RELIEF STORY

Monday morning, the New York Times carried a story about Mr. and Mrs. Thomas O'Toole, parents of four young children, who were sentenced to three years in jail for taking relief when they had $11,000 in the bank. The judge declared they had done "a nasty, grasping, thieving, low trick."

Perhaps the O'Tooles deserved this castigation, with thousands in much greater need than themselves not eligible for relief, but their case brings up a deeper problem. They had presumably saved this money out of their income through years of prosperity; perhaps there were lots of other families of the same income who were not so thrifty and foresighted; when depression hit both, only the latter were eligible for relief. There thus appears a definite premium on wasteful spending, and a penalty on thrift.

For the rich and almost rich, this consideration matters little. For them, relief would be extreme poverty, and they must save anyway in order to protect their usual standard. But for those to whom thrift is a real effort and virtue, for those who are striving by doing away with small luxuries to make themselves independent, self-supporting citizens, thrift means more and more a wasteful activity, and more and more citizens become dependent on the government, rather than on themselves, for economic support.

Perhaps this new dependence is desirable. But the transition as exemplified in the case of the O' Tooles, is extremely unjust and painful. The old, individualistic, self-dependent order speaks pathetically through their excuse. "At first we didn't apply for relief, but when we found out the only way to get a job was to get on relief, we decided that was the best thing to do."

And the new self-righteousness, filled with unconscious new ideals, answers through the mouth of Judge Ralph smith: "You chiseled every last dime you could. I don't see why you didn't choke on the food you got. I don't see how you could swallow it. This is unforgivable. I can't comprehend anything ....." and so on.