ure
will put the family beyond the need of charity; but official relief
must always be hampered by the fear of establishing a precedent, and
inadequate relief is often the result of this fear. Moreover, public
relief comes from what is regarded as a practically inexhaustible
source, and people who once receive it are likely to regard it as a
right, as a permanent pension, implying no obligation on their part.
Even where it is well and honestly administered, as in Boston, the most
experienced charity workers regard it as a source of demoralization
both to the poor {152} and the charitable. No public agency can supply
the devoted, friendly, and intensely personal relation so necessary in
charity. It can supply the gift, but it cannot supply the giver, for
the giver is a compulsory tax rate. Some of the sources of information
on this subject are noted at the end of the chapter. It is impossible
to give the question any adequate consideration here, but it will be
noticed that a large majority of those who have worked as volunteers in
the homes of the poor, and have watched the effects of outdoor relief
in these homes, are anxious to see it abolished in all our large
cities, believing that private and voluntary charity can more than
replace it. On the other hand, those who know the poor in another
way--in public offices and from the point of view of the public
official--are often stanch advocates of outdoor relief.

The fewer sources of relief for any one family the better, though it is
often impossible to get adequate relief from one source. "The
difficulty in giving judiciously is great, even where one person or
society does the whole. But when the applicant goes from one to {153}
another, undergoing repeated temptations to deceive and getting from no
one what is sufficient to meet the full need, each giver feeling but a
partial responsibility in the matter, one giving when another has
desired that relief ought to be withheld, and thus destroying the
effect of the other's action, we believe that the difficulties in the
way of judicious aid are greatly increased. . . . We earnestly hope
that the various relief-giving agencies may adopt the plan, so far as
possible, of a division of labor, each doing all the relief-giving
needed by those within its care and leaving others to do the
relief-giving in other cases." [2] When, however, relief must come
from a number of sources, it does most good if given through one
ch