THE RELIEF AND CARE OF DEPENDENTS 635
Perhaps, before we proceed to the laws against the migration of paupers, it may be well to speak of the retention of a settle- ment when once gained. As a rule a settlement is retained until a new one is gained, or until the person has been absent from his settlement sufficiently long to have secured a new one elsewhere. In some states, however, absence does not forfeit a settlement unless another has actually been secured. In a few states a set- tlement is not lost until a new one has been gained within the state. 1
As was noted above, in New Jersey a person likely to become dependent may be removed before he secures a settlement. A number of states have similar provisions. 2 In this we find a further restriction on removing and securing a new settlement. In these states, if one is about to become dependent, it is the duty of the poor authorities to report him to the justice of the peace. His condition is investigated, and upon the decision of the court, unless, as in Pennsylvania, security for his support can be given, he is removed to his place of settlement. Similarly, in Iowa the county supervisors or the township trustee may
1 Thus the statutes of Oklahoma (3648), Indiana (6070), Wisconsin (1500), Kansas (4031), North Dakota (1478), and South Dakota (2144), have the provision that one settlement is lost when a new one has been secured, or after a willful and continuous absence sufficiently long to have gained a settlement elsewhere. On the other hand, in Maine (3, ch. 24), Connecticut (4 Conn., 114), Pennsylvania (2 Sup. Court, 259), Ohio (1493), and Iowa (2140), we find the one settlement retained until a new one is secured ; while in Massachusetts (3, ch. 84), New Hampshire (7, ch. 83), and Illinois ' (25 111., 125) one settlement is retained until another is secured within the state, regard- less of the fact that in the meantime one may have been secured in some other state.
In locating the responsibility for a "transient" it is very frequently found that he has no settlement. Thus if one leaves a settlement in Indiana or Wisconsin and is absent for a year, he loses his right to relief there, although he has, in all probability, not become entitled to public relief elsewhere. If he start from Maine or Massachu- setts, however, there must always be some place from which he is entitled to public relief.
Besides in New Jersey (Sec. 17, Act of April 14, 1891), this provision is found in Rhode Island (n->4,ch. 81), Pennsylvania (58, p. 1706), West Virginia (10, ch. 46), Virginia (878), Delaware (13, ch. 48), and Indiana (6079). It came originally from the old English law, having been incorporated there in 1662. In England the provi- sion led to so much abuse that it was stricken from the law in 1795. Perhaps it is never enforced in any of our commonwealths.
