed than they generally think. The cost has been gradually increasing year after year, while the number of paupers maintained has not increased in proportion. During the times of high prices caused by the war, there was a reason for this increase of cost; but now that the prices of everything entering into the support of the inmates of this institution have so greatly fallen, there ought to be a corresponding reduction of expenses, unless indeed there is some waste or mismanagement somewhere. That there is some such mismanagement we are forced to believe, and we are therefore impelled to call the attention of our people to it. The majority of the Directors are now, and have been since the first of last January, Democratic, and therefore upon that party rests the responsibility of showing why these things are so.

For the purpose of showing the cost of the maintenance of this institution in past years, we have prepared the following tables, showing the amount expended each year since 1854--the number of paupers in the institution on the first of January of each year--the average number maintained during the year--and the cost of keeping each pauper during each year. The value of the articles produced on the farm in 1868, was, in round numbers, about $3,000--taking them at their cash value in that year. They were all consumed, and their value must of course be added to the money expended in order to get at the cost of keeping up the institution.

Prior to 1862, when prices were low, we estimate the produce of the farm at only half this sum each year, viz: $1,500, and have added that amount annually to the money expended. This we think is not unreasonable, and the following is the result:

These tables are made up from the published annual statements of the Directors of the Poor, and they show that the expenses of our Poor House are now three times as much each year, as they were twelve years ago; and that whilst in 1856 it cost $50.00 to keep a pauper one year, it now costs over $150.00 to do the same thing. The greatest increase of cost was during the years 1864-5--the years of the war--and perhaps a like expenditure could not have been avoided during the high prices which prevailed in 1866-7-8. In the latter year the expenses of the institution were reduced about $2,000, under the management of that "good and faithful Steward" David Piper, to correspond with the fall of prices generally; but if under the present Democratic management they go on increasing as they have since February last, when the Democracy got control of the Board, they will exceed $21,000 by the 1st of January, 1870.

Last year (1868) the Directors drew $12,790.00 from the county as follows:

This year (1869) the Directors started with a balance in the hands of their Treasurer on settlement of $576.10, and they have drawn the following additional sums from the County Treasury, viz:

Beside this they have received some six hundred dollars, or more, from other sources.

Now, tax payers of Franklin county, what do you think of this sample of Democratic economy>? How do you like the way your Democratic Directors are making your money fly? In eight months time they have already drawn from the county treasury, and from other sources, more money than was expended by their Republican predecessors during the whole of the preceeding year; and at the same rate of expenditure for the unexpired three months of the year, including the proceeds of the poor house farm, the total cost of the institution will not be less than $21,000 or $22,000. Think of it fellow citizens! and if you desire to bring the expenses of this necessary and useful institution back to what they should be, and secure a certain future reduction in every thing about it, go to the polls on Tuesday of next month and cast your votes for that practical farmer, JOHN FREY, of Green township. If you elect him to a seat in your Board of Poor Directors you may rest assured there will be no waste or mismanagement of your funds during his term of office.

We believe that the Poor House farm has been a decided failure financially. The land is very broken, and hard to farm. Many years it has not produced the interest of three per cent, upon its cost; and year after year produce of every kind, both for the support of man and beast has been purchased at a heavy expense. At the present time, we are informed, that two farm hands are employed to work the land, in addition to the labor of the paupers, at a cost of $20.00 per month each, and their boarding. This we think is a useless and unnecessary expenditure, and one that the Directors are not justified in making. Certainly one such hand should, with the assistance of the able bodied paupers in the institution, be able to do all the work on the farm and thus save the $300 per year expended upon the other hand.

The best interests of the county would, in our opinion, be subserved by selling all of the land attached to the Poor House, except about forty or fifty acres just around the buildings. There are, we are told, some 210 or 220 acres in the tract. One hundred and seventy or eighty of these might be sold, at about $100 per acre, which would put some $17,000 or $18,000 into the County Treasury--and the balance 40 or 50 acres would be amply sufficient for all the wants of the institution, and could be worked by the labor of the paupers--thus saving much expense to the county. Besides, if this land were sold there would be no necessity to keep more than two horses, and all the balance of the live stock and farming implements not needed could be also disposed of--and there too a large leak hole would be stopped.

We shall notice other matters connected with the management of our Poor House, in our next issue. In conclusion we would say that we have been informed, by authority we believe to be reliable, that the Poor House wagon has recently been seen delivering hay after night, to at least two of our citizens of Democratic proclivities--and we would like to know why the Directors or their Steward are now selling hay when they must know that before next hay harvest they will be compelled, as in former years, to go into the market and purchase the same article. Let the people have a reason for this course of conduct, Messrs. Directors, if the fact be as stated to us.

The Democracy of still another State turn their backs on the fossils of Pennsylvania. Wisconsin, that portion of her population which is Democratic, has actually arrayed itself squarely against the Democracy of this State in the only vital position laid down in their platform, that of the Fifteenth Amendment and negro suffrage. A few weeks ago we mentioned the fact that our Democracy still cling desperately to the grinning skeleton of the defunct "nigger," while everywhere else, the fact of the existence of the negro in politics was rapidly finding recognition in the same party. Since then the action of the Wisconsin Democracy has given additional force to what we then published. In State Convention on Wednesday last, the following resolution, among others, was adopted.

Resolved. That the Democratic party of Wisconsin rejoice in the extinction of slavery, in the prompt and general acquiescence of the Southern people in the results of the war, in every well-directed effort for the enlightenment and elevation of oppressed humanity at home and abroad, and in every measure compatible with good government and public order to broaden the basis of suffrage, and extend the blessing of free institutions to all classes of people.

This, of course, is a flat-footed endorsement of the Fifteenth Amendment, and negro suffrage, and puts a "right smart" distance between Wisconsin Democrats and Pennsylvania Democrats. The same liberal policy promises to be adopted by the Democracy of the other North-Western States. Massachusetts took the lead, some weeks ago, and nominated J. Quincy Adams for Governor, on a similar platform. In the South the recent conservative or Democratic successes were obtained by means of negro votes which were secured through the pledges of the Democracy that their right of suffrage should be maintained inviolate.

It is easily perceived that this wonderful progress of the Democracy is no mere local spasm, but extends from the extreme South to the extreme North, and it becomes a question whether or not the Democracy of those few States, which still cling to the nigger, are in the party.

For example the Democratic State Convention of Pennsylvania emphatically denied the right of Congress to submit the Fifteenth Amendment to the Legislatures of the States, denied the right of Congress to amend the Constitution in the manner provided by the Constitution, and declared "that the Democratic party of Pennsylvania is opposed to conferring upon the negro the right to vote." This is just what the Democracy of the other States, to which we have referred, not only admit Congress has a right to do, but recommend that the basis of suffrage be broadened, and that the blessings of free institutions be extended to all classes of the people. For advocating just these measures the Democratic journals of this State, and the Spirit in our midst, never cease to denounce and condemn the Republican party in heated and bitter terms, and make them the ground of their appeals to the people for a restoration of the Democratic party to power. Even in politics such ridiculous inconsistency, to say nothing of the bald and manifest duplicity, is astounding, and we are glad to say rarely encountered. The readers of the Spirit and the Harrisburg Patriot, the two Democratic papers most generally read in this county, will bear us out in the declaration that not a single issue of these papers is published which does not charge as the chief crime of the Republican party its advocacy of the rights of the negroes to citizenship and suffrage. At the same time their readers must admit that these papers would be searched in vain for a single word concerning the Democracy of the other States for advocating the same thing. Now if it be so awfully wicked in the one party, which we deny, ought it not be a little wicked in the other at least? If it be wholly wrong for Republicans, can it be wholly right for Democrats?

This issue is a test of the sincerity of the Democracy of Pennsylvania. If they were sincere in their hostility to it they would fight it wherever found. But they do not. They are afraid to say aught against the Democratic party, and hope, by excluding from their journals the action of the Democracy of the other States, that their readers will remain ignorant, and accept their word for truth, that they oppose the Republican party because it favors negro suffrage and the Democratic party does not. Now let the Spirit tell its readers that it and the other Democratic journals of the State make their fight with the Republican party in the present campaign on this issue because they believe that it is popular to do so in Pennsylvania, and not because it is the policy of the Democracy, which they falsely tried to do hitherto. Let them tell their readers that they have been playing the part of demagogues, that they have been trying to win votes by a trick, and that there is no sincerity and truth in them.

Notwithstanding the moral inertia of the so-called Democracy, once in a while a faint glimmering of light breaks through the deep gloom in which it has enshrouded itself, and which it has been its boast to regard as impervious to all moral ideas. With what sneers have its organs, time and again, as though it were a stigma, denominated the Republican party "the party of great moral ideas." Who has not witnessed the deep solicitude which Democrats seemed to feel lest politics and religion should be mixed? But at length, no doubt from the reflex influence of the "party of moral ideas," the Democray have been aroused from their sleep in regard to the interests of morality and religion, and they behold our whole social and religious fabric in danger from the proposed enfranchisement of all races. At once how dear to the hearts of our Democratic brethren are the interests of religion. Must the white population, their religion, their civilization, be swamped in the flood of the heathen idol-worshippers, who, with the ballot, can take possession of the State? What a hopeful party this Democratic organization must be! They must have their social status protected against the advances of the negro, so as to guard them against negro equality, and now they are alarmed for the fate of their religion, in case the Chinaman should be invested with the right of suffrage. Be careful, Democrats, that the interests of religion be not damaged by thus lugging this great "moral question" into politics. Or perhaps you only intend to incite a little religious enthusiasm in the minds of some of the pious. Democrats, so as to secure their prompt action in the present campaign against that party that would mix religion with politics.

Religion was first established in the heart of a pagan country, governed by pagan idolitry. Under the benign influence of the injunction of their Master, the ministers of the new religion defied the power and cruelty of a pagan dynasty, while proclaiming the doctrine "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."

At least, Democracy is not wholly lost to all sense of moral ideas, which their past course would seem to imply. Religion herself, i. e., in the abstract, should be guarded by political power. But for this high privilege at the hands of the Democracy, she must enter into bonds to keep the peace toward all Democratic allies, such as slavery, bad whiskey and sescession. Democracy says to religion, as long as you permit us to carry out all our corrupt political schemes, unrebuked, we will see to it that idolatrous Chinamen do not "swamp" you; but interpose any of your "moral ideas" between us and our purposes, and we denounce you at once as an innovator.