According to Concha, it is possible that in one part of the country, the affairs of the poor are handled by the public administration, while in another part of the country they are entrusted to private charity.3 He makes interesting observations about the relationship between public health and the treatment of the poor. In his opinion, the treatment of the poor is not a public health task, but a way of providing assistance.4

In the context of local population decline and migration (together with the contemporary word: ‘people’s movement,’ in the modern word: administrative issues related to population registration), he posits that the intervention of the public administration in the local movement of people happens for a special reason (cf.: interventionist public administration); on the one hand, to maintain the order of providing for the poor (this is a kind of ‘pre-existing’ appearance of sustainability), and on the other hand, to prevent vagrancy. Vagrancy, according to Concha, uses the opportunity for free movement to live without work and tries to take advantage of the support provided by others,, which cannot be tolerated by public administration.5

At the same time, Concha also states that even when municipal, local, direct assistance is taken over by the state public administration (‘public authority’), it must not lose its emotional character. (On the example of municipalities, for modern usage of the term, see municipal waste, etc.)6

Their lifestyle is contrary to the order of society, as they usually live by begging and stealing other people’s property, whereas society is based on living from work or acquired property. „To what extent is the punishment of vagrancy and begging justified?” asks the author. According to his answer, this also depends on the extent to which the public provides for those unable to work or those who cannot find work. If the public does not provide for them, begging cannot be punished, and in fact, administrative permits must be given to those without income. This makes it possible to distinguish those in genuine need from those who deliberately avoid work. In the case of vagrants, attention must also be paid to the ‘integrity of physical and mental constitution.’ Here, Concha draws on opinions of German criminal lawyers and criminologists of the time, and concurs that vagrancy is a “[bodily] constitutional, even racial phenomenon” for many people. Thus, vagrancy is seen as having a pathological nature in some individuals; the author lists outpatients suffering from nervous disorders (Lat. neurasthenia) and other diseases, as well as “wandering gypsies [sic]” as belonging to this “peculiar type of vagrants.” He concludes that the management and resolution of the issue falls beyond the scope of the administration overseeing the movement of people.7

When defining the scope of public administration in the area of begging and vagrancy, he proposes four tasks that should be carried out. The first task is to maintain a social order (early sustainability legal segment) in which the “well-intentioned, hard-working person” is not forced to beg. The second task is to identify those in need of public assistance. The third task is to take care of people who are unable to make a living through no fault of their own, in order to prevent begging and vagrancy. The fourth task is, if this fails, to rehabilitate the beggars and vagrants in designated institutions (workhouse, reformatory, shelter, beggar’s house).8