Ohio History Journal




ROBERT M

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

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

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

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

76                                      OHIO HISTORY



Origins of Welfare 77

Origins of Welfare                                             77



78 OHIO HISTORY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.