ROBERT M. MENNEL AND STEVEN SPACKMAN
Origins of Welfare in the States:
Albert G. Byers and the Ohio
Board of State Charities
For the past fifteen years, government
programs to aid poor and
dependent people have been attacked by
both liberals and conser-
vatives. In the 1960s, a coalition of
academics and social workers
formed the welfare rights movement to
criticize the inadequacy of
New Deal and Great Society programs and
to propose various strate-
gies to bring about a guaranteed
national income. Because welfare
rights advocates were unable or
unwilling to form alliances with mod-
erate groups, the guaranteed income
never materialized. An alliance
of liberals and conservatives defeated
President Nixon's welfare re-
form plan in 1969 while the liberal
agenda itself was decisively reject-
ed in the Presidential elections of
1972 and 1980. Ronald Reagan's
election signified the ascendancy of
conservative criticisms that wel-
fare programs have been too generous,
going well beyond assistance
to the "truly needy" and
encouraging able-bodied people not to
work. Conservative plans to trim
benefits and eliminate programs ap-
pear more likely to succeed than the
liberal effort to secure a guaran-
teed national income. The question
remains whether either approach
contributes to the stability of the
polity.1
Robert M. Mennel is Professor of
History, University of New Hampshire. Steven
Spackman is Lecturer in Modern History,
University of St. Andrews, Scotland. The au-
thors wish to acknowledge support from
the Central University Research Fund of the
University of New Hampshire, the British
Academy and the Carnegie Trust for the Uni-
versities of Scotland, and the
assistance of Larry Gwozdz and Frank Levstik, formerly of
the Ohio State Archives. This article is
dedicated to Robert H. Bremner, Professor
Emeritus, The Ohio State University,
whose scholarship in social welfare history con-
tinues to enlighten us all.
1. The literature on this subject is
immense, but see especially Frances Fox Piven
and Richard Cloward, Regulating the
Poor: The Function of Public Welfare (New York,
1971) for the welfare rights point of
view and Martin Anderson, Welfare: The Political
Economy of Welfare Reform in the
United States (Stanford, 1978) for the
conservative
rejoinder. Anderson heads President
Reagan's Domestic Policy staff. See also Daniel P.
Origins of Welfare
73
To gain perspective on the tendency of
debate to polarize and mod-
erate policies to founder, we have
sought a vantage point removed
from contemporary controversies yet
related to them. A case study
analysis on the development of welfare
as a state responsibility in the
nineteenth century fulfills our purpose.
Compared with current feder-
al programs, early state welfare had a
narrower scope and authority.
Inspection of local and state
institutions was often contested while
non-institutional aid and services were
non-existent at the state level
and amounted to little more than
sporadic handouts in local jurisdic-
tions. But we share with our ancestors a
belief that poverty is a prob-
lem amenable to reduction if not
elimination. Like us, they had a
range of choices to make and, in
developing their responses, they of-
ten rejected moderate courses of action.
The comparison is
worthwhile.
Recent work on the history of social
welfare in the United States
has tended to assume a national
perspective, either in the interests of
coverage or because the authors have
been convinced that a unified
point of view toward social issues
existed among those nineteenth-
century Americans who were willing and
able to take action.2 While
not disputing the value of these
studies, we hope to illuminate the
subject more fully by examining the
early years of public welfare in
Ohio. We shall focus particularly on the
career of Albert Gallatin
Byers (1826-1890), who served as the
first Secretary of the Ohio
Board of State Charities (BOSC) from
1867 until his death.3
Several factors governed our choice of
Ohio. The state's diversi-
fied population and economy seemed a
suitable example of northern
Moynihan, The Politics of a
Guaranteed Income: The Nixon Administration and the Fam-
ily Assistance Plan (New York, 1973) and Christopher Leman, The Collapse
of Welfare
Reform: Political Institutions,
Policy and the Poor in Canada and the United States
(Cambridge, Mass., 1980).
2. For the survey approach, see James
Leiby, A History of Social Welfare and Social
Work in the United States (New York, 1978). David Rothman, The Discovery of
the Asy-
lum: Social Order and Disorder in the
New Republic (Boston, 1971) and Conscience
and
Convenience: The Asylum and its
Alternatives in Progressive America (Boston,
1980) epit-
omize interpretations portraying
reformers as if they were of one mind. Examples of more
focused studies are Richard W. Fox, So
Far Disordered in Mind: Insanity in California
1870-1930 (Berkeley, 1978) and Gerald N. Grob, The State and
the Mentally Ill: A History
of the Worcester State Hospital in
Massachusetts, 1830-1920 (Chapel Hill,
1966). Older
studies recapitulate laws and
administrative policies and pay little attention to social con-
text. See Frances Cahn and Valeska Bary,
Welfare Activities of Federal, State, and Local
Governments in California, 1850-1934 (Berkeley, 1936); David Schneider and Albert
Deutsch, A History of Public Welfare
in New York State, 1867-1940 (Chicago, 1941).
3. Gerald N. Grob, "Reflections on
the History of Social Policy in America," Re-
views in American History, VII (September, 1979), 293-305 has proposed case
studies as a
means to shed new light on the subject.
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
76 OHIO HISTORY |
Origins of Welfare 77 |
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.
Origins of Welfare 79 |
|
third of the total budget, it was supported by a general property tax and met the day to day running expenses of the state government. Its major commitments were salaries, legislative costs, and the expenses of the state institutions. Institutional costs, outlined in Table IV, made a decisive impact upon the state budget. In 1867, institutional build- ing and operating expenses accounted for 53 percent of disburse- ments from the General Revenue Fund-that is, more than than half the everyday operating costs of the state government-and 17 percent |
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).
Origins of Welfare 83
study medicine. In 1849, however, he was
enticed by the Argonauts,
a party of gold-hunters heading for
California. He nearly starved to
death on the trek but stayed a year
until news of his mother's death
called him home. Soon thereafter, he
decided "at his mother's
grave" to become a Methodist
circuit rider. Throughout the 1850s,
he served with great success in several
of the impoverished counties
of southern Ohio. Byers was a small
slender man with startlingly
white skin. His high cheekbones and
animated expression made
people think that he was an actor, and
indeed he had a reputation as
a performer in the pulpit. In 1852 he
married Mary Rathbun of
Cheshire, and the first of their seven
children was born in 1854.22
Byers's Civil War experience initiated a
process of self-questioning
which was to last for the rest of his
life. From 1861 to 1863 he served
as chaplain of a Portsmouth volunteer
company that fought at Chick-
amauga and Lookout Mountain. He returned
exhausted from
comforting and treating the wounded but
nevertheless viewed his
ministerial role as somewhat confining
even in the larger town of Co-
lumbus. By the 1860s, Methodism in Ohio
and elsewhere had be-
come an established middle class
denomination. Primarily con-
cerned with promoting temperance,
Methodists were experiencing
ideological confinement as Free
Methodists and pentecostal sects
captured the revivalistic audience while
the Arminian wing drifted
toward various secular causes such as
civil service and charity re-
form. Byers inclined strongly toward
good works and thus eagerly
seized the Penitentiary chaplaincy and
the offer to be secretary of
the BOSC. In 1867 he also stood as
Republican candidate for the
state senate from Franklin county. That
election was bitterly fought
over the issue of black voting rights,
with Democrats throughout the
state charging that Republican support
of manhood suffrage would
inevitably lead to legislated social
equality between the races. In
heavily Democratic Franklin County,
Byers lost by a large margin.23
Byers's militancy was counterbalanced by
his doubt that he, as a
minister, could effect change. He once
wrote Rutherford Hayes urg-
ing a "flinging dirt" campaign
against a local Democratic candidate
22. Ohio State Journal, November
11, 1890; National Conference of Charities and
Correction (NCCC). Proceedings (1891),
243-53.
23. Nelson W. Evans and Emmons B.
Strivers, A History of Adams County, Ohio
(West Union, Ohio, 1900), 342-42; John
Marshall Barker, History of Ohio Methodism
(Cincinnati, 1898), 74-75, 123-28;
Walter W. Benjamin, "The Methodist Episcopal
Church in the Postwar Era" in Emory
S. Bucke, ed., The History of American Metho-
dism, II (New York, 1964), 320-60; William Warren Sweet, Methodism
in American Histo-
ry (New York, 1961), 341-45; NCCC Proceedings (1891), 243-44; Ohio.
Docs., I (1867),
318.
84 OHIO HISTORY
and then discounting his own advice,
"I find myself, preacherlike,
dabbling in politics." Also, he was
loyal to a fault to his benefactors.
Pleading with Hayes to run for governor
in 1875, Byers addressed
him, "not . . . as a Republican. I
appeal to you as a citizen for the
sake of the state. As a man for the sake
of humanity. As a Christian
for the sake of truth and benevolence .
. . [in the hope that] under
God you may be triumphantly
elected." Thus, his willingness to con-
front the opponents of charity
inspection, combined with his eager-
ness to serve the reform wing of the
Republican Party, made him an
ideal choice for secretary of the BOSC.24
Byers's first report was decisive in
tone and emphasis. He
skimmed over state operations with
ritualistic criticism of the Peniten-
tiary and praise for the other
"large and noble Benevolent Institu-
tions". By contrast, he found the
county jails and infirmaries "not
only deplorable but a disgrace to the
state and a sin against humani-
ty."25 In reaching his
judgment he drew upon his years of experi-
ence as a ministerial visitor as well as
his initial inspections for the
Board. He was keenly aware that local
politicians and their appoint-
ees would resent his visits and try to
get him dismissed if he made
critical remarks, but his reports show
why he took the risk.
Albert Byers discovered appalling conditions
in jails as he traveled
about the state. "Fairfield County
Jail-Rathole," reads one entry in
his diary. That one in Trumbull County
was "utterly, indescribably
mean," while the jail in Washington
County was "dark, poorly venti-
lated and miserably kept." Byers
also discovered that the Sheriff of
Union County was using his jail as a
brothel. Filth, vermin and spittle
permeated most of the institutions
visited.26
Perhaps conditions like this were only
to be expected in jails, but
in the Richland County infirmary Byers
found a man whose feet had
frozen off during the previous winter.
In Jefferson County seven na-
ked insane people crouched together in
one cold damp cell. A man in
the Pike County infirmary was covered
with flies. A Ross County
woman had been so contorted by chains
that she could hardly be
distinguished from a pile of rags on the
floor. In Columbiana County
a couple fornicated in the courtyard,
while in Lucas County, a nym-
phomaniac entertained a group of insane
men. In none of these places
24. Byers to Hayes, July 6, 1875, and
April 19, 1875, Hayes MS.
25. Ohio. Docs., (1867), 235-68.
Infirmaries were the county almshouses, usually at-
tached to a farm of about 200 acres
which was the prime inducement in attracting a su-
perintendent and his main interest when
in office.
26. Byers Diary, Byers MS; Ohio. Docs.,
1(1868), 1226-41; Ohio. Report of ... Third
Constitutional Convention, 1, part 3, 200-35.
Origins of Welfare 85 |
|
was there a superintendent present when Byers made his inspec- tion.27 Byers was particularly incensed by the plight of children in these infirmaries. He warned of "the harvest not only to the individual life of the child, but the state, which must be gathered sooner or later from such sowing." After visiting the Hamilton County (Cincinnati) almshouse he reported that he was "unable to give the numbers of little, half-clad, filthy and squalid children that seemed fairly to swarm in the midst of these scenes of unmitigated misery."28 The county spoils system was a major reason for the cool reception Byers often received. Elected directors appointed superintendents at a derisory salary, or let the office to the lowest bidder (a literal case of farming, given the nature of the institutions), who then padded his salary through a judicious choice of institutional contractors and sup- pliers. As the county commissioners and infirmary directors usually took their cut, inmate care was bound to suffer. Byers directly at- tacked the responsible individuals. "Quite inferior men" were often chosen as directors, he said, while most superintendents were "no-
27. Ohio. Docs., I (1868), 674-77; Ibid., II (1869), 803,831-34. 28. Ohio. Docs., II (1867), 268; Ibid., II (1868), 672. |
86 OHIO HISTORY
toriously lazy in habits, selfish in
nature, socially, intellectually and
morally unfit."29
Byers recognized, however, that while
corruption accounted for
much of the inmate neglect, fear and
ignorance also underlay the
hostility that greeted him. A Jefferson
County infirmary director
agreed to a joint tour provided that he
did not have to accompany
Byers inside the building. In Noble
County, inmates had their own
keys, locked themselves in at night and,
Byers concluded, plausibly
considered themselves "an
independent community because of the
distance and remoteness of the
superintendent's house." The infir-
maries were in fact not institutions but
poor homes, often as decrepit
as any in the county. "How are your
buildings ventilated?" asked
Byers in an early questionnaire.
"By air coming in at doors and bro-
ken panes of glass," replied one
superintendent. "Have you any facili-
ties for bathing?" "The Ohio
River is not far off," answered anoth-
er.30
Byers took the humor and pathos of these
episodes as evidence of
popular receptivity to the idea of
benevolent authority. To encourage
this sentiment, he believed that it was
necessary not only to insist
upon his own right of inspection but
also to seek ways of broadening
the impact of his ideas. On his own
powers, Byers minced no words:
Let it be understood that all public
institutions are liable to visitation and ex-
amination at the most unexpected times,
and that abuses will be unsparingly
exposed.
To increase this influence, Byers
effectively utilized women's church
and temperance groups. One of his
principal allies was the Springfield
crusader Mrs. E. D. "Mother"
Stewart, known throughout the state
for her militance and determination.
After a visit to the Clark County
infirmary, she dryly reported to him
that her reception "lacked a lit-
tle of that cordiality necessary to
establish confidence between par-
ties coming together under such
circumstances." Undeterred, Mrs.
Stewart journeyed to the neighboring
Champaign County infirmary
where she initiated the removal of three
childen to the Soldiers' Or-
phans Home in Xenia. In Ross County,
three ladies, delegated by
Byers, started a press campaign against
the infirmary director.31
To capitalize on the sense of shame
evoked by the inspections,
Byers provided specific plans for
improving conditions. These sug-
29. Ohio. Docs., II(1869), 791-93.
30. Ohio. Docs., II (1870), 406,
415-16; Ibid., I (1888), 1226-29.
31. Ohio. Docs., II (1868), 652; Ibid.,
II (1870), 385-89,417; A Biographical Record of
Clark County Ohio (New York, 1902), 86-93; Barker, History of Ohio
Methodism, 191-219.
Origins of Welfare 87
gestions ranged from particular ways of
improving sanitary conditions
to model plans for an entirely new jail
or infirmary. Furthermore, he
vigorously promoted the efforts of
counties and voluntary organiza-
tions to establish, either singly or in
cooperative groups, separate
homes for orphaned and neglected
children.32
Before long, Byers could point to signs
of progress. In 1870 Hardin
County opened a model infirmary and the
McIntyre Children's
Home in Zanesville began its work. More
important, local officials be-
came more receptive to advice. The
Clinton County superintendent
wrote Byers thanking him for
suggestions, while the directors of the
Green County infirmary cooperated at the
cost of "the severest pub-
lic criticism."33
Betterment, however, had a price and
Byers had to pay it. By 1870
opposition to his criticism was mounting
especially in the urban coun-
ties. He had singled out the
institutions in Cuyahoga, Lucas and
Hamilton counties because he believed
that, compared with many of
the rural areas, they had more than
enough wealth and knowledge
to provide decent care. Thus, the
Cuyahoga jail was "an offense,
wholly out of character with the general
intelligence and moral sense
of the community where it is
tolerated." In Athens County, Byers's
report sparked a local investigation
that disputed his conclusions and
demanded an official rebuke. From the
beginning, the BOSC trus-
tees were aware that Byers was ruffling
feathers. They understood
the necessity of critical inspections,
but they also knew that the posi-
tion of executive secretary was
politically fragile. They urged Byers to
spend some time inspecting state
institutions and, in an effort to sooth
relations with the counties, wrote a
letter to him that was printed in
the 1870 BOSC report. The passage
regarding county visitations read
as follows:
You will impress upon the officers who
you meet, that you come as a co-
worker with them, and to aid them by
your suggestions, and not in a hostile,
carping, criticizing spirit ...
The Board endorsed Byers's ideas of
using "good citizens-both
men and women" as visitors but
forbade him from invoking state au-
thority to gain compliance with his
suggestions.34
Byers was willing to focus on state
problems. He bitterly castigated
the lax management and corrupt building
contracts at the Central In-
32. Ohio. Docs., (1868), 627-31; Ibid,,
II (1869), 849-52; Ibid., II (1870), 426-34.
33. Ohio. Docs., II (1870),
359-60, 389-90, 414-15.
34.
Ohio. Docs., II (1868), 652-60, 672-77; Ibid., II (1869),
817-20; Ibid., 11(1870), 317,
376-82, 400; Ibid., II (1871),
48-49, 60; Byers Diary (1870), Byers MS.
88 OHIO HISTORY
sane Asylum (Columbus) that had led to a
fire killing many inmates;
he vigorously promoted the establishment
of an intermediate peni-
tentiary for first time offenders; but
he would not relent in his criti-
cism of county jails and infirmaries.
Indeed, in 1871 he stepped up
his attack on cronyism in the election
of infirmary directors in the
larger counties.35
When the legislature next met, Byers's
job was in jeopardy. The
politicians' strategy was appropriately
devious. Rather than confront
Byers directly, they eliminated the
entire BOSC without formal ex-
planation; but it was well understood
that the protest from the major
counties was responsible, and analysis
of the vote on elimination con-
firms the fact. The senate vote was
24-10; in the house of representa-
tives it was 69-22. Byers's support came
almost entirely from Demo-
crats representing sparsely populated
rural areas. Twenty of the
twenty-two representatives who voted to
retain the Board were Dem-
ocrats and Mansfield was the largest
town in the area favoring Byers.
The delegations from Cincinnati,
Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and
Toledo, all heavily Republican except
Columbus, voted unanimously
in favor of elimination.36
Some of the counties favoring Byers, for
example Pike and Ross,
had also been severely censured by him.
Unlike the urban counties,
however, these areas took his advice and
improved their treatment
and facilities. Their amenability may be
explained by the fact that
rural almshouses were often little more
than shacks and could easily
be renovated or replaced. By the same
token, a change in superinten-
dents could work wonders in Circleville,
but have less impact in
Cleveland where other indolent and
negligent officers might be re-
tained. The irony of the situation lay
in the fact that the Democrats
who listened to Byers and followed his
advice represented that por-
tion of the electorate which had
rejected his vision of a just society at
the polls in 1867.
The abolition of the Board hurt him
deeply. "From here on no
heart or time for diaries," he wrote.
"Period of 4 years and 2 months
on his own."37 Though
physically ill as well as sick at heart, he re-
35. Ohio. Docs., II(1867),
235-50; Ibid., II (1869), 766-70; Ibid., II(1871), 34-35.
36. Ohio. Senate Journal (1872),
114, 120, 160; Ohio, House Journal (1872), 213-14;
Ohio. Laws, LXIX (1872), 10.
37. Byers Diary (Feb. 15, 1872), Byers
MS. This volume is different in format from
the pocket diaries that Byers carried
about with him. The entries for Feb. 15, including
another "Board of State Charities Law
repealed," are in a much heavier pencil and in a
larger hand. These look like later
annotations, perhaps, in view of the use of the third
person, entered by his wife or his son
Joseph Perkins Byers who took over as Secretary
Origins of Welfare
89
mained undaunted. In later years he
remarked that the legislature
might abolish the Board, but they could
not abolish him. Clearly,
he had come to view charity inspection
as his vocation. Preaching an
occasional sermon but seeking no new
congregation, he worked for
several years, perhaps as a salesman. He
used his spare time to seek
allies who shared his views, above all
his belief that "partizan pur-
poses" [sic] should not be a factor
in the selection of jail wardens and
infirmary directors. Foremost among
these friends were John Jay
Janney and Roeliff Brinkerhoff. Janney,
a Virginia-born Quaker and
former member of the Republican state
committee and Columbus
City council, was also well-connected in
philanthropic circles and
known for his passionate advocacy of
prison reform. Brinkerhoff, a
lawyer-banker from Mansfield, was a
leading figure in the Democratic
party and greatly interested in both
penology and the reform of pub-
lic charity.38
With Janney's assistance, Byers
organized the Prison Reform and
Children's Aid Association of Ohio in
August, 1874. As executive
secretary of the society, Byers resumed
his visitations, although the
voluntary character of the association
gave these a somewhat differ-
ent emphasis. He continued to inspect
jails and infirmaries, with the
usual mixed reception, but placed
special emphasis on encouraging
voluntary groups to establish homes for
orphaned and dependent
children. The twelve homes that had been
established before the
Civil War were all privately organized
and usually served particular
groups. In 1850, Cincinnati, for
example, had five asylums-two
Catholic, one Protestant, one German
Protestant, and one for "col-
ored orphans." Byers sought to
encourage a tolerant approach re-
garding admissions in order to establish
a population base sufficient
enough to support an institution even in
rural areas. By the early twen-
tieth century there were fifty county
homes for dependent children,
and at least as many private refuges.39
Byers did not envision converting his
Children's Aid Association
into a charity organization society
similar to those forming in Ohio
of the BOSC following Byers's death.
38. NCCC. Proceedings (1891),
246; Ohio. Docs., II (1871), 92-93. Byers's obituary
says only that he was "earning his
bread in his own way." The Diary entry for August 5,
1872, reads "canvassing," but
it is unclear whether this refers to selling, seeking allies,
or political work. See also John Fyfe to
Byers, June 7, 1876, Hayes MS.
39. Hayes MS; Box 21, Janney
Family Papers, OHS; Nelson L. Bossing, "History of
Educational Legislation, 1851 to
1925," Ohio Archaeological and Historical Publica-
tions, XXXIX (1930), 285-91; Charles Cist, Sketches and
Statistics of Cincinnati in 1851
(Cincinnati, 1851), 150-55; Samuel P.
Orth, The Centralization of Administration in Ohio
(New York, 1903).
90 OHIO HISTORY
and other states. One of the main
concerns of charity organization so-
cieties was to control the expenditures
of outdoor or home relief, the
suspicion being that
"unworthy" individuals and families avoided
work by applying for food and fuel from
the various charities of the
town or country. The charity societies
did not give aid themselves
but coordinated existing agencies and
required all applicants to sub-
mit to a stringent means test before
gaining any relief. Byers, however,
was more interested in positive
achievements, such as the children's
homes.40
Byers hoped that his group would revive
interest in the BOSC. He
defended the voluntary approach, in a
letter to Hayes, because, "the
politicians could be set at defiance and
a popular sympathy awak-
ened that does not ordinarily respond to
work-however charitable
-done by law." But with Hayes once
again in the governor's chair in
1876, Byers's advocacy of voluntarism
evaporated. The Board was
necessary, he contended, not only
because "good people" support-
ed it but because it could challenge the
power of "the preachers"
who had often opposed the "appeals
for material aid" of the Chil-
dren's Aid Association.41
Certainly, Ohio's welfare problems had
not disappeared with
Byers's dismissal. Indeed, they had
intensified. The recession of
the early 1870s made a decisive impact
on the infirmaries and the ad-
ministration of poor relief. In 1872 the
number seeking admission to
county infirmaries increased by 34 per
cent, while the number sup-
ported by county outdoor relief nearly
tripled. Meanwhile, the disar-
ray of the state institutions was
becoming more apparent, with anoth-
er insane asylum fire and widespread
concern over operational costs.
The 1873-74 State Constitutional
Convention denounced the waste
and inefficiency in state institutions
and desired to revive the Board
of State Charities. The main point of
contention in its extensive de-
bates on the subject was not whether
there should be a new board,
but whether it should be appointed or
popularly elected.42
The Convention changed nothing, however,
because its proposed
Constitution was rejected at the polls,
leaving intact the old 1851
40. Box 21, Janney MS, OHS.
41. Byers to Hayes, November 12, 1875,
Hayes MS.
42. Ohio. Docs., I (1872),
287-88; Ohio Official Report of the . . . Constitutional Con-
vention, I, XXX, 200-38. Another concern about state
institutions, their power to incar-
cerate an individual against his or her
will, surfaced at the Convention, with a reference
to Wilkie Collins's The Woman in
White (New York, 1860), a popular novel of the day
treating this theme. An 1869 case
involving the custodial authority of the Illinois insane
asylum was one reason for the
establishment of a charity board in that state. See Grob,
Mental Institutions in America, 278.
Origins of Welfare 91
charter. This granted permanent state
support only to institutions for
the insane, blind, and deaf and dumb,
although it did not specifi-
cally exclude other state welfare
activity. The way was open, there-
fore, for the rebirth of the Board of
State Charities, and Hayes's
election provided the occasion. With his
encouragement, the legisla-
ture voted by a wide margin to
reestablish the agency.43
The new board differed significantly
from its predecessor. As sec-
retary, Byers received a stipulated
annual salary of 1,200 dollars. The
governor was made ex-officio president,
with the power to appoint six
trustees, three from each party, to
staggered terms. In this way, Roe-
liff Brinkerhoff became a trustee,
joining John Andrews and Joseph
Perkins from the old board. More
important, the BOSC received the
right to at least comment upon "all
plans of public buildings." Byers
regarded his complete lack of power on
this question the most signifi-
cant defect of the first board.44
Byers was the obvious choice to be
secretary of the new board.
He resumed his duties with enthusiasm
and renewed his attack upon
deficient county institutions.
Eventually, he secured passage of a law
providing that county probate courts
appoint a board of visitors
(three of the five members to be women)
to inspect and report on lo-
cal institutions to the BOSC. This
formalized the means by which he
had extended his influence in the 1860s.
Also, Byers began to pay
more attention to conditions in the
state institutions. In 1880, for ex-
ample, he uncovered the efforts of
authorities at the boys' reform
school to hide the fact that a black
inmate had died because of an
overseer's beating. At the behest of
local officials, he encouraged
asylum superintendents to be more
communicative about their ad-
missions procedures, and he tried to
prevent state institutions from
remanding difficult cases back to the
counties.45
One measure of Byers's success may be
found in the file of letters
addressed to him during the period
1884-85. Besides calming dis-
putes between state and local officials,
he provided a reference serv-
ice for institutions seeking to employ
able people and information for
43. Ohio. Senate Journal (1876),
312-13; Ohio. House Journal (1876), 641-42; Ohio.
Docs., I (1876), 764; Ohio. Laws, LXXIII (1876),
165-66.
44. Ohio. Docs., I (1876), and
III (1877), 92. The bipartisan clause as well as the re-
quirement of mandatory submission of
plans were amendments added in 1880. See
Ohio. Laws, LXXVII (1880),
227-28.
45. H. A. Millis, "The Law Relating
to the Relief and Care of Dependents," Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology, IV (1898-99), 185; Ohio. Docs., I (1880),
608-10; Incoming Let-
ters (1884-85), Papers of the Board of
State Charities, Ohio Historical Society. See also
Ohio Docs., I(1876), 776.
92 OHIO HISTORY
citizens from other states searching for
ideas on charity and prison
reform. Among other communications,
Byers received an anonymous
letter offering information on "the
sanitary condition" of the girls' re-
form school and a petition from inmates
of the Knox County infirmary
asking the directors to provide indoor
washing for older inmates and
to delouse the house. The courteous tone
of these letters and the
cordial response of most superintendents
and directors to Byers's in-
quiries marked a significant change from
the early days.46
Despite these successes, life remained
hard for Albert Byers. He
supplemented his meager salary with itinerant
preaching and sought
repeatedly but unsuccessfully to gain a
position with various national
prison reform groups. Commenting upon
his efforts, John Andrews
wrote, "it is probably in his
interest to make the change to a position
that promises greater permanence, with
less turmoil and personal bit-
terness, than his present post which has
brought him necessarily
into collision with the local
authorities of many counties and all over
the state." It was not to be. After
Frederick Wines blocked his ap-
pointment as Secretary of the National
Prison Association, Byers re-
signed from the group, bitterly
lamenting the frustration of "the one
great and all absorbing ambition of my
life."47
Byers did acquire a national reputation
as an expert on public chari-
ty. In 1889 he addressed the National
Conference of Charities and
Correction (NCCC) on the role of the
state boards. Beginning with
Hastings Hart's definition of the board
as "a balance wheel to
steady the motion of the charitable
machinery," Byers elaborated
on the faith animating the movement:
No community in any state throughout
this nation will ever complain of the
cost of meeting the actual demands of
the dependent. They may not approve
of extravagance, but they will not
knowingly tolerate the withholding of that
which is needful. Stealing of public
money may be condemned, malfeasance
or misfeasance may be forgiven; but to
stint the poor is, to the American con-
ception of public duty, an unpardonable
sin.
State boards, he concluded, performed an
"indispensable" service
by checking both "stint" and
"extravagance," and thereby encour-
46. Letter File, Byers MS. 1884-85 is
the only year for which the incoming letter file
has survived, and there is no way of
knowing whether the total of 183 items is complete,
or whether, if complete, it is typical.
Nevertheless, 36 percent of the letters deal with the
Board's contacts with other states and
such organizations as the NCCC, 20 percent deal
with Ohio state institutions, 18 percent
with administration and visiting, 11 percent with
personal cases, 10 percent with jobs,
and 5 percent with requests for speeches and ser-
mons.
47. Andrews to Hayes, December 5, 1883,
and Byers to Hayes, November, 1889,
Hayes MS.
Origins of Welfare 93
aging that state itself to be "at
once merciful and just, as near like
God as any state may be."48
Byers's health was already failing when
he gave this speech. He
was chosen to head the NCCC in 1890, but
collapsed while con-
ducting the closing ceremonies. He
recovered enough to attend an
autumn charity meeting in a wheelchair.
Greeting Hastings Hart, he
said:
This has been a beautiful world. It has
been a joy to live in it, and I have de-
lighted in the friends I have had. At
first it seemed to me as if I would not
bear to go out of the world, as if I had
a work to do that is not done; but that
feeling is gone and I look forward to
the future with as much joy and peace
and delight as I have ever had in my
life.
A few weeks later he died at home.
Andrew Elmore delivered the
eulogy at the next NCCC meeting,
concluding: "Many a man is a nice,
good man in a Conference like this, who
is a tyrant at home. Dr.
Byers was a charming man in his own
family. It was there I loved him
best."49
Albert Byers's life and his career on
the Ohio Board of State
Charities recall a world in which the
relief of human suffering was
regarded not as a problem to be solved
by the state, but as an obli-
gation to common humanity undertaken by
religious and public-
spirited people. There is little
evidence in Byers's career of a commit-
ment to the expansion of state activity
or authority for its own sake.
Indeed, for all his work with state and
local institutions, he remained
convinced that private charities
"are far more efficient and satisfacto-
ry, as a general rule, than public
charities can be." He always relied
on the interpenetration of public and
private agencies, as his Prison
Reform and Children's Aid Association,
his local visiting commit-
tees, and the close links between the
Board of State Charities and
NCCC demonstrate. Members of the
National Conference of
Charities and Correction referred to
their organization as the
"church of divine fragments."
As postmillenarian and Arminian Prot-
estants, they viewed their work as
necessary actions to ensure the
reign of peace and justice before
Christ's second coming and the final
judgement. Since intolerable conditions
and treatment were still evi-
dent in many places, Byers warned, the
millenium was "not so much
at hand as some of us would wish."
The main hope was to sustain
practical efforts and moral pressure.50
48. NCCC. Proceedings (1889),
89-102.
49. Ibid., (1891), 253.
50.
Ohio. Docs., II(1870), 354; NCCC. Proceedings (1891), 247;
Ibid., (1889), 99-102.
94 OHIO HISTORY
This faith has appeared insufficient or
even ominous to the modern
age. Advocates of the welfare state
regard care as a constitutional
entitlement. During the 1960s and 70s,
they influenced the expansion
of the number and variety of public
programs under which people of
all ages and conditions may qualify. At
the same time, they have con-
tinued to criticize the capitalistic
system for its niggardliness. The
conservative reaction, now regnant, not
only questions the concept of
entitlement but, as a self-proclaimed
moral majority, has inaugurated
crusades against day care, school lunch,
and abortion programs that
serve poor and dependent people. Though
presented positively, as
part of a "pro-family" agenda,
the Moral Majority resonates coercive-
ness and meanness perhaps not unlike
that encountered by Albert
Byers in the 1870s.
Historians have contributed less than
they imagine to contempo-
rary debate. They have appeared for the
most part as witnesses for
liberal points of view. Thus,
nineteenth-century charity reform is por-
trayed as a threatening development.
Individuals like Byers are
viewed as agents for dominant social
groups who were intolerant of
Catholics and immigrants and anxious to
achieve control by harsh
and parsimonious public policy. A
slightly different scenario has be-
nevolent workers appearing as the direct
ancestors of contemporary
advice-givers and social workers who supposedly
use therapeutic jar-
gon to make themselves more secure and
their audiences more
expert-dependent. In this way,
capitalism has purportedly shattered
both individual self-confidence and the
integrity of the family.51
Without disputing the arrogance of
conservatism, either new or
old, we insist that the historical
record is more complex. Certainly,
Protestant charity reformers had their
share of prejudices. The Na-
tional Conference proceedings abound
with unflattering remarks on
immigrants. Many NCCC members were
enthusiastic about eugenics,
a "science" that they would
eventually link to the politics of immi-
grant restriction. However, the
activities of these reformers were prin-
cipally motivated by the foul
institutions and inhumane treatment
that they personally uncovered. And,
more often than not, the poor
conditions were the responsibility of
native-born Protestants like
See also Timothy P. Weber, Living in
the Shadow of the Second Coming: American
Premillennalism, 1875-1975 (New York, 1979), 3-12, 168-69.
51. In addition to Rothman, Discovery
of the Asylum and Conscience and Conven-
ience, see Clifford S. Griffen, Their Brothers' Keepers:
Moral Stewardship in the United
States, 1800-1865 (New Brunswick, N.J., 1960) and Christopher Lasch, Haven
in a
Heartless World: The Family Besieged (New York, 1977).
Origins of Welfare
95
themselves. Albert Byers, though
relatively free of the prejudices of
the day, was not a perfect man. He
regularly denounced political
spoils but used his influence to secure
for his son a position as person-
al secretary to Governor "Calico
Charlie" Foster. He sermonized on
brotherhood and reconciliation, yet
enthusiastically supported the
Grand Army of the Republic which helped
to keep alive the animosi-
ties of the Civil War. Nevertheless,
these imperfections seem less im-
portant than his principal
accomplishment-the reformation of public
welfare through vigilence, compassion
and suggestion. In this en-
deavor, he sought to comfort the
afflicted rather than to cultivate a
client population.52
Albert Byers's experience is meaningful
because he was necessarily
cautious about state power but
relentless in pursuing abuse. The
Ohio Board of State Charities was a weak
organization, even in com-
parison with the other state boards of
the day. Byers could not con-
trol the appointment of trustees and
superintendents of state institu-
tions; nor could he monitor their
expenditures or audit their books.
At the local level, publicity remained
his main weapon.53 Nonethe-
less, the people of Ohio responded to
his fervor. They cleansed their
jails and almshouses and provided
separate homes for dependent
and neglected children. And even though
relapses occurred, we be-
lieve that Byers' accomplishment has a
modern echo. Glenn Tinder
has recently written:
The welfare state is a relatively humble
spiritualization of the public order. It
symbolizes the idea that government
should serve justice and kindness. If
we give up trying to invest our politics
with that modest amount of spiritual
significance-if fiscal responsibility
comes in effect to be our understanding
of the highest good-what will remain in
our public life to command re-
spect?54
In an age that glorifies
self-aggrandizement and inequality, the con-
viction that doing good is its own
reward may serve us well. By
linking us to moderate but active people
of an age gone by, it encour-
ages us to persist until a new
commonwealth philosophy takes shape.
For there is little hope of coping with
the future without recognizing
that our obligations to each other are
rooted in the past.
52. Charles Forster to Roeliff
Brinkerhoff, December 22, 1879, The Papers of Roeliff
Brinkerhoff, OHS; Ohio. Docs., II (1870),
355.
53. Orth, Centralization of
Administration in Ohio, 177; NCCC, Proceedings (1889),
89-97; Ibid., (1893), 33-51
54. New Republic, March 10, 1979,
21-23.