Library Collections: Document: Full Text

"I recall that many parents with blind children entertain the hope that a pension would be granted such children, and I am reluctant to admit that two such cases refused operative treatment for children with congenital cataracts on the basis that they were securing a pension for the child. While a clause in the state law was intended to prevent this possibility, as a matter of fact it did not in many cases, as not all blind children are enrolled in the schools for the blind in the State and the clause to which I refer definitely stated that the pensions was expected to be in lieu of any other State aid * * *

"On the other side, I could quote you pages of instances in which we found pensions to be a very great comfort and assistance to blind people. I recall many instances in which capable and able-bodied blind people, under fifty years old, were able with a pension, ranging anywhere frosts $50 to $150 a year, to supplement such income as they could make, either through their independent efforts or through industrial work under the Commission, and maintain themselves in comparative comfort."

Still another writes:

"For my own sake, I wish you to realize that I appreciate only too fully the tremendous problems which confront anyone who is making an honest effort to devise a wise method for the distribution of financial relief. My four years' observation in Ohio has taught me what a serious undertaking it is, and the only thing that is very clear in my own mind is that there is a real need of some form of pension or outdoor relief for the blind. How to give this and secure the largest amount of benefit with the least abuse is not an easy matter at all."

Dr. Stricker in his printed report, says:

"The importunities of those in great need and who do not strictly fall within the scope of this law are many, and if sentiment and not reason is permitted to prevail, the amount of money expended will be out of all proportion to what it should be."

3. The remaining arguments I should like to take up together:

(1)The inadequacy of public and private relief for the aiding of aged and inefficient blind in their own families, -- the supplementing of the family income in poor homes, when either the housewife or bread-winner is blind; and

(2) The inadequacy of industrial aid, as at present provided for, meeting the double expenses of many blind who need it in industry in competition with the sighted.

The points are justly taken and should be answered. My point is that they cannot be answered by any one means like pensions. Personally, I believe that the plan for pensions is very much like a plan to give any popular patent medicine to a large group of sick people whether or not they have pneumonia, scarlet fever, mumps or bad colds. It's not enough for some; it is too much for others; it doesn't hit the mark, it does harm because it keeps them from getting what they do need; it's wasting the medicine which after all has cost a good deal, and most important of all, something better was possible, even if not as quick and easy to get. Can I prove it? Let as see. What have we already to work with?

EXTENSION OF PUBLIC RELIEF

Those who propose a pension system for Massachusetts similar to that in Ohio, do not, I think, realize what we already have. Existing resources for public and private relief may need doubling and may need qualifying, but Massachusetts certainly does not need or want a new system of public relief applicable to the blind alone. There are two main points, I believe, upon which we should focus at this time in relation to public relief for the blind. First, we should see just how far under present laws and by the existing organizations of the State Board of Charity and local Overseers of the Poor, the interests of the needy blind are already being looked after. To that end the Commission has this year introduced House Bill 56, "an act to provide for exchange of information in certain cases between the State Board of Charity, Overseers of the Poor of Cities and Towns, and the Commission for the Blind." This legislation is needed to discover what is actually being done now, and to provide a basis for further co-operative work for the needy blind looking towards systematic and uniform action throughout the State. It will necessitate assigning one of the Commission's workers to the task of looking after the relief interests of the blind in co-operation with these agencies. This worker can probably be so assigned if the legislature grants the increased annual appropriation asked for by the Commission. If you believe this is a move in the right direction you will support the Commission in its request for the full amount of its estimates, and also in asking that House Bill 56 be made law. Only by taking these two steps can we get into a position where we can intelligently decide whether present relief laws of Massachusetts need modification with special reference to the blind. For two years the request for an appropriation for this purpose has been refused by the legislature. Personally, I think there is need of certain modifications of the laws with reference to certain distinct groups, but I cannot prove this to anyone without some preliminary "try-out" of existing laws, as I have proposed. I believe, for example, that all outdoor aid to the blind should be non-pauperizing. I believe that self-respecting needy blind should not be ineligible for public aid of this kind on the technicality of owning a bit of property, etc.