What Good Does It Do?

TJnder the heading, "Improving the condition of the poor," the New York Mail and Express reports that the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, which society is located at 79 Fourth ave., did the following workin thenine months ending June 30 last : Pereons aided with groceries, coal, shoes. Mankets, medicine, etc _ - 23,424 Lodeings to single pereons 934 Mealsto single persons „ 2,850 Pair of shoes distributed „ 1,037 Tons of coal distributed 548 Visite to and on behalr the poor 13,317 'nspection of tenement houses 302 Smployment obtained, temporary and permanent, for 165 TVe doubt if this work improves the L'ondition of the poor a partiële ; and the reasons are weighty. There is no question of the motives of the kindhearted individuals who give time and inoney for the work : they are generous and noble people. But without questioning the motives, we may question the reeults. The best that can be saidfor thia noble charity is that it relieves the immediate distress of some, and put others in the way of earning small wages ; but there is not a partiële of that it tends to improve the coodition of the poor. We have neverseen any such evidence. If there is any, we would be glad if some one wouldpreduce it. The reasons why such work does not impravetheconditionof thepoorare obvions-. Those who are fed by such charity siiaply have their power increased to pay more and more of the high renta exacted of them by the owners of New York. This principie is seen clear]y in the case of Ireland, where it is notorious that the money which flows from-thi country to friends there goes quickly and surely into the pockets of the Isindlords. Even if the money is used to better the surroundings of the poor; it has a tendency to raise the lents. This thing is just as certainly triie of the poor of this country as of Ireland. Natural laws are universal. 'ín those cases where this or a similar society gives the poor employment, it is largely unnecessary work, carried on at a loss, and gives no sense of independence to those poor who are capable of such a feeling. This society does help some to get actual employment in vaious lines of industry, and this seems :o be the way, if any, in which to imprce the condition of the poor. But t merely enables these people to underbid their fellow-laborers ; it causes sharper competition. At any time when we see a large number out of employment, it is morally certain that larger numbers are working for low wages and are just on the point of being thrown out of employment. So if we increase, by our charities, under the present syslem, the number employed without maierially increasing the opportnnities for employment, the tendency is simply to force wages down and to crowd others out of employment. All our speakers and newspapers recognize this principie when they advocate restricting immigration, and trades unions recognize it when they endeavor to limit the number of apprentices. Large charities, it is clearly sf en in England, have the tendency to make larger charities seem necessary. When penny dinners were given in Manchestex and Birmingham, half-penny din■.cts were found to be required, and in London they are obliged, as in New York, to feed without price thousands of hungry human beings, uaid to have been created in the image of God. Ocr friend, "A. C," who, in a eomuunication to the Argus of last week, takes us to task because of our article on "Impotence of Free Trade," misunderetands the aim of the article. We aierely wished to show that in spite of free trade the most horrible poverty existed ; and we cited the case of Engand because so many of our free trade friends seem to think that free trade here would relieve so much poverty. We didn't mean to be understood as implying that free trade is the cause of Great Britain's poverty. Of course we know better than that; but we'know, too, that free trade would not relieve the world of poverty. "A. C." says that Victor Hugo wrote Les Miserables before Engiand adopted free trade. That remarkable book,- the most democratie of the times,- appeared in 1S62, and England repealed the corn laws that led to free trade in 1846. It makes no difference about that anyway. Hugo's description of England's bad distribution of wealth, written in 1862, fits just as well today aB it did then ; there has been no chauge. The land-holding class, without doing productive labor absorb eo much wealth that opportunities for labor are limited and those ■who do labor and produce wealth get but a bare living.