Ohio History Journal

74                                                          OHIO HISTORY

and midwestern conditions.⁴ Moreover, there survives an excellent

combination of materials describing the topic in the state documents,

which outline the structure of public finance and inspection, in the

BOSC reports (written by Byers), which graphically portray condi-

tions in the institutions and conflicts between local governments and

the state authorities, and in Albert Byers's own diaries and a brief

but interesting file of letters sent to him in his official capacity.⁵ When

these materials are used in conjunction with the annual reports of the

National Conference of Charities and Correction, it becomes possible

to reconstruct what we think is an illustrative portrait of the formative

period of state welfare.

The bill creating the Ohio Board of State Charities in 1867 was ad-

vocated by Republican Party reformers who controlled state politics

for the better part of two decades, beginning in 1855 with Salmon P.

Chase's election as governor.⁶ Three-time governor, and later Presi-

dent, Rutherford B. Hayes was the other major figure in this group.

The reform faith that the state should encourage education, relieve

disease, reform the wayward and aid the victims of war had pro-

duced a substantial number of institutions by the end of the Civil

War. Three insane asylums, a penitentiary, a blind asylum, a reform

school for boys, a deaf and dumb asylum, and an institution for the

"idiotic" were in operation while a fourth insane asylum, a soldiers'

home, and a soldiers and sailors' orphans home were about to open.

There was active discussion on the need for a girls' reform school

4. Few southern states created charity inspection authorities before 1900, largely

because the number of institutions to inspect was so small. By the late 1920s, however,

with southern urbanization and industrialization well underway, Sophonisba P. Breck-

inridge reported "central supervisory authority" in all but three states (Mississippi,

Nevada and Utah) and everywhere a trend toward increasing the coercive power of this

authority. See Sophonisba P. Breckenridge, "Frontiers of Control in Public Welfare Ad-

ministration," Social Service Reviews, 1 (1927), 84-99. For further evidence of Ohio's typ-

icality see Robert H. Bremner, ed., Children and Youth in America, I (Cambridge, 1970),

639-50; Ibid., II. 250-58: Sophonisba P. Breckinridge, ed., Public Welfare Administration

in the United States: Selected Documents, Second Edition (Chicago, 1938), 237-364.

5. A series of diaries belonging to Byers are in box 5 of the Janney Family Papers,

Ohio Historical Society (OHS). He seems to have used them as an aide-memoire and

they consist largely of brief factual entries and a meticulous detailing of expenses. Subse-

quently, some of them were used for other purposes, the 1864 volume, for example, for

press clippings from 1868. These in turn have been annotated, probably much later to

judge from the hand. See also notes 21 and 37.

6. Ohio. Laws. LXIV (1867) 257-58: Ohio. House Journal (1867), 624. Ohio was the

third state to establish a charity board, following Massachusetts (1863) and New York

(earlier in 1867). Seven other states (North Carolina, Illinois, Rhode Island, Wisconsin,

Michigan, Connecticut and Kansas) followed suit by 1873. For an excellent summary of

the various circumstances shaping the development of these boards, see Gerald N.

Grob, Mental Institutions in America: Social Policy to 1875 (New York, 1973), 270-92.

Origins of Welfare                                               75

and an "intermediate" reformatory for male first offenders. In addi-

tion, the state paid annual subsidies to the Longview Insane Asylum

(Cincinnati), Miami University and Ohio University, while further ex-

penditures were likely as Civil War veterans aged and as the state re-

sponded to the Morrill Act, which granted to states the proceeds of

federal land sales for the establishment of public colleges and univer-

sities. It must be added that although these institutions were cre-

ated by one political faction, their incorporation, like that of the

BOSC, received broad bipartisan legislative support.⁷

But why was it necessary to create a state authority to inspect pub-

lic institutions? Two reasons stand out. First, legislators, pressured by

local philanthropic groups, had been forced to take cognizance of

the generally dreadful conditions of county and municipal jails and

infirmaries (almshouses). As the incorporator of these governments,

the state had a legal obligation to inspect their institutions and to pre-

vent cruel treatment and neglect. Second, and of greater concern, leg-

islators felt increasingly unable to control costs and monitor condi-

tions in the state institutions. A state board of charity would, it was

hoped, bring local institutions up to minimal standards, whittle

down the budgetary requests of the various state institution trustee

boards and root out corruption wherever found.⁸

A brief analysis of the financial and governmental structure of late

nineteenth-century Ohio provides pertinent background information

on these problems and thus the means for explaining why the mis-

sion of BOSC was substantially compromised from the outset. We be-

gin with two generalizations: First, local government (that is, coun-

ties, townships, municipalities and school districts) raised and spent

most of the public monies. Second, though state expenditures were

therefore relatively small, a significant and growing proportion of its

budget was devoted to education and welfare expenses. Both of

these points require development.

Table I, a summary of taxes collected by local and state govern-

ment from 1860 to 1880, indicates the local predominance.⁹ In 1860

7. For an example of legislative approval of institutions, see Robert M. Mennel, "The

Family System of Common Farmers': The Origins of Ohio's Reform Farm, 1840-58,"

Ohio History, LXXXIX (Spring, 1980), 131-34.

8. Ohio. House Journal (1867), 204-35, 624 and appendix, 235-37. An analysis of cor-

ruption at the state level is John P. Resch, "The Ohio Adult Penal System, 1850-1900: A

Case Study in the Failure of Institutional Reform," Ohio History, LXXXI (Autumn,

1972), 236-63.

9. Table I drawn from the following sources: U.S. Census. Statistics of the United

78                                                      OHIO HISTORY

county and municipal taxes were twice as high as state taxes and the

difference increased during the decade. County taxes increased at an

average annual rate of 23 percent, while the municipal increase was

nearly 20 percent. County and municipal taxation combined to ac-

count for over 80 percent of all public levies by 1870, a proportion

which held steady in 1880 (and even into the twentieth century).¹⁰

For state taxes the average annual increase during the 1860s was less

than 7 percent, and the state percentage of all taxation shrank from 32

to 20 percent, a share that declined further by 1880. The municipal

burden remained the most substantial, increasing during the 1870s

on both a total and a per capita basis, while state and county taxes

decreased in both categories.

Table II, Ohio Public Debt from 1860 to 1880, emphasizes the

stress on municipalities. The figures clearly show debt declining at

the state and county level while climbing sharply in the towns and

cities.11 This was due, on the one hand, to the retirement of state ca-

nal bonds and the completion of county jails and infirmaries, and on

the other hand, to the capital expenditures for the schools and pub-

lic works needed to meet the demands of an urbanizing population.12

Although state taxation and debt were declining in relation to local

burdens, welfare spending was creating pressure upon available reve-

nue. The structure of state finance is illustrated in Table III; 1867 is an

apt year since the BOSC was established then. Of a series of separate

funds, whose income and expenditure were kept independent from

each other, the three most important were the Sinking Fund, the

General Revenue Fund, and the Common School Fund. In 1867,

these funds accounted for more than 90 percent of both receipts and

disbursements.13

General revenue was the crucial account. Representing about a

States in 1860. Mortality and Miscellaneous Statistics (Washingtion, D.C., 1866), 511;

U.S. Census, Eighth Census. The Statistics of Wealth and Industry of the United States

(Washington, D.C., 1872), 11, 51; U.S. Census. Ninth Census. Report on Valuation, Tax-

ation and Public Indebtedness in the United States (Washington, D.C., 1884), 25.

10. U.S. Census Bureau. Wealth, Debt and Taxation (Washington, D.C., 1907), 767,

967-69. Ohio law allowed county commissioners to hire "tax inquisitors" to pursue

evaders. The inquisitors were paid a percentage of the amount they enabled the govern-

ment to recover.

11. U.S. Census. Ninth Census. Report on Valuation .., 284-85, 612-13. County

and municipal figures are unavailable for 1860.

12. These taxation and spending patterns followed national trends. See U.S. Census

Bureau. Wealth, Debt and Taxation, 1913 (Washington, D.C., 1915). On the impact of ca-

nal building on Ohio finance see Harry Scheiber, Ohio Canal Era; A Case Study of Gov-

ernment and the Economy, 1820-1861 (Athens, Ohio, 1969).

13. Ohio. Annual Report of the Treasure of State (1867), 9.

80                                                   OHIO HISTORY

of disbursements from   all funds.14 More important, these costs

could not be controlled as easily as the state's other major obliga-

tions, the Sinking Fund and the Common School Fund. Although

these two funds accounted for 60 percent of total disbursements in

1867, the Sinking Fund was declining in importance as the canal

bonds were paid off while school expenses were curtailed by the re-

quirement that localities bear the brunt of costs. By contrast, legisla-

tors were annually beseiged for funds by institutional trustees with

costs escalating to the point that several delegates to the State Consti-

tutional Convention of 1873 feared state insolvency.¹⁵

The situation was further complicated by the fact that appointment

of institutional trusteeships represented one of the few sources of pa-

tronage for the state's chief executive. The state constitution denied

the governor a veto and allowed him only a few appointments. Even

the trustee appointments had to be confirmed by the state senate.

Thus, with each change of administration, "reorganization" of trus-

tee boards was always a possibility. Institutional trusteeships were

highly priced even though unpaid. Not much could be made from

per diem expenses, but the offices conferred or recognized status,

carried their own appointing power over institution staff, and even

though trustees were barred from direct commercial connection with

their institutions, they did determine the placing of contracts. The

net effect was to create support for the institutions and their programs

in both the legislative and executive branches and thus dilute the

impact of cost cutting and efficiency campaigns.¹⁶

Given both the preponderance of local government and the politi-

cal power of state institutions, it was no surprise that in debate on the

bill to set up the Board of State Charities, legislators weakened the

draft in order to protect their own financial and political interests, to

cut costs and to leave patronage undisturbed. The original bill pro-

vided the board with the services of a modestly paid executive sec-

retary who was empowered to:

14. Figures recombined from the detailed list of disbursements from the General

Revenue fund, Annual Report of the Treasurer of State (1867), 12-15. This detailed listing

gives a total differing from that of the summary recapitulation reproduced as Table III.

The recombination here has used the detailed listing.

15. Ohio. Official Report of the Proceedings and Debates of the Third Constitutional

Convention, I, part 3 (Cleveland, 1873-74), 200-38.

16. Most of the surviving Governors' Correspondence for this period in the Ohio

State Archives is closely concerned with patronage. Though fragmentary and damaged

by fire, these files are a mine of tantalizing information.

Origins of Welfare                                            81

investigate and supervise the whole system of the public charitable and cor-

rectional institutions of the state, and counties, and shall recommend such

changes and additional provision as they may deem necessary for their eco-

nomical and efficient administration.17

In the legislative give and take, however, the words "supervise" and

"counties" were deleted, leaving trustee boards unchallenged and

the localities subject to discretionary rather than mandatory visits.

The power to inspect technically remained because the state char-

tered local government and occasionally subsidized local institutions,

but with the additional removal of the provision for a paid secretary

the likelihood of regular inspections appeared remote.

The law that emerged from debate, then, confined the Board of

State Charities (whose members were to draw only expenses) to visi-

tation and the gathering of information. In this respect, the BOSC

was treated only slightly worse than other state agencies. The Gas

Commissioner and the Inspector of Steam Boilers had to use their

salaries and personal funds to purchase testing equipment, while the

Inspector of Mines pleaded in vain for one assistant to help him con-

duct inspections.¹⁸ In short, these early boards and commissioners

were armed mainly with the weapon of publicity. Personal conviction

and administrative skill would be the ingredients of whatever suc-

cess they might achieve.

The first trustees of the Board of State Charities suitably repre-

sented the reform wing of the Republican party. Foremost among

Governor Jacob Cox's appointees in 1867 was Joseph Perkins, a

Cleveland banker, philanthropist and railroad founder. Robert W.

Steele of Dayton helped organize the first state agricultural fair and

tirelessly promoted public libraries and higher education. Douglas

Putnam of Marietta had a distinguished Civil War record and, like

the others, had formed his allegiance to the Republican Party in the

anti-Nebraska agitation of the mid-1850s. The other major figure of

the early board was John W. Andrews, a Columbus lawyer who was

appointed by Governor Rutherford B. Hayes in 1870. Representing

different parts of the state, these men were united in belief-as Prot-

estants (Presbyterians or Congregationalists) valuing good works as a

path to salvation and as Republicans who saw their party as symbol-

izing God's blessing of the American people.¹⁹

17. Ohio. Senate Journal (1867), 624.

18. Ohio. Docs. I (1867), 247-56; Ibid., I (1870), 579, 583, Ibid., II(1876), 81-82.

19. Elroy M. Avery, A History of Cleveland and its Environs, I (Chicago, 1918), 252,

337; The History of Montgomery County, Ohio (Chicago, 1882), 244-45; History of

82                                                     OHIO HISTORY

The trustees defined their primary task as soliciting funds from

"private but influential citizens" in order to pay the salary of an agent

or executive secretary. This position had been deleted by the legisla-

ture but there could be little objection since no state funds were in-

volved, at least initially. Practical but also socioeconomic reasons ex-

plained their course of action. Because the trustees had extensive

business interests, they could plausibly claim that they would be

unable to fulfill the law's requirement of substantive inspection of the

state's institutions. But they also knew that the law's high moral in-

tent had been substantially compromised by legislators who had

gutted the power of the board to enforce its findings. Therefore, the

hiring of an agent would not only save them time but also allow them

to express their displeasure at institutional conditions without suffer-

ing directly the opprobrium of being unable to effect change. What

they required was a person of some repute who would view the posi-

tion as a promotion.²⁰

Albert Gallatin Byers fulfilled their needs. In 1867 he was serving

as minister of the Third Avenue Methodist Church in Columbus and

also as chaplain at the Ohio Penitentiary. In the latter capacity he

had made a reputation as a persistent critic of the corruption and cru-

elty dominating the institution. Penitentiary trustees may have been

glad to loan his services. Certainly, the BOSC trustees hired him be-

cause of his zeal although their esteem was measured because he

was poor. Years later, John Andrews pityingly remarked upon Byers's

threadbare life when recommending him for other jobs.²¹

Since Byers would more than repay the trustees for their confi-

dence, it is worth knowing more about him. He was born in Union-

town, Pennsylvania, in 1826 of Scotch-Irish parents. He and his

brother and sister received a strict Presbyterian upbringing, al-

though Albert became an accomplished humorist and storyteller

who proudly emphasized his Irish heritage. After his father's

death, the family moved to Portsmouth, Ohio, where Byers began to

Washington County, Ohio (Marietta, 1881), 382, 483-85; History of Franklin and Pickaway

Counties (1880), 68, 563, 566. These trustee positions were renewable, and Perkins in fact

served for over twenty years.

20. Ohio. Docs., II (1868), 634. In 1868 Rutherford Hayes gave the Board $500 from

the governor's contingency fund and the following year the position of secretary was offi-

cially recognized and modestly funded by the legislature. See Hayes to Joseph Perkins,

August 8, 1868, Governor's Papers, Box 8, The Papers of Rutherford B. Hayes, Hayes

Library; Ohio. Docs., II (1870), 371.

21. Andrews to Hayes, December 5, 1883, and January 8, 1885, Hayes MS. See also

Albert G. Byers diary, March 15, 18; April 1; May 1, 31; November 28, 1865, Byers Fami-

ly Papers, Ohio Historical Society (OHS).