In 19th Century Newtown, Caring For The Poor Was A Public Matter

By Jan Howard

Caring for those less fortunate and those who temporary need help has long been an concern faced by communities. In an early annual report of Newtown’s Board of Selectmen it states, “Those receiving aid from the town we seem to have with us always, and it seems hard to turn these unfortunates down, and there will always be some entitled to sympathy.”

According to Ezra Johnson’s history of Newtown, nothing appears in early town journals to indicate there was any organized effort to place the less fortunate residents under the care and supervision of a system. Instead, it appears they were personally looked after and provided for by being placed in families where the town was willing to pay for board and, when death came, give a proper burial.

In 1809, when the matter was brought up at the annual meeting, it resulted in a vote to “farm them out at such place and in such way as directed by vote of the town.”

At the annual meeting on December 10, 1810, it was voted that “the selectmen be authorized to contract for the keeping of the poor of this town with the overseer of the poorhouse belonging to the Town of Weston and to transport the poor of Newtown whose expense is 75 cents a week or upwards, to the poorhouse at Weston.” Despite this vote, the plan was not adopted.

On November 4, 1816, a committee of two persons, Ebenezer Turner and Timothy Shepard, were appointed to visit the poorhouse and to take any proper measures to correct any abuse in the poorhouse.

In 1818, Abijah Merritt and Caleb Baldwin conferred with a committee from Danbury about the poorhouse, and Amos Shepard was appointed as agent to oversee all the poor taken from Newtown to the poorhouse that year. The town made it optional whether all who applied for aid should be obliged to go to the house or be farmed out with families.

Abijah Merritt, one of Newtown’s selectmen at various intervals between 1819 and 1839, was given oversight of the town poor during his tenures. After his death in 1845, bills against the town for services for the poor were found among his effects. Among those bills were those listing the joint expense of the poor for the towns of Danbury and Newtown in 1819, and a copy of the expenses of two people, among others, who were farmed out in families. The cost for the poorhouse was $966.45, with $903.68 for those placed with families, of which the state contributed $283.50, bringing the town’s costs to $620.18.

In 1819, a resident, William Jones, became a town charge and was cared for by Philo N. Platt of Hopewell, until his death in December 1839. Itemized bills were submitted for the man’s care. In 1839, at the time of his funeral, a bill was submitted to the selectmen that included, among other costs, 33 cents for a quart of rum for attendants at his burial.

Another bill to the town included a cost for cleaning a local woman “from lice, which was a great task, indeed $3.”

From 1818 to 1825, agents were appointed from Newtown for oversight of the town poor in partnership with Danbury. In 1826, a committee met with Danbury’s committee to make rules in regard to settlement of poorhouse accounts.

In 1827, the town voted to contract with any person for keeping the poor of the town for any number of years not exceeding five, at a price not to exceed $800 a year. In May 1837, it was voted that the town approve establishment of a county poorhouse and that the selectmen confer with other towns on the subject.

At the annual meeting in December 1842, it was “voted that Col Timothy Shepherd, Capt Daniel Meeker, and Samuel Beers, Jr, be a committee to confer with a committee from Danbury on the subject of a poorhouse.” At an adjourned town meeting on December 28, 1812, townspeople voted that $600 be appropriated to defray the expense of building a house for the poor of Newtown with the town of Danbury “and that the Newtown selectmen be a committee to carry the same into effect.”

The house was located in the western part of town in Flat Swamp district on the town line between Newtown and Danbury. Rules and by-laws were drawn up and adopted by the selectmen of the two towns. A committee of three was set up to visit the poorhouse to make sure that regulations about the poorhouse were carried out.

Many town meetings were called to consider the expediency of providing a permanent home for the town poor, but no definite action was ever taken. After the dissolution of the contract between Newtown and Danbury in 1850, the care of Newtown’s poor was let to some responsible man for terms of five years.

Daniel Botsford, a large landowner on Toddy Hill, was poor master for many years. He was succeeded by Eli J. Morris in Zoar. They were the longest in the service and during their administration very few people were farmed out in families. Joseph Moore in Huntingtown and Mrs Lynch on Botsford Hill were also caretakers of the town’s dependents.

The Town of Newtown also would receive appeals from other towns for the care of a Newtown resident who was sick or in need in their towns, such as one from New Fairfield on December 21, 1820.

In some cases, the town might argue whether the case was really its financial responsibility. In October 1902, The Newtown Bee reported that the town had won its fight in the “famous Stillson case.”

According to the newspaper, the case of the Town of Fairfield against the Town of Newtown, which was tried before Judge Howard B. Scott of Danbury, acting judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Bridgeport, was decided in favor of Newtown.

The action involved the question as to the settlement of Alfred Stillson, formerly of Newtown but now of Easton. Mr Stillson had applied to the Town of Fairfield for aid at some time in 1901, which it granted. Fairfield then sued the town of Easton for the amount it spent, claiming he belonged to and had a settlement in Easton.

The Town of Easton denied this and upon trial prevailed, with the Superior Court deciding in its favor. Fairfield then sued Newtown, claiming Mr Stillson belonged to Newtown, which admitted his settlement here but denied liability for his support because of the failure of the official of Fairfield to give notice to Newtown as required by the statutes, which Judge Scott found they had not done and decided the case in favor of Newtown.

According to The Newtown Bee, Fairfield was out 68½ weeks board for Mr Stillson, in addition to the costs and expenses following two lawsuits.

In the meantime, The Bee reported, Mr Stillson was enjoying himself with delicate repasts supplied him three times a day by his nephews in Newtown, Easton, and Fairfield.

The Newtown Bee is silent on what happened after October 1902 when the town apparently won its case, and April 1903 when the newspaper reports, “The selectmen had the duty thrust upon them, Saturday, of drawing an order for the bill of expenses in the famous Alfred Stillson pauper case, amounting to $428.25.”

Did Fairfield appeal the case and win, causing Newtown to be required to pay Mr Stillson’s expenses? It seems likely New Fairfield made a case that the person it helped was indeed a resident of Newtown and, therefore, despite lack of notice, Newtown was responsible for the expenses.

Care of people in need exists today, but in a much more organized and, perhaps, less public manner than cases once written up in town reports and in the newspaper.