Social Legislation and Social Activity
 Being Addresses delivered at the Sixth Annual Meeting of the American
        Academy of Political and Social Science of Philadelphia


                                   ❦

[Illustration: Logo]

 Published for the American Academy of Political and Social Science of
                            Philadelphia, by
                      McClure, Phillips & Company
                                New York
                                  1902




                                CONTENTS


                                 PART I

                           THE ANNUAL ADDRESS
                                                                    PAGE

 SOCIAL EFFECTS OF TRANSPORTATION                                      1
      =Hon. Martin A. Knapp=, Chairman United States Interstate
        Commerce Commission


                                 PART II

                 INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION

 INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION                              19
      =Hon. Marcus A. Hanna=, United States Senator from Ohio

 LIMITATIONS OF CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION                          27
      =Samuel Gompers, Esq.=, President American Federation of
        Labor

 RESULTS ACCOMPLISHED BY INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL CIVIC
   FEDERATION                                                         35
      =Hon. Oscar S. Straus=, formerly United States Minister to
        Turkey

 CO-OPERATION OF LABOR AND CAPITAL                                    43
      =William H. Pfahler, Esq.=, Executive Committee on Industrial
        Arbitration and Conciliation, National Civic Federation

 HARMONIZING LABOR AND CAPITAL BY MEANS OF INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSHIP     59
      =Alexander Purves, Esq.=, Treasurer, Hampton Institute, Va.


                                PART III

                           THE HOUSING PROBLEM

 TENEMENT HOUSE REGULATION: THE REASONS FOR IT; ITS PROPER
   LIMITATIONS                                                        81
      =Hon. Robert W. DeForest=, Tenement House Commissioner,
        Greater New York

 HOUSING PROBLEM IN CHICAGO                                           97
      =Miss Jane Addams=, Hull House, Chicago

 CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE HOUSING PROBLEM IN PHILADELPHIA              109
      =Report prepared by the Octavia Hill Association=

 HOUSING CONDITIONS IN BOSTON                                        121
      =Robert Treat Paine, Esq.=, Boston

 HOUSING CONDITIONS IN JERSEY CITY                                   137
      =Miss Mary B. Sayles=, Fellow College Settlements Association


                                 PART IV

                         THE CHILD LABOR PROBLEM

 CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION                                             153
      =Mrs. Florence Kelley=, Secretary National Consumers’ League

 CHILD LABOR IN THE DEPARTMENT STORE                                 165
      =Franklin N. Brewer, Esq.=, General Manager Wanamaker Store,
        Philadelphia

 NECESSITY FOR FACTORY LEGISLATION IN THE SOUTH                      179
      =Hayes Robbins, Esq.=, Dean, Institute of Social Economics,
        New York

 CHILD LABOR IN NEW JERSEY                                           189
      =Hugh F. Fox, Esq.=, President New Jersey State Board
        Children’s Guardians

 CHILD LABOR IN BELGIUM                                              201
      =Ernest Dubois=, Professor of the University of Ghent

 MACHINERY AND LABOR                                                 221
      =Henry White, Esq.=, General Secretary United Garment Workers
        of America


                                 PART V

                   FACTORY LEGISLATION AND INSPECTION

 TENDENCIES OF FACTORY LEGISLATION AND INSPECTION IN THE UNITED
   STATES                                                            233
      =Sarah S. Whittelsey, Ph. D.=, New Haven, Conn.


                                 PART VI

                             JUVENILE COURTS

 PROBATION AND JUVENILE COURTS                                       257
      =Mrs. Emily E. Williamson=, President New Jersey State
        Conference of Charities and Corrections

 THE JUVENILE COURT IN PHILADELPHIA                                  269
      =Hon. Abraham M. Beitler=, Court of Common Pleas No. 1,
        Philadelphia

 JUVENILE COURTS IN BUFFALO                                          277
      =Frederic Almy=, Secretary Charity Organization Society,
        Buffalo


                                PART VII

 PROCEEDINGS OF ANNUAL MEETING                                       287




                         I. The Annual Address




                    SOCIAL EFFECTS OF TRANSPORTATION

                      By HONORABLE MARTIN A. KNAPP

     Chairman of Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C.


The progress of mankind in devising means of transportation embraces
three distinctive stages. The primitive man traveled on foot and moved
his scanty belongings with his own muscle; and we can only imagine the
ages that elapsed before he secured any aid for the transfer of his
person or his property other than his own bodily powers.

Probably the first contrivance for carriage was a rough-hewn plank or
pole dragged upon the ground. Two connected planks doubtless formed the
original sled. Finally the idea was conceived—some accident suggesting
it—of lessening friction by the use of rollers. The rollers gradually
developed into wheels, and when at last the wheels were made in pairs
which revolved upon an axle the essential feature of all subsequent
vehicles was devised and employed.

The earliest movement on water, we may suppose, was equally crude and
simple. Some observant savage noticed that wood did not sink, and later
found out by experiment that a floating log would remain on the surface
even when his own weight was added. The rude dug-out followed the
discovery. The stick or limb by which the dug-out was pushed and turned
shaped itself at length into the lighter and more effective paddle; the
hollowed log was succeeded by a framed and covered structure, the
paddles became oars; and thus was evolved in prehistoric times the type
of all later boats on lake and stream. It was centuries after this—no
one knows how many—before the force of wind was utilized by the
invention of sails, and when that immense advance was achieved the
enduring era of ship-building commenced.

Roughly speaking, then, we may assign to the first stage in the
development of transport such results as were obtained by the muscular
strength of man, whether applied directly to the articles carried or
used in propelling the clumsy vehicles and water craft which he had
constructed. The motive power in all cases was the unaided energy of his
own body. And no later addition to the resources then at his command, it
should be observed, has wholly displaced the original method. The
natural powers of locomotion have not only remained unabated, but have
greatly increased by experience and training. Indeed, the manual
handling of articles of property must always be an important incident of
ownership and exchange, since no mechanical device can meet all the
needs of transfer or equal the delicacy and dexterity of our bodily
organs. Nor should we overlook in this connection the many-sided
ingenuity which has been displayed in constructing and perfecting a
great variety of vehicles for hand propulsion. The latest examples of
this ingenuity are the light racing shells which can be rowed with such
remarkable rapidity, and that unique and fascinating machine, the
up-to-date bicycle. These are at once the survival and the consummation
of primitive transportation, that is to say, transportation where human
energy is the motive power.

To the second stage of this development belongs the great increase of
force which was obtained by the subjugation of animals and their
employment for land transportation, and by the use of sails and rudders
which multiplied many times the efficiency of water carriage. When these
two results were secured, man had added to his own bodily powers the
superior strength of beasts of burden and the enormous energy derived
from the winds of heaven. This was an immeasurable gain and marked the
beginning of that wonderful civilization which slowly followed. The
animal kingdom was brought into service for the varied functions of land
distribution, and the ship which could be sailed and guided made every
waterway subservient to man’s requirements.

This hasty and imperfect outline brings us to a fact of history which
seems to me not merely significant but profoundly impressive. With the
subjection of animals and the use of wind-propelled vessels, both of
which achievements reached a high degree of perfection in the unknown
past, the means of transportation, broadly speaking, remained unchanged
and unaugmented until a period not much prior to the present time. It is
a long stretch of years from the savage cave-dweller to the twentieth
century man, and this wonderful world of ours had quite a career before
the present generation was born. Long before other agencies of
conveyance were dreamed of, while ox and horse, oar and sail, were the
only means of transport, the race had occupied most of the habitable
globe and advanced to lofty heights of national greatness. Strong
governments were established, vast populations engaged in varied
pursuits, and opulent cities crowded with every luxury. The institutions
of society had acquired strength and permanence, the arts of leisure and
refinement had approached the limits of perfection, and inductive
science had laid firm grasp on the secrets of nature. Great inventions
and discoveries had widened the fields of activity, furnished the means
and incentive for multiplied vocations and opened up in every direction
alluring vistas of advancement. In a word, there was the developed and
splendid civilization of little more than threescore years ago, before
any new or different motive power was utilized for commercial
intercourse.

And the weighty fact is that this immense and complex organism, with all
its accumulations of wealth and wisdom, its diversified employments, its
agriculture, manufactures, business affairs, financial systems,
commercial and political relations, civil and social order—its very life
and potency—was not only fitted to but dependent upon means of
transportation which, as respects their expense, speed and capacity, had
not essentially altered since the earliest tribes began to barter!
Enormous growth of enterprise and enlightenment, amazing progress in
every other sphere of human effort, with _motive power_, which lies at
the foundation of every activity, remaining from first to last a
constant quantity! Before the earliest recorded transaction—when Abraham
purchased the field of Ephron and paid for it his “400 shekels of silver
current with the merchant”—the horse and the ox were the established
agencies of land distribution; and what better agencies, bear in mind,
became available at any time thereafter until well along in the
nineteenth century? Yet the ox was as strong and the horse as fleet, and
their powers were as effectively employed, in the days of the Pharaohs
as they are at the present time. Indeed, no history is so ancient as not
to disclose the general use of animals for the purposes of carriage,
while the vehicles to which they were harnessed had then been developed,
in point of convenience and usefulness, to a degree not much exceeded in
any subsequent period. Though differing considerably in appearance from
the wagons with which we are familiar, yet they were constructed upon
the same principles and performed the same functions as those now
employed.

Similar progress was made in ship-building and seamanship as far back as
history affords proof or tradition. There were oar and sail, tides and
currents, and the inconstant winds, long before the ships of the
Phœnicians brought back from the East the gold of Ophir; and what more
was there than oar and sail, winds and currents—for all the purposes of
navigation—until, almost within the memory of men yet living, the little
steamboat of Robert Fulton ascended the Hudson River! In this long span
of time, it is true, bridges were built, highways improved, vehicles
finer fashioned, sailing craft increased in size, and the mariner’s
compass led to longer voyages; but, nevertheless, the forces by which
movement is effected, the actual means of distribution on land and sea,
continued without substantial change in character or efficiency age
after age and century after century until the recent, the very recent,
era of steam locomotion.

To my mind it is a matter of fascinating import that the long procession
of the world’s advancement down to the century just ended was
conditioned by and dependent upon agencies of transportation which were
themselves essentially unprogressive and incapable of important
betterment. True, there were minor modifications from time to time in
the line of mechanical adjustment, but the general methods employed, and
the results obtained, showed no marked improvement or material
alteration from those applied in the earliest days of commerce. Reduced
to the forms in ordinary use there were at the last as at the first the
beast of burden on land and the oar and sail on water. Yet thus hampered
and restricted in the means of transportation, which is the basis of all
commercial activity, there was built up in the long process of years the
varied and advanced civilization which the last century inherited.

Then all at once, as it were, into and through this social and
industrial structure, so highly organized, so complex in character, so
vast in its ramifications, yet so adjusted and adapted to the fixed
limitations of animal power, was thrust the new mode of conveyance by
mechanical force, and the third stage of transportation was suddenly
ushered in by the employment of steam as its principal motive power. The
advent of this new and marvelous agency was the greatest and most
transforming event in the history of mankind. It wrought an immediate
and radical change in the elemental need of society, the means of
distribution. The primary function was altered both in essence and
relations. The conditions of commercial intercourse were abruptly and
completely altered, and a veritable new world of energy and opportunity
invited the conquest of the race.

As time goes, this revolution has been phenomenally rapid. But
yesterday, as it seems, and the first iron track had not been laid, and
even the idea of steam as an available motive power had hardly been
conceived; yet already, within the limits of an ordinary lifetime, long
lines of railway—which sprung into being as if born of enchantment—have
stretched out in every direction from one end of the land to the other.
They have bridged the rivers, penetrated the wilderness, climbed over
mountains and traversed the deserts with their highways of steel. There
is scarce a hamlet so remote as not to hear the shrill whistle of the
locomotive, and the clang of its warning bell is everywhere a familiar
sound. In the passing of a generation the railroad and the steamship
have transformed the whole realm of commerce, of industry and of social
life. They have enriched every occupation, given multiplied value to
every pursuit, added incalculably to the means of human enjoyment, and
made our vast wealth possible; they are at once the greatest achievement
and the greatest necessity of modern civilization.

It is little more than sixty years since the first steam road was
constructed, yet at this time, within the limits of the United States
alone, nearly 200,000 miles of railway are in active operation; and of
this immense mileage—enough to put eight girdles around the globe—fifty
per cent has been built in the last two decades and more than eighty per
cent since the close of our civil war, only thirty-seven years ago.
Elsewhere similar activity has prevailed during the same period, until
animal power the world over has been almost wholly displaced for the
purposes of transportation. Not only has the railroad become the chief
agency by which inland commerce is carried on, but its influence upon
all pursuits is so powerful, and its relation to every phase of activity
so intimate and vital, that its effects upon social welfare and
industrial progress present an inquiry of the gravest moment.

No other triumph over the forces of nature compares with this in its
influence upon human environment. It has directly and powerfully
affected the direction and volume of commercial currents, the location
and movements of population, the occupations and pursuits in which the
masses of men are engaged, the division of labor, the conditions under
which wealth is accumulated, the social and industrial habits of the
world, all the surroundings and characteristics of the associated life
of to-day. The world has seen no change so sudden and so amazing.

The next fact to be noted is hardly less remarkable. Not only are the
new methods of transportation incomparably superior in speed, cheapness
and capacity, but, unlike those which have been superseded, these new
methods are themselves capable of indefinite increase and expansion. The
maximum efficiency of an animal is so well known as to amount to a
constant quantity, and this unit of power is practically unchangeable.
Substantially the same thing is true of a vessel of given dimensions and
given spread of canvas. For this reason distribution remained, as I have
said, the one fixed and inflexible element to which other activities,
however elastic and progressive, were necessarily adjusted and by which
they were limited.

Now, a special and most suggestive feature of transportation by steam,
electricity or other kinds of mechanical force is that its capacity is
not only unmeasured and unknown, but will doubtless prove to be
virtually inexhaustible. That is to say, no certain limits can be
assigned to the operation or effect of these new agencies as compared
with those which have been supplanted. Therefore, speed may reach many
times the rate now attained, the size of vehicles may be greatly
increased and the cost of carriage for the longest distances reduced to
an astonishing minimum; so that, as progress goes on in developing the
means and methods of distribution, the habits and needs of men will be
more and more modified, with consequences to social order and the
general conditions of life which may be far greater than have yet been
imagined.

Among the results already realized, which directly forecast what will
further happen, some of the more obvious may be briefly mentioned. For
well understood reasons the speed and capacity of water craft are much
superior to those of vehicles drawn by animals, while the cheapness of
the former gives them a great advantage over the latter. While the old
conditions prevailed, the waterways were mainly relied upon for the
conveyance of bulky products. Commercial movements on land were, of
course, considerable, but the transfer of heavy goods, such as enter
most largely into ordinary consumption, was principally effected by
sailing vessels. Therefore, the fertile lands along the river-banks and
the indented shores of the sea were the first to be occupied for
agricultural pursuits, the exchange of produce for merchandise being
accomplished by water carriage. The great cities founded prior to our
time were for the most part located upon or near navigable streams while
the masses of population outside the towns dwelt within easy reach of
these natural channels.

But the building of railroads has often deflected and sometimes wholly
altered the routes of distribution. In our own country, for example,
notwithstanding it is penetrated by numerous rivers which flow,
generally speaking, from north to south, the great volume of traffic is
carried by railways running east and west across valleys and mountains.
Even where the rail lines are parallel with river courses they absorb
the greater share of freight and passenger movement. In short, the
routes of land transportation in all the principal countries of the
world have been largely recast in the last fifty years by the changes
from river to rail conveyance.

The next most noticeable effect, as it seems to me, is the prodigious
increase of commerce under the stimulus of modern agencies. It is
estimated by Mulhall that as late as 1820 the carrying capacity of all
the sailing vessels of the world—and there were then no others—did not
much exceed 3,000,000 tons; yet this is less than one-sixteenth of the
tonnage actually moved last year by the railroads of our New England
states. This astonishing growth in the quantity of transported articles,
and in so short a time, is sufficient to produce, as it certainly has
produced, the most important and significant results; since the fact
itself indicates a current volume of transport business compared with
which the commerce of our grandfathers seems like the idle play of
children. Because of this wonderful speed and cheapness of distribution,
the average prices of food, fuel, clothing, building material and other
necessary supplies have been greatly reduced, independent of the
standard by which prices are measured. And this cheapening of most
commodities has in turn brought a marked alteration, within a very brief
period, in the style of living, dress, home-furnishings and the like,
which makes the present conditions of life far more desirable and
attractive than ever was known before.

The effect of this cheap conveyance is also seen in the commonness of
pleasure travel, the extent of immigration, the spread of population
over new territories, and in all the employments and surroundings of the
people everywhere. The railway is not only the chief means of developing
uninhabited or thinly settled regions, but the same line may operate in
both sparsely and thickly populated districts, since an indefinite
number of trains can be moved on the same track. For instance, the
200,000 miles of railroads of the United States serve some 75,000,000
persons, distributed through an area, excluding Alaska, of more than
3,000,000 square miles; while in Great Britain about 22,000 miles of
railway serve at least 45,000,000 persons, located within a mainland
area of less than 117,000 square miles. Thus, in Great Britain as
compared with the United States, one-ninth as much railway mileage
reaches more than half as many persons, because of the density of a
population confined within a territory not larger than one-twenty-fifth
of the land surface of the United States.

Again, the railway at once causes the concentration of people in cities
and at the same time is the prime factor in the creation of cities. It
is impossible that such inland towns as Atlanta and Denver, for example,
could have acquired their present importance without the facilities for
carriage and intercourse which railroads provide. In 1870 nearly
forty-seven per cent of all our people employed in gainful occupations
were engaged in farming; while only twenty years later barely thirty-six
per cent were following that pursuit. And what is still more suggestive,
the recent census shows that more than one-third of our entire
population live in towns of 5,000 inhabitants and upwards, as against
less than seven per cent in 1830. That so great a change has taken place
in so short a time in the geographic distribution of our people can only
be explained by the potent force of steam transportation, while the fact
itself has a social significance which can hardly be overstated.

In the region west of the Alleghanies the railroad has been the pioneer
in opening up unoccupied lands for settlement, while the lines upon
which railroads were there built and the points they reached determined
the location and growth of numerous towns and cities in that great
section of country. On the other hemisphere, as is well known, a
wonderful railway is now pushing to completion across the vast stretches
of Siberia, a territory larger than the United States and Europe
combined, connecting the capital of Russia with the Pacific Ocean. The
consummation of that project cannot but have immense effect upon the
commerce, industries, social welfare and military power of a large
portion of the world’s inhabitants.

In connection with this should be observed the rapid increase in
stationary steam power which has been coincident with and primarily
caused by steam locomotion. Taken together they make up the colossal
forces now exerted in the fields of commerce and industry, in comparison
with which all the power of all the beasts of burden is hardly worth the
mention. And this in turn reminds us of the mutual action of production,
shipping and land transportation in producing the stupendous results we
everywhere observe. It is impossible that these gigantic agencies should
come into such active operation without the most vital consequences to
every phase of human life.

Take into account, also, the new and wonderful means of transmitting
intelligence. The obstacles of time and distance, hitherto so
formidable, are swept away by telegraph and telephone. We send our
thought and speech with lightning swiftness to the four quarters of the
globe, and hold all lands and peoples within the sphere of instant
intercourse. So recent is this miracle that we are still dazzled by its
marvels and fail to realize how powerfully it aids the unification of
world-wide interests.

That this substitution of steam and electricity as the instruments of
commerce has been an immeasurable gain is witnessed here and everywhere
by half a century of unparalleled progress. Along these modern pathways
the world has literally leaped. No longer tied to beasts of burden, the
entire realm of industry has been quickened and enlarged; productive
energy has been invigorated by new and limitless means of distribution;
the products of the whole earth are embraced in wide circles of
exchange; all the luxuries of all lands are brought to every household;
wealth has multiplied until we are almost surfeited with its abundance;
the genius of invention has been stimulated to larger exercise, the
sphere of thought grandly extended, the impulses of charity awakened to
nobler activity, while keener sympathy through closer contact is leading
the race to real brotherhood.

But these manifold benefits have not been secured without many and
serious dangers. The potent energy which produced such marvels of
utility and convenience has generated an array of forces which test with
severe strain the structure of organized society. So radical a change in
the methods of distribution, and consequently of production, was sure to
be attended with peril as well as beneficence, and to entail a series of
results, immense and far-reaching. Passing by the acute abuses which are
incident to the process of development, for they are transitory and must
gradually disappear, we may well consider the more profound and
permanent effects, what I venture to call the economic effects, of
present and future methods of transportation upon the whole range of
industrial activity. This brings into view again the impressive fact I
mentioned at the outset, and suggests some graver consequences than
those that appear on the surface and appeal to ordinary observation.

When transportation was measured by the strength and endurance of
animals, only a limited area could be reached from a given centre. Its
slowness and expense confined all inland distribution within narrow
bounds. Only eighty years ago it cost $125 to move a ton of freight from
Philadelphia to Pittsburg, and the average price for carrying the
necessaries of life was not less than twenty cents a ton for every mile
of haul. On such a basis most commodities were shut off from distant
markets, and farm products would seldom permit of conveyance more than
100 or 150 miles. Only such articles as were of small bulk and weight
compared with their value were moved to any considerable distance from
the place of production. For this reason the requirements of an ordinary
family were almost wholly supplied from nearby sources. And this
means—without amplifying the statement—that productive energy, for the
most part, was restricted by the consuming capacity of the surrounding
neighborhood. The forces outside each separate circle were but feebly
felt and had little influence upon its daily affairs. Broadly speaking,
the activities of each locality were adjusted to its own conditions and
were practically undisturbed by like operations in other places. What we
call competition was held in check by slow and costly means of
conveyance; its effects were moderate and limited, its friction seldom
severe.

But the use of steam for motive power and electricity for communication
increased enormously the range of accessible markets, and at once
intensified competition by the celerity and cheapness of distribution.
Industrial strife has already become world-wide in extent, and distance
an ineffectual barrier against its destructive assaults. For the
commercial factor of distance is not at all a matter of miles, it is
merely a question of time and money. The fact that the cost of moving a
hundred pounds of goods a single mile by wagon transports a ton of the
same goods by rail more than three times further is some indication of
the effect of cheap and rapid conveyance in bringing remote places
closer together. Our grandparents got their supplies mainly in the
localities where they resided and only a few persons were concerned in
their production. To-day it may safely be said that five millions of
people and five hundred millions of capital are directly or indirectly
employed in furnishing an ordinary dinner. When merchandise of every
description is carried at great speed from one end of the land to the
other, and at an average cost of less than three-quarters of a cent a
ton a mile, as is now the case, the expense of transport is but a
trifling impediment to the widest distribution.

Nor should we forget that it was the opening up of new and ever
enlarging markets, by the cheapness of steam transportation, which gave
the first opportunity for the extensive use of machinery; and this in
turn quadrupled the capacity of labor and greatly reduced the cost of
large-scale production. By this revolution in the methods of
manufacture—caused by the railroad and steamship—the mechanic was
supplanted by the operative, and the skilled and independent craftsman
of former days found his occupation gone. For what chance now have
hand-made articles when the factory-made product is carried across the
continent at nominal cost? But the factory without the railroad would be
only a toy-shop. If its wares had to be hauled over country roads by
mules and horses, the points they could reach would be few and nearby,
and thus contracted sales would limit the size of the plant and the
volume of its business. It is simply because transportation is now so
speedy, so cheap and so abundant that great establishments have become
profitable and driven their smaller rivals from the field.

These facts—which might be multiplied without limit—bear directly, as I
think, and with a force not fully perceived, upon the whole problem of
industrial competition. For, as the means by which industrial products
are distributed become more convenient, quicker in action and less
expensive, the area of distribution rapidly enlarges, and as the area of
distribution enlarges the competition of industrial forces increases in
something like geometrical ratio. The movement of property by rail in
the United States alone already exceeds three millions of tons every
twenty-four hours. Think of the rivalry of products, the strife of
labor, the strain and struggle of trade, which such a movement implies.
With the constant acceleration of that movement, which is certain to
happen, how long can the friction be endured? How soon will it become
unbearable?

When Adam Smith wrote “The Wealth of Nations,” it took two weeks to haul
a wagon-load of goods from London to Edinburgh, and such a thing as a
business or industrial corporation was virtually unknown. To-day the
great enterprises of the world are in the hands of corporations, and the
time is fast approaching when they will absorb all important
undertakings. Why? Simply because the railroad and the steamship—cheap
and rapid transportation, all the while growing cheaper and quicker—ever
widening the area of profitable distribution, furnish the opportunity,
otherwise lacking, for the employment of larger and still larger
capital. This opportunity permits and encourages the concentration of
financial resources; so that, within limits not yet ascertained, the
larger the business the greater its possibilities of gain. But the
legitimate, the inevitable offspring of corporations is monopoly. Why?
Simply because the operation of these massive forces—impinging and
grinding upon each other in every market—begets an extremity of mutual
danger which always invites and often compels a common agreement as to
prices and production; that is, a trust. Just as the implements of
warfare may become so devastating in their effects that nations will be
forced to live in amity, so the destructiveness and exhaustion of
commercial strife in these larger spheres of action may make combination
a necessity.

Thus the potent agencies by which distribution is more and more rapidly
and cheaply effected, which so unite and intensify the forces of
production, are fast altering the conditions and changing the character
of industrial development. And the end is not yet; it outruns
imagination. What will be the ultimate effect of these methods of
conveyance when brought to higher perfection and employed with still
greater efficiency? When these agencies of commerce are increased in
number and capacity, as they will be; when cost is still further and
greatly reduced, as it will be; when speed is doubled, as it will be,
and quadrupled, as it may be; when the whole United States shall have
reached the density of population now existing in Great Britain, how can
industrial competition possibly survive?

So, in the measureless and transforming effects of modern
transportation, and the ends to which it resistlessly tends, I find the
primary cause of the economic revolution upon which we have entered. The
incoming of these new and unfettered forces not only changed the basic
function of society, but disturbed its industrial order. In the effort
to restore a working equilibrium the gravest difficulties are
encountered, and we do not clearly see how they are to be overcome.
Already we are compelled to doubt the infallibility of many inherited
precepts and to reopen many controversies which our grandsires regarded
as finally settled. The ponderous engine that moves twice-a-thousand
tons across an empire of states, the ocean steamer that carries the
population of a village on its decks and the products of a township in
its hold, are indeed splendid evidences of constructive skill, but more
than this they are economic problems as well which challenge and dismay
the present generation. They force us to discredit the venerable maxim
that “competition is the life of trade,” and warn us, I think, that the
political economy of the future must be built on a nobler hypothesis. If
it be true in the long run, as I believe experience teaches, that where
combination is possible competition is impossible, is it not equally
true that combination becomes possible just in proportion as
transportation becomes ampler, speedier and cheaper? So the opportunity,
if not the necessity, for combination has already come in many lines of
activity and will certainly come in many more. The circumstance that
permits competition, its _sine qua non_, is mainly difference of
conditions. Practically speaking, this difference is chiefly found in
the means of distribution. As that difference disappears, with the
constantly diminishing time and cost of transport, the ability to
combine will enlarge and the inducement to do so become overwhelming.
That seems to me the obvious tendency of our industrial and social
forces to-day, and that tendency, I predict, will be more and more
marked as time goes on.

In the unrest and discontent around us, deep-seated and alarming here
and there, I read the desperate attempt to avoid the effects of
industrial competition and a tremendous protest against its savage
reprisals. Every trust and combination, whether organized by capitalists
or by artisans, is a repudiation of its teachings and a denial of its
pretensions. The competitive theory may have answered the age of mules
and sail-boats and spinning-wheels, but it fails to satisfy the
interlacing needs or to sustain the interdependent activities which are
founded on modern methods of intercourse and distribution; it is a
theory unsuited to the era of railways and wireless telegraphy, this era
of ours, so restless in thought, so resistless in action.

This, then, as I conceive, is the underlying question. Shall we continue
to enforce with precept and penalty the rule of competition, whose cruel
creed is “every man for himself,” or shall the effort and industry of
the world be hereafter conducted on a more humane and fraternal
principle? That is to say, is society—stripped of its polish and
altruistic pretences—is society after all only a mass of struggling
brutes fighting for the best places and the biggest bones, and is
government simply an armed referee standing by to see that every dog has
fair play? In short, is personal selfishness the ultimate force and
individual greed the bottom fact? For myself, I disbelieve the doctrine.
I am not terrified by the cry of paternalism nor dismayed by unreasoning
clamor at the dangers of monopoly. The trusts and the unions are here,
in money, in labor, in production and in distribution—they came with the
railroad and the steamship—and they have come to stay.

When population was scattered and sparse, when movement was difficult
and costly, when communities were isolated by distance and by
dissimilarity, and bonds of relationship were feeble and few, the
attrition of rivalry was complacently endured. But now, when seas are
spanned with steamships and netted with electric wires; when city and
forest, farm and factory, mine and counting-room are joined together by
innumerable pathways of steel, and the swift locomotive, rushing across
continents—like the shuttle through the loom—weaves this majestic fabric
of commerce which covers the globe; when life is no longer localized in
effort or achievement, and the thought of one man is the instantaneous
possession of all men, the friction of unbridled competition has become
irksome and intolerable. It is folly to shut our eyes to unmistakable
facts or to stand in the way of inevitable events. Doubters may deride,
demagogues denounce, and ignorant lawmakers strive to build up legal
barriers; but neither agitation, nor protestation, nor legislation can
stop the growth or prevent the advance of industrial federation.

I much mistake, therefore, if we are not entering upon a period of great
transitions, a period of difficulty and many dangers. The whole
structure of industry and social life is liable to be subjected to a
strain—possibly to a shock—for which experience furnishes no guiding
precedent. We have settled the administrative questions; we can collect
taxes, build court-houses and pay the policeman. We have settled the
political questions; for the nation lives and will live, the greatest
and grandest in all the earth. But the further test is now to come, the
test of the ocean liner and the limited express. Can we settle the
economic questions? Can we raise this wide realm of industry from
selfishness to charity, from strife to friendship, from competition to
co-operation, from the warring instincts of the savage state to the
larger and nobler needs of associated life? This is the problem which
steam and electricity present for solution.

Will there be a fourth stage and another revolution in the methods of
transportation? That is to ask, I suppose, will the puzzle of aerial
navigation find a practical solution? Whether it does, or whenever it
does, of this we may be certain, that the varied products of labor and
skill, the endless commodities that supply our ever growing wants, will
always seek their passage from producer to consumer along the routes of
least resistance. Therefore, it may happen, in some bright and wonderful
to-morrow, nearer to us perhaps than we imagine, that the stubborn land
over which our ponderous vehicles are now dragged will be abandoned,
even the liquid waterways discarded, and the vast commerce of the future
be borne swiftly and noiselessly through the yielding air. If that
marvelous day shall come, assuredly will it bring its harder questions
and press us with its weightier demands.




              II. Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration




                INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION

                      By HONORABLE MARCUS A. HANNA

                    United States Senator from Ohio


When I received the kind invitation of this society to come to this
meeting, I confess I did not know what I was coming to. I like to talk
upon practical things, and there is no subject to-day that is nearer my
heart than is this question of the relation between capital and labor.

The subject assigned to me was “Arbitration,” which I consider only
introductory in entering upon the discussion of a subject as broad as
the one under consideration this evening. The matter of arbitration
might be considered under two heads. Arbitration in business circles, by
business men, whom we may call employers or capitalists, if you please,
is one phase of it, but arbitration to settle differences between
employers and employees is an advanced stage of it. It is a progressive
form of arbitration.

To have success in conciliation, or arbitration, there must be thorough
and effective organization on both sides. The large aggregations of
capital, feared at first by labor, may prove to be labor’s best friend,
in that, control of a trade being thus centralized, there is opportunity
to establish friendly relations which shall make uniform conditions
throughout the country, or large sections thereof, and reduce the basis
of competition to the quality of the product rather than to the
concessions forced from labor.

The growth of sentiment for arbitration and conciliation has been
reflected in the legislation of the various states. While foreign
countries made the earlier attempts by legislation to promote the
formation of local boards of arbitration, some of the states of the
Union were first to establish permanent central bodies with authority to
mediate in labor disputes and to arbitrate matters referred to them.
Sixteen states have established such central boards, beginning with
Massachusetts and New York in 1866 and following, in succeeding years,
with California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana,
Minnesota, Ohio. Utah, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Michigan, Connecticut and
Indiana. These central boards usually consist of three members, an
employer, an employee and a neutral.

Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin seem to
be the only states within which tangible results have been accomplished,
doubtless due to the highly developed industries prevailing and the
frequency of labor disputes therein. In this as in all other matters of
enforcement of public laws, successful results depend upon the strong
impelling influence of an enlightened public sentiment.

The United States Government has established a method for arbitration
and mediation in strikes and lock-outs upon interstate transportation
lines, by virtue of its constitutional authority over interstate
commerce. The act of 1888 provided for a voluntary board, but had no
provision for enforcement of awards, and seems to have fallen into
disuse. In 1898 a new act was passed under the terms of which either
party to a dispute upon any interstate transportation line might request
the intervention of the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission,
and the United States Commissioner of Labor. These officers have no
specific authority to intervene on their own motion, but apparently have
the right to attempt conciliation even in the absence of an application
from either party. There has been no case of arbitration under the act,
so its effect in application is yet to be demonstrated.

The compulsory law of New Zealand has found no favor in this country.
The hearings before the recent Industrial Commission show that the
representatives of both employers and workingmen gave testimony against
compulsory arbitration. The employers object because, they claim, it
would be one-sided owing to the lack of responsibility on the part of
the workingmen, while the workingmen object because, they claim, it
would be manipulated to suit the employers, and, if enforcement carried
imprisonment, it would provide for a species of slavery intolerable in a
free country. Many state boards, however, while not advocating as a
whole compulsory arbitration, urge further legislation which shall
prevent public inconvenience and loss resulting from strikes and
lock-outs involving public service corporations and means of transit.

This condensed summary of the general features of the question brings us
logically to a consideration of the method or methods best suited to our
time and country. Since the great majority interested on both sides,
employer and employed, reject any system of arbitration which includes
compulsion in its composition, experiments must be along the line of
mutual concession and tactful persuasion. Such results may be hoped for,
and, perhaps, confidently expected in the system of mediation and
conciliation promulgated by the Industrial Department of the National
Civic Federation.

That brings me up to date. I do not propose to treat this question from
an academic standpoint, but to give an expression of my own experience,
having been a large employer of labor for more than thirty years, and
having studied that question from the standpoint of mutual interest. My
attention was strongly directed to this subject as far back as 1874, at
the end of one of the most severe and destructive strikes that ever
occurred in Northern Ohio, in the coal mines, long and protracted,
bitter and destructive. When it was over both sides had suffered, and it
occurred to me that there ought to be some other way to settle these
differences, and as a result of that we organized in Northern Ohio an
organization of employers, the mine owners, and the men organized what
was known then as the National Bituminous Coal Miners’ Association, the
first of that character ever organized in the United States. Their
constitution and by-laws provided that no strikes should occur until
every other effort in the right should fail, and the employers
covenanted that they would give hearings and consideration to any
committees sent to them by the union.

As a result, during the life of the organization on the part of the men,
there never was a serious strike. All differences, which with small
beginnings very often lead to disastrous strikes, were settled by the
employer and employee coming together with a proper spirit, with a
determination to do right. Upon that hypothesis I have been working ever
since, and from that day to this I have never had a serious strike.

The Civic Federation is the outgrowth of the evolution to which your
chairman has referred. This country has grown greatly. Our industries
have multiplied, and the opportunities for labor equally with it. Great
undertakings are claiming the attention of the people, and this question
of labor and capital has approached a crisis. This Civic Federation has
adopted a constitution and by-laws covering simply the methods of
procedure, and has also adopted a principle, and that principle is the
Golden Rule.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the great productive capacity of this country has
forced upon us the aggregation of capital and the creation of great
material wealth seeking opportunity for investment. This rapidly
increasing wealth must find investment, and to make the investment in
industrials secure we must have industrial peace.

The Civic Federation is beginning to lay the foundation for such
results, with the hope that it will appeal to the whole country and to
all classes of the people. We are simply placing before the American
people the opportunity to unite with us in the accomplishment of this
purpose, as necessary to our social conditions as to our industrial
conditions. Of course, it is not an easy task; the conditions in the
United States differ from those in any other country in the world. This
great cosmopolitan people, coming to our shores by thousands every year
from every country and from every clime, this coming together of all
classes and all kinds of people from the four quarters of the globe,
produces a condition of things not found in any other country. It is not
an easy matter to assimilate such a large number of foreign immigrants;
they do not understand our language, they are not abreast with the
education of a self-governing people; they do not understand our
institutions. Therefore, it must necessarily be a work of education, and
the Civic Federation is merely a nucleus to begin this educational work.

When I make the appeal to all persons and all classes in the United
States to join with us, I believe that in their hands ultimately rests
the future of that question. We may have arbitration and we may have
meetings of our conciliatory committees, but unless we have the sympathy
of the people, who in the end are the final arbiters on this question,
we cannot hope to succeed.

The Civic Federation is only two years old, and the Industrial Bureau of
the Civic Federation has been scarcely organized, but seven strikes have
already been settled in three months. It has prevented the occurrence of
two strikes which would have brought from the labor ranks more than two
hundred and fifty thousand people, and that has been accomplished, my
friends, by simply finding out to start with what the differences were,
and who were right and who wrong. When men get together with the
determination to treat each side of the question fairly, and when the
public feels that the men connected with this enterprise are thoroughly
acquainted with details, men of prominence in the country, well known
and well understood, and are men giving their time for the love of the
work and the good they may accomplish, the public realizes that it means
something.

In adjusting the relations of labor and capital, appeal must be made to
the sympathies of the people. Opportunities like this to-night must be
embraced to inform intelligent audiences of the character of the work to
be done and to give them an opportunity to contribute their mite and
influence to help the cause along. I know no city in the United States
where we can look for more aid and comfort than in this great industrial
centre of Philadelphia. Indeed, it was because of this that I was
induced to come here to-night and discuss this question of capital and
labor before people who in every day of their lives can put into
execution and effect the principles for which we are contending.

My experience has taught me, my friends, that the employer because of
his position has the most to do, and it must be expected that the
employers, at least in the beginning of this educational work, should go
more than half way. They provide work, and are responsible for the
conduct of business, and upon them rests the responsibility of seeing
that the men receive their share of its benefits. We must rise to a
higher level, where we can have a broader view of this question, where
we can tear ourselves away from the prejudices which have heretofore
stood between capital and labor.

I believe in organized labor, and I have for thirty years. I believe in
it because it is a demonstrated fact that where the concerns and
interests of labor are entrusted to able and honest leadership, it is
much easier for those who represent the employers to come into close
contact with the laborer, and, by dealing with fewer persons, to
accomplish results quicker and better.

The trusts have come to stay. Organized labor and organized capital are
but forward steps in the great industrial evolution that is taking
place. We would just as soon think of going back to primitive methods of
manufacturing as we would primitive methods of doing business, and it is
our duty, those of us who represent the employers, from this time on to
make up our minds that this question is one that must be heard.

You are well aware that there has been a tendency in this country, from
the very nature of things, to what is called socialism. Everything that
is American is primarily opposed to socialism. We talk about it and
regret that these conditions exist, regret that there are extremists who
are teaching the semi-ignorant classes labor theories, that proceed upon
the principle that liberty is license. This is a condition which must be
met. It is the duty of every American citizen to assume his
responsibilities in this educational work, and to assist any
organization which can correct these theories and these ideas. There is
no question concerning our body politic to-day that should command
deeper or more serious thought. There is nothing in the organization of
society in this country that can afford to permit the growth of
socialistic ideas. They are un-American and unnatural to us as a people.

In the beginning of this work I received great encouragement from an
address which Samuel Gompers made in Cooper Union Institute, in New
York, about a year and a half ago, when he took the broad ground that in
the interests of labor there was no room for the socialist or the
anarchist, no room for men who undertook to disturb the principles of
our society and government. When such words came from a man leading the
largest labor organization in the world, a man of advanced thought and
of honest intent, I knew that now is the time to strike, now is the time
to proclaim to the American people that in the consideration of this
question, which sooner or later must be forced upon us, we must consider
what is for the best interests of society as well as for our material
development.

If I can impress these principles upon the people of this country,
either by word or action; if I can hold the attention of the American
people away from all selfish and political interests long enough to have
them study and investigate this great question, I shall feel that of all
the efforts I have ever made to serve my country and society in any way,
that has been the best.




            THE LIMITATIONS OF CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION

                           By SAMUEL GOMPERS

                 President American Federation of Labor


The subject under consideration involves the difference between the
isolated bargain made by workmen acting as individuals and the joint or
collective bargain made by an aggregation of workers. The individual
bargain made by a workman with his employer is practically based upon
the condition of the poorest situated among the applicants for the
position, and the conditions of employment, accepted or imposed, are
fixed by the immediate and dire necessities of the poorest conditioned
worker who makes application for the job. The collective bargain is made
upon the basis of about the average economic condition or situation of
those who desire to fill the position.

The individual bargain is made at the entrance to the factory, the shop,
the mill, or the mine; the collective bargain is made usually in the
office of the employer.

When the period covered by the collective bargain has expired and the
conditions under which labor has been carried on for a specific period
become unsatisfactory to either or both, a conference is held and a new
agreement endeavored to be reached under which industry and commerce may
be continued. When there is failure to agree, a strike occurs.

The effort at best in the joint bargaining or in the strike is the
effort to secure the best possible conditions for the wage-earners. Much
as we deplore strikes and endeavor to avoid them, they are the highest
civilized expression of discontent of the workers in any part of the
world. China has no strikes. The people of India have no strikes, but in
the highest developed and most highly civilized countries strikes do
occur. In China, when discontent arises, we see it manifested in
revolution against constituted authority, the venting of prejudice
against the foreigner; the stiletto, the bludgeon, war brutality are the
manifestations of the discontent of the poor and of the workers of those
countries.

I am not here to defend strikes, nor to find an excuse for them, but
that we may more clearly understand the subject to which we are giving
attention, it may not be amiss to at least set ourselves right
concerning strikes. Our forefathers, when establishing our government,
wisely reserved to the popular branch of our federal government the
right to control revenue and expenditure, a right which had been
struggled for and secured by the House of Commons of Great Britain. The
strike of labor is in another form the holding of the purse-strings of
the nation, to protest against injustice and wrong being meted out to
the laborers. It is the determination of the workers that in the last
analysis, if there be no other means by which their rights may be
accorded and their wrongs righted, they may say with Lincoln, “Thank
God, we live in a country where the people may strike!” Nevertheless a
strike ought to be avoided by every means within the power of every man,
capitalist, laborer, or the neutral citizen, and he who would not give
his best efforts and thought to prevent a strike is scarcely doing
justice to his fellow-men, nor is he loyal to the institutions under
which we live. But I re-assert that there are some things which are
worse than strikes, and among them I include a degraded, a debased, or a
demoralized manhood.

Labor insists upon and will never surrender the right to free
locomotion, the right to move at will, the right to go from Philadelphia
to Camden or California, or vice versa, at will. To achieve that right
it has cost centuries of struggles and sacrifices and burdens. Laborers,
moreover, will insist upon the right freely to change their employment,
a right which they have secured through centuries of travail and
sacrifices. That right three-fourths of the nation was up in arms a
little more than forty years ago to achieve for the black man, and the
white laborers of America will not surrender that prerogative. Laborers
are aiming at freedom through organization and intelligence.

The Industrial Department of the National Civic Federation is
erroneously thought by some to be an arbitration committee, whereas the
first purpose is to endeavor to bring about a conference between
employers and employees before any acute state of feeling shall occur
relative to their diverse interests. If a rupture occurs, the committee
endeavors to bring about a conference so that arbitration may be
resorted to if both parties to the controversy shall so request.

As a rule, men do not care to refer matters in which they are
particularly and financially interested to what are usually termed
disinterested parties. They prefer to meet with those whose interests
may be opposite to theirs, and, each conceding something in a
conciliatory spirit, endeavor to come to an adjustment and agreement.

Unorganized workmen have a notion that they are absolutely impotent,
that the employers are omnipotent, almighty. This is typified in the
thought or expression, “What can labor do against capital?” Likewise the
employers of unorganized workmen usually regard themselves as “monarchs
of all they survey,” and brook no interference. If any workman has the
temerity to question the justice or sense of fairness of the employer or
the wages paid, he is dismissed and a strike frequently results.

No strikes are conducted more bitterly than strikes of previously
unorganized workmen. As soon as such men become desperate enough to
strike, they are transformed; they no longer believe the employer
all-powerful, but attribute to themselves that function and faculty; the
touching of shoulders brings a newfound power to their minds, of which
they never dreamed before, and they look upon their employers against
whom they went on strike as absolutely at their mercy.

The employers, in these cases, usually regard the matter of request to
be heard upon the question of wages, hours or other conditions of
employment, as dictation by their workmen; but whether the strike is won
or lost, if the workmen but maintain their organization, the initial
step has been taken for a joint bargain and a conciliatory policy in the
future. Both parties have learned a severe but a profitable lesson, that
neither party is impotent, and neither all-powerful. The organized labor
movement in our day is an assertion of the principle that there is no
hope that the workers can protect their interests or promote their
welfare unless they organize; unless they advocate conciliation to
adjust whatever controversies may arise between themselves and their
employers and declare for arbitration with their employers upon any
disputed points upon which they cannot agree. There are some who
advocate compulsory arbitration. I concur with Senator Hanna, who does
not believe in compulsory arbitration. Indeed, voluntary arbitration
cannot be successfully carried out unless both parties are equally
strong and powerful or nearly so. This is true between nations as well
as between individuals. Russia never arbitrated the question of the
nationality of Poland. England did not arbitrate the question with
Afghanistan, but simply bombarded her. England in her dispute with
Venezuela proposed to bombard her, and only when the United States said,
“Hold on, this is of very serious consequence to us,” did England
consent to arbitrate. There has never yet been in the history of the
world successful arbitration between those who were powerful and those
who were absolutely at their mercy. There has never yet been arbitration
between the man who lay prone upon his back and the man who had a heel
upon his throat and a sabre at his breast. Arbitration is possible, but
only when capital and labor are well organized. Labor is beginning to
organize, and when labor shall be better organized than it is to-day we
shall have fewer disputes than we have now.

Of the agreements made between employers and employed, two-thirds, if
not more, of the violations, of the failures to abide by the awards of
arbitrators, are on the part of the employers. But if it were not so, if
the awards were broken by either one or the other side or by both sides
in equal proportion, it would be better, it would make for human
progress and economic advantage, to have an award violated than to have
the award forced by government upon either one side or the other. The
employer if he chose could close his business, and that would mean his
enforced idleness. On the other hand, if the state entered and forced
workmen to accept an award and to work under conditions which were
onerous to him or to them, you can imagine the result. Men work with a
will when they work of their own volition, then they work to the
greatest advantage of all. On the other hand, if men were compelled to
work by order of the state, with the representatives of the state
entering with whip in hand or a commitment to the jail, it would create
a nation of sullen, unwilling and resentful workers; a condition that we
do not wish to encourage; a condition which would be most hurtful to our
industrial and commercial greatness and success. It is strange how some
men desire law to govern all other men in all their actions and doings
in life. The organized labor movement endeavors to give opportunities to
the workers so that their habits and customs shall change by reason of
new and better conditions.

We have our combinations of capital, our organizations and federations
of labor. These are now working on parallel lines and have evolved the
National Civic Federation. Through the efforts of men noted for their
ability, for their straightforwardness, noted for the interest they take
in public affairs, an effort is being made to bring about the greatest
possible success industrially and commercially for our country with the
least possible friction.

One of the greatest causes of the disturbance of industry, the severance
of friendly relations between employer and employees, is the fact that
the employers assume to themselves the absolute right to dictate and
direct the terms under which workers shall toil, the wages, hours and
other conditions of employment, without permitting the voice of the
workmen to be raised in their own behalf. The workers insist upon the
right of being heard; not heard alone at mass-meeting, but heard by
counsel, heard by their committees, heard through their business agent,
or heard, if you please, through the much-abused walking delegate. They
insist upon the right to be heard by counsel; the Constitution of our
country declares that the people of our country may be heard through
counsel. It is a saying in law, and I repeat it, though not a lawyer,
that he who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client. The organized
workmen have long realized this truism and have preferred to be heard by
counsel, and we say that the political and civil right guaranteed to us
by the constitutions of our country and our states ought to be extended;
the principle of it ought to be extended to protect and advance our
industrial rights.

One of the representatives of the Illinois Board of Arbitration recently
said to me that there were so many cases of employers who refused to
recognize the committees of the organizations of their employees that
the Board was in doubt whether it ought to name each individual employer
or simply group such employers together and give their number in round
figures. No man in this world is absolutely right and no man absolutely
wrong. If this be so, men ought, as organized labor has for half a
century demanded, and as the National Civic Federation has emphasized,
to meet in conference and be helpful in allowing common-sense and fair
dealing and justice and equity and the needs of the people to determine
what shall be the conditions under which industry and commerce shall
continue to advance until we shall be in truth producers for the whole
world.

The movement for which we stand tends to foster education, not only
among the workmen, but among the educated; for of all those possessing
crass ignorance and prejudice regarding industrial matters, the educated
man who takes his cue regarding the labor question from those who are
always opposed to the labor movement and who never takes the trouble to
find out the laborer’s side of the labor question, is in the most
deplorable condition.




   RESULTS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL CIVIC
                               FEDERATION

                      By HONORABLE OSCAR S. STRAUS


The contest between capital and labor is as old as the human race, and
very likely will continue as long as there is employer and workman.
Early in the history of our country, that rugged reformer, who stood for
much of the liberty we enjoy to-day, Roger Williams, said: “What are all
the wars and contentions about, except for larger bowls and dishes of
porridge?” That is putting the question in a very graphic form. This
struggle for the dishes of porridge is still going on, and unfortunately
very often through clash and strikes the dish gets broken and neither
side gets any of the porridge. We want to save the porridge; we want the
dishes to be so large that labor will get its full share, we know that
capital will take care of itself. In these industrial contests there are
other interests at stake than labor and capital—the general public,
greater in numbers than either of these. The Civic Federation believed
that if it organized a machinery which contained within itself the
representatives of both the laborers and the employers, and associated
with these two the representatives of the general public, it would have
the true basis for the solution of the labor question. You have heard
from capital and labor. I am here as the representative of the general
public.

The Industrial Department of the National Civic Federation is composed
of twelve men representing the employers, twelve men representing labor,
and twelve men representing the general public. At the head of these
three groups of the Civic Federation stand Grover Cleveland, Senator
Hanna, and Samuel Gompers. This is the only semi-public office
ex-President Cleveland has accepted since he retired from the office of
President of the United States. The purpose and the objects of the
National Civic Federation appealed to his heart. His acceptance and
co-operation have been to us a tower of strength and an inspiration for
our difficult task.

The Civic Federation feels there is a possibility of inaugurating a
great work, of promoting a better feeling and better relations between
the employers and the workmen, and thereby removing some of the chief
obstacles militating against industrial peace. We have been criticised;
peacemakers always are. I want to answer one or two criticisms that have
been made in reference to our organization. One of the misconceptions is
that the Civic Federation is a board of arbitration. Its purpose is to
mediate, to conciliate, and only in very exceptional cases, when
requested by both sides, to arbitrate between capital and labor. It has
been said that the existence of such a body would stimulate laborers to
threaten to strike or to strike or to make demands which otherwise they
would not make, with the hope that the subject might be brought before
this body, and that they might thereby gain concessions which otherwise
they could not hope to secure. It might as well be said that preventives
and curatives stimulate disease. It has also been stated that we promote
the organization of labor, and that organized labor stimulates strikes.
The Civic Federation’s platform or statement of objects distinctly
provided that its province would embrace _unorganized_ as well as
organized labor. The scope of the Federation is embodied in the By-Laws:

“The scope and province of this Department shall be to do what may seem
best to promote industrial peace and prosperity; to be helpful in
establishing rightful relations between employers and workers; by its
good offices to endeavor to obviate and prevent strikes and lock-outs,
to aid in renewing industrial relations where a rupture has occurred.

“That at all times representatives of employers and workers, organized
or unorganized, should confer for the adjustment of differences or
disputes before an acute stage is reached, and thus avoid or minimize
the number of strikes or lock-outs.

“That mutual agreements as to conditions under which labor shall be
performed should be encouraged, and that when agreements are made, the
terms thereof should be faithfully adhered to, both in letter and
spirit, by both parties.

“This Department, either as a whole or a sub-committee by it appointed,
shall, when requested by both parties to a dispute, act as a forum to
adjust and decide upon questions at issue between workers and their
employers, provided, in its opinion, the subject is one of sufficient
importance.

“This Department will not consider abstract industrial problems.

“This Department assumes no powers of arbitration unless such powers be
conferred by both parties to a dispute.”

The Civic Federation recognizes conditions and aims to improve them in
the interest of the public welfare. Railroad accidents do not argue for
the stage-coach, but that the railroad should be better constructed so
that accidents may be more and more eliminated. Education upon this
great question of labor and capital is not entirely confined to the
labor side. We have found in our short experience that education is
needed upon the other side as well, and if the Civic Federation succeeds
in bringing out a more conciliatory spirit on both sides and thereby
contributes to a better understanding of such principles as have been
laid down to-night by Senator Hanna and Mr. Gompers, it will be doing a
very great public service.

It will perhaps surprise some of you, I confess, that before I became
more familiar with this subject, I was agreeably surprised, to hear, in
the conferences recently held in the rooms of the National Civic
Federation, one of the most important officers of organized labor,
state, that he wished it to be understood, that organized labor does not
approve of sympathetic strikes, and that organized labor has come to the
conclusion that restrictions of output should not be permitted, as all
such efforts were uneconomical.

The chances for industrial peace in this country are greater than they
are in any other country. The fact that this conflict and antagonism
have existed and now exist in the countries of Europe, is no reason why
the same conditions should obtain in the United States, and the reason
is very evident. In the first place, we are not divided in this country
into permanently distinct classes. There is no fixed gap between the
laboring and capitalistic classes. The most successful capitalists in
this country to-day are men who have themselves risen from the ranks of
labor, men who have been the architects of their own fortune. The large
fortunes of to-day are to a great extent held by the men who achieved
them, and for that reason there is a natural and closer contact between
capitalists and laborers in this country than in any other. In America,
as a rule, the great fortunes are not as yet in the hands of the second,
third and fourth generations and are never likely to be to any
considerable extent.

I will refer but briefly to the work the Industrial Department of the
National Civic Federation has performed since its organization in
December last: The first contest that came up before it was the
threatened clothing cutters’ strike. This strike affected forty thousand
hands in the clothing trade. It was announced in October before the
organization of this committee, and was to go into effect on the first
of January. On our committee we had the chief representatives both of
the clothing cutters and of the manufacturers. A meeting was called of a
section of the committee of the Civic Federation, and when the two
chiefs of the rival interests came together, the trouble was
satisfactorily adjusted in the course of ten minutes. The next matter
that claimed our help was the Dayton Cash Register strike. It began nine
months ago, or more, and consequently before our committee was formed.
We were asked to mediate by the Cash Register people, and we are
gratified to state that that great trouble after we had been called in
was very speedily adjusted.

The third matter was the Union Iron Workers’ strike in San Francisco. It
began nine months ago, six months before our committee was organized.
Our committee was called in and the adjustment was largely, if not
entirely, due to our mediation.

A number of other questions have come before us; one was that of the
paper manufacturers; a general strike had been decided upon and we
brought the workmen and paper manufacturers together and they had a
conference, and as a result postponed the question of their differences
for further consideration.

Then there was the Boston’ Freight Handlers’ trouble. The Civic
Federation came into that upon the invitation of the Mayor of Boston and
the Massachusetts Board of Arbitration; and without arrogating to
ourselves too much credit, I think both of those bodies concede that we
were of material help in adjusting those difficulties.

The anthracite coal controversy has been before us. You know that the
springtime always produces a great many labor troubles. They are called
the spring crop of strikes. I do not know whether we can uproot all the
seed; in fact, I know we cannot. I think there has been rather less of
it thus far this spring than usual. Still the entire spring has not gone
by, and we cannot yet tell what may happen. At any rate, we have brought
together the leading coal operators and the leading representatives of
the coal miners; brought them face to face, and that is a thing that had
not been done before. They discussed their various grievances, and the
whole matter has been adjourned for a month in order that each side may
consider and deliberate.[1]

There are other important matters before us. We are happy to say up to
the present time, which we think is rather remarkable, we have as yet
had no failure to report.[2] I am proud to say this because I am afraid
in another year, should you have Senator Hanna and Mr. Gompers before
you, they may not be able to bear witness to so good a report. I will
say, however, that at the conference in December, where there were
present the representatives of two million organized laborers and of the
leading employers of the country, we were impressed with the desire of
these men to endeavor to find a common ground upon which they might
arrive at a better understanding. The representatives of labor in their
treatment of the subject were highminded and liberal in their views; I
think I am voicing the sentiments of everyone of my colleagues in the
Civic Federation when I say that such men as Gompers, Mitchell, Sargent
and Duncan have given every evidence of being conservative, patriotic
and considerate of the public welfare.

In conclusion, permit me to say that the powers of the Civic Federation
are entirely voluntary, and that its effective force is public opinion.
We can advise, endeavor to conciliate, remove misunderstandings, and
invite both sides of the controversy to come together and confer. We
cannot compel, except by the force of reason and public opinion. We may
invite to arbitration; we may upon request of both sides arbitrate.
Arbitration is a powerful weapon, and experience has shown that the side
in the wrong is the first to object, upon the ground, “There is nothing
to arbitrate.” That answer is itself a confession of wrong. It was
Penn’s famous maxim, “We must concede the liberties we demand.” If both
sides to this controversy will bear that maxim in mind, much trouble can
be avoided. That maxim implies that organization on the one side
justifies, if it does not compel, organization on the other side; and
each side must concede the rights which it claims for itself, and any
contest waged upon principles which conflict with such concessions the
public will not justify. The refusal to recognize conditions does not
change those conditions, and often embitters the relations that exist
between the respective sides. The mission of the Civic Federation is one
of peace, and like all peacemakers will doubtless, as time runs on, come
in for abuse and misinterpretation of its purposes. We are prepared for
this reward, and so long as we remain true to our mission, and that we
will so remain our membership is a guarantee, no amount of abuse will
cause us to flinch from the duty that is before us.




                   CO-OPERATION OF LABOR AND CAPITAL

                            By W. H. PFAHLER

                 National Association of Iron Founders


There is no subject of greater general importance before the world
to-day, none more simple in its character, and yet none so handicapped
by fanaticism, as that of the relation of employer and employee.

Remove the curtain between the two real parties to the controversy,
which is often held by men of selfish purpose on both sides, and you
behold two simple factors, the wage-payer and the wage-earner, each
dependent upon the other and both serving the same master, the great
consuming public, of which they are also equal and very important parts.

The wage-payer, being directly in contact with the purchasing consumer,
claims that he must have a result in production equal in every way to
the wages paid, while the wage-earner contends that he must have a wage
equivalent to his contribution in time, energy and skill, to the article
produced.

Every visible article of use, for food, clothing or shelter, of
necessity, luxury or culture, represents three component parts, and the
production of each such article depends upon the proper combining of
these parts, which are: 1st. Raw material. 2d. Capital. 3d. Labor.

Raw material, supplied by nature, is controlled only by the law of
supply and demand, except when by legislation the natural law is for a
time superseded, and it then becomes a matter of political action, in
which the entire community, except the few who are directly interested
in profit, join to abolish the corrupt legislation and restore the
natural condition. Raw material is, therefore, the basis of cost in
determining the price of every product to the public.

Labor, whether skilled or unskilled, engaged in the reduction of the raw
material to the finished product, is also dependent upon the law of
supply and demand to fix its value or wage; and any effort to change
this value brings the wage-earner in direct conflict with the consumer,
through his representative, the employer, whose duty it is to know, and
who usually does know, what proportion of the entire cost of any article
can be distributed in wage so as to retain the value of the article at a
price not in excess of the ability of the consumer to purchase, and yet
within limits which will prevent a more favored nation or district from
furnishing the same article in competition, and thereby cause idleness
for the wage-earner and loss to the employer.

Capital represents plant, machinery, transportation, interest, and all
the factors known as unproductive, and yet absolutely essential for the
combination of material and labor. Capital is usually, though not
always, the owner of material and the direct employer of labor, and
therefore must stand for the silent partner in the combination. What is
so frequently called a war between capital and labor is simply an effort
on the part of the wage-earner and wage-payer to determine what part of
the product of labor, as distinct from material, is represented in the
price to the public, and after deducting the proper charge for plant,
etc., how the balance, which is profit, shall be divided between the
employer and the employee,—or wage-payer and wage-earner.

The growth of prosperity in this country has always been in ratio to
increased production, and until a recent period such increased
production has been the direct result of the co-operation of the
wage-earner and the wage-payer. In the beginning of our commercial
history it was only necessary for one man to exchange the product of his
own industry for that of other men to obtain the necessities of life,
and then the results of labor were not measured by a unit of value or
wage, but by the amount of energy expended in production.

When the rapid growth of the country required greater productiveness,
and the enlargement of territory made necessary a change in the
distribution of the products of labor, the factory system was
introduced, whereby capital, or unproductive labor, was joined with
productive labor to accomplish greater results than had heretofore been
attained by individual labor.

This brought with it the employment of a number of wage-earners under
the direction of one or more employers, or wage-payers, and made it
necessary to determine the relation of one to the other, or rather the
share each should have in the division of profits.

All conflicts which have ever arisen between men upon any subject,
whether social, political or religious, have been based, not upon
difference in conditions really existing, but upon difference of opinion
as to the relation which existed between the parties to the conflict;
and strife, to a greater or less extent, has been brought into use to
determine such position.

An excess of power on one side or the other succeeded in establishing
for a time the opinion of the victor, but never removed the cause of
dispute; and so the organization of wage-earners into associations or
unions enabled them to establish from time to time, by power which they
never hesitated to exercise, such wages and conditions as in their
opinion were fair to them, but not always in accord with the condition
of supply and demand.

From their struggle arose the continual change of wages in ratio to the
power of either party, the employer lowering wages when by reason of
limited demand he could limit production, and the employee raising wages
when his services were in sufficient demand to enable him to do so.

The union was able in many cases,—I may say in all cases,—to enforce its
demands because of the combined power it could exercise against the
individual employer, and, as is usual in such cases, soon began to
exercise a power which was unnatural and unwarranted. The result of this
was the necessity of forming an organized opposition to their force by
creating an opposing force in the organization of the employer class,
and this brings me to the history of two organizations of this character
with which I have been closely identified during the past fifteen years,
and which have been successful in establishing a new basis of relation
between the employer and employee.

Fifteen years ago the industry in which I am engaged was in perpetual
conflict, involving three or four strikes or lock-outs every year,
causing great loss in time and money to employer and employee. Unable
longer to endure the strain, an association was formed of about fifty of
the leading firms engaged in the business, for the sole purpose of
defending the members against the unjust demands of their employees. It
was decided to create a large fund for the purpose of carrying on a
warfare against the union to which our men belonged. Within a year from
the organization a strike occurred which resulted in every member of the
Defence Association closing his shop, and the consequent defeat of the
union. A second strike occurred in which, after many weeks of severe
struggle, the union was again defeated by the united action of the
Defence Association. In the third year of its existence, the Defence
Association was invited by the officers of the union to appoint a
committee to meet a similar committee from their organization for the
purpose of discussing some plan by which strikes and lock-outs could be
avoided. Frequent meetings were held; many attempts at forming a plan
were abandoned, until finally it was agreed that all questions of
difference between any employer, member of our association, and his
employee, member of the union, should be referred to a committee of
three from each association for arbitration and that, pending such
action, no strike or lock-out should occur. As a result of this
agreement, during the past ten years no strike has occurred in this
industry, and every point of difference has been amicably adjusted by
conference. Each year a general conference is held, at which the wages
are fixed for the ensuing year, and such other changes as may be of
mutual advantage are adopted.

It is true that at first the members of local unions, led by some wild
agitator, would make a demand upon their employer, and, failing to
enforce the demand, would quit work; but the national officers of the
union would require them to return to work at once and await the usual
and proper means of adjustment.

The Arbitration Board is composed of an even number of men because then
an agreement when reached becomes unanimous, and a failure to agree
(although no such failure has ever occurred) will not result in the
enforcing of the opinion of either side by the decision of a third
party. We prefer rather to adjourn from time to time, under the
agreement to have no strike or lock-out, and let time and reason aid in
finding some common ground upon which we can agree. These agreements
made from time to time have been signed for the members of the union by
their officers, and it gives me the highest pleasure, as a tribute to
human nature, and in reply to those who deny the responsibility on the
part of workingmen to a contract, to say that in the history of our
organization no agreement has ever been violated in any manner.

The success of this organization led to the formation of a larger and
more powerful one, known as the National Founders’ Association, of which
I had the honor to be the first president. It required a long time to
convince many of the larger employers of men that the formation of such
an association was not dangerous, because in the negotiations it would
be a virtual recognition of the union; but we at last succeeded in
organizing with about fifty members.

Within six months the president of the union in which most of our men
are employed addressed a letter to our body requesting a conference to
devise a plan for conducting negotiations on lines similar to those of
the Stove Defence Association. This conference resulted in what has ever
since been known as the New York Agreement, which is as follows:

  _Whereas_, The past experience of the members of the National
  Founders’ Association and the Iron Molders’ Union of North America
  justifies them in the opinion that any arrangement entered into that
  will conduce to greater harmony of their relations as employers and
  employees will be to their mutual advantage; therefore,

  _Resolved_, That this Committee of Conference indorse the principle of
  arbitration in the settlement of trade disputes, and recommend the
  same for adoption by the members of the National Founders’ Association
  and the Iron Molders’ Union of North America on the following lines:

  That, in the event of a dispute arising between members of the
  respective organizations, a reasonable effort shall be made by the
  parties directly at interest to effect a satisfactory adjustment of
  the difficulty, failing to do which either party shall have the right
  to ask its reference to a Committee of Arbitration, which shall
  consist of the presidents of the National Founders’ Association and
  the Iron Molders’ Union of North America or their representatives, and
  two other representatives from each association appointed by the
  respective presidents.

  The finding of this Committee of Arbitration, by a majority vote,
  shall be considered final so far as the future action of the
  respective organizations is concerned.

  Pending adjudication by this Committee of Arbitration there shall be
  no cessation of work at the instance of either party to the dispute.

  The Committee of Arbitration shall meet within two weeks after
  reference of the dispute to them.

  This agreement to go into effect Monday, March 4, 1901.

Occurring at a time when we were passing from extreme depression to a
revival of business activity, when there was an enormous demand for good
workmen, when wages were moving upward and when strikes were of almost
daily occurrence in every industry, this agreement was observed in
letter and in spirit, and, as a result, both employer and employee
enjoyed industrial peace and prosperity.

Because of a failure to agree on certain demands made by the union,
which would have resulted in reduction of production, a strike was
commenced in the city of Cleveland by the union about two years ago,
which lasted over seven months and cost upwards of a million dollars,
but at the end resulted in a conference lasting some days, in which both
parties to the conference agreed to prevent a recurrence of warfare and
united in an agreement which marked greater progress in the labor
situation than had ever been reached before.

The resolution was as follows:

  _Whereas_, The N. F. A. and the I. M. U. of N. A., through their duly
  accredited representatives, at a joint conference held in Detroit,
  Mich., June, 1900, each formulated a declaration of principles to
  which they still adhere and which they have been unable to harmonize
  after careful consideration; and

  _Whereas_, The consensus of enlightened opinion points to conciliatory
  methods and the principles of arbitration as the most desirable and
  equitable policy to be pursued when disputes arise between any
  employer and his employees; and as this is a policy to which both the
  N. F. A. and the I. M. U. of N. A. most heartily subscribe, they
  entered into an agreement, the one with the other, since known as the
  New York Agreement, by virtue of which their representatives have been
  enabled to meet and harmoniously discuss important matters affecting
  their mutual interests, and to endeavor to settle them in accord with
  the more enlightened and equitable policy referred to; and,

  _Whereas_, These efforts have discovered the fact that wide
  differences of opinion, upon certain vital and essential principles,
  exist between the members of the N. F. A. and the I. M. U. of N. A.,
  which their representatives have hitherto failed to harmonize by the
  method provided in the New York Agreement, thus seriously endangering
  the high purposes to which they stand committed, and in one instance
  leading to a serious conflict between the members of the two
  associations in an important section of the joint jurisdiction; be it
  therefore

  _Resolved_, That it is the earnest opinion of this Joint Conference
  Committee, composed of representatives of the N. F. A. and the I. M.
  U. of N. A., that agreement upon the essential points of difference
  can only be secured by the slow evolutionary processes begotten of
  friendly intercourse and the more intelligent understanding of mutual
  interests, which time and the influences of education alone can bring.
  And be it further

  _Resolved_, That we hereby reaffirm our adherence to the New York
  Agreement, whose beneficent provisions we will continue to invoke,
  until by joint agreement we are enabled to reach a more defined code
  of conciliation and arbitration.

The National Founders’ Association now numbers nearly 500 members,
having a combined capital of over $400,000,000, and employing nearly
30,000 molders and more than 100,000 workingmen in other departments,
and is daily adding to the number because the manufacturer has seen that
it is the best—in fact, the only—method of dealing with organized labor.

On the other hand, the labor organization, recognizing the strength and
fair dealing of the employers’ association, is from time to time so
modifying its plans and methods as to make it possible to work in
harmony with the employer, and together secure results for both that
have heretofore been impossible.

This brief history enables me to declare not only as a conviction, but
as an axiom, that there is a common ground upon which the wage-payer and
the wage-earner can safely unite to form a community of interest in the
great industrial problem, and that negotiation for the adjustment of
their several interests can be conducted without strife, to the mutual
advantage of both.

The history of all associations of manufacturers formed for the purpose
of establishing and maintaining just and fair business relations between
their employees and themselves, proves beyond doubt that better results
can be obtained in this way than in any other.

Following the conference resolution adopted at Cleveland, the first
agreement entered into as a result of the conference involves so many
points of imaginary difference between employer and employee, and shows
the possibility of arranging even the smallest difference by conference,
that it is worthy of, careful study by both the employer and employee.

This agreement was made in the city of Philadelphia, March 4, 1901, is
still in force, and I believe has never been violated by either party to
the contract.

    _Agreement between the National Founders’ Association (on behalf of
      its Philadelphia members), and the Iron Molders’ Union of North
      America (on behalf of its Philadelphia members)_:

  Article 1. In view of the fact that there has been an agreement
  entered into at the recent conference in Cleveland, Ohio, between
  representatives of both associations, on the question of equitable
  wage rates for molders, and in view of the mutual understanding that
  there is to be a further conference on the subject within a reasonable
  time—as may be agreed upon by the presidents of the respective
  associations—for the purpose of further perfecting the details
  regarding the regulation of wages of molders;

  It is agreed that the temporary agreement, entered into July 16, 1900,
  shall be null and void, and that the agreement herein contained shall
  supersede the above-mentioned temporary agreement.

  Art. 2. The iron molders, members of the Philadelphia Union of the
  Iron Molders’ Union of North America, agree to withdraw their demands
  that the foundrymen of Philadelphia should operate their foundries
  under the rules and regulations of the union.

  Art. 3. In accordance with the national agreement, entered into at the
  recent conference in Cleveland, on the regulation of molders’ wages,
  the foundrymen of Philadelphia who are members of the National
  Founders’ Association, and the molders of Philadelphia who are members
  of the Iron Molders’ Union of North America, agree to the following
  wage scale:

  The standard minimum wage rate for bench and floor molders who have
  learned the general trade of molding shall be twenty-seven and
  one-half (27½) cents per hour, or sixteen dollars and fifty cents
  ($16.50) per week of sixty hours, it being understood that when a
  molder has completed his work before regular shop-closing time such
  time shall not be deducted in computing the week of sixty (60) hours.

  Art. 4. The standard minimum wage rate shall be subject to the
  following DIFFERENTIALS:

  1. The young man who has completed his apprenticeship, and who, by
  reason of his mechanical inferiority or lack of experience, or both,
  in either branch of the trade of molding, shall be unfitted to receive
  the full wage rate provided for above, shall be free to make such
  arrangements as to wage with his employer for a period mutually
  satisfactory as may be agreeable to himself and employer.

  2. The molder who, by reason of his physical incapacity or physical
  infirmity, cannot earn the standard minimum wage rate, is to be free
  to make such arrangements as to wages as may be mutually satisfactory
  to the employer and himself.

  3. There being in some foundries a grade of work calling for less
  skill than is required by the ordinary molder, this grade of work
  being limited in quantity, it is agreed that nothing in this agreement
  shall be construed as prohibiting the foundrymen from employing a
  molder to make such work and paying for same at a rate that may be
  mutually agreed upon between the molder and the foundryman. It is
  understood that a molder who is working for and receiving a rate of
  wages of twenty-seven and one-half (27½) cents per hour or over, is
  not to be asked or expected to make the grade of work referred to
  above for any less wage rate than he is regularly entitled to under
  this agreement. This does not give the molder the right to refuse to
  make the work if it is offered to him at his regular wage rate.

  Art. 5. It is agreed that nothing in the foregoing shall be construed
  as prohibiting piece or premium work, and when it is desired on the
  part of the foundryman that his work shall be done under the piece
  work or premium system, it is agreed that the wages of the molder
  shall be based so that he may earn a wage not less than if working by
  the day. This is understood as applying to molders who are competent
  to do an equal amount of work and of equal quality to the average
  molder in the foundry in which he is employed.

  Where the foundryman and molder cannot agree on the piece price for a
  certain piece of work, the foundryman is to have the work done by the
  day for a period of a day or more, according to the nature of the
  work, in order to establish a fair and equitable wage rate on the work
  in question.

  It is further agreed that nothing in this agreement shall be construed
  as preventing a molder from agreeing with his employer on a piece
  price as soon as he is given a pattern.

  Art. 6. Time and half-time shall be paid for all overtime, excepting
  in cases of accident or causes beyond control consuming not more than
  thirty (30) minutes; and double time for Sundays and legal holidays—to
  wit: Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas. It
  being further understood that when foundries do not make a practice of
  running beyond bell or whistle time and are occasionally late, the
  “give and take” system shall apply in all such cases, it being further
  understood that both sides should show a spirit of fairness in
  adjusting matters of this kind.

  Art. 7. Arbitrary limitations of output on the part of molders, or
  arbitrary demands for an excessive amount of output by the molders on
  the part of the foundryman, being contrary to the spirit of equity
  which should govern the relationship of employer and employee, all
  attempts in that direction by either party, the molder or foundryman,
  are to be viewed with disfavor and will not receive the support of
  either of the respective associations parties to this agreement.

  It being further agreed that the wage rates specified herein are to be
  paid for a fair and honest day’s work on the part of the molder, and
  that in case of a molder feeling that a wrong has been done him by his
  employer and that his treatment has been at variance with the terms of
  this agreement, he shall first endeavor to have the same corrected by
  a personal interview with his employer, and, failing in this, then he
  shall report same to the proper channel of his local union for its
  investigation. If there is any objectionable action on the part of the
  molder which is in conflict with this agreement or the spirit thereof,
  then the employer is to endeavor to point out to the molder where he
  is wrong, and, failing in this, he may discharge the man for breach of
  discipline, or else retain him in his service and submit the case to
  the National Founders’ Association for investigation.

  In order that there may be no misunderstanding as to the wages a
  molder is to receive under the above agreement, it is understood that
  a molder must agree with the employer on the rate of wages that he is
  to receive at the time he is engaged; it being further agreed that
  neither the molder nor the foundryman is to deviate from the terms of
  this agreement as to wages or deportment.

  Art. 8. In conformity with the agreement adopted at the recent
  conference in the city of Cleveland, the National Founders’
  Association and the Iron Molders’ Union of North America deprecate
  strikes and lock-outs, and desire to discourage such drastic measures
  among the members of their respective associations.

  It is therefore agreed that all unfair or unjust shop practices on the
  part of molders or foundrymen are to be viewed with disfavor by the
  Iron Molders’ Union of North America and the National Founders’
  Association, and any attempt on the part of either party to this
  agreement to force any unfair or unjust practice upon the other is to
  be the subject of rigid investigation by the officers of the
  respective associations; and if upon careful investigation such
  charges are sustained against the party complained of, then said party
  is to be subject to discipline—according to the by-laws of the
  respective associations.

  And it is further agreed that all disputes which cannot be settled
  amicably between the employer and molder shall be submitted to
  arbitration under the “New York Agreement.”

  Art. 9. When the words “employer” or “foundryman” are used, it is
  understood that their foremen or representatives may carry out the
  provisions of this agreement and act for them.

  Art. 10. It is further agreed that nothing in the foregoing shall be
  construed as applying to operators of molding machines who have not
  learned the general trade of molding, and the right of a foundryman to
  introduce or operate molding machines in his factory shall not be
  questioned.

  Art. 11. This agreement shall continue in force to July 16, 1901, and
  thereafter to June 3, 1902, and to continue from year to year, from
  June 3, 1902, unless notice be given on May 1 of any year by either
  party to this agreement signifying their desire to change or modify
  the conditions of this agreement.

  And it is further agreed that should any agreement be reached by a
  conference of representatives of the National Founders’ Association
  and the Iron Molders’ Union of North America upon the question of wage
  rates for molders, and in conflict with the terms of this agreement,
  that a conference of the parties hereto shall be called immediately to
  conform the terms of this agreement to those of the national
  agreement; otherwise this agreement is to continue in force as above
  provided.

In England, several years ago, the great strike of engineers involving
75,000 men, and extending over a period of six months, was finally
settled by conference between the representatives of the associated
employers and representatives of the several unions, and resulted in an
agreement which established harmonious relations between both parties,
and has ever since prevented strikes or lock-outs.

In Belgium, in 1899, a lock-out, probably the greatest which has ever
occurred, involving almost every industry, shutting out more than 50,000
men, and extending over a period of seven months, was only settled after
the employers discovered to their own great advantage that matters can
be arranged more satisfactorily when the representatives of organized
capital confer with the representatives of organized labor. The result
of their conference was the removal of all obnoxious demands and the
adjustment of wages and conditions of labor upon an equitable basis,
embodied in an agreement now in force and held equally binding on
employer and employee, the result of which was, in England as in the
examples cited in this country, the elimination of strikes and
lock-outs.

A review in detail of the results accomplished by the methods of
conference and conciliation, in these cases referred to, would require
more space than can be used in this paper—but warrant the following
conclusions:

First.—That labor organizations are the natural result of a great
movement in the business world which is replacing costly competition
with profitable co-operation, and are formed primarily for the
protection of their members, upon the theory that collective bargaining
for the sale of their labor is more profitable than individual contract.

Second.—The accomplishment of their object requires labor organizations
to secure the membership of the largest number of persons employed in
any kindred trade, and (because voluntary advancement of wages rarely or
never occurs) to demand a change in wages and betterment in conditions
whenever it appears that the need for their labor is in excess of the
supply, and therefore warrants such demand. Labor organizations are
necessary also to resist collectively any movement on the part of the
employer which would result in injury to the workingman.

Third.—Whenever labor organizations by reason of false leaders have made
unfair demands or established conditions which were unfair to the
employer, it has been because of the use of collective force against the
individual employer, and this has been defeated whenever the employers
have organized similar associations for their own defence.

Fourth.—That strikes for advance in wages and improvement of
condition—occurring, as they do, during a period of prosperity—usually
succeed, while strikes for recognition of the union, usurpation of the
rights of the employer or against the reduction of wages almost
invariably fail in their purpose.

Assuming that the employer is governed by honesty of purpose in dealing
with labor, and that the employee is equally honest in his desire to
give worth for wages, the organization of both parties must slowly but
surely remove force as the means of securing results, and cause a resort
to reason and conciliation as the best means to accomplish the greatest
value for both.

There are two great obstacles which prevent the substitution of these
means of settling the labor question at present, and which must be first
removed before better conditions can be realized.

On the part of the employer there is the refusal (usually sentimental)
to recognize the union, and the determination to destroy it. He forgets
that his effort to destroy the union presupposes his recognition of it,
else he would be fighting a nightmare, while the recognition in fact
would enable him to learn its scope, purposes, and plans, and by
co-operation secure a valuable ally instead of an unreasonable enemy.

In the use of the word union, I desire always to be understood to refer
to such organizations of workingmen as are conducted along reasonable
lines and are led by representatives worthy of the best element
composing the membership, who formulate their demands in harmony with
known business conditions and control their movements within the lines
of law and order, because when they assume any other condition they are
simply mobs, and deserve only the condemnation of every worthy citizen.

The obstacle on the part of labor is the effort to establish the idea
that recognition of the union implies more than the agreement to make
collective bargains between employer and employee at such times as a
change in business conditions demands or permits, or to insist that it
conveys the right to enforce rules and methods in the conduct of the
business without the consent or co-operation of the employer.

To remove these obstacles and establish a condition of harmony and
mutual prosperity, the employer must not forget that wage-earners have
formed powerful associations for the purpose of advancing and protecting
their interests, and have delegated their individual power to, and
placed their confidence in, the officers of their unions.

That these officers are in many cases far above the average of their
craftsmen, and their highest ambition is to better the condition of
their fellow-workmen.

That the aggressive methods of labor unions are very frequently caused
by the determination of the employer to destroy them, without giving
them a chance to be heard in their own defence.

That in the conduct of business involving large investment for plant,
and the employment of a large number of men, able management is required
to secure the best results from machinery and power, but good government
is necessary to secure the highest efficiency of men, and the best
government is that which is founded on the consent of the governed.

That responsibility for the performance of such an agreement as should
exist between employer and employee cannot be measured by legal or
financial standard, but can be safely based on individual integrity, and
in this I have found that a very large majority of the workingmen in
this country hold an agreement which is made for them by the officers of
their union as binding them in every sense of the word.

That the organization of associations of employers in kindred branches
of industry tends to uniformity in method of regulating the employment
of men, and at the same time affords protection against the demands
which may be unfair or the strife which may be instigated by unwise
leaders of organized labor.

The employee must not forget:

That the right to be a union man implies also the right to be a
non-union man.

That no honest employer can discriminate between the men in his employ,
or recognize the right of any body of men to determine whom he shall
employ.

That the effort to establish a minimum rate of wage, if based upon the
lowest standard of efficiency, destroys the earning power of the more
competent workman and lowers the standard of all.

That the effort to limit production is false in principle, and can only
succeed, if at all, when the demand is in excess of the supply, and when
it succeeds, it causes the creation of methods and machines which
supplant the skill of the mechanic and bring into competition a lower
grade of labor at a lower wage.

That the effort to create a monopoly by attempting to retard the
privilege of the American boy to acquire a trade is destructive to the
best interests of a progressive nation.

That the laws, rules and methods of labor unions must be changed to
conform with present conditions, if the union hopes to be recognized as
a factor in the adjustment of the labor problem.

That the right to strike, or refuse to work, under certain conditions,
does not involve the right to prevent others from working, if the
conditions are satisfactory to them, and involves responsibility for all
the damage that may arise.

That the standard of wage cannot be measured by the standard of time
employed, or energy expended, but by the results attained.

These, and many other differences which might be enumerated, are the
causes which make for strife and dissent, and prevent the harmony which
should exist for the mutual benefit of both classes. These differences
can only be removed or harmonized by honest and intelligent conferences
between the employer and employee, and to bring about such conferences
is the purpose and aim of the National Civic Federation. The success of
the effort promises, for the employer, the markets of the world; for the
employee, continued and increasing profits; for the country, industrial
peace and better citizens.




    HARMONIZING LABOR AND CAPITAL BY MEANS OF INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSHIP

                          By ALEXANDER PURVES

                 Treasurer, Hampton Institute, Virginia


In this age of business supremacy, when trade has become the leading
science and merchandising an art; when sentiment is being pushed aside
by the forward rush of commercialism, and expediency seems to be
successfully competing with morality; when one is almost persuaded that
the Church itself, to survive, must be conducted with business sagacity,
one is compelled to acknowledge the futility of urging any plan for the
reformation of the existing relations between capital and labor with
serious hopes for its present consideration and possible adoption,
except the same shall be able to prove its principles to be in accord
with good business policy.

There are those who believe the danger to vested interests is increasing
proportionately with the ever growing average of intelligence on the
part of the wage-earners and that the former will eventually be
overwhelmed by the latter to the demoralization of both unless capital
anticipates and averts the danger by securing end maintaining a hearty
co-operation of the working classes through a substantial acknowledgment
of the just claims of enlightened labor to an enlarged share in the
product of the two.

It seems reasonable to assume that with the advance of civilization and
general intelligence, some means must be found for the treatment of the
whole matter of the return for services rendered, that shall be more
progressive and more humane in character than the present basis of
supply and demand. As Prof. Gilman says—“We must acknowledge that the
wages system, viewed in its simplest form of time wages, does not supply
the necessary motives for the workman to do his best.” To which we may
add, that neither does it appeal to his sense of right nor to his theory
of justice.

The first advance towards a change must be made by the masters, and any
movement for a revision of the existing system must take form in an
apparent concession on the part of vested interests. The apparent
indifference and complacency with which the dominant class regards the
whole matter is most regrettable. The leaders in reform should adopt
some plan whose successful operation would commend itself—from a
business point of view—to the many masters. That is to say, whatever is
done in that direction, let it be done primarily because it is _just_
and right. Then if it can be shown to be profitable to capital, so much
the better. Such a demonstration would be invaluable, not so much by
reason of the resulting increase in the incomes of the leaders in the
movement, as that such a fact would make probable the extension of the
system into other enterprises where such an incentive would have the
stronger influence.

The successes, moderate though they have been, which have generally
attended the introduction and operation of profit-sharing plans in
various forms, should encourage further developments and extensions of
that system in the broadest manner possible, without, however,
introducing or permitting any features that would embarrass the
administration or weaken the personnel. As the successful manufacturers
of the present generation are largely those who have found ways to
utilize the by-products and the power which had theretofore gone to
waste, so the successful masters of the future must be those who shall
find some means of harmonizing the demands of capital and labor, thus
saving and utilizing that large percentage of human energy which is now
worse than wasted in the continual contention, passive or active,
between the working classes and vested interests. Apart from every other
element of advantage, can there be any question as to the increased
_physical_ capacity and staying powers of a man when led on in hopeful
expectancy rather than when driven on by physical necessity?

It is justly claimed that in many instances the wage-earners would not
be benefited by a distribution in cash of a percentage of the profits,
that they would fritter it away either foolishly or with lack of
discretion. There is nothing to which the average family can adjust
itself so easily and with such alacrity as to an increase in income.
Could we but save the wastes of carelessness, the losses from strikes
and lock-outs, and to these add the enlarged profits resulting from a
broader co-operation and greater physical ability to produce, then
capitalize and conserve all of these for the benefit of those who in
each case have contributed their proportion—either in capital, brains or
labor—to the enlarged success of the enterprise, we would have placed
within reach better homes, better clothing, better food, better schools,
and have taken a step forward which should inspire individuals of both
classes with higher ambitions for a larger and better life.

“Prosperity sharing,” strictly speaking, does not go, far enough,
because it limits the amount awarded to labor to a small percentage of
the real profits. The share must be small because “adversity sharing”
does not accompany profit-sharing. In all fairness the share of labor in
the margins of the business should be of such proportions that justice
to all would make it alike a sharer in losses as well as in gains. By
this we do not mean to say, when losses occur, that labor should
contribute actual money to make good any portion of the impairment. Such
a proposition would be impracticable and impossible. The share of labor
in the surplus profits—that is, after the payment of standard wages and
a just return to capital for its simple use—should be upon a most
liberal basis, and any and all impairments suffered in years of
adversity should be made good out of subsequent surplus earnings (in
which, except for such impairment, labor would have been a sharer)
before wages shall again be entitled to any further dividends.

Amongst the various schemes that have been put into operation in those
concerns which have endeavored to make their employees sharers in the
profits of the business, the most familiar plan is that of offering to
wages a dividend on the total amount thereof, at the same rate of
percentage as is paid on the par value of the capital stock. This
proposition is unfair, since in most industries the capital stock
amounts to several times the total of the annual pay-roll. After the
first adjustment upon that basis, the incentive to labor to strive for
larger results is almost insignificant, since the share of wages in the
subsequent increased earnings would, where the capital is equal to say
four times the annual pay-roll, amount to only one-fifth of the increase
in net earnings, the other four-fifths thereof going to capital.

Other institutions have established a custom of presenting to their
employees annually a sum of money equal to a certain percentage of their
salaries. But this extra income soon becomes as much a matter of wages
as the weekly or monthly pay-roll, and little real good is
accomplished—the employee is still working for _fixed_ wages. There is
something in the make-up of a man that cannot be wholly satisfied, no
matter how secure it may be, with a definite agreement that he shall
receive a certain fixed sum of money for a given amount of work, however
liberal the compensation may be. There is a positive satisfaction in
having a pecuniary interest in an enterprise where the financial return
is not definitely restricted and known in advance, even though there may
be as an accompaniment some danger of a loss.

Any attempt to satisfy the craving of labor for justice will fail if
handicapped by paternalism. A man must be acknowledged a man. His sense
of independence and self-respect must be strengthened and not crushed.

Furthermore, a man is not satisfied to have even a part of his just
earnings expended for him. Company kindergartens, company libraries,
company churches are doubtless very estimable in their way and are doing
much good. They are a step in the right direction and most valuable in
the practical demonstration which they offer that it pays capital to
improve the conditions and surroundings in which the operatives live.
But those who are to enjoy these institutions should not be allowed to
feel that they are under any obligations to the owners thereof. Rather
they should be given to understand that a certain definite percentage of
the net earnings of the enterprise would be expended for the public
good—not as a benefaction, but as a just due—giving to the operatives,
as far as possible, the administration and management of such company
institutions.

Some manufacturers believe that if their employees can be induced to
purchase homes adjacent to the mills the labor problem has been solved.
From the manufacturer’s point of view the plan is attractive. An
employee who puts the hard-earned savings of years into a small
dwelling—generally situated in a community wholly dependent upon the
local mill of his employer—doubtless ties himself up very effectually to
the enterprise, but whether he is attached by his loyalty to and
affection for the concern, or is held by the self-welded fetters of a
money investment is an open question.

The actual value of an investment in any business is based primarily
upon the security—the consideration of the rate of interest being
secondary to the safety of the investment. This is recognized by the
great exchanges where all manner of stocks and bonds are bought and
sold. These compel the frequent publication of the earnings and general
business of those corporations that desire to have listed any of their
issues of securities. No one can say with truth that public knowledge of
the affairs of any such corporation has imperiled the proper operation
and legitimate success of the enterprise. On the contrary, experience
has proven the wisdom of such a course from every standpoint—the public
is better protected in its investments of capital and such corporations
are given a standing in the financial world not accorded to those who
keep their affairs secret and guarded from the public view. We are
compelled to infer that the negative action on the part of these latter
concerns is prompted by one of two reasons: either they are striving to
secure a higher credit rating than that to which their actual condition
would entitle them, or, more probably, that they fear their percentage
of net profits is larger than public sentiment would regard with favor.
It would seem in either case that the interested public is morally
entitled to frequent and intelligible information regarding all
corporations which owe their very existence to the public consent.

What is true of corporations is true of individual partnerships as well.
To let the interested public have knowledge of the true state of affairs
would doubtless be very distasteful to all classes of masters. And yet
it is not difficult to imagine that conditions still less agreeable may
confront the masters if the demands for justice to wage-earners are
ignored. Would not the publication of figures covering the assets,
liabilities and earnings (or losses) place all business upon a firmer
foundation and exert a helpful influence on the adjustment of profits
between capital, brains, skill and labor? Is the withholding of truth an
established virtue and the publication of truth a dangerous experiment?
And finally if the introduction of profit-sharing into a business
necessitates the publication of the earnings of the business, would it
not be fair to ask the few masters to make that concession to the
interests of the many workers?

Business organizations are composed of two classes—those who own and
control and those who operate and produce; or rather those who
contribute their money and those who contribute their lives. We are not
aware of any moral law that denies that the man who makes his
contribution of flesh and blood in work be it in stoking a fire, running
an engine, operating a type-writer, selling goods or driving a truck—is
justly entitled to as full a knowledge of the pecuniary result of his
labor as the man who merely loans capital to the operation.


The following principles may be set down as sufficiently well
established to be used as a basis for working out plans for the reform
of prevailing relations of labor and capital:

(a) That whenever there is sufficient confidence on the part of the
employees a direct or an indirect dividend to labor is a good investment
for capital.

(b) That with an actual dividend-earning interest in the business every
participant would be prompted to individual efforts: 1st. Towards
accomplishing more work in a given length of time. 2d. In the saving of
waste. 3d. In seeking and suggesting improvements in the manufacture and
in the conduct of the business looking to the advancement of the general
welfare. 4th. In that it would naturally become the self-imposed duty of
every employee to challenge a co-worker for laziness or upon the
commission or omission of any act through which a loss to the business
would be the likely result; and, therefore,

(c) That capital in business is best secured when every employee is
pecuniarily benefited through the enlarged success of the enterprise.

It is a false theory that capital shall not accumulate, or that the
return upon it shall be restricted within definite limits. There must be
allowed to capital the opportunity for enlarging returns in the
development of new enterprises—a chance to earn more by risking more.
Otherwise there will be no incentive for its broader operations and its
usefulness will be restricted. That capital is accumulated in the hands
of the comparatively few is not, generally speaking, an accident, but
rather that fact is a strong indication that those who control it are
the men best qualified to hold it intact and make it most productive.

Besides the elements of capital and labor, the matter of brains or
business sagacity must be recognized as an indispensable factor in
business and must be reckoned with. The peculiar ability that a certain
small percentage of men possess to conduct modern business ventures at a
profit is of great value, is always in urgent demand and must be well
paid for. Like everything else it will naturally seek for itself the
best market and will generally go to the highest bidder. There can be
little doubt that the neglect to recognize and properly care for this
element as essential to success has been largely the direct cause of the
many failures of purely co-operative ventures. Brains must be paid for.
Sagacity must have its reward.

Amongst the many obstacles which confront any effort to arrive at some
fair basis for the introduction of profit-sharing institutions, probably
the most prominent is the difficulty of establishing a satisfactory
system for calculating and treating the profits and losses of the
business so as to avoid the element of suspicion on the part of the
employees as to the fairness of the bookkeeping employed in arriving at
the basis for the division to them provided for in the agreement. Many
honest efforts of employers to introduce plans for a distribution
amongst the employees of a percentage of the net profits of the business
have been defeated solely by reason of the inability of the management
to overcome the distrust on the part of the wage-earners in the
bookkeeping, it being a simple enough matter so to treat the accounts of
profits, losses, depreciation of plant and receivables, that the
percentage actually due the employees under the agreement may be cut
down or entirely obliterated at will. The plan of having a direct
representative of the employees (of the watch-dog order) in the
management is neither desirable nor logical. There may be individual and
isolated cases of perfect faith and trust on the part of labor towards
capital, but as a business proposition in the present stage of our moral
development there must be something more tangible than the mere verbal
assurances of the owners, endorsed by an accounting under their
direction.

It is with the aim of presenting a plan for meeting in a measure this
difficulty, and at the same time outlining a scheme which should operate
to the mutual advantage of both capital and labor without compromising
the security of vested interests, but rather strengthening it, that the
suggestions herein contained are submitted—the basic principle being
that the encouragement of righteous ambition with a well-grounded hope
for future prosperity must surely develop the best there is in the
wage-earner with benefit both to himself and to capital as the
inevitable result.

In considering the proportion of the net profits which should be paid
out in cash dividends to capital for its use, it may (at least for the
sake of presenting this argument) be counted fair to assume that in the
average legitimate enterprise the withdrawal of say 60 per centum of the
actual net earnings would be the _limit_ of safe business policy and
that the remainder of such earnings should be kept in the business for
the purpose of extending the enterprise and the more securely protecting
the investment.

As an outline for a plan for the proposed adjustment in a concern
already established, the proposition is that a binding agreement shall
be entered into, which shall provide for the payment of the regular
standard of cash wages to all employees of the concern, including the
officials and management—and shall likewise name a definite amount which
shall be determined to be a just and fair annual return to capital for
its simple use; not, however, exceeding say 60 per cent of the average
established net earnings; that the agreed amount shall be paid annually
(in quarterly or half-yearly instalments) as a dividend upon the common
stock of the corporation _cumulatively_; that it shall be especially
understood that the company by a two-thirds vote of its common
stockholders may issue for needed additional capital preferred stock;
that the prior right to subscribe to such preferred stock shall be
pro-rated one-half of the issue to the holders of common stock, and the
other one-half to the holders of the debenture books (hereinafter
particularly set forth) in proportion to the par value of the respective
holdings; that wages shall be a first claim upon the assets, and that
the dividends to capital stock shall have the first claim upon the net
earnings, and that they shall be cumulative at a rate fixed by
agreement; that after the payment of such dividends as a _first charge_
upon the net profits of the business, 20 per cent of the net profits
then remaining shall be set aside in a contingent fund (to be hereafter
specifically referred to) and that the balance of the annual net profits
still remaining shall be held in the business—but, one-half thereof for
the benefit of the stockholders and the other one-half for the employees
(under certain restrictions and agreements to be explained presently).

It will be readily seen that the above treatment of the annual net
profits would continue the accumulation in the business of the surplus
earnings in excess of the regular cash dividends, and so increase, as
now, the security of the original investment and (as hereinafter shown)
in no way diminish or endanger the present power of the stockholders to
control the management of the concern.

To accomplish this, it is proposed that after the regular cash dividends
have been paid to capital and the said percentage set aside for the
contingent fund, annual stock dividends shall be declared covering the
amount of the surplus earnings which are to be held in the business;
that the certificates issued therefor shall be in the nature of
_deferred stock debentures_ which shall have no voting power and shall
be subordinate in every respect to the common (and preferred) stock of
the concern, both as to dividends and principal, so that said deferred
stock debentures shall not be entitled to any dividend or interest
whatsoever except when earned during the then current year, and not
until after the dividends upon any preferred stock shall have been paid
or set aside, nor until the said agreed sum (equal to 60 per centum of
the established average net earnings) shall have been paid out, or set
aside for the dividends upon the common stock and said contribution made
to the contingent fund; that the said deferred stock debentures shall
receive dividends at a rate not exceeding 6 per cent per annum when
earned in the then current year, and in no sense shall said dividends be
cumulative; that in the event of liquidation or dissolution, the common
(and preferred) stock shall be paid in full before any payment shall be
made upon the said deferred stock debentures, but said deferred stock
debentures shall then receive all of the assets remaining after the
payment in full of the preferred and common stock and of all outstanding
indebtedness; and that the said deferred stock debentures shall always
be subordinate to the general creditors of the company.[3]

These deferred stock debentures shall all be issued to a
trustee—one-half thereof to be held in trust for the benefit of the
common stockholders, and the other one-half shall be considered as
_extra wages_ and shall be held by said trustee for the benefit of the
employees. Cash dividends on all deferred stock debentures, when
declared, shall be paid to said trustee, who shall disburse the
same—one-half thereof to the holders of the common stock pro rata, and
the other one-half to the employees in proportion to the respective
amounts standing to their credit on their debenture books (hereinafter
described).

That is to say, for illustration, that if the capital of the concern is
$1,000,000 and the net earnings for the past several years have averaged
$200,000 per annum,—60 per cent of such earnings, or $120,000, would be
the amount agreed upon as the annual cash dividend to capital
represented by the common stock,—that 20 per cent of the balance of such
earnings, or say $16,000, would be the amount to be paid into the
contingent fund, and that at the end of the first year of the operation
of the plan the balance, or sum of say $64,000, would be held in the
business, but that deferred stock debentures to cover said amount would
be issued to the trustee—$32,000 to be held for the use of the
stockholders, and $32,000 as extra wages to be held for the employees.
At the end of the second year after the payment of the dividends to
common stock and the percentage to contingent fund, a dividend would
then be declared upon $64,000 of deferred stock debentures, and for the
balance of the net profits still remaining another issue of deferred
stock debentures would be made to said trustee; and so on from year to
year.

The effect of the above arrangement being that after the payment of all
cash dividends to common (and preferred) stock, and the setting aside of
the said percentage to the contingent fund, the surplus earnings then
remaining—representing the surplus assets of the company—would be
capitalized in the form of deferred stock debentures and held in trust
for the joint interests of the original owners (or their assigns) and
the employees—it being especially provided that should the company at
any time or times prefer to pay the amount of surplus earnings in cash
directly to the stockholders and the holders of the debenture books
instead of issuing the deferred stock debentures therefor, it shall have
the right and option of so doing.

Each year the amount of the deferred stock debentures to be issued to
the trustee as wages shall be calculated as above outlined, and the
percentage thereof in which each individual employee is interested shall
be determined by the proportion that his wages for the year shall bear
to the whole salary list for that period. This amount then shall be set
down in his debenture book, and upon this sum he will be entitled to
receive through the trustee (when earned) dividends not exceeding 6 per
cent per annum, non-cumulatively and subject to certain limitations set
forth in and made a part of his debenture book as hereinafter
particularly set forth. The fees of the trustee for the above and all
other services to be charged to the general expense account of the
concern. The said trustee shall be entitled to full statements of the
condition of the company at any time, and at all times shall have access
to the general books of the concern.

A debenture book shall be issued to each employee, and shall contain a
full statement of the conditions upon which the same is issued, and
shall be signed by each of the respective holders thereof in evidence of
his understanding thereof and agreement thereto. Each debenture book
shall be numbered, and the age, nationality, sex, etc., of the employee
shall be stated therein. It shall provide among other things:

(a) That no employee shall be entitled to participate in these extra
wages until he shall have been for one year in the continuous employ of
the company.

(b) That the debenture book may be redeemed by the company at its
option, at any time upon the payment of the total principal sum or sums
therein set forth.

(c) That nothing therein contained shall in any way limit the power of
the management in the control of the business, and that their authority
to employ and discharge any employee shall not be limited in any way
whatsoever, but shall be left entirely to the discretion of the board of
directors and that under no circumstances shall the issuance of said
debenture book entitle the holder thereof to any voice in the management
of the business.

(d) That in case of losses in the business in any year or years, the
impairment thereby caused shall be made up either (first) out of
subsequent profits, or (second) out of the contingent fund, or both, and
all accumulated dividends upon the common and preferred stock shall have
been paid in full before the holder of the debenture book shall be
entitled to any dividends.

(e) That the individual named in the debenture book shall, after all
impairments have been made good and all dividends on the common and
preferred stock due and in default, as above set forth, have been paid,
be entitled to receive, through the said trustee, dividends, when
earned, at a rate not exceeding 6 per cent upon the total of the amounts
therein set forth, but in no sense shall the dividends upon the
debenture book be cumulative.

(f) That said debenture book shall not be redeemable during the life of
the employee named except at the option of the company.

(g) That in case of the death of the holder thereof, the same shall form
a part of his estate and shall be convertible into cash at its par value
within thirty days, upon application to the company, and the same shall
be paid for out of and held by the contingent fund when the balance in
said fund will so permit, otherwise to be paid for out of the general
funds of the company and held in the treasury.

(h) That said debenture book shall not be transferable without the
consent of the company.

(i) That it shall be especially understood and agreed that all
calculations of profits and losses of the business shall be left
entirely to the discretion and best judgment of the board of directors,
and that their decision upon these and all matters touching the question
of depreciation of plant, amounts charged to profit and loss, valuations
and inventories, and all other matters affecting the business and policy
of the company, shall be final, and from whose decision there shall be
no right of appeal.

(j) That the “net earnings” of the concern shall comprise the amount of
the profits of the business after deducting all losses and charging off
an agreed percentage in the valuation of the plant account for
depreciation and any other items of doubtful value, at the discretion of
the board.

(k) That in case the holder thereof shall make or attempt to make any
assignment of all or any part of his interest as set forth in said
debenture book, the same shall, at the option of the company, be
immediately forfeited as liquidated damages for violation of this
contract, and shall revert to and be held as a part of the said
contingent fund.

(l) That these debenture books may be attached by the company for any
indebtedness due to it, in any department, by the holder thereof.

(m) That the company reserves the right to issue for capital account
preferred stock with cumulative dividends, which new issues shall in
every particular outrank all issues of deferred stock debentures; it
being provided, however (as above set forth), that the holders of these
debenture books shall have the prior right to subscribe, pro rata, to
fifty (50) per cent of any and all of said new issues of stock.

The amount to be set aside to the contingent fund shall be paid in cash,
and may be invested in legal and marketable securities. This fund shall
be held in the first place to make good to the company any excessive
business losses that cannot be met out of the current profits of the
concern. It will also purchase at par the debenture books of deceased
employees; and any accumulation of income therein shall be used as a
basis for sick benefits, etc., upon such a uniform plan as the amounts
thereof will warrant, the disposition of the available income for that
purpose to be placed as largely as practicable in the hands of the
employees.

The proposition is that the above treatment of profits shall be
continued annually from year to year, so that at the end of the second
year of its operation—after the payment of the regular cash dividends
upon the common (and preferred) stock out of that year’s net profits and
the payment into the contingent fund—the dividend on the deferred stock
debentures shall be declared and paid upon the amount thereof held by
said trustee; and for the remainder of the surplus earnings for the
second year another issue of deferred stock debentures shall be made to
said trustee, one-half for the use of the common stockholders and the
other half as extra wages to be held for the use of the employees, and
that the amount thereof to which each employee is entitled to credit
shall again be determined as above set forth, and shall be entered in
the respective debenture books and added to the amounts of the previous
similar credit, and so on from year to year, it being provided as above
set forth, that in case the company could not make advantageous use of
this increase of capital it shall have the option of disbursing the
amount in cash direct to the employee and stockholders.

Could the masters manipulate the bookkeeping so as to fleece the
employees of the percentage of profits to which they were actually
entitled? The writer believes that this could not be, and for the
following reasons:

(a) It will be seen that under the plan as suggested, whatever action
the management might take regarding the valuation of the assets and
calculation of the annual profits, its decision would bear equally upon
the interests of the stockholders and of the employees.

(b) If the management is overly conservative and the actual surplus
assets are thereby cut down, the stock dividend to the trustee,
representing both the employees and the stockholders, would be _for that
year_ unduly diminished; but such action could make little or no
difference in the final result, as the actual surplus assets would still
be intact, and if not shown in one year would surely appear in another.
So that beyond a delay in the division thereof those in control of the
bookkeeping would be powerless to discriminate against the employees,
and as already shown an unfair settlement would bear equally upon
capital and labor. Then, too:

(c) There could be little or no object in such an attempt, as it is not
intended that the surplus, whatever the amount may be, shall be
withdrawn from the business and distributed, but that the whole of the
same shall be retained in the business (so long as it can be used
advantageously), and under the plan as outlined all of these surplus
earnings shall be capitalized and subordinated to the original
investment and thus acting practically as a guarantee fund to protect
and secure the same; and, again,

(d) It is a part of the plan that all employees, from the lowest form of
unskilled labor to the highest salaried official, shall be sharers in
the dividend to wages. Under such an arrangement it would be practically
impossible for the owners to equivocate or to treat the question
unfairly.

It will be generally conceded that the universal publication of the
assets and liabilities of all business enterprises would greatly
simplify and proportionately stimulate trade. With the added security
against losses that such a system would assure, a liberal extension of
credits would be the natural and a safe outcome. It is more difficult,
however, to meet the question as to what effect the publication of the
earnings, debts and resources would have upon the credit and general
business of a _single_ concern when in direct competition with others in
the same class which continued to hold to the system of secrecy. It is
clearly impossible to make a conclusive statement concerning this
question. Whether the publication of accounts by one concern would work
to the advantage or disadvantage of its secretive competitors seems
wholly problematical. So far as we can see, however, indications point
with some confidence to the ultimate success of that concern which does
not conceal that of which their creditors of a right should be informed.

Regarding the probable effect upon the general business of the concern,
it seems reasonable to claim that the liberal and just treatment of the
employees will surely appeal to the public at large and that the
advantage gained through the profitable influence that such action will
have upon the concern’s constituency, especially among the buying
public, would largely overbalance any possible disadvantage that could
come as a result of the exposition of figures regarding the condition of
its affairs.

As to the effect on credit when the published earnings show a decrease
in profits it is still difficult to do more than surmise, though if the
liabilities of the enterprise are made up more and more each year in a
growing percentage of subordinated income-debentures we believe the
publication of decreased profits would not operate towards the
impairment of its credit, and certainly not until the losses became so
extensive as to imperil the solvency of the concern—in which latter case
it seems clear to us that little can be justly said in support of the
custom of concealment.

Would the plan of letting the employees generally become part owners of
the concern place them in a position to give trouble to the management
of the enterprise, and would they not soon demand, as stockholders, the
right to a voice in the direction of its affairs and in the shaping of
its policy? On the contrary, it is urged:

(a) That with the proper and timely guarding of the interests of the
original investment through sufficient, clear and undeniable limitations
upon the rights and powers carried with the issues of deferred stock,
such issues could not be used to the detriment of vested interests, but
rather:

(b) That such a pecuniary interest in the enlarged success of the
business would act as a guarantee of loyalty to the management and as an
incentive to the employees to further the legitimate business of the
concern, and:

(c) That the employees with a money investment in the enterprise, if for
no higher reason than the instinct of self-preservation, would realize
the value and necessity for harmonious and sympathetic co-operation
between the capital, brains and energy of the concern.

Would capital be benefited by the operation? We claim without
reservation that it would—and for the following reasons:

(a) That the net profits of the business would be largely increased
through the reduction of friction; the larger incentive of labor; the
increase in the physical capacity of the workers to produce; the saving
of useless waste; and through the absence of strikes and lock-outs; as
in all of such increase in net profits the capital would be an equal
sharer with its employees.

(b) That the true loyalty and support of all employees would greatly
strengthen the security of the capital in the business and
proportionately add to the real value of the investment.

(c) That where adverse legislation may be easy of accomplishment when it
attacks the interests of one man or a small body of men, it would be
quite a different matter where the interests of all employees are
involved.

(d) That the surplus profits would not be paid out and distributed, but
would be held in the business, subordinated to the claims of the
original investment, and so very materially adding to the security
thereof.

(e) That with a property interest in the business the tendency of the
operatives to shift from one concern to another without real purpose
would be reduced to the minimum, and that the consequent advantage to
the management would result in a distinct gain in the stability of the
business.

Would such a plan when perfected succeed? If it would increase the
productivity of the workers, if it would tend to elevate character, to
develop a greater loyalty to the concern and help to change an operative
from an automaton into a man, if it would strengthen the security of
vested interests and narrow the gulf between wealth and work, and
finally, if it would be in the direction of righteousness and justice,
it must finally succeed. It cannot be expected that at first the
introduction of such a scheme would be received by the operatives with
enthusiasm. It would only be through the medium of their more
intelligent leaders that they could be assured of its benefits, and only
after several years of successful operation could we expect it to
receive the unqualified support of the workers. When, however, their
capitalized extra wages show an accumulation and they begin to receive
annual cash dividends upon the surplus earnings of previous years, we
may be reasonably assured of a decided change of sentiment in its favor.

In the meanwhile the masters would do well in avoiding undue antagonism
to labor organizations _per se_, so far as the large body of
wage-earners is concerned, the benefits of profit-sharing are still to
them unproven, while the trade union has in many ways demonstrated its
usefulness in protecting the interests of its members. Whether it does
more really to help the best interests of the worker than to hinder, may
be an open question. However this may be, certain it is that the
institution is strongly established in the mind of the workman as his
strongest friend, his one means of expression and his only hope of
material salvation. In its reverses as well as in its successes his
heart will remain loyal to his union, until he shall have been furnished
a substitute which has proven to him its larger usefulness.

In view of the increasing tendency to incorporate business, this paper
has treated the question as it relates to organized capital. It is
nevertheless clearly true that the same general situation obtains in the
strictly partnership concerns and that the principles herein suggested
could be the more readily applied in such cases, especially as the power
to act is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals who have no one
else to consult.

In such a case it is suggested, in place of the issue of the deferred
stock debentures, that the surplus net earnings—after the payment of the
agreed interest to capital, and the assignment in cash of the percentage
to contingent fund—shall be credited to a “mutual reserve fund” which
fund shall take the place of the proposed trustee in a stock company,
and shall be entitled to receive dividends (or interest) upon the same
terms and subject to the same limitations provided for the deferred
stock debentures, and that said fund shall be held for the joint and
equal benefit of capital and employees—the respective interests of the
employees to be entered in a pass-book similar in terms to the debenture
books herein particularly described.

The plan briefly outlined is offered as a suggestion. Doubtless every
point made can be improved by modification or substitution. If it
influences in a small degree more earnest thought on the part of those
in whom the power is vested, towards the formation of a comprehensive
plan looking to a more reasonable division of the product of all and a
fuller acknowledgment of the humanity of man, its purpose will have been
accomplished.




                        III. The Housing Problem




  TENEMENT HOUSE REGULATION—THE REASONS FOR IT—ITS PROPER LIMITATIONS

                         By ROBERT W. DE FOREST

          Tenement House Commissioner of the City of New York


When Theodore Roosevelt, then Governor of the State of New York,
attended the opening of the Tenement House Exhibition of the Charity
Organization Society of New York, and looked over the models of
tenements, old and new, and the charts which showed the close connection
between the housing of the vast majority of that city’s population, and
health, pauperism and crime, he said to the few of us who had organized
this exhibition—“Tell us at Albany what to do, and we will do it.” The
result was the New York State Tenement House Commission of 1900, the
enactment last year of the most advanced code of tenement house laws as
yet put in force in any American city, and the creation for the first
time in this country of a department directly charged with the oversight
of the construction and proper maintenance of tenement houses.

The tenement house problem we had to meet in New York was the most
serious of any city in the civilized world, for in New York, according
to the last census, out of 3,437,202 inhabitants, 2,273,079, or more
than two-thirds, lived in tenement houses, and there were 82,652 of
these tenements in the city.

The interest in this particular phase of the housing question is not
confined to New York. No one who has followed, even carelessly, public
opinion on this subject can fail to realize the hold it has upon the
public conscience. It may be that some tremble at the effect upon their
own fortunes of a possible social revolution, and seek to protect
themselves, for their own sake, by trying to make what they call the
lower classes more comfortable in their homes. But the large body of men
and women in this country who are giving to this subject attention, are
doing so from love of their fellow-men, and an earnest desire to give
them in their homes some of the healthful surroundings and comforts they
enjoy in their own.

There are few large cities in America in which there is not some
tenement regulation, and some agitation for its extension. At the moment
there is an active movement in Boston for the appointment of a
commission to frame a new code of tenement house laws for that city.
There is a similar movement in Chicago and in Cincinnati. Nor is this
activity confined to the larger cities. Kansas City in the West,
Hartford in the East, Yonkers, Syracuse and Rochester in New York, are
already moving in the same direction, and the subject is receiving close
attention in Washington, Cleveland and Pittsburg.

The New York law of last winter was a state law applicable to all cities
of the first class. It included Buffalo as well as New York, and Buffalo
did its full part in securing the enactment of the law. Philadelphia is
emphatically the City of Homes, and not of tenements. Fortunately for
Philadelphia, its working classes are almost exclusively housed in
single family dwellings. It has, as most of you know, an admirable code
of tenement house laws, which has proved very useful to us at New York
in preparing ours, and it has its Octavia Hill Association to advance
the cause of housing reform.

In some quarters benevolent people are proposing to build model
tenements. That is good as far as it goes, but if at the same time other
people, not benevolent, who have no motive but gain for themselves, are
permitted to build tenements which are not models, the extent of
progress is very limited. What we must do, first and foremost, is to
secure proper legislation, using that term in its broadest sense, to
include city ordinance, as well as state law. Legislation to regulate
building, so as to secure for new buildings proper air and light space
and proper sanitation; legislation to regulate, in buildings old and
new, their maintenance so that health conditions may be improved and at
least not be impaired; legislation, moreover, that provides the means
for its own enforcement, by proper inspection.

Most of us have been brought up to believe that, as owners of real
estate, we could build on it what we pleased, build as high as we
pleased, and sink our buildings as low as we pleased. Our ideas of what
constitutes property rights and what constitutes liberty are largely
conventional. They vary with time and place. They are different in
different countries. Liberty, proper liberty, to-day, may, under
changing conditions, become license to-morrow. I came home from Europe
not long since with a French friend, who had gone home to his native
country to take possession of his ancestral estates. He told me of
having found the trees grown up quite thickly around his father’s
country home, and of the difficulties he had encountered in obtaining
permission from the public authorities to cut down some of them, which
was finally only granted on condition that he replanted elsewhere. That
his trees could only be cut down with the consent of the public
authorities, and that he could properly be required to replant elsewhere
as a condition of obtaining that consent, seemed to him a part of the
eternal order of things. He no more questioned it in his mind than we,
who live in cities, question the propriety of obtaining from the city
building department a permit to build, based upon approval of our
architect’s plans.

Lecky, in one of his later books, speaking of sanitary legislation,
says: “Few things are more curious than to observe how rapidly, during
the past generation, the love of individual liberty has declined; how
contentedly the English race are committing great departments of their
lives to the web of regulations restricting and encircling them.” It is
not that love of liberty has declined, it is that the English race are
meeting new conditions with the same genius with which they have evolved
their great system of common law. Living, as most of them did a century
ago, in separate houses, and in small villages or towns, every man could
build as he pleased and could maintain his building as he pleased
without seriously endangering the liberty of his neighbors, but with the
steady movement of the population from the country to the city, and the
marvelous growth of cities, not only horizontally but vertically, new
conditions must be met, and the property rights and liberty of one
neighbor must be limited to protect the property rights and liberty of
another. If a man built an isolated house in the country, without light
or air for the bedrooms, and kept it in such filthy condition as to
breed disease, it is a fair question whether his liberty should be
infringed by any building or health regulation. He may be fairly left
free to suffer the consequences of his own misuse of his liberty. His
death, and that of his family, from disease so caused may, as an awful
example, do more to advance civilization by making his neighbors more
careful, than would his life and theirs under enforced sanitary
regulation. But if that same man is separated from you and me only by a
board partition or twelveinch wall, and our families meet every time
they go into the street or into the back yard, his liberty must be
restricted in some degree in order to enable you and me to enjoy ours.

How and why has tenement house law been evolved in American cities? In
the same way in which the Anglo-Saxon mind deals with any such problems.
Just as it evolved common law, and for the same reasons. First a
case—that is, an evil—to be remedied; afterward a decision—the
application of the remedy, and the establishment of a principle or law
by which similar evils shall be remedied. It is not according to the
genius of our race to provide the remedy in advance of the supposed
disease. Better be sure that the disease really exists, even if some few
die from it, and then provide the remedy which will be sure to meet
actual conditions, than to burden the community with advance remedies
for diseases that after all may prove to be imaginary. Even if the
disease be not imaginary, such remedies are apt to be worse than the
disease itself. Thus, in Anglo-Saxon countries, a conflagration has
usually preceded precautions against fire, and the evils of sunless,
airless and unwholesome tenements have preceded any attempt to prevent
these deplorable conditions. Eventually we act, and when we do we act
practically.

It may be well to define what is meant by a tenement house, for without
definition there is infinite confusion in the use of this term. In one
of our recent civil service examinations in New York, a candidate,
evidently “learned in the law,” or supposing himself to be so, defined
it as being “That which is neither land nor hereditament.” It has its
popular and its legal meaning. Popularly, it is used to designate the
habitations of the poorest classes, without much thought of the number
of families living under any particular roof. The National Cyclopedia
significantly says: “Tenement houses, commonly speaking, are the poorest
class of apartment houses. They are generally poorly built, without
sufficient accommodation for light and ventilation, and are overcrowded.
The middle rooms often receive no daylight, and it is not uncommon in
them for several families to be crowded into one of their dark and
unwholesome rooms. Bad air, want of sunlight and filthy surroundings
work the physical ruin of the wretched tenants, while their mental and
moral condition is equally lowered. Attempts to reform the evils of
tenement life have been going on for some time in many of the great
cities of the world.”

Legally, tenement is applied to any communal dwelling, inhabited by
three, or in some cities four, or more families, living independently,
who do their cooking on the premises. It includes apartment houses,
flat-houses and flats, as well as what is popularly called a tenement,
if only built to accommodate three, or as the case may be four, or more
families who cook in the house. It is in its legal sense that I use the
term. At first blush it may seem objectionable to class apartment
houses, flat-houses and tenements, so called, together, and subject them
to the same code of regulation. Practically, it has never been possible
to draw any line of separation between different houses which are
popularly designated by these different words. Nor has anyone ever
suggested any regulation proper for the poorest tenement, using the word
now in its popular sense, which would not be voluntarily, and as matter
of self-interest, complied with in the most expensive apartment house.
Nor is there any certainty that what to-day is popularly called an
apartment house may not to-morrow, in popular parlance, be a tenement of
the worst kind. My own grandmother, within my own recollection, lived in
what was then one of the finest houses, in one of the most fashionable
streets of New York. Not long since I passed the house, and noticed on
the front door a sign reading, “French flats for Colored People.”

In its earliest form (and many cities have not yet passed beyond the
first stage) the tenement was a discredited private house, or other
building, not originally built for the occupation of several families,
but altered for the purpose. Each floor of what was originally a private
dwelling was changed so that it could be occupied by a family. Later
on—it may be at the beginning—each floor was subdivided between front
and rear, so that it could be occupied by two families. One of the chief
evils of such tenements arose from cellar occupation, and consequently
some of the earliest tenement house regulations relate to the occupation
of cellars.

In its second stage the tenement house is built for the purpose,
imitating, not infrequently, in a servile manner, the arrangement of the
altered house, with its dark rooms, and only gradually being adapted to
a new architectural form growing out of its special use. The
introduction of running water and city health regulations made it
possible and desirable to locate water-closets inside. Courts and
air-shafts increased in size. Fortunately, the process of evolution is
not exhausted, and is still going on.

The tenement is still regarded in many places as an exotic, not adapted
to our climate. But, judging from the history of New York and other
cities, West and East, the tenement house has come to stay, and is,
perhaps, destined to crowd out other and better forms of housing. I
remember well when the first tenement to be dignified by the term
apartment house was built in New York. It was in the early 70’s. Now it
is a prevailing type of new building for dwelling purposes on Manhattan
Island. There were no less than 82,652 tenements in Greater New York at
the time of the last census. The development of the tenement has been
largely influenced by legislation intended to prevent its worst evils.
To test the reason for such legislation, and to define its limitations,
a brief summary of particular subjects of regulation is desirable.

Protection against fire is almost universal. Structural provisions
directed to this end are contained in the building laws of all cities.
In New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Jersey City, Providence,
Syracuse and Nashville, all tenements must have fire-escapes. All
tenements over two stories in height must have fire-escapes in St.
Louis, Baltimore, Louisville, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Denver, Toledo and
Columbus. In Chicago, Cleveland and Cincinnati, this rule only applies
to tenements over three stories in height. In many cities tenements must
be fireproof throughout when over a certain height. In Philadelphia this
is true of all over four stories; in Washington of those over five
stories; in New York, Buffalo, Louisville, Minneapolis and Denver, of
those over six stories in height. In Boston, the limit is 65 feet.

Light and ventilation are protected by minimum open spaces. In
Philadelphia there must be open spaces at the side or rear equal to
one-fifth of the lot area, and the minimum width of all spaces is eight
feet. In Buffalo, under the local law in force before the general state
act of 1901 was passed, the minimum width of any outer court was six
feet in two-story buildings, eight feet in three and four-story
buildings, and one additional foot in width for each additional story.
The minimum interior court was eight by ten. In Boston, a clear open
space at the rear must be left equal to one-half the width of the street
on which the tenement fronts, and there must be two open spaces at least
ten feet wide. In some cities the required court area is expressed in
square feet, without regard to minimum width or length, and increases
proportionately with the height of the building. This principle is
adopted in New York, where the minimum width of exterior courts in
buildings five stories high is six feet on the lot line and twelve feet
between wings, and the minimum area of interior courts on the lot line
in buildings of the same height is twelve by twenty-four, reduced this
winter in three-story tenements to eight by fourteen. Such buildings
must have an open yard at least twelve feet wide in the rear. The height
of rooms is almost universally regulated, the minimum usually being
eight feet. The height of tenements is limited in many cities.

Water supply is prescribed. In New York, water must be furnished on each
floor. In Philadelphia and Buffalo, on each floor, for each set of
rooms. In Boston, Chicago, Jersey City and Kansas City, in one or more
places in the house or yard.

Water-closet accommodation is very generally prescribed. In
Philadelphia, and in New York under the new law, there must be one for
every apartment. Under the old law in New York, and at present in
Chicago and Detroit, there must be one for every two families. In other
cities the unit is the number of persons. It is twenty persons in
Boston, Baltimore and Denver; ten persons in Rochester.

The reasons for tenement regulation may be roughly classed as
follows—precise classification is impossible, as it is seldom that any
particular regulation is attributable solely to a single reason:

The protection of property rights in adjacent property. Such is the
reason for regulations requiring fireproof construction in whole or in
part. Such is the chief reason for limitations of height and for leaving
an obligatory open space at the rear of each house so as to preserve
thorough ventilation for the block. The protection of neighbors and the
community from unsanitary conditions, by which they might be affected,
or which might breed contagion. Under this class falls the great body of
sanitary law and tenement house regulation of a sanitary kind. That all
legislation which falls within these classes can be justified as a
proper restraint on the liberty and property rights of some, in order to
protect and preserve the property rights and liberty of others, is
clear.

There is another and increasing class of regulations intended to protect
the life and health of those who cannot, it is supposed, protect
themselves by any means within their control. Fire-escapes, which are
almost universally required by law in non-fireproof tenement houses,
belong to this class. There is no such regulation for private houses,
and there is usually no such requirement for two-family houses. The
reason for the fire-escape in tenements and hotels must rest either on
the supposed inability of the inmates to protect themselves, as the
owner of a private house can protect himself and his family, or else
from the greater number of persons exposed to risk. Of such class also
is the law providing that there be a separate water-closet for each
apartment, as in New York, or for every two families, as in Detroit and
elsewhere, and that lights be kept burning in public halls at night. No
such regulations exist for private houses. They can be only justified in
tenement houses on the theory that the tenants in such houses must live
in them, cannot control their maintenance in these particulars, and are
entitled to the protection of affirmative law for these necessities or
conveniences. It may be answered that they need not rent rooms in houses
not furnished with separate water-closets, and the halls of which are
not kept lighted, unless they wish to, and that they should not be
restricted in their liberty to rent rooms in such houses, it may be at a
lower rent, if they so desire. The reply may be, and in some cities
would properly be, that they would have no choice unless the law
intervened to protect them. Moreover, it might be urged that in the
provision for separate water-closets for each apartment, and in the
lighting of public halls, there was an element of protection to public
health and morals in which the community had an interest, and which the
community by regulation should insure.

I have sought by these illustrations to point the closeness of the
dividing line between justifiable restriction of the individual liberty
of the house builder and house owner, for the protection of the liberty
of others, and paternalism. It is undoubtedly true, as Mr. Lecky states
in the concluding part of the paragraph to which I have already
referred, that “the marked tendency of these generations to extend the
stringency and area of coercive legislation in the fields of sanitary
reform is one that should be carefully watched. Its exaggerations may,
in more ways than one, greatly injure the very classes it is intended to
benefit.” There is real danger lest in our eagerness and earnestness to
improve the condition of others, we legislate from the point of view of
those fathers and mothers who are always ready to regulate the affairs
of every family but their own, and break down the habit of
self-dependence and the spirit of individual responsibility upon which
the vigor of our American social fabric so largely depends.

Perhaps the most important limitation to tenement house reform, in the
construction of new tenements, is the question of cost. If tenements
cannot be rented at a profit they will not be built. There are many
things which it would be desirable to have in a tenement, each one of
which adds to its cost, and if they be required by law to an extent
which makes it unremunerative, tenement building will cease. It is
undoubtedly desirable that all tenements should be fireproof throughout;
indeed, the same may be said of private houses. In 1892, Boston so
prescribed; but few, if any, were erected, and the law was consequently
modified in 1899.

The amount of rent which the average American workingman in any
particular city can pay approximates a fixed quantity. Any legislation
which materially increases this rent, or which prevents building and
therefore prevents his finding shelter, is quite certain to be repealed.
This proposition, however, is not so discouraging as it may appear at
the outset. The standard of living among our working classes is steadily
improving. What yesterday was a luxury, to-day is a necessity. In many
cities, apartments which are not provided with running water are
unrentable. Bathing facilities are increasingly in demand, and are
frequently being provided. Families that have once lived in apartments
where the bedrooms have light and air, will not hire apartments which
are dark and unventilated. The supply must meet the demand. Interest
rates are receding; economies in construction are being introduced,
which some time ago were unknown, largely by the building of houses by
the wholesale. The large profits which were demanded as the normal
income on tenement houses in the past are no longer expected. Rooms up
to the standard of the modern tenement house law can be provided without
increasing the rental.

Another limitation in many cities is the prevailing lot dimension. If
Dante were to-day writing his “Inferno,” the lowest depth would be
reserved for those men who invented the twenty-five foot lot and imposed
it on so many American cities. In unbuilt districts, where several lots,
whatever be their dimensions, can be purchased and built upon together,
the lot dimension does not necessarily control the frontage of the
building, and the tendency in such districts in New York is to build
tenement houses of wider frontage, which admit of better court
arrangement, but there are usually so many lots separately owned, and so
many which are situated between lots already built upon, so that their
enlargement is impossible, that any proposed legislation prescribing
court areas which, however desirable, puts the prevailing lot unit at a
disadvantage, will meet with overwhelming resistance. No better
illustration of this can, perhaps, be found than the story of New York
legislation this winter, of which I intend to speak. From the point of
view of proper tenement house construction, happy that city in which
land is sold by the front foot, instead of by any procrustean lot unit.

There is another practical limitation, not necessarily to the
enactment of tenement house law, but to its permanence, in the extent
to which it, either actually or supposedly, interferes with the
profits of builders and material men, and perhaps no better
illustration of this practical limitation can be given than a simple
recital of the contest over the radical amendment of the New York law
which has been waged at Albany during the past few weeks, and which
terminated only a few days ago. The New York law of 1901 marked the
longest step in advance that tenement house reform in that state has
ever taken, though in its provisions for court areas, the particular
point in which it was assailed this winter, it does not go so far as
the Philadelphia law, and but little further than the previous Buffalo
law. It unquestionably increased the cost of construction by its
fireproof provisions, as well as, though in a less degree, by its
larger court areas. That there would be, this winter, organized effort
on the part of building and real estate interests to modify it was
certain and inevitable. Many bills were introduced amending it, but my
illustration only concerns two, the City Administration bill, in the
preparation of which I myself had part, and a bill introduced by a
Brooklyn member of the Legislature in the interest of Brooklyn
builders and material men, who claimed that they represented the
people of Brooklyn. It is a fair question whether Brooklyn did not
really have a grievance against last winter’s law. One of the
prevailing types of Brooklyn tenements is a three-story house on a
twenty-five foot lot, with two families on a floor, making six
families in all, each apartment running through from front to rear.
These houses had been built with interior courts or air-shafts about
two and a half feet wide and ten feet long. These light-shafts were
supposed to light and ventilate the interior rooms of each apartment.
As a matter of fact, they furnished little light or ventilation to any
bedrooms below the top floor. The same type of air-shaft in taller
tenements of Manhattan was one of the chief evils against which the
new law was directed. These evils were undoubtedly less in a
three-story building, but still existed. The minimum interior court or
air-shaft permitted by the new law in such buildings was eleven feet
wide by twenty-two feet long. Such a court prevented the building of
this type of house, and no tenements of this type were consequently
built on twenty-five foot lots from the time when the law went into
effect. The Brooklyn bill sought to amend the law, as respects three
and four-story houses, by permitting a return to the old air-shaft,
with an increased width of six inches, and with a somewhat increased
length, making it three by twelve. We conceded that under the law it
was impossible to build this particular type of tenement on a
twenty-five foot lot, with each apartment running through from front
to rear, but we demonstrated that it was perfectly practicable to
build what seemed to us a much better two-families-on-a-floor tenement
on such a lot, by putting one apartment in the front and another in
the rear; that it was perfectly practicable to build, under the law,
apartments running through from front to rear on a somewhat larger
lot, and that the law interfered with no other current type except the
one in question. The separate front and rear apartments, which were
practical under the new law, are usual in Manhattan, and the rent
obtainable from the front apartment differs but little from that
obtainable from the rear apartment. Our Brooklyn friends insisted that
though Brooklyn was a borough of New York and only separated from
Manhattan by the East River, Brooklyn people were so accustomed to
apartments running through from front to rear that they would not rent
rear apartments, and indeed, that the social distinction between
families who could afford to live in the front apartment, and those
who would be forced to live in the rear apartment, was so great that
they would not rent apartments in the same house.

This proposition may seem strained, but we of the City Administration
were finally satisfied that so much regard should be paid to local
habits and customs, that it was wise to modify our minimum court areas
in three-story houses to such a point as would permit the building of
this particular type of Brooklyn house. Plans were then made which
demonstrated beyond peradventure that by reducing the minimum court area
to 8x14, instead of 3x12, this particular type of house could be built,
with bedrooms infinitely better lighted and better ventilated than those
opening upon the narrow shaft. One would have supposed that this
improved plan, which permitted Brooklyn builders to construct a
front-to-rear apartment, for which they claimed so many advantages,
would have been received with acclamation as a solution of the
difficulty. Not at all. Some insisted that Brooklyn must have what it
was accustomed to, narrow air-shaft and all. Others more openminded,
while frankly admitting that the new plans made better apartments, which
should bring in an increased rental of from fifty cents to a dollar a
month, insisted that tenants would not pay more rent, and that because
the buildings under these new plans cost say $800 per house more than
under the old plans, they would not be commercially profitable, and
therefore would not be built. Not a word was said as to the interests of
tenement dwellers. There was no dearth of apartments in Brooklyn at
current-rents. Indeed, the supply was far beyond the demand. The whole
issue turned on the commercial profitableness of building under the law,
as amended by the City Administration bill, to meet this Brooklyn
condition. The Brooklyn builders were perfectly frank in their
arguments. They started with the premise that the building of tenements
in Brooklyn must be made commercially profitable; that buildings under
the new plan, with a minimum court area of 8x14, would not be
commercially profitable, because about $800 was added to their cost, and
therefore insisted that the law should be amended to meet their ideas of
commercial profitableness. That the purpose of the law was not to
promote building operations, or increase the value of real estate, but
to provide healthy habitation for tenement dwellers, and that that
purpose was certainly being accomplished under the new law so long as
tenement dwellers could house themselves without any increase in rent,
was ignored, nor if it had been urged would it have seemed to them an
argument worth considering.

I am happy to say that they did not succeed, but they demonstrated the
influence which can be exerted upon the average legislator by men of
their type through their trade and allied labor organizations, and had
those who, at the moment, represented the unorganized public in the
cities been less active, and had the force of public opinion as voiced
by the press been less outspoken, the result might have been different.

The advance of tenement house reform undoubtedly means some diminution
in the profit of the landlord, or some increase in rent. Improved
tenements must cost more. Someone must pay that cost. If any material
rise in rents would produce such opposition to the law as to repeal or
modify it, then either the cost must be borne by the landlord, or the
law must be modified. Whether the landlord’s rent will by the law
proposed in any city be diminished below the point of legitimate profit,
cannot be certainly demonstrated until the experiment be tried. Some
enlightened landlords, with a sense of their obligations toward their
tenants, are perfectly willing to suffer this small diminution of
income. Others are not, and the others, who usually constitute the
majority, in alliance with the builders and material men, will always
seek to prevent legislation which affects their pockets. Tenement house
reform must always be militant, not only to gain ground, but to hold the
ground that has once been gained.

There is something for almost everyone to do. Let none suppose that our
cities, however small, will remain free from the evils of the tenement
house, which in larger cities has necessarily evolved in self-protection
tenement house regulation. The tenement has come to the United States,
like the Canada thistle, to grow and to multiply. The smaller cities
need not go through the bitter experience which is teaching New York and
other cities their lesson. They can, by timely regulation, prevent the
crystallization of unsanitary conditions into brick and mortar. I do not
recommend the adoption in every city of the New York law. It was framed
to meet the special conditions there existent. The remedy should be no
greater than the prevailing or expected disease warrants. A few
elementary regulations with regard to court areas, vacant spaces, and
regular and official inspection to make certain that these simple
regulations are followed in construction and that ordinary sanitary
rules are complied with in maintenance, will suffice, if there always be
a keen eye to look some years ahead, to meet future needs before they
make themselves unpleasantly manifest in your own surroundings, and
before conditions are created, as in New York, which cannot be changed
except at great cost to owners and to the municipality.




                     THE HOUSING PROBLEM IN CHICAGO

                          By MISS JANE ADDAMS

                          Hull House, Chicago


In considering the housing problem in Chicago, it is at once evident
that we are not in the deplorable condition of New York, nor yet perhaps
in the happy condition of Philadelphia. Until a year and a half ago, we
thought that all our problems in connection with the housing question
were in the future. We have a way in Chicago of shoving disagreeable
problems into the future, and saying that we will take care of them by
and by, when our resources are more adequate, when we have developed a
little more civic consciousness. An association of people, however,
called the City Homes Association, come eighteen months ago, made a very
careful investigation of such tenement districts as we have and their
report was startling, even to those of us who knew something of the
conditions by daily seeing them.

The time at the disposal of the committee was only six months, and
Chicago is very large as to area. We have 187 square miles under city
management, and the tenement houses, certainly according to the legal
definition given by Mr. De Forest, are scattered more or less through
that very large region. It seemed, therefore, better to take three
districts, limiting carefully the area of the districts, and to make as
careful a study as possible of each. The largest one, in two of the
river wards of Chicago, was mainly occupied by Italian immigrants and
Russian Jews. The second in size was the Polish district northeast of
the business quarter of the city, and the third in size the Bohemian
district extended south from the centre. We discovered several things
which were very surprising, among them that many of the houses were
owned or partially owned by the people living in them. The thrifty
Bohemian put his savings into a house, perhaps building at first a house
on the front of his lot, living in a few rooms, and so saving rent until
he had enough money to build a rear tenement, in the end covering up his
lot as much as possible and renting it all out. The Italians to a
somewhat lesser extent did the same thing, and the Poles also, so that
one could not talk of the effect of tenement house regulation upon the
landlord in contradistinction to the effect upon the tenant, for it is
very largely the neighbors of the tenants themselves who are the
landlords, and the tenant and landlord are represented by the same type
of person. Their interests are identical, not in the larger sense, but
in the immediate sense, and they stand together either in demanding or
opposing certain regulations. The situation is quite unlike that
obtaining in the cities where the landlord lives in some other part of
the town, and where tenement legislation affects only his property
interests and not his human interests.

We also were very much surprised at the density in certain quarters
which this investigation disclosed. If the average tenement house
density of the three districts investigated were spread throughout the
city, we could house within our borders 23,000,000 people. We discovered
one-seventh of an acre which was occupied to the ratio of 900 people to
the acre, and if that density were applied to our borders we could
house, not very comfortably to be sure, all the people of the Western
Hemisphere. This seemed to us sufficiently alarming in a city in which
it was said that the matter of density was something concerning only the
future. The average tenancy in the houses throughout these three
districts was only three families to a house. This average means that in
many cases there is no real tenement, but a single house. Again, many of
these single houses were very small, sometimes containing but two or
three rooms, and the average number of rooms to an apartment was 3
116–1000. Although many houses were small and the tenements for each
house again small, in certain quarters the density within the houses was
very great and the conditions bad. We also found in these three areas
almost a hundred full-fledged double-deckers, and a great many more that
only escaped being double-deckers through a mere technicality in the
definition that had been settled upon. These double-deckers are growing
and, unless we have a more vigorous enforcement of tenement house
regulations in Chicago, threaten to become very common there.

In both the building department and in the health department of the
city, a great deal is left to the discretion of the inspector. Of
course, in the city where the landlord not only owns his house but also
lives in it and at least knows which way his tenants vote, this matter
of discretionary power becomes an important one. It is very hard for an
official to stand out against a certain amount of political pressure,
and the consequence is, that while there are laws fairly good on books,
this large discretion left to the enforcing officers has made many of
them of little account. This is especially true in regard to the yard
spaces, which are set between the front and rear tenements, the size of
the shafts, and other special regulations. The City Homes Association is
trying at present to secure a better code of tenement house legislation,
to restrict the discretionary power and thus to limit the very casual
and varying judgment of the enforcing official, and to give some sturdy
standard in law observances.

In the matter of rents, Chicago is in rather a curious state. The
property in the river wards, in which many of these houses are situated,
has been held for a long time by its owners upon the theory that finally
factories and shipping interests were going to occupy the land. The
consequence is, that the little houses which were built very soon after
the fire have been allowed to remain, without very much repair and
without very much change, and in many cases have become so wretched that
only a low rental can be asked for them. The men who own them, content
themselves with getting out of the houses about enough to pay taxes and
to keep up a minimum amount of repairs. So that the rent of certain
houses in the river districts is low. Perhaps this is not low for
Philadelphia, although I am sure it will sound low for New York. The
average rent paid by an Italian family for an apartment is $4.92 a
month, or $1.78 per room a month; the average rent paid by a Bohemian
family for an apartment is $5.93 a month, or $1.64 a room; by a Polish
family $5.66 for an apartment, and $1.40 for a room; by a Jewish family
$8.28; the average rent rising to $2.12 a room. Whenever the question of
modern tenements comes up in Chicago, and the cost is carefully gone
into, it is found very difficult to furnish apartments in good,
satisfactorily well-built houses at so low a rental, and yet once this
rental has been established, it is found on the other hand very
difficult to ask much more than the current rate. By a strict
enforcement of law many of these houses should be demolished. That would
rid the city of a number of unsanitary houses and bring conditions to a
more normal situation.

What Mr. De Forest says about the twenty-five foot lot, I should very
much like to corroborate. It is very difficult to erect a convenient
house on a lot 25 feet wide and 120 feet deep. This unfortunate division
of property was made in the first instance, doubtless, to enable as many
men as possible to own their own separate houses. For a long time we
have made a sort of fetich of the house, and have come to believe that a
man has a sense of being at home only when he is within four walls
standing alone upon one piece of ground. In reality the idea of a home
reaches back so much further than the four walls, and is so much more
deeply implanted in the human breast than the ownership of land that we
do not need to fear that a new type of house will destroy it. But we are
timid and would rather be uncomfortable in a little house than to start
out in some reasonable way in building apartments. If one has a house
12½ feet wide and 24 feet deep and 24 feet high, one has not a very
comfortable arrangement. It is not even rationally divided, but by a
purely imitative method; in every house you enter you will find the
little hall, the little stairs, and all the other things that presuppose
plenty of space. If that same strip of twelve feet had been added to the
other strips in the block and the whole treated in some reasonable
manner, we could comfortably house the same number of people in a sort
of glorified tenement house or apartment house; each family might have
at least one large living-room where the members could get together in
comfort and have a much better chance for conserving family life than
they have in the little square box. Some of us still believe that a
workingman has a sense of ownership only when he puts his savings into a
piece of ground or the house in which he lives. To tie a workman down to
a given piece of ground is often of questionable good. A man may put all
his savings into a house on the North Side of Chicago, for instance, and
before it is paid for, find himself out of work; his next work may be
fifteen miles from that place, in South Chicago. If his house is
partially paid for, it is very difficult to get rid of it, and it is
also difficult and expensive to travel fifteen miles twice a day. If his
property had been in some other form, let us say stocks or bonds, it
would have allowed him much more mobility in regard to his labor, and he
would have a better chance of adjusting himself to the changing
conditions of his trade.

A Housing Conference, it seems to me, ought first of all to look at
industrial conditions as they confront the workingman of to-day, not as
conditions existed fifteen or twenty years ago, nor as they existed for
our fathers. A conference should not consider the workingman of its
imagination, nor yet the workingman as he ought to be, but the
workingman of to-day as he finds himself, with his family, with his
savings, with his difficulty of keeping a place very long, due to the
sudden changes in the methods of his trade. His employer is obliged to
make constant changes and adaptations in his factory, but his landlord
is afraid to try changes in his house. We hold a certain fiction in our
minds of what home is and what it ought to be, forgetting how far back
it goes, that it can survive all sorts of changes and adaptations, that
the one thing which will kill it is that which kills every living thing,
_i. e._, lack of adaptation to its environment; if it fails to adapt
itself to the situation as it really exists, it is for the first time
endangered. If the community, as a whole, gives its mind to it, as the
Philadelphia community seems to be doing, and knows conditions
accurately and thoroughly, I am sure we are going to see very marked
changes in the housing of the poorer people of the modern cities, and we
shall no more cling to the single house than to the country store. The
time may come, when, if in any city, the death-rate rises above the
normal, that the body of public-spirited citizens shall at once feel
forced to do something about it, that they shall be filled with a sense
of disgrace and feel that a disaster has occurred in their city. At the
present moment the death-rate is constantly above the normal, in certain
quarters of our cities; we allow it to be high year after year, knowing
that it is excessive. This apathy can only be explained on one of two
grounds, either that we do not know the housing conditions which exist,
or that we are so selfish as to have no sense of responsibility in
regard to them.


    DISCUSSION OF THE PAPERS READ BY MISS ADDAMS AND MR. DE FOREST:

“Q. Is the discretion, which Miss Addams says is abused in Chicago to
such an extent, exercised with regard to the legal court area which
should be left unoccupied by the building?

“A. (Miss Addams), I would reply, yes, that buildings are permitted to
go up with lesser court areas than provided by law. The matter is so
largely in the hands of the office giving the permit that almost every
provision is changed. I think we found in this investigation houses
which illustrated the encroachment upon and the breaking of every single
ordinance found upon the statute books, in regard to the shaft area as
well as other provisions.

“Q. I cannot see why the figures mentioned should be unduly low for the
rent per room per month, or should be too low to permit a reasonable
profit to the owner of property. I have rented a six-room house in
Washington, around the corner from one of the best residence districts,
for $3.50 per room per month; furnished rooms in New York, near Columbia
University, for $2.00 a week, and downtown, near the business part of
the city, for $1.50, furnished, with attendance. I wonder if Mr. De
Forest can tell us what, under modern conditions in New York City, for
example, should be a fair rent which would enable a landlord to get a
fair profit on the investment per room per month.

“A. (Mr. De Forest), In New York, rents are, I think, on a business
basis. In other words, I do think the landlords expect to receive, and
do receive from their tenements a normal income, and, in many instances
more than a normal income. The modern tenements which are being put up
by the City and Suburban Homes Company of New York, which are now being
increased in number, do produce a fair income, representing not less
than 4 per cent on the money invested. I refer to the buildings
constructed at the present time under the modern requirements of the
state law.

“Q. The Washington Sanitary Improvement Company paid 5 per cent from the
very beginning and rents its flats for about $3.00 per room per month.
The buildings are one to three stories high.

“A. Land is considerably higher in Washington. This land is not less
than $150, and usually $200 a foot. The price quoted lowest was $1.78
per room per month, whereas your price was $2.00 a week, for New York;
$3.00 and $3.50 per month for Washington.

“Q. We have heard this question from the standpoint of Chicago, New York
and Philadelphia, but the clientele of this association, as I understand
it, covers the entire country, and I should like to ask Mr. De Forest
whether it is not true that the investigation made by the Tenement House
Commission of New York disclosed the fact that in virtually every
manufacturing city of the country there is to-day distinctly a housing
problem for the poor and that definite constructive work needs to be
done to remedy the evils.

“A. The investigation made by the Tenement House Commission which
covered all the large cities, and some of the smaller ones of the
country, includes statistics from twenty selected cities. It is true
that the tenement house problem presents itself in a much less degree in
some places than in others; it does so to a much less extent in
Philadelphia. In other large cities of the country the housing problem
exists to a large extent, and so much so in some of the smaller cities
that last winter the cities of the second class in New York
State—Syracuse, Utica, Albany and Rochester—took up the problem of
regulation in these cities. Jersey City, which is directly opposite New
York, and which is a comparatively small city, has some of the worst
housing conditions in the whole country.

“Q. About how large a proportion of the population is affected by the
housing problem in New York?

“A. The total population of New York is about 3,400,000. Out of that
population upwards of 2,200,000 live in tenement houses, as legally
defined, which includes apartment houses. The proportion in Brooklyn is
quite as large as in New York, although there is a smaller number of
families per house.

“Q. What is a double-decker?

“A. (Miss Addams), The double-decker was originally, of course, a house,
which grew from the fact that there was a front tenement and a rear
tenement, and that later the two were joined into one house.

“Q. I would like to ask Miss Addams as to Chicago and Mr. De Forest as
to Brooklyn, whether any notice has been taken of the question as to the
best pavement for the poor sections of the city, that is, whether
asphalt for the lanes and alleys is not, as a rule, cleaner in
appearance and in other ways, than other kinds of paving, as
cobblestone, for instance.

“A. (Miss Addams), I will ask Mr. De Forest to answer that. Paving is a
weak point in Chicago.

“A. (Mr. De Forest), Perhaps I ought to say that I am glad to find some
point on which New York has something to say. Most of our congested
tenement districts in New York, largely on the East Side, have been
paved with asphalt. This is regarded as a matter of grave importance,
and was one of the subjects considered by the Tenement House Commission;
that in some districts there should be asphalt pavements, because the
families almost live in the streets in summer and the children all play
there, was one consideration, and keeping the streets clean was another
of great importance.

“Q. Do you think that the facilitation of the workingman in change of
residence, either within metropolitan borders, or from one city to
another, or from one state to another, is a good thing in contemplation
of his privileges and duties as an American citizen?

“A. I think that in industry, as it is now organized, with the sudden
changes and fluctuations of skill, if the workman is deprived of the
power to sell his labor, it is very bad for him. Then I think the
adaptable person is a better American citizen than a person who is
planted too hard.

“Q. Are you not, therefore, regarding only the rights and the good that
may be done to the individual, eliminating altogether his obligations as
a citizen?

“A. What I wanted to say was this, that I think we have a way of
relegating all the old-fashioned virtues to workingmen and reserving to
ourselves the most interesting and more adaptable virtues. We say to our
workmen, do not drink, be thrifty and industrious. These are good but
negative. We reserve to ourselves the power of developing an interesting
life, and all the rest of it. On general principles, if a man can stay
in one place and own his house, of course it is better for him both from
a financial and social point of view; but there are exceptions, and we
all know that the present industrial conditions imply constant change
both in methods and place of manufacture, that if we really understood
the workingman’s needs and were trying to serve him, we would evolve
some such plan as has been evolved in Belgium. A man there puts his
savings into the Government Savings Bank, which has all the features of
a building and loan association. As I understand it, he may make partial
payments upon a house in Brussels, but if his work takes him away from
that city to another within the kingdom—let us say Ghent—he may transfer
his payments to a house in Ghent. On the other hand he may remain in
Brussels, complete his payments until he owns his house or withdraw his
stock in his own house, after allowing for proper depreciation, and hold
his savings in simple bank stock. The entire arrangement is flexible and
adaptable, and transfers the sense of ownership from the simple
ownership of land and house, to the more complex one of stock.

“Q. Regarding gardens, playgrounds and gymnasiums, which, in some
sections of Philadelphia—namely, the College Settlement—have been
located on the tops of buildings for the benefit of children, has that
been done in New York and Chicago, and with what success?

“A. I should say, yes, so far as the movement has gone, that is with
regard to open playgrounds, not speaking of roof gardens, and with
regard to open parks. The small park movement has undoubtedly done a
great deal of good, and the children’s playground, so far as it has
gone. It has not gone to the extent that its friends desire. So far as
roof gardens are concerned, that is, the adoption of roofs for
recreation, that has not been done so far as I know. It has been thought
of and talked of, but never carried out.”




         CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE HOUSING PROBLEM IN PHILADELPHIA

            REPORT PREPARED BY THE OCTAVIA HILL ASSOCIATION


The work of the Octavia Hill Association has been one of detailed
management of the houses of the poor and not of investigation, but it
cannot let this opportunity pass without describing some of the
conditions known to it. No comprehensive report of housing conditions in
Philadelphia has ever been made. The Seventh Special Report of the
Commissioner of Labor in 1894 on the Slums of Great Cities has
interesting data on living conditions at that time in certain sections
of the slum districts, while “The Philadelphia Negro,” a social study,
by W. E. Burghardt Dubois, published by the University of Pennsylvania
in 1899, throws a vivid light on the problem in its relation to the
colored population of the Seventh Ward. We believe that the time has
come for wider consideration of this important subject. Our purpose in
this paper is to urge strongly the importance, if not the necessity, of
a thorough investigation and that one may be undertaken in the near
future before our situation becomes more serious.

Philadelphia had in 1900 a population of 1,293,697 persons, covering an
area of almost 130 square miles, with an average density of about
fifteen persons to an acre. Of its 258,690 dwelling-houses more than
one-half are two-story dwellings, and its average number of persons to a
dwelling is 4.91. These facts show that our problems differ radically
from those of New York and Chicago and that it is the house built for
occupation by a single family and not the tenement, which is the
important feature for us to consider. The excellent system which has
made Philadelphia famous and has given it a larger proportion of
separate dwellings for the working classes than any city of an equal
population, has blinded our eyes too long to the evils which have been
growing up about us. Until within a few years the building law was
practically a dead letter, and no check was placed on the avarice of the
landlord in his desire to gain the utmost possible return from his
ground space. Even to-day we have no laws for the enforcement of
underdrainage and our municipal departments are unable with their small
force of inspectors to cope with the conditions we are facing. These
facts have given us problems which though the way to their solution may
be plain, yet demand serious consideration.

Philadelphia can be justly proud of the way in which the needs of the
regularly employed wage-earner have been met by the small house. In the
newer and outlying parts of the city this house is found in its best
development. There are rows upon rows, streets upon streets of
attractive four and six roomed houses with an increasing number of
modern conveniences. Sanitary plumbing, bath, range, furnace, gas, a
cemented cellar, a porch and a small yard may be had for from $15.00 to
$20.00 a month. Three thousand six hundred and twenty-five two-story
houses were in 1901 added to the already large number of these and the
Building and Loan Associations bear witness to the continued demand and
the increase of popular ownership.

Nearer to the centre of the city also, and in the great mill and factory
districts, one finds still the individual home, but here the houses are
older, the rows seem longer and more unbroken in their monotony and in
innumerable courts and alleys there is surface drainage. Here, also, we
find the various features of the problem which grows more difficult in
the older parts of the city and as the social scale is lowered. In
prosperous times, each small house holds one family. In times of
industrial depression the house built for one family must with no
additional conveniences, no better arrangements for privacy and comfort,
accommodate two or more.

For the purpose of this report we have considered mainly the district in
the southeastern part of the city where our own work centres.[4] The
five wards, where this district lies, contain about one-tenth of the
population of the city and cover about one-eightieth of the area or one
and three-fifths square miles. The average density of population in
these wards is 123 persons to an acre. In the Third Ward the average
number increases to 209. The wards are relatively well provided with
park area, but the whole amount used for this purpose is only 16.88
acres out of a total of 1030 acres, which shows the crying need there is
for more breathing spaces in these congested districts. There are a
number of old graveyards which would be valuable additions to the park
area if they were so used. The total number of inhabitants in the five
wards is 127,466. Of these, 50,733 are foreign born, 17,611 are negroes.
It is impossible to attempt a description of the many phases of life
throughout this region. The large numbers of foreigners are grouped
together according to nationality, in fairly well-defined geographical
areas, each showing many characteristics of its own national life. The
slum districts shift their centres somewhat in the changing of
populations, but are seemingly as strongly entrenched as ever and extend
over increasingly large areas. Architecturally the buildings show great
variety. Quaint, gabled frame houses often in the most dilapidated
condition, modern brick dwellings, colonial houses of fine proportions,
and tenements are found side by side often in picturesque proximity.

The size of the block in Philadelphia is an important factor in any
consideration of its housing conditions. This block averages about 400
feet square. By the purpose of the founder of the city it was intended
that each house should be in the middle of the “breadth of his ground,
so as to give place to gardens, etc., such as might be a green country
towne which might never be burnt and might always be wholesome.”[5] This
large size has continued to be the plan of the city and has lent itself
readily to being cut up into the network of inner courts and alleys
which are practically universal. The gardens, however, in all the poorer
districts, have totally disappeared. The small house has been crowded
onto the ground formerly allotted to them, and the revenue from the land
has been increased by an intensive process, which while not building
into the air has covered the ground with large numbers of dwellings. It
is the limited height of the buildings that is the saving factor. If the
houses were high with the consequent increase of overcrowding to the
acre, the conditions would be extreme.

From the various types of houses known to us we have chosen for special
mention three of those which show most clearly the character and needs
of this district. The most striking of these is the occasional large
tenement. In the early nineties the great increase of immigration
suggested the building of tenements as a profitable investment. The
result was a goodly number of scattered houses, built under the law
governing the building of the ordinary dwelling-house and showing some
of the worst phases of tenement house construction. Narrow air-shafts,
lots closely built over, insufficient plumbing, badly ventilated and
dark rooms, inadequate fire-escapes, would if multiplied have thrust
upon us a problem of a very serious form. These houses hold from sixteen
to fifty families. In many instances the yard space is a long narrow
strip on which all the rooms are dependent for air and light except
those on the front of the building. When the adjoining lot is covered in
the same way the result is a narrow well in which sunshine cannot enter
and through which there is no circulation of air. In one case, in a
house built on the four sides of its ground, sixty-four rooms open on
such a well which is seven feet six inches in width, while in another
instance a copy of the New York dumb-bell plan is found. This movement
was fortunately watched and arrested in its early development. Through
the thoughtful action of Mr. Hector McIntosh and with the co-operation
of a number of prominent city officials and others, a wise law was
framed and accepted by the Legislature. The evil was checked and the
building of large and badly arranged tenements prevented.

Under this act of May 7, 1895, the term tenement is defined as meaning
every building which is, or is to be, occupied by three or more
families, living independently of each other and doing their cooking on
the premises. The act provides that not more than 80 per cent of a lot
can be built on, except in corner properties, that the width of a yard
shall be not less than eight feet, that every room in such houses shall
have a window opening upon a street or upon the yard, that every
tenement house over four stories high shall be fireproof, throughout. It
has also stringent provisions in regard to water supply, sanitation,
minimum size of rooms, halls, etc. The cost of building is thus so much
increased as to be almost prohibitive.

In 1890 the percentage of families living in tenement houses in
Philadelphia was 1.44. Whatever the increase in this figure may be in
the census of 1900,[6] it remains true that only the poorest live in one
and two rooms, and that as soon as a higher rent can be paid, or a small
house can be had at a low rent, the change is eagerly made. The
management of all large tenements is very difficult, and manifest evils
are sure to follow neglect and inefficiency on the part of the owners.
Thus, in a community containing so large a number of small houses, the
tide was turned from this plan of housing at a critical moment, the
results of which are of far-reaching benefit.

The second class of house which is found prominently is that built for
one family of the better class and now converted to the use of three or
more families of the very poor. In the history of housing in other
cities, these houses have formed one step in the evolution of such
tenements as we have described. Here, they form the most important phase
of our tenement house problem. May it not be that by wisely adapting
them to the needs of the very poor they can take the place of the larger
tenements and give to Philadelphia the proud distinction of housing
these classes in small buildings, which shall avoid the evils attendant
upon the herding of many families together? At present, there are large
numbers of houses of this class in the older parts of this region and a
total failure of any adaptation of the old arrangements to suit the new
conditions. The houses are usually well built and the rooms large and
well ventilated, but there is no attempt at adequate or sanitary
plumbing. The hydrant in the yard is often the only water supply and
there is probably but one closet, also in the yard, the privy well of
which may be shared by three adjoining houses. Little attention is given
to care or management. The repairs are neglected, the stairways are
dark, the halls obstructed by extra furniture and rubbish. In many cases
the cellars are damp and filthy and give no provision for storage. The
yards are obstructed, there are no arrangements for drying clothes.

The law provides that when buildings are altered into tenements certain
provisions shall be enforced, but it makes no mention of the need for
this alteration in houses so used without changes, nor does it exact any
such changes. The landlord of the district is keenly alive to the fact
that when alterations are to be made, an affidavit that the house is to
be used by only two families will protect him from the exactions of the
tenement house law. A special investigation into houses of this class
would surely show how the law could be amended to cover their defects
and to fit them at a moderate expenditure and under good regulation to
meet the needs of the newly arrived immigrant and of the very poor.

This type of houses built for one family and changed into tenements has
another and a worse form when it is used for what is known as a
“furnished room house.” There is a large, and it is believed a steadily
increasing, number of these in the older parts of the city and where
conditions have greatly deteriorated. There are no data on which to
estimate their number. A thorough inquiry could be made only with police
or other authority behind the workers. These houses are tenements and
have all the objectionable features of tenements in a marked degree,
besides others peculiar to themselves. These features are intensified by
the character of the tenants, who are of the lowest class. Sometimes the
houses are used for immoral purposes, and the occupants generally are
shiftless, intemperate and slovenly. Some few are deserving families
where the breadwinner is out of work. Their conditions are deplorable,
and they have not even the stimulus to decent living that comes from the
ownership of household goods. The buildings are generally old, and
ill-adapted to the number of people crowded in them. The rooms are
rented by the week at prices ranging from $1.50 to $2.50 per room. They
have the scantiest possible equipment of old and dilapidated furniture.
They are dirty and unventilated; the beds and bedding indescribable.
Water is seldom found above the ground floor. Bath-tubs are unknown or
used for storage. In most cases there is but one closet in the yard for
all the tenants of the house. The yards, as a rule, are filthy. There is
no apparent effort at cleanliness or supervision. One room is the
ordinary rule for one family, with frequent boarders in addition. In
some cases the large rooms have been divided by flimsy partitions, and
each half is occupied by a family. The primary need of these houses is
frequent and efficient inspection. This is more urgent than in a case of
ordinary tenements, as the occupants are the lowest and the poorest, and
unable or unwilling to make any efforts in their own behalf. In no way
can the Health and Building Department regulations be enforced, nor any
general improvement in the condition of these houses be effected, except
by a system of periodic inspection, followed by action by the proper
city departments. It is entirely possible that a thorough investigation
of these houses made under adequate authority throughout the city, would
show the prevalence of conditions warranting a system of licensing—the
license to be revoked upon failure by the landlord to enforce reasonable
regulations as to cleanliness, decency, overcrowding, etc.—in addition
to the present laws applying to all tenement houses.

The third class of houses to which we would draw special attention is
that of the rear dwelling, a small two or three-story house, built
sometimes singly and sometimes in rows of from two to eight or ten
houses on the rear of the front house. This plan of building has been
characterized as the horizontal rather than the vertical tenement. The
entrance to the row is by a narrow passage-way from the street or court.
This passage-way is also frequently the means by which the surface
drainage is carried to the street or to an open sewer-connection at its
entrance. The space in front of the houses is the only yard. Sometimes
this space widens at the end of the entrance-way and there is a double
row of dwellings facing each other and covering the rears of two or
three front lots. Sometimes again the open space forms a square with
houses on three sides. Thus one comes unexpectedly on a little community
whose existence one has not imagined. More often, however, the narrow
passage-way runs the whole length of the row and in many cases the brick
wall of an adjoining lot shuts away all air and sunshine and makes a
prison of the little court.

In a careful investigation made by the college settlement into the
sanitary condition of one block in its immediate neighborhood, this type
of house was strongly illustrated. Out of a total of 196 houses in the
block, over 90 were rear dwellings, and but a small proportion of these
was underdrained. The building of rear houses is now prohibited by law.
Such an investigation as we ask for would show many localities where
some houses should be torn down to give light and air to the others, and
other cases where the courts should be cut through or entirely
demolished. Where the conditions are good, however, these houses meet
the needs of the very poor and offer the advantage of an individual
house, at a low rent, even though it involve the common use of yard
space and closet and water conveniences.

Enough has been said about sanitation to show the great need of reform.
The death-rate is not the only gauge of the sanitary condition of the
neighborhood. It is shown also in lowered vitality and poor health for
which there are no statistical returns. The prevalence of surface
drainage in Philadelphia is very imperfectly realized. Of its 1500 miles
of streets, according to a Bulletin of the Department of Labor in 1901,
there were in that year 419 miles that were unpaved, and 613 miles
without sewers, leaving a balance of at least 193 miles of paved streets
without underdrainage. In streets where drains have been laid, many
houses have not been connected. The open drains still run through the
great majority of alleys, where the decaying matter stands in the
gutters and when dried is scattered about by the wind. Neglected and
foul privy wells are frequently found. The people are eager to tell
their grievances and many are submitting patiently to intolerable
conditions.

The most essential step now to be taken by the city is systematic and
frequent inspection of sanitary conditions. If it is not possible to
enforce underdrainage at once, such inspection would cause it to be
enforced where flagrant nuisances exist, and the moral influence of an
official would stimulate to better standards. The Board of Health can
make but rare inspections on its own initiative and its small force of
twenty inspectors of nuisances is unable to respond promptly to the
numbers of complaints made to it. If this force and the force of the
Bureau of Building Inspection were largely increased, with added powers,
the evils of insanitary dwellings and of the evasion of the building law
could be readily dealt with. There is no large city where these problems
could be more easily solved.

To prove more fully the need of such measures we hope that an
investigation full enough to give a comprehensive knowledge of existing
conditions may soon be made. The results of such an investigation would
not only promote these reforms, but would suggest other means of undoing
the evils which have arisen from our long neglect and of safeguarding
the future.

We have spoken thus far of the need of reform through legislation and
the strengthening of the municipal departments whose work is so
important in these districts. Such measures are necessary for all
classes; it is for the very poor that something more is needed. The
principle cannot be too strongly set forth that it is the management of
the dwellings of the poor, whether they live in courts or tenements,
that is to be the means of securing to them health and comfort, of
giving them, in reality, homes. Miss Octavia Hill began in London in
1864 the work that was destined from the strength of its underlying
principles to become a significant factor in dealing on these lines with
the housing problem in Europe and also to some extent in this country.

While considering that the “spiritual elevation of a large class depends
to a considerable extent on sanitary reform,”[7] Miss Hill believes also
that sanitary improvement itself depends upon the educational work among
grown-up people and that this work must be effected by individual
influence. It is this influence in the hands of the landlord or his
representative that is so great a power, and can be used either for weal
or woe.

Miss Hill’s plan is not to tear down old buildings and to begin anew,
but to improve existing conditions gradually as the tenants are trained
gradually to appreciate and desire better things. This work is done with
the assistance of large numbers of volunteer rent collectors, each one
of whom is specially trained and is given a small group of tenants to
care for. We quote from Miss Hill as to the duties of the collectors:
“We have tried so far as possible to enlist ladies who would have an
idea of how, by diligent attention to all business which devolves on a
landlord, by wise rule with regard to all duties which a tenant should
fulfill, by sympathetic and just decisions with a view to the common
good, a high standard of management could be obtained. Repairs promptly
and efficiently attended to, references carefully taken up, cleaning
sedulously supervised, overcrowding put an end to, the blessing of ready
money payment enforced, accounts strictly kept and, above all, tenants
so sorted as to be helpful to one another.” The relation thus
established on a basis of mutual obligation is one of real and often
enduring helpfulness, and the opportunities for service are almost
unlimited.

Miss Hill’s work has from the first been on a sound business basis and
has given excellent financial returns. She has never formed any
association of the owners of the many properties under her care, or of
the workers who manage them. She has felt that the work is freer, and
more real when thus untrammeled.

Many cities have followed the example of London in this plan of work.
That of the Edinburgh Social Union is of unusual interest. It believes,
as we must all believe, that the “immediate question to face is how to
make the best of present conditions, how to raise the standard of
comfort without waiting for legislative changes.” Its reports tell a
story of successful growth which is full of valuable and suggestive
experience.

In Philadelphia the need for the extension of such work grows to us
stronger and more insistent as we learn more of the neglected places of
our city, of the many streets and courts which need such influences as
these. We believe that this work must grow and that there will come also
a more realizing sense of the responsibility of the community for the
welfare of its people. In the wise control of new building, and of the
apartment houses which may be tenements in the future, by planning for
wide streets and many open spaces, by the awakening of higher civic
standards we shall come also to a higher social order. “Victory over
evil at its source and not in its consequences; reforms which shall
regard the welfare of future generations, who are the greatest
number.”[8]

  EDITOR’S NOTE.—The Octavia Hill Association is a stock company
  organized to improve living conditions in such neighborhoods as those
  described in the foregoing paper, on lines similar to the work of Miss
  Octavia Hill in London. Its aim is to improve old houses and small
  properties rather than to build new ones. It uses women rent
  collectors, both paid workers and volunteers. The Association was
  organized in 1896 and has a capital stock of $50,000; it has paid
  yearly dividends of 4 per cent and 4½ per cent. Its capital is
  invested in houses which when purchased were typical of the classes
  above described. These houses have been properly altered and repaired
  and demonstrate the possibility of overcoming such conditions and yet
  receiving a fair financial return. The Association assumes also the
  management of property for other owners. It has seventy-seven houses
  now under its care, sixty-five of which are small houses for separate
  families, and twelve are tenements of a medium size, averaging eleven
  or twelve rooms each. The Association desires especially to extend its
  work of managing the properties of other owners, believing that the
  relation thus established is stronger and more enduring than where the
  ownership is in a company. Its directors are:

  Nathaniel B. Crenshaw, President, Girard Trust Company, Broad and
  Chestnut streets; Miss Hannah Fox, 339 South Broad street; Mrs.
  William F. Jenks, 920 Clinton street; Mrs. Thomas S. Kirkbride,
  Secretary, 1406 Spruce street; Hector McIntosh, 605 North Sixteenth
  street; Miss Helen L. Parrish, 1135 Spruce street; Mrs. William M.
  Lybrand, 139 East Walnut Lane, Germantown; George Woodward, M. D.,
  Chestnut Hill; C. H. Ludington, Jr., Treasurer, 425 Arch street.




                    THE HOUSING CONDITIONS IN BOSTON

                      By ROBERT TREAT PAINE, ESQ.

                                 Boston


The housing conditions of Boston may be studied under five aspects:

1. The growth of population compared with the increase of houses.

2. The facilities for the building of new houses by private enterprise.

3. The influence of philanthropic efforts in building model blocks and
separate homes.

4. Building laws.

5. The diminution of slum conditions.


1. The following table has been prepared by Dr. E. M. Hartwell,
statistician of Boston.

    POPULATION AND NUMBER OF DWELLING-HOUSES WITH PER CENT OF ANNUAL
                                INCREASE.
 ─────────┬───────────┬──────────┬────────────────┬──────────┬──────────
   Year.  │ Estimated │ Per Cent │Total Number of │ Per Cent │ Of those
          │Population.│Increase. │Dwelling-Houses.│Increase. │  Vacant
          │           │          │                │          │Dwellings.
 ─────────┼───────────┼──────────┼────────────────┼──────────┼──────────
   1891   │  457,772  │   2.07   │     53,429     │   2.42   │  1,104
   1892   │  467,260  │   2.07   │     54,853     │   2.67   │  1,269
   1893   │  476,945  │   2.07   │     56,730     │   3.42   │  1,446
   1894   │  486,830  │   2.07   │     58,310     │   2.79   │  1,866
   1895   │  496,920  │   2.07   │     60,039     │   2.96   │  1,964
   1896   │  509,102  │   2.45   │     60,278     │    .40   │  2,205
   1897   │  521,583  │   2.45   │     61,573     │   2.15   │  2,127
   1898   │  534,370  │   2.45   │     62,850     │   2.07   │  2,647
   1899   │  547,470  │   2.45   │     63,890     │   1.65   │  2,902
   1900   │  560,892  │   2.45   │     64,886     │   1.56   │  2,686
   1901   │  573,579  │   2.26   │     65,600     │   1.10   │  2,627
 ─────────┴───────────┴──────────┴────────────────┴──────────┴──────────

In the ten years from 1891 to 1901, while the population increased from
457,772 to 573,579, or 25.3 per cent, the number of dwelling-houses
increased from 53,429 to 65,600, or 22.8 per cent, not quite keeping
pace; and though not a few of the new buildings are capacious tenement
houses, yet actual conditions have probably not improved. It is to be
noted that 4 per cent of the dwellings are vacant.

2. The facilities for the building of new houses in the suburbs steadily
increase. The suburbs of Boston are deservedly healthy and are ample for
a vast population.

The President of the Boston Elevated Railway Company has furnished the
following statistics, which show in the last five and ten year periods a
marvelous development and explain the exodus outward from the crowded
centre into happy and healthy suburban life on some of the hundred hills
which make these suburbs so attractive. This outward migration shows no
sign of culmination, but is still under full headway.

The running time of the cars has improved so that it now averages nine
miles per hour on the whole system, against six miles or less ten years
ago when horses were used, and within the last five years it has been
reduced about 8 per cent. The track mileage increased from 260 miles in
1891 to 296 in 1896 and 408 in 1901. “For the year ending September 30,
1891, we ran 2,326,274 trips, 17,462,572 miles, carried 119,264,401
revenue passengers and 8,466,311 free transfer passengers. The average
length of each trip at that time was 7.5 miles. Five years later we ran
2,822,142 trips, 25,841,907 miles, carried 166,862,288 revenue
passengers and 17,566,361 free transfer passengers. The average length
of each trip was 9.16 miles. Five years later, or for the last fiscal
year, we ran 3,883,737 trips, 43,631,384 miles, carried 213,703,983
revenue passengers and 65,000,000 free transfer passengers. The length
of each trip had increased to 11.23 miles.”

The co-operative bank system has greatly promoted the construction and
separate ownership of the modest and cosy little homes springing up so
rapidly in all the suburbs of Boston. The Pioneer Bank was started in
1877, and to-day there are in Boston eighteen of these co-operative
banks with a capital of $5,029,478, nearly the whole of it loaned out on
small estates. A score of years ago it was no easy matter to obtain a
“building loan,” but co-operative banks have perfected the system of
loans to builders upon houses “in process of construction.” The
admirable process of small monthly payments not only educates the
borrowers into habits of saving, but in a few years reduces the loan, so
that the old-fashioned savings banks with their immense capital can take
up at lower rates these loans, when they are reduced to the statute
limit of 60 per cent of the value of the estate. Hence it is the case
that the $5,000,000 of co-operative bank capital by no means measures
the full beneficial influence of this system in the growth of suburban
homes.

3. The influence of philanthropic enterprise, compared with that of
private business, has been insignificant.

Three incorporated societies are working in a small way, the oldest, the
Boston Co-operative Building Company, chartered in 1871. With a capital
of $292,000, it has about $400,000 invested in seventy-eight houses with
985 rooms, occupied by 311 families containing 1,023 persons.

The Harrison avenue group of twenty-four three-storied brick
houses—each, except the corners, arranged for three families—has
attracted deserved attention, with its hollow square in the centre,
tastefully arranged as a playground for the children, and a bit of
beauty for the parents.

The company has just started to reproduce this hollow square on its last
purchase of 33,000 feet on Massachusetts avenue. Mr. A. W. Longfellow,
the architect of the Harrison avenue group, furnishes this plan of a
corner and a normal interior house just completed on Massachusetts
avenue, showing the latest developments of model tenement house design,
and also a land plan.

The thirty-one years of life of this company show many vicissitudes; 7
per cent being earned for some years, and then from 1876 to 1889,
dividends were stopped or reduced to 3 per cent and earnings were
invested. Recently dividends have been 6 per cent or 5 per cent. But the
capitalization of undivided profits has been so large, that it is not
possible to ascertain what the just annual earnings are from year to
year, and hence the educational influence is lost upon other capitalists
who might be incited, by a clear and exact statement of facts, to follow
the most commendable lead of this company in building the very best
model tenements and having them managed by the considerate care of women
agents.

The Workingmen’s Building Association was organized in 1888, to build
small separate houses for sale. Its first purchase of 668,591 feet,
about three miles out in Roxbury, was most successful. This tract was
divided into 150 lots, averaging 4,457 feet, so that one acre has ten
lots, with an estimated population of sixty to seventy souls.

[Illustration:

  FIRST FLOOR PLAN OF TWO HOUSES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE BLOCK FOR
    THE BOSTON COÖPERATIVE BUILDING COMPANY ❋
  ·A· W· LONGFELLOW· ARCHITECT·
]

[Illustration:

  PLAN SHOWING ARRANGEMENT OF BLOCKS ON MASS. AVE. LOT [150′ × 200′] AS
    PROPOSED FOR THE BOSTON COÖPERATIVE BUILDING COMPANY ❋❋❋
  ·A·W·LONGFELLOW·ARCHITECT· BOSTON·
]

The houses cost from $1,800 to $3,000, and were almost all for single
families, total cost of a house and land varying from $2,600 to $4,500.
They were all sold by 1894. Its next venture in Dorchester found the
demand for single houses painfully reduced in the depression of the last
seven years, while a marked preference shows itself for “two-family” or
“three-flat” houses.

This company has not succeeded in building houses at lower cost, to its
great regret.

4. The building laws of a city greatly influence results. Boston was
startled by its great fire of 1872 into creating a stringent code. This
was remodeled in 1885, chapter 374. After a commission had studied the
subject anew, the present code was enacted in 1892, chapter 419, with
subsequent amendments.

Two features are especially important: (1), the percentage of the area
of a lot which may be built upon; (2), the height of the buildings and
the provisions as to fireproof construction.

The law of 1892 permitted three-quarters of the area to be covered,
measuring to the middle of the streets on which the lot abuts. This
proviso, however, would allow a building to cover the whole of a lot
sixty feet deep on a forty-foot street. The act also required two
exposures on open spaces at least ten feet wide, of an aggregate length
of one foot, for every twenty-five square feet occupied by the building.

These last provisions, however, were found not to prohibit the
construction of a huge four-storied tenement house on a lot forty-two
feet wide and 101 feet deep, built on a dumb-bell plan, with only about
two feet of open land across a part, but not the whole, of the rear. It
was the erection, in 1894, of this barrack, which led many observers to
doubt whether these new conditions were not worse than the old; whether
these vast tenement houses, sometimes called model houses, were not far
worse in many essentials for the health and welfare of their occupants
than the little old houses, often built of wood, which they replaced.
These views are confirmed by the deliberate judgment which Miss Octavia
Hill has put on record in her valuable chapter in the second volume of
Charles Booth’s great work on London.

The construction of this great tenement house, with such trifling rear
light, occasioned the act of 1895, chapter 239, which reduced the area
to be occupied from 75 to 65 per cent, and also required an open space
across the whole rear of the building, and of a depth equal to one-half
the width of the front street, not exceeding twenty feet, or an
equivalent area of open space in the rear of other dimensions.

The act of 1897, chapter 413, section 9, exempts corner lots from this
requirement of open rear land, and also gives the Building Commissioner
discretion to accept “an equivalent area of open space in the rear or on
either side of such building.”

It is worthy of note that these requirements are less stringent than
those in the new tenement house law, chapter 334, of 1901, for Greater
New York, which limits the building to 90 per cent of a corner lot and
70 per cent of any other lot.

Secondly, the law of 1897, chapter 413, section 3, required every
tenement house to be a first-class building, _i. e._, “of fireproof
construction throughout.” It was at once apprehended that this
requirement, that all tenement houses must be of fireproof construction,
would stop the building of tenement houses for tenants paying moderate
rents. Subsequent investigation showed, that after existing permits had
been exhausted, few, if any, tenement houses were built with tenements
renting at $16 a month or less. Reaction set in, and by the act of 1900,
chapter 321, the requirement of fireproof construction was removed from
tenement houses of not more than four stories and not more than fifty
feet in height, but here again came a proviso limiting these houses to
“two families, or less, above the second story.”

This is the present tenement house law of Boston. It seriously handicaps
the construction of tenement houses, but whether this is too stringent,
and the influences are harmful, is not yet apparent. So far as an
impulse is given to scatter the population out into the healthier
suburbs and into the small, separate, detached suburban homes, each with
its little plot of land, instead of the fearful overcrowding of families
in the huge new tenement houses, students of the social welfare of the
people must certainly rejoice.

In the old North End of Boston, where population is densest and rentals
are highest, the erection of new tenement houses and the remodeling of
old buildings into tenement houses are visible in many of the streets.
On the other hand, in the southerly part of old Boston, such enterprise
is nearly at a standstill and rents are falling, owing probably to the
greater attractiveness of the neighboring suburbs.

The definition of a tenement house by the number of tenements, rather
than by the number of rooms, discriminates with unintended harshness on
just that class whose welfare ought especially to be studied, the very
poor, the lone widow, the widower, the parent with a single child, who
always find with difficulty a single spacious room, and usually pay
higher rents because of the short supply of such much-needed
accommodation. Twenty years ago a committee of the Associated Charities
made a report to show the importance of building tenements of a single
room and to call the attention of capitalists to this need. A small
one-storied house with only four rooms, adapted for the needs of four
separate women, must conform to all the expensive provisions of the
tenement house code.

A just and judicious amendment should define a tenement house as having
more than three tenements “_and containing more than twelve rooms_.”

Workers among the poor were surprised last year at orders issuing from
the Board of Health, for single tenants to vacate single rooms. Such a
notice was nailed on the door of the large “square room” in the model
block of the Boston Co-operative Building Company, on Canton street,
occupied by a lone old woman. It is supposed that this mistaken policy
has been abandoned.

A strange thing happened in 1892; the building law of that year, chapter
419, in its final section 138, repealing numerous laws, included a
repeal of the health provision, 1885, chapter 382, section 4, defining
for health purposes a “tenement house.” So that since 1892, the Board of
Health has been shorn of so much of its powers over tenement houses as
depended on the definition, so carefully inserted in the health law of
1885, which has been since then the health code of Boston. Perhaps it is
stranger still that no allusion can be found in the annual reports of
the Board of Health, to this mysterious and probably unintended
curtailment of health powers, the exact legal effect whereof no man can
tell.[9]

5. A crusade for the extirpation of the slums of Boston has been waged
for the last fifteen years, thus far with no great success. Housing
conditions are justly to be condemned so long as old, dilapidated and
unsanitary buildings are allowed to stand, often so overcrowded upon the
land that sunlight and air are practically shut out. Such conditions are
a disgrace to any city. They tempt the most wretched of the poor, or
vicious, or criminal classes to worse degradation. The breadwinner loses
his health, which is his only wealth. Children grow up in shameless loss
of self-respect. Frequent visitors are physicians, police officers, and
charity agents; physicians to struggle with needless disease, the police
to arrest criminals created by their foul environment, and charity
agents to relieve countless varieties of want caused by cruel and unjust
conditions of life.

Private initiative has been struggling in these years to secure more
vigorous action by the Board of Health in the destruction of the worst
slums. Prof. Dwight Porter, acting under the auspices of a voluntary
committee, made an investigation and “Report upon a Sanitary Inspection
of Certain Tenement house Districts in Boston,” in 1888, which really
started the movement.

Committees of the Associated Charities have lodged indictments against
many vile slums and have been heard by the board. In 1891–2, the state
caused the Bureau of Labor to make a thorough and exhaustive
investigation. The report of Hon. H. G. Wadlin sets forth in two volumes
the results. (22d and 23d Annual Reports of the Bureau of the Statistics
of Labor. “A Tenement House Census of Boston,” made pursuant to chapter
115, Resolves of 1891.)

Sanitary conditions were classified under five heads: excellent, good,
fair, poor, and bad. It may be truly stated that tenements falling so
low as to be classed “bad” are so intolerable as to demand most summary
measures for their destruction, yet 1,346 houses were found to deserve
this just but terrible condemnation (Vol. 1, p. 577).

“It may be safely assumed that whenever a tenement was designated as
entirely bad as to its inside condition—that is, to be more explicit,
was bad as to facilities for light and air, ventilation and
cleanliness—such a tenement was unfit for human habitation. The
existence of such tenements forms primarily _an indictment against the
landlord_ who is responsible for their condition. They should either be
abandoned or improved. In some cases such improvement as would render
them suitable for occupancy can easily be made; in other cases, no
doubt, they should be permanently abandoned.” (Vol. 2, p. 417.)

“The existence of defective outside sanitary conditions is, upon the
whole, _an indictment against the city_; for while some of the defects
are due to unclean or poorly kept private ways and alleys, the
responsibility of the city for the existence of such defects can hardly
be avoided.” (Italics are the writer’s.) (Vol. 2, p. 418.)

In the reports of the Boston Board of Health no allusion is found to
this fearful indictment by the authorities of the Commonwealth, or to
the following municipal report.

In 1895 a special committee of the Common Council was appointed to
consider what improvement could be made in the tenement districts of
Boston, and what legislation was needed. They made a very brief “Partial
Report” (Document 125 of 1895) from which may be quoted:—“In the North
End the tenement houses are to-day a serious menace to public health....
The most astounding circumstance in connection with this investigation
that attracted the attention of your committee is the social and
financial standing of the owners of the most of these tenement houses.”

In 1897 a study was made, under the direction of the Tenement House
Committee of the Twentieth Century Club, of certain typical slums, and
the results were published with plans of some seven areas where
buildings were old, dilapidated and so overcrowded on the land, that no
remedy was possible except destruction either of all or of many of the
tenements. (“Some Slums in Boston,” by H. K. Estabrook, May 15, 1898.)

A public hearing was granted by the Board of Health on June 27, 1898,
and many competent experts and real estate owners testified to the
intolerable conditions. Mayor Quincy attended the hearing and promised
strong support. Commendable progress was made in vacating or destroying
some of the worst slums for about three years. But the exercise of the
power to “destroy” seems recently to have been paralyzed, perhaps, as a
result of pending litigation.

The law grants two powers to the Board of Health to deal with these
evils. Since 1850, chapter 108, tenements may be “vacated” if adjudged
unfit for human habitation. This power should be exercised only after
thorough investigation and on deliberate judgment, setting forth true
and sufficient causes. It may easily work grave injury to owners if
exercised unjustly. Yet, when justly exercised, orders to vacate should
be adhered to and not lightly rescinded because of political or other
pressure. Observe that this power to vacate requires no destruction of
the building and cannot justly prevent use of the vacated tenement for
other fit purposes, not of human habitation.

In 1897, chapter 219, the power to destroy [the statute word is
“remove”] buildings first appeared in Massachusetts. Its origin is
interesting. The British “Housing of the Working Classes Act,” 1890
(53–54 Vict., chapter 70), sections 30–37, is the origin, so far as I
know, of this new power “to order the demolition” of a “dwelling-house”
“unfit for human habitation.” Section 38 enlarged this power and made it
apply to “obstructive buildings,” thus condemning one building because
it injures another building. It is surprising that any American lawyer
could suppose that such a power would be sustained in America, where the
unlimited powers of the British Parliament are much curtailed by
constitutional safeguards.

Yet New York soon copied this British Act (1895, chapter 567, amended by
1897, chapter 57) in shape so condensed as to make its injustice more
conspicuous. This act was enforced for a few years in the city of New
York, till owners of property began to defend their rights in court. The
suit of Dassori _vs._ the Health Department of New York has settled that
this law cannot be enforced to its full extent.

“Proof that rear tenement houses, each five stories high, lighted only
from a court on the west or front from five to eleven feet wide, and a
space or opening of eleven inches wide at the southeast corner of the
court, and a space on the east side of eight inches filled with all
sorts of filth, occupied by 115 persons, showing a death-rate almost
twice the normal one, damp, filthy, infested with vermin, and filled
with foul smells, and by their construction interfering with the light
which would otherwise have been enjoyed by tenement houses on the front
of the lots, justifies a finding that the rear tenement houses are unfit
for habitation, but does not necessarily establish the fact that they
are not capable of being made fit for other uses to which the owner
might lawfully put them, nor does it show that the nuisance could not be
abated in any other way than by their destruction.

“The owner of a tenement house cannot be compelled to submit to its
destruction, if it is on his own land, merely because some building
adjacent to it is, by reason of its existence, deprived of proper
ventilation.” (N. Y. Health Dept. _vs._ Dassori, Appellate Division
Reports, Vol. 21, p. 348. October, 1897.)

Boston deserves no credit for the slovenly shape in which this faulty
law was reproduced, 1897, chapter 219, closely following the language of
the New York act. First the power to vacate is set forth, yet while
covering the same ground as our ancient and well-tried statute (1850,
chap. 108; Pub. Sts., chap. 80, sec. 24; Revised Laws, chap. 75, sec.
71), neither repeals nor amends it. Then follows the power to order
“removed,” _i. e._, destroyed, a building irremediably “unfit for human
habitation.”

Statute 1899, chapter 222, enlarged these powers of the Board of Health
so that the order may be not merely to “vacate” a building “unfit for
human habitation,” but to “cease to use” a building “unfit for use”; the
power to order buildings destroyed remaining limited to those “unfit for
human habitation.”

The suit (October, 1900) of Holland _vs._ Durgin _et al._ (Board of
Health) has gone on appeal to the Supreme Court. It raises interesting
questions as to this last statute, its constitutionality, the lawfulness
of a decree to remove, without previous notice to or opportunity to be
heard by the owner, as well as the lawfulness of an order to remove
stables occupied by horses and sheds only for storage as “unfit for
habitation” (_sic_), the statute language being “unfit for human
habitation.”

The Board of Health is thus clothed with transcendent powers, whose
exercise vitally affects the physical and moral welfare, especially of
that large portion of the people who are lowest in the economic scale.
These powers should only be lodged in the hands of men of strong
character, sound judgment, sanitary experience and genuine love for the
plain people. Yet the action of the Boston Board of Health has been
characterized for many years past by mysterious apathy.

The law provides that the Board of Health shall make annually “a full
and comprehensive statement of its acts during the year, and a review of
the sanitary condition of the city,” yet in the annual volumes of the
last ten years the space devoted to the sanitary condition of the city
has been utterly insignificant.

“To this subject, houses vacated, nearly a whole page is devoted in the
report for 1892; nearly two pages in the report for 1893; from four to
six lines in each of the reports for 1894, ’95, and ’96; and not one
word in the report for 1897. Throughout the 122 pages of this last
report, this extremely important duty to vacate houses unfit for
occupancy is not mentioned.

“The report for 1895 says only this: ‘The number of houses which the
board has ordered vacated during the year because of their unsanitary
condition is 112; of this number, however, a very large per cent were
put in a satisfactory condition before the expiration of the time
allowed the occupants to quit the premises, and in such cases the orders
were not enforced.’ The report for 1896 simply quotes this one sentence,
word for word—except that ‘121’ is substituted for ‘112.’ This one
sentence, then, is the ‘full and comprehensive statement’ of the acts of
the three years, 1895–7.”

In none of these reports since 1892 “is a list given either of houses
ordered vacated or of houses actually vacated, yet hundreds of other
lists and tables are given, as lists of stables ordered discontinued, of
passageways paved, and even of minor defects in certain houses. While in
the reports of the New York Board of Health there are complete lists of
houses vacated and of those demolished, in only two of our reports,
those for 1892 and ’93, are any of the houses ordered vacated named.”

The objection of injury to tenants by the destruction of slums has no
weight. The Associated Charities (Report of 1898, pp. 40–48) seized the
occasion of the building of the South Station and the change in the
neighborhood, in 1897–8, to cause a careful study to be made of the
results upon the welfare of the twelve poorest families known to them
when that sudden and forced migration occurred. “It brought out the
interesting fact that in every case the condition of the family was
improved by the change.”

Death-rates by wards are shown in the annual report of 1901 of the
Registry Department of Boston for the first time, so that it is possible
to compare. The ghastly fact stands out that the death-rate in some
wards is more than double what it is in the healthier wards, viz: one
person dying in the year 1900 out of 39 in Ward 7, 40 in Ward 13, 41 in
Ward 6, and 42 in Ward 5, contrasted with one in 81 in Ward 25, 72 in
Ward 24, 71 in Ward 23, 69 in Ward 20 (p. 5).

Now that this table proves how the murder of the innocents goes on, the
public conscience should be aroused. Statisticians will also tell us
that the ratio of sickness keeps pace with the ratio of death, so that
sickness among the poor, with its train of evils, is twofold more than
good sanitary conditions should tolerate.

The model buildings of London have told the world what a powerful
influence upon the length of life (and of course upon the amount of
sickness) of their occupants is exerted by healthy homes. The Peabody
buildings with a population of about 20,000 show a death-rate of about 1
in 71; and the Waterlow buildings, with 30,000 tenants, about 1 in 100,
while the rate of all London is about 1 in 57. In Boston, 1 out of 48
dies yearly.

A Tenement House Commission will probably be appointed by the Mayor this
year, to consider and report upon existing conditions and possible
improvement.

On the whole, the outlook is full of hope. Vigilance and vigorous action
are demanded of all municipal authorities. Public interest is aroused.
The action of other cities in Great Britain as well as in New York and
other American cities warns Boston not to fall behind in this movement,
which will surely give to us and our children a healthier city for the
homes of the plain people, with its plague spots extirpated, and an
increasing proportion of the population living out in suburban homes in
this city of unsurpassed suburban beauty.




                   HOUSING CONDITIONS IN JERSEY CITY

                          By MARY BUELL SAYLES

             Fellow of the College Settlements Association


The housing of the working people in Jersey City presents few striking
or distinctive features. There are in the crowded parts of the city no
such alley-intersected or narrow back street districts as are found in
certain sections of Chicago and Philadelphia; there is no block which
presents such conspicuously bad conditions of overcrowded land areas,
and consequently deficient lighting and ventilation, as prevail
throughout the newer tenement house districts of New York. None the less
the evils of construction of sanitary neglect and of overcrowded living
quarters, which have been brought to light in the recently completed
investigation upon which the present article is based, are of a
character both to claim the interest of specialists and to compel the
attention of citizens.

In his report on housing conditions and tenement laws in leading
American cities, Mr. Veiller, then secretary of the New York Tenement
House Commission of 1900, notes but four cities, out of the twenty-seven
which he discusses, as having a tenement house problem. Among these is
Jersey City. Yet compared with the situation in New York, the Jersey
City tenement house problem is still in its early stages. The great mass
of the working class population is housed either in converted dwellings
or in tenement houses of the primitive type commonly erected here, as in
Manhattan, twenty to forty years ago; and these two classes of houses,
which in the great city have been rapidly giving way, during the last
generation, before the onslaught of the dumb-bell tenement with its
characteristic eighteen-inch wide air-shaft and overcrowded lot, in the
smaller city show few signs of a similar yielding of place. Very few
tenements are at present in process of erection, and so few built within
the last five or even ten years were found in the districts
investigated, that it is difficult to speak with certainty of present
tendencies in construction. It is, therefore, chiefly to evils long
fixed upon the community and grown so familiar as to be generally
overlooked, that attention has been directed—evils none the less serious
for this fact, and all the more difficult to eradicate.

The investigation upon which, as has been said, the present paper is
based, was necessarily very limited in scope, as it was undertaken
single-handed and, under the conditions of the College Settlements
Association fellowship, confined to a single academic year. Five hundred
houses having been decided upon as a reasonable estimate of the field
which could and should be covered, three districts were selected as
representative both of the worst and—hardly less important—of average
housing conditions. Seventeen blocks in all were investigated. Of these
the investigation of the first was largely experimental, as it was
undertaken before the printing of the regular schedules used later on,
and its results, though hardly less complete than those afterwards
obtained, are not in all respects uniform with them, and have therefore,
for the present, been set aside. It is then with the returns from
sixteen blocks, consisting of the records of five hundred and four
houses,[10] and of two thousand one hundred and fifty-four
apartments,[11] that we shall deal in this paper.[12]

Of the three districts, the first and largest includes the eight blocks
bounded by Sussex and Essex and by Van Vorst and Hudson streets,
together with two others adjoining, extending between Hudson and Greene
to Grand, and between Van Vorst and Warren to Dudley street. The widest
range of conditions, as might be expected from its relative size, is to
be found in this district. From the comfortable well-built dwellings of
Sussex street, only recently converted to tenement house uses, and still
in a large proportion of cases unaltered, to the four and five story
brick tenements and the huddled rear houses of Morris and Essex streets,
every type and grade of house is represented. The population of the
district is overwhelmingly foreign. Only 18 per cent of the 1,278
families interviewed were of American stock, while in some of the blocks
south of Morris street the percentage falls as low as 11 per cent. The
foreign elements most largely represented are the Polish and Russian,
who together lead with 18 per cent; the Germans who follow with 20 per
cent, and the Irish with 18 per cent. Twenty other nationalities are
represented, but as the most numerous, the Jewish, is represented by but
thirty-two families, no one of them forms an important element
numerically in the population.

The industrial attractions which have brought together this foreign
population are not far to seek. The great American Sugar Refinery looms
conspicuously on the southern boundary of the district; numerous other
factories and workshops are interspersed through the blocks; while to
the north, within a few minutes’ walk, lies the Pennsylvania Railroad,
and to the south, across a narrow strip of water, stretch the docks of
the Central Railroad of New Jersey. The foreign population shows, as was
to be expected, a heavy preponderance of factory hands, railroad
employees, and longshoremen.

The second district includes the two blocks bounded by Railroad avenue
and Morgan street and by Henderson and Warren streets, and another
adjoining, extending between Provost and Henderson to Bay street.
Bounded to the south by the Pennsylvania Railroad’s elevated tracks,
stretching out toward the Erie Railroad, and hedged in towards the
Hudson by factories, foundries and workshops, it offers to the immigrant
almost the same inducements of employment as does District I, and
presents an even larger percentage of foreign born inhabitants. Of the
506 families whose apartments were investigated, not quite 14 per cent
were Americans, 42 per cent were Polish, 18 per cent Irish, 13 per cent
Italians and 4 per cent Germans. Among the remaining families the Jewish
lead, numbering 16.

The houses of this district correspond with the older and more neglected
portion of District I, showing, however, a larger proportion of wooden
buildings and a smaller proportion of high tenements.

District III, consisting of the three blocks bounded by First and Second
and by Monmouth and Merseles streets, is located farther from the
business centre of the city and from the water front, near the foot of
the hill on which are situated most of the better-class resident
districts. It lies in the heart of what is known as Little Italy—the
most distinctively national section of the city, and the most
dilapidated and neglected. Sixty-five per cent of the 377 families
interviewed were Italians, and their manner of packing themselves
solidly where once they enter into possession gives to the southern half
of the district, with the blocks adjoining, an intensely foreign aspect.
The remaining 35 per cent, among whom the Irish, the American with 10
per cent, and the German nationalities predominate, are interspersed
chiefly on the northern side of the blocks, along Second street.

Rival attractions to the railroads, factories and docks, which claim so
large a part of the population in the other two districts, are here
offered by the dump-grounds adjacent. Irregular heavy laboring work is,
however, the predominating occupation among the Italians, though the
rag-picker and junk-dealer are frequently found, as well as the
omnipresent factory hand.

So much for the characteristics of the separate districts. For the
remainder of the paper, the houses will be dealt with, in the main,
without regard to district lines. Some preliminary classifications may
properly be given before more detailed points of construction and
sanitation are taken up, or special evils pointed out.

First of all, classifying the 504 houses by materials, we find that just
55 per cent are of wood, and 45 per cent of brick—a few of the former
having brick, and a few of the latter stone, fronts. If we group them by
the number of stories, three-story and three-story-and-basement houses
are found to lead with 54 per cent; four and four-story-and-basement
houses come next with 31 per cent; 5 per cent have five stories; the
remaining 10 per cent have either two stories or two stories and
basement, with the exception of two houses, one and one-half stories and
one-story-and-basement respectively.

Again, we may group the houses by the number of apartments contained.
Houses occupied by but one family were not touched in the investigation,
but sixty-three two-family houses were examined, leaving 431 houses
which contain accommodations for three families or more, thus falling
under the definition of a tenement house most generally accepted
throughout the country. Three-apartment houses are most common, 25 per
cent of the total number falling under this head; 58 percent have from
four to nine apartments; of houses containing ten apartments or more
there are twenty-three, or 4 per cent.

Another significant classification of houses is that by position on the
lot. Fourteen per cent of the houses investigated are rear houses. These
figures, however, give little idea of the actual aspect of things, as
two blocks are without any rear houses, and six others have but one or
two each, while in one block rear houses constitute no less than 40 per
cent of all. These houses are seldom over three stories in height, are
almost always of wood, are in general very old and frequently
dilapidated.

Turning now from classifications of the houses themselves to consider
the apartments they contain, we find that three-room apartments lead by
a wide margin, constituting 41 per cent of the total of 2,154. Next come
four-room apartments with 28 per cent; two-room apartments with 12 per
cent; five-room apartments with 7 per cent; six-room apartments with 4
per cent. Of one-room apartments there is less than 1 per cent. One per
cent of the apartments examined contained over six rooms.

If now, leaving these preliminary statistics, we turn to matters of
greater interest, we shall find it convenient to group the chief evils
found, as first, evils of construction, under which we shall speak only
of the two leading faults, lack of proper provision for escape in case
of fire, and inadequate lighting and ventilation; next, sanitary evils,
some of which are structural and some the result of natural conditions
or neglect; and lastly, evils of occupancy, chief among which is that of
overcrowded apartments.

The absence of fire-escapes is perhaps the most conspicuous and glaring
fault observable in the tenement houses of Jersey City. Of the
twenty-four five-story buildings found, just one-half were provided with
fire-escapes; while of the 155 four-story or four-story-and-basement
houses, only four were so equipped. After these figures it will hardly
surprise anyone to learn that in no case was a fire-escape found upon a
three-story house. There are thus out of a total of 431 tenement houses,
most of them three stories or more in height, but sixteen, or 3 per
cent, which are provided with fire-escapes of any kind.

The character of the fire-escapes found makes them in a number of cases
practically valueless. The balconies of five had wooden floors; and not
only in a large proportion of cases were balconies seriously encumbered
and stairway or ladder openings covered by tenants, but in two instances
trap doors were regularly fitted to these openings, the owner thus
encouraging the use of the balcony as a general catch-all and storage
place. Furthermore, in only three houses did all the apartments above
the ground floor have access to a balcony, while in one instance, but
one out of four families was provided with such means of egress. No form
of fireproof construction was anywhere found, even the dumb-waiter
shafts in the higher buildings, well known to be one of the most common
paths by which fire spreads, being almost without exception of wood.

In regard to lighting and ventilation, the facts are less easily
grouped. The buildings being seldom of a depth to encroach seriously
upon the yards, we find, with the exception of a very few of the higher
houses, that nearly all of the kitchens and general living-rooms open
upon the yard or street and are thus adequately lighted. In the
converted dwellings, and in all houses occupied by but one family on
each floor, a large proportion of bedrooms also are open to the outer
air. But in the three or four-story buildings erected originally for
tenement uses, and furnishing accommodations for two families or more on
a floor, a light bedroom is more nearly the exception than the rule. The
typical interior room is lighted by a window to the outer living-room or
a public hall, these windows seldom having more than five square feet of
glazed surface, and more frequently an area of from three to four square
feet. One thousand and eighty-four such rooms were noted in the course
of the investigation; while—a still more serious evil—399 rooms were
found which had no window at all, and in most cases not even a transom
opening into another room.

Light and air-shafts were found in only a small proportion of the
tenement houses investigated; and a light and air-shaft which is more
than the merest travesty of its respectable name is emphatically an
exception. The typical shaft is a triangular or oblong niche in the
outer wall, with an area of from five to twenty square feet; an
occasional variation being found in a square shaft of about the same
area, let into the interior of the house and covered in most cases by
a skylight. Below the top story such shafts furnish practically no
light, while tenants bore almost unvarying witness that windows upon
them were uniformly kept closed. A single whiff of the pent-up air
within their narrow walls is quite sufficient to convince one of the
wisdom of such disregard of their presence; and one feels no surprise
in reading the evidence of chemists and physicians as to the positive
injury to health wrought by pretended ventilation of this
sort—evidence which has led to the giving of the suggestive name of
culture tubes to such shafts. Among evils of sanitation only a few of
the most serious can be touched upon. Most conspicuous and widespread
of all is that of the foul and ill-smelling privy vault. Seventy-five
per cent of the houses investigated furnish no toilet accommodations
save these objectionable structures in the yard. The vaults are in the
main sewer-connected, one block and part of another in District III
being the only sections in which no street sewer is laid, though
unsewered vaults were found in small numbers elsewhere. But a sewer
connection is in a large proportion of cases a most illusory blessing.
The great mass of solid matter frequently remains after the liquids
have run off to the sewer, and its decomposition renders the air of
the yard, upon which the rear rooms depend, many times almost
intolerable. In two cases school-sinks—modified privies, with metal
vaults in which water stands—were discovered in cellars; but as the
water was changed, according to the testimony of tenants, but once a
week, these cannot be said to offer many advantages over the ordinary
privy. Among the 368 water-closets in use in the remaining houses, the
old and objectionable pan closets number sixty-one; while numerous
water-closet compartments are either entirely unventilated or have
windows only to halls or rooms, and in a number of cases, especially
on the top floor of five-story buildings, the water-flush is wholly
inadequate to cleanse the bowl.

A serious evil is also found in the location and condition of household
sinks. In seventy of the houses investigated all such sinks were located
in the public hall, while in fifty-five other houses sinks were so
located on one or more floors. Nearly every such sink is used by two
families. In one block, chosen at haphazard from those of the Italian
district, sixty apartments were found whose occupants were obliged so to
share their sink; while fifteen other apartments were provided with but
one sink to every three or four apartments. Furthermore, eight houses
were found in which, in flat defiance of a city ordinance, no water at
all was furnished indoors. One row of four such houses, containing in
all twenty-two apartments, was provided with but two hydrants in the
common yard, one hydrant serving for ten, the other for twelve
apartments.

The collection of statistics as to the plumbing of sinks was not at
first attempted, but was taken up as the result of an observation of
conditions in the earlier blocks investigated. Eleven hundred and
sixty-two sinks, located in four blocks of District I, and in the six
blocks of Districts II and III, were examined. Of these only 10 per cent
were properly trapped and vented; 68 per cent were trapped but not
vented—a far from satisfactory state of affairs, especially where as in
many cases traps were so small or otherwise defective as to be
practically useless; 10 per cent were neither trapped nor vented, the
pipes thus offering free passage to the contaminated sewer air; 12 per
cent were boarded up solidly, so that the waste-pipes could not be
examined—an almost sure sign that the concealed plumbing is of the
oldest and worst type.

One serious element in the insanitary conditions of the districts
investigated, which, unlike those just mentioned, cannot primarily be
charged to the householder, is found in the character of the land upon
which a large part of lower Jersey City is built. Only six of the
sixteen blocks investigated are composed entirely of original solid
ground. Five blocks in District I were in greater or less degree formed
by the filling in of marsh land or the extension of the water front. All
of District II, and nearly all of two blocks of District III, were so
formed.[13]

The significance of these facts appears when we realize that land so
made is largely intermingled with refuse matter, and, still more
important, is generally damp and is subject to periodic risings of
tidewater. In a large proportion of the houses built upon such land,
observations of the investigator, supplemented by the testimony of
tenants, proves that the water in cellars unprotected, as are nearly
all, by water-proof flooring, stands at times to a depth of several
inches. Sewage is thus frequently washed back into yards and cellars,
first floor apartments are rendered damp and unhealthful, and nauseating
odors suggest the serious danger to health which such a condition brings
upon the entire house. Fortunately the cellar-dwelling evil is not a
prevalent one in Jersey City; yet one instance is recalled where a
family paying for four rooms in the basement and first floor had been
obliged to vacate the lower two rooms entirely—the men of the family
wading through water knee-deep to rescue the kitchen stove.

One of the most serious evils from which the poorer classes suffer is
that of overcrowded apartments. As was anticipated from the facts
brought to light by investigations in other American cities, this evil
was found to be most prevalent among the poorest foreign population,
especially the Poles and Italians, and is largely due to the custom of
taking so called boarders—really, in most cases, lodgers, who provide
their own bedding and pay in the neighborhood of two dollars a month.

There are two ways of measuring overcrowding in apartments; by number of
individuals per room, and by cubic air space per individual. To secure
perfectly accurate results, it is of course necessary to discover just
how many rooms in a given apartment are occupied for sleeping purposes
and how many persons sleep in each. This may seem a simple matter, but
in practice reliable results are not only very difficult, but in many
cases impossible to secure, save by a night inspection. Not only must
allowance be made for very general under-statement of the number of
boarders taken, but in a large proportion of cases either no answers at
all or wholly unsatisfactory answers can be obtained to questions as to
the distribution of members of the family and of boarders at night.
Under these circumstances it has seemed best, instead of attempting to
state the number of individuals sleeping in each room and the precise
cubic air space afforded by that room to each, to give the ratio of
number of occupants to entire number of rooms in each apartment, and the
cubic air space per individual afforded by that apartment as a whole.
Only rough indications of the degree of overcrowding at night are of
course given by this method, but it has at least the advantage of
greater accuracy so far as it goes than could fairly be claimed for one
seemingly more precise.

Applying the method of measurement by cubic air space to the 2,154
apartments investigated, we find that in 65 per cent of them each
occupant has an allowance of 600 cubic feet of air or more. Living
conditions in most of these apartments are fair, and in many good; yet
some of the most disgraceful cases of overcrowding were found among
them—as in one apartment, where in a single large room two little girls
of about twelve years slept, together with a varying number of male
boarders. The remaining 35 per cent of apartments afford less than 600
cubic feet of air space per occupant. This means in nearly all cases a
serious degree of overcrowding; since if bedrooms alone are occupied at
night such an allowance for the whole apartment means actually on an
average less than 400 cubic feet, and often less than 300 or even 200
cubic feet for each person; while if the crowding compels the use of the
kitchen for sleeping purposes, other evils hardly less serious are added
to those of limited air space. Such being the meaning of the figures
given, it becomes evident that in the 199 apartments, 9 per cent of all,
in which there were found to be less than 400 cubic feet of air space to
each occupant in the apartment as a whole, very serious danger to health
exists. It is below the limit of 400 cubic feet per adult, with a
smaller allowance for children, that government interference has
generally been authorized, where authorized at all; as is notably the
case in Glasgow, where the law is enforced by an especially efficient
system of night inspection, and among American cities in New York.

The other test of overcrowding, by ratio of number of persons to number
of rooms, while a less accurate means of estimating effect on health,
furnishes a more accurate indication of the relation of overcrowding to
standards of decency. An example typical of many cases met with will
make this distinction clear. Suppose two large high-ceiled rooms with a
total cubic contents of 3,500 cubic feet, occupied by eight people. Each
person has then more than the minimum of 400 cubic feet; yet the absence
of any possibility of privacy or decency of living involved where men
and women boarders, parents and growing children make up the eight, need
not be dwelt upon. It is evident that four rooms with an aggregate
contents of less than 3,200 cubic feet might be occupied by the same
eight persons with perhaps greater danger to health from limited
breathing space, but with certainly better opportunities for separation
by sexes.

If we apply this second method of measurement, we find that in 24 per
cent of the total number of apartments there are two persons or more to
each room. Such apartments may fairly be classed as overcrowded; since
either every room is occupied for sleeping purposes, or if one room is
reserved for kitchen and living-room, the bedrooms are shared by a
minimum average of two and two-thirds, three or four persons each,
according as the number of rooms in the apartment is four, three or
two.[14] To appreciate what this means it is of course necessary to
realize that few bedrooms in such apartments contain more than 800 cubic
feet, while a large proportion are dark interior rooms containing from
600 to 400 cubic feet or even less. These facts having been pointed out,
it is unnecessary further to emphasize the seriousness of the state of
affairs, where, as in 196 apartments, 9 per cent of the total number,
the ratio of number of occupants to number of rooms rises as high as 2.5
or more.

Space will not permit of an extended comparison of these conditions of
overcrowding with those revealed by similar investigations in other
cities. It is interesting, however, to note in passing that the average
number of individuals per room in the districts investigated is higher
than the average number of occupants per room in the 9,859 apartments
covered by the recent investigation of the City Homes Association in
Chicago; the former being 1.35, and the latter 1.28 persons. While
averages do not form the most satisfactory basis of comparison, a
difference so marked as this unquestionably indicates a greater degree
of overcrowding in the Jersey City than in the Chicago districts.

Enough has been said, it is believed, to show that serious housing
problems demand solution in Jersey City. While the investigation covered
the living environment of but 10,179 persons out of a total city
population of 206,433, it may yet fairly claim to have some
representative value. The districts investigated of course present
conditions different in some respects from those of the city as a whole.
Thus—to use a method of comparison too rough to have any but a
suggestive value—while but 28 per cent of the total population of the
city are foreigners, 84 per cent of the heads of families whose
apartments were investigated are foreign born. Along with this large
proportion of the poorest foreign population go unquestionably
especially bad conditions of overcrowding, and in many respects of
sanitary neglect; though such is not the case with faults of housing
construction pure and simple. Nevertheless the accusation that an
unfairly dark and harrowing picture has been presented cannot justly be
brought; since on the one hand many tenement houses of the best type
were included, as is shown by a range of monthly rents between extremes
of $17 and $3 per apartment; while on the other, large numbers of blocks
as bad in character as any of those investigated could be pointed out in
other parts of the city. The hope of furnishing data upon which a
movement for reform might safely base its demands was the determining
incentive to the investigation; but this direct practical aim has by no
means obscured the sociological and scientific interests involved. If
the results obtained shall on the one hand be used as a point of
departure for social effort, and on the other be judged a real though
small contribution to the literature of the housing problem, the ends
sought will have been fully attained.




                      IV. The Child Labor Problem




                        CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION

                        By MRS. FLORENCE KELLEY

                  Secretary National Consumers’ League


It is most desirable that the present widespread agitation for child
labor legislation may achieve permanent results of a uniform character.
Such laws as now exist are alike in no two states; they are enforced
differently when they are enforced at all; they are uniform only in
their failure to afford adequate protection to the rising generation of
the working class.

It is the aim of this paper to set forth some essential points of an
effective child labor law efficiently enforced; for whatever the local
differences of industrial conditions may be, certain fundamental needs
of childhood are constant and child labor legislation must ultimately be
framed with regard to these.

This fact is somewhat recognized in the statutes already enacted; for
all these begin with a restriction upon the age at which the child may
begin to work. This minimal age has varied from ten years to fifteen,
differing in some states for boys and for girls, while the statutes
prescribing it have been weakened in some states by exemptions and
strengthened in others by educational requirements. The fundamental
provision of all child labor legislation has always been the prohibition
of work before a specified birthday.

Akin to the restriction of the age of employment is the restriction of
the hours of work. The former secures to the child a fixed modicum of
childhood; the latter assures to the adolescent certain leisure, all too
little, for growth and development.

No one law can be selected as containing all the provisions needed or
even as containing all the provisions now in force. It is not possible
to say to students of the subject, “The law of Massachusetts should be
copied everywhere,” for the laws of Ohio and Illinois contain single
provisions in advance of that of Massachusetts.

Among the best child labor laws in the United States are those of
Illinois and Indiana, which are almost identical. In Illinois no child
under the age of fourteen years can be legally employed in any mine,
manufacturing establishment, factory or workshop, mercantile
institution, store, office, or laundry. The Indiana law adds, to the
foregoing list, renovating works, bakeries and printing offices. This
prohibition is absolute throughout the year, admitting no exemptions or
exceptions. Herein lies the superiority of these laws. Under the New
York law, children at work in stores are exempt from restrictions during
half of December—from December 15 to December 31—and also during the
vacations of the public schools, when they may be employed from the age
of thirteen years everywhere outside of the factories, which happily
they may not enter before the fourteenth birthday. This exemption in New
York has been given such elastic construction that children have been
employed on Saturdays and even on school-days out of school-hours.

The laws of Illinois and Indiana are humane; they set the highest age
limit without exemptions yet attained; they are equitable since they
place mine owners, manufacturers and merchants in the same position in
relation to this particular source of cheap labor. The employment of
children under fourteen years of age is prohibited to all three sets of
employers alike.

Treating these laws as standard or normal, for purposes of comparison,
the law of Pennsylvania, for instance, is seen to fall below, because
under it children may work in certain mines at twelve years and in
factories at thirteen years of age; while lowest in the scale among all
the Northern and Middle states stands New Jersey, whose child labor law
permits boys to work at twelve and exempts all children, on grounds of
poverty, at discretion of the factory inspectors.


                             _Exemptions._

From the foregoing brief statement it is clear that the subject of
exemptions is a varied and complicated one. The most insidious form of
exemption, and therefore perhaps the most dangerous, is that prescribed
in the law of Wisconsin. Under it, no child may be employed under the
age of fourteen years in manufacture or commerce, unless it is exempted
on grounds of poverty by a judge of a local court. In practice, a judge
has no time to investigate the economic condition of hundreds of
families; hence he follows the recommendation of the deputy factory
inspector. This overworked officer is drawn away from his proper duties
to perform an economic investigation for which he possesses no especial
fitness. His own work suffers. Children are exempted from school
attendance and permitted to work, who more than any other children in
the community need education because of the poverty or shiftlessness of
their parents. Too often, drunken fathers are encouraged to further
drunkenness because their young children, under exemption, are earning
money which the parents spend. Finally, this exemption rests upon the
pernicious principle that a young child under fourteen years of age may
be burdened with the support of itself or its family.

It is not a legitimate function of the judiciary to investigate the
poverty of individual families. It is not a legitimate function of the
factory inspectors to investigate family life. Both officers are
interrupted in the performance of their legitimate duties by every
attempt to perform this alien task. Moreover, children under fourteen
years of age are undesirable additions to the body of wage-earners,
pressing by their competition upon the wages of their seniors and
therefore tending to produce in other families the same poverty which
serves as a pretext for their own exemption. The number of exempted
children, under such a provision, tends to increase continuously,
because greedy and pauperized parents are tempted to follow the example
of the really needy, in urging applications for exemptions.


                           _Reinforcements._

Besides being free from all the undermining effects of exemption
clauses, the child labor laws of Illinois and Indiana profit by several
reinforcing clauses. Chief among these is the requirement that children
under sixteen years and over fourteen years must keep on file in the
office of the place of employment an affidavit of the parent or
guardian, stating the date and place of birth of the child. In Indiana,
this must state also that the child can read and write the English
language. While some parents are undoubtedly guilty of perjury, and
others carelessly take the oath perfunctorily administered by a notary
public, thousands of honest people are deterred by the requirement of
the affidavit from sending their children to work before reaching the
fourteenth birthday.

Employers must produce, on demand of factory inspectors, affidavits for
all children under sixteen years of age in their employ. The penalty
prescribed for failure to do this is the same as for employing a child
under the age of fourteen years. The value of this provision for the
protection of the children depends wholly upon the policy of the
inspectors. If every failure to produce the affidavit is followed by
immediate prosecution, manufacturers become extremely cautious about
employing young children; children under fourteen years of age virtually
cease to be employed; and the number of those employed under sixteen
years of age diminishes because many employers refuse to be troubled
with affidavits, inspections and prosecutions. On the other hand,
employers of large numbers of children find it profitable to make one
clerk responsible for the presence in the office of an affidavit for
every child between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years. In these
cases, the children who have affidavits acquire a slight added value,
are somewhat less likely to be dismissed for trifling reasons, and
become somewhat more stable in their employment.

Where, however, inspectors fear to prosecute systematically, lest they
be removed from office, the provision requiring an affidavit to be
produced by the employer, on demand of an inspector, is not rigorously
enforced; children soon come to be employed upon their verbal assurance
that they are fourteen years of age, and the protection which might be
derived from this very useful reinforcing clause is lost for the
children under fourteen years of age, as well as for the older ones.

A farther reinforcement of the prohibition of employment of children
under fourteen years of age is the authority conferred by the Illinois
law upon inspectors to demand a certificate of physical fitness for
children who may seem unfit for their work. This provision enforced with
energy and discretion can be made, in the case of children conspicuously
undersized, largely to counteract the tendency to perjury on the part of
parents, besides relieving healthy children from overstrain of many
kinds. The difficulties encountered are chiefly two:—physicians grant
certificates without visiting the place of employment. This occurs quite
uniformly to the disgrace of the profession. Physicians also grant
certificates, in many cases, without careful examination of eyes, heart,
lungs and spinal column of the child, simply upon the parent’s statement
of poverty. To make this reinforcement thoroughly effective, every
factory inspection staff should include a physician, preferably two, a
man and a woman, appointed expressly to follow up the children and the
conditions under which they work.


                          _Educational Tests._

Several states require that children under sixteen years of age must be
able to read and write simple sentences in the English language, before
being employed. This is of the highest value in those states which
receive large streams of immigration from Europe. In New York, every
year, numbers of children are dismissed from factories by order of
factory inspectors, because the children cannot read; while in
Massachusetts, French Canadian children find school attendance at a high
premium because of the difficulty of securing employment without it. The
influence of the foreign voting constituency has defeated in several
states, for several years past, the effort to secure a statutory
requirement of ability to read and write English, or a specified
attendance at school, as a prerequisite for work on the part of children
under sixteen years of age. This is conspicuously true of Illinois,
where such a provision was defeated in the legislatures of 1893, 1895
and 1897.

The most powerful reinforcement of the child labor law is a compulsory
school attendance law effectively enforced. For want of this, the child
labor law of Illinois suffers severely. The school attendance law
requires children between the ages of eight and fourteen years to attend
school sixteen weeks, of which twelve must be consecutive. Children
under ten years of age must enter school in September, children under
twelve years must enter school not later than New Year’s. Meagre as
these provisions are, they are not uniformly and effectively enforced by
the local school boards; and the state factory inspectors are therefore
burdened with frequent prosecutions of employers because children under
fourteen years of age are sent to work by parents who should be
rigorously prosecuted by the school attendance officers.

In Indiana, the reinforcement afforded by the state truancy law is of
great value, for children must attend school to the age of fourteen
years, throughout the term of the school district in which they live,
generous provision being made for truant officers. This difference
accounts, perhaps, for the fact that Indiana has but three and one-half
thousand children under the age of sixteen years at work, compared with
nineteen thousand such children in Illinois; and this despite the rapid
development of the “Gas Belt” in Indiana, where the temptation is very
great for parents to put excessively young children to work with the
help of perjured affidavits. Truant officers, watching young children,
from the eighth to the fourteenth birthday, every day of the school
term, are the best preventive alike of perjury by parents and of child
labor. They constitute the best possible reinforcement of the child
labor law.

The contrasted practice of the neighboring states of Indiana and
Illinois, in this respect, is so marked that, unless the policy of
Illinois be radically changed in the near future, it is reasonable to
expect that, despite the excellent child labor law, the number of
children at work under the age of sixteen years must continue to double
at intervals of five years, as it has done in the past—the recruits
being largely drawn from the ranks of the children under the legal age
for work.

In Boston, the very enlightened firm of merchants known as Filene’s have
long made it a rule to employ no person who is not a graduate of the
grammar grades of the public schools. In two cases known to the writer,
girls aged respectively eighteen and sixteen years applied for work, but
were not engaged because they had not completed the school requirement.
They found employment elsewhere while attending the graded evening
schools of Boston in preparation for service at Filene’s. It is
reasonable to expect that this method of securing efficient help will be
increasingly followed by public-spirited employers interested in placing
a premium upon school attendance, until at last legislators may feel
justified in specifying some one grade of the schools below which the
pupil may not leave to begin working.


                         _The Hours of Labor._

Among the most advanced restrictions upon the hours of labor of children
is that of New Jersey, which prohibits all persons, men, women and
children, alike, from working in manufacturing establishments longer
than fifty-five (55) hours in any week, or after one o’clock on
Saturday. This provision applies throughout the year. Massachusetts and
Rhode Island prohibit the employment of women of any age and of youths
under eighteen years, longer than fifty-eight hours in any week, or ten
hours in one day, or after nine at night or before six in the morning.

These laws have the advantage of precision. They require that the hours
of work of the persons concerned must be posted conspicuously, and that
the posted hours shall constitute the working day—work beyond the posted
hours constituting a violation of the law—thus rendering the enforcement
of the law simple and easy.

The statute of Utah prohibits all persons from working in mines,
smelters and factories longer than eight hours in one day and
forty-eight hours in one week. This statute has been sustained by the
Supreme Court at Washington, in the decision in the case of Holden _vs._
Hardy, 1896. It does not, at present, affect any considerable number of
children, because child labor hardly exists in Utah. But with the
development of manufacture, now proceeding with startling rapidity, the
value of this enlightened law for the children who must inevitably find
employment is quite beyond computation. And as a precedent for similar
legislation elsewhere, this statute and the extremely strong decision of
the Supreme Court at Washington sustaining the validity of the statute
are of epoch-making importance.


                       _Night Work of Children._

The extent to which children are employed at night is not generally
recognized. In any state in which such employment is not explicitly
prohibited, it is very general in all branches of industry in which
children are employed by day. Glassworks, nut and bolt works, tin can
factories, furniture factories, cutleries, and scores of miscellaneous
industries employ boys regularly at night. Girls are regularly employed
in garment and candy factories during the busy season; and in some
factories this work continues all through the year, as in the cotton
mills of Georgia, Alabama and the Carolinas. Wherever the prohibition is
not explicit and sweeping, the night work of children is the rule, not
the exception. In Illinois and Indiana boys are not prohibited from
working at night, and are regularly employed in the glassworks in both
states under circumstances of great hardship. In Indiana, girls are
forbidden to work after ten o’clock; but Illinois, cruelly belated in
this respect, merely restricts the work of children under sixteen years
of age to sixty hours in any week, and ten hours in one day, failing to
proscribe night work even for girls. It is, accordingly, very common.
Even in Boston, where the hours of labor of boys under eighteen years
engaged in manufacture and other forms of commerce are strictly limited,
a recent attempt to pass an ordinance requiring that newsboys under
fourteen years of age shall not sell papers on the streets after eight
o’clock at night failed utterly, and small boys are to be seen upon the
streets at all hours. The place of honor in the matter of legislation
prohibiting night work for children properly belongs to Ohio, which
provides that minors under eighteen years of age, may not be employed
after seven o’clock at night.


                     _Children Not Yet Protected._

Large numbers of working children remain wholly unprotected by
legislation. Not only have the four great cotton manufacturing states,
Georgia, Alabama and the Carolinas, defeated all bills presented to
their legislatures for the purpose of protecting young children, but in
the North, also, newsboys, bootblacks, peddlers, vendors and the
thousands of children employed in the tenement houses of New York and
Chicago, and in the sweat-shops of Philadelphia, remain wholly outside
of the law’s protection, so far as statutory regulation of the
conditions of their work is concerned. The problem of abolishing the
overwork of school children in tenement houses, under the sweating
system, appears at present insoluble except by a prohibition of all
tenement house work.


                             _Enforcement._

To secure the enforcement of child labor legislation, there are needed
factory inspectors, both men and women, equipped with ample powers and
supplied with adequate funds for traveling and other expenses. These
inspectors need good general education, long experience, and vigorous
public opinion reinforcing their efforts. Massachusetts enjoys the
unique distinction, among the American states, of possessing a large
staff of factory inspectors meeting all these requirements; and
Massachusetts is, accordingly, the only state of which it may be
confidently asserted that its child labor law is uniformly and
effectively enforced at all times and in all its provisions. A faithful
officer serving a full quarter-century at the head of the department,
with subordinates equally assured of permanent tenure of office during
good behavior, has been able fearlessly and intelligently to enforce the
laws securing to the children of Massachusetts fourteen full years of
childhood, with opportunity for school life, followed by safety of life,
limb and health after entering upon the years of work.

In all the other states it is extremely difficult for an inspector who
faithfully enforces the law to retain his position. The interests which
oppose such legislation and object to its enforcement, are enormously
powerful and are thoroughly organized. The people who procure the
enactment of child labor laws are usually working people unacquainted
with the technical details of the work of inspection; busy in the effort
to earn their own living; not able to keep vigilant watch upon the work
of the inspectors, the creation of whose office they achieve. Thus the
officials are subjected to pressure in one direction only. If they are
idly passive, they may be allowed to vegetate in office several years.
If they are aggressively faithful to the oath of office, enforcing the
law by prosecuting offenders against its provisions, the children who
profit by this are unable to reward their benefactors; the working
people who obtained the creation of the office have no arts of bringing
pressure to bear effectively to reward faithfulness in public service by
appointed officers; while the offending employers are amply able to
punish what they decry as officious overactivity, if they do not go
farther and charge persecution and blackmail. For these reasons it may
almost be stated as a general proposition that the more lax the officer,
the longer his term of office; and the history of the departments of
factory inspection, the country over, sadly substantiates the statement.

The recent startling revelations of non-enforcement of the laws intended
to protect young children from exhausting overwork in the glass
factories in New Jersey merely intimate what will be found true in every
state in which there is not a powerfully organized, compact body of
public opinion alert to insist upon the retention of competent officers,
the removal of incompetent ones, and the uniform, consistent enforcement
of all the provisions of the child labor laws.

To form in every state, among the purchasers of the products of
manufacture, a body of alert, enlightened public opinion, keen to watch
the officers to whom is entrusted the duty of enforcing child labor
laws, rewarding with support and appreciation faithful officials and
calling attention to derelictions from duty on the part of the mere
politicians among them, this is an important part of the duty of the
National Consumers’ League.




                  CHILD LABOR IN THE DEPARTMENT STORE

                         By FRANKLIN N. BREWER

             General Manager Wanamaker Store, Philadelphia


The topic assigned me, “Child Labor in (so called) Department Stores,”
interests us, I take it, from but one point of view: that of the
education and development of the child into the man or woman who shall
contribute and receive a normal share of the world’s good growth in
life, liberty and happiness.

I cannot claim comprehensive thought or research, under this topic, and
my paper must be the brief and superficial one of a man whose too short
days are full of the work of the builder rather than the study of the
architect.

If my coming before you is justified at all, it must be by the simple
statement I am able to make of how one establishment,[15] a typical one
of the class under consideration, is trying to meet its responsibility
for its children.

First entrance into the employ of this house is, to the extent possible,
with a clear understanding between parent, or guardian, and the
employer, that the child’s business career shall continue with the same
house, at least until maturity in years and efficiency in some distinct
branch of the business shall have been reached.

Following our State law, thirteen years is the minimum age. The smaller
boys begin as “cash boys.” Girls are not given this work, positions of
less freedom being considered safer for them. The girls up to, usually,
seventeen years of age, and the boys, other than cash boys, usually,
from sixteen to eighteen, are engaged directly in the general corps of
the junior employees—we call it “The Cadet Corps”—and into this corps
the cash boys come by promotion. Except at Christmas, the cash boys will
average two hundred in number; the cadets four hundred, of whom about
one hundred are girls. These six hundred young people are assigned to
duty in the various departments and divisions of the business, according
to natural aptitude and fitness, and are under the direction of their
respective department or section heads; but always, also, and until
graduation from the Cadet Corps, they are under the care and discipline
of the chief of the corps and a lady assistant. The young people are not
lost sight of individually, but are known and studied by the managers
with view to advancement according to capacity and natural abilities.

Cultivation of good manners, neatness, elevated personal habits, the
general requirements of the store service, lessons from their individual
experiences, etc., are considered with them individually and at general
meetings, and are emphasized by a system of monthly averages bearing
upon questions of promotion and increase of salary. To illustrate: Each
of the smaller boys (the cash boys) has his record card which he must
carry for a month. It is no small departure from small-boy nature,
simply to have and hold this card during a month without a forbidden
accumulation of dirt and damage upon it. One of the early signs of
progress, after the adoption of this feature of our plan, was an
increased average whiteness and remaining area in the cards surrendered
at the month’s end. This card epitomizes the boy’s early business life
and he reverences it and guards it. On one side are rules to be
committed to memory, but this is merely incidental. The other is the
serious side, where an array of spaces gradually fill up, like the
rising of the tide. Weekly ratings by his section manager for neatness,
promptness, truthfulness, etc.; a weekly rating at morning “inspection,”
by his general chief; daily strokes of the pencil (if occasion require)
for misconduct or neglect of duty—“bluies” the boys call these latter
marks and there is no levity or disrespect in the term. Protest against
what is felt to be an undeserved “bluie” is made to his chief, or even
to the general manager, with all the earnestness of an appeal to the
Supreme Court, and, needless to say, such appeals are patiently
entertained and decided with honest effort after justice. Upon these
cards, also, are entered the monthly figures given for the boys’
school-work. The average of all the ratings is the “store average” and
the misconduct marks (“bluies”) reckon so much off. The card goes home
for inspection and signing by parent or guardian. Upon the “store
average” depend increase of salary and promotion. If advance in salary
is not won reasonably soon (six weeks or two months usually bring the
first upward step) the conclusion is apt to be reached that the boy is
unfitted for our service and he is dropped from the ranks. The simple
expedient of these cards, and that which they represent, secures in
discipline what the harsh word and impulsive discharge never could
secure, and a month or two bring about in the little “raw recruit” a
surprising improvement.

I mention these details as illustrative of the spirit, character and
thoroughness with which, to the best of our ability, the problems of the
discipline and development of our young people are met, along their
whole course from first entrance into the business up to graduation into
the ranks of men and women. And this line of procedure is simple
recognition of the fact that these are children still, whose characters
are forming, and that faults and defects, which in man or woman might
require discharge, in the child simply demand correction.

The boys above the cash boy grade, and the girls, are placed, as early
as wisely possible (depending upon their own developing tendencies and
the business conditions), where some distinct branch of the business, or
class of merchandise, will be learned thoroughly. Stock boy, salesman,
stock-head, buyer’s assistant, is the usual line of advancement in
merchandising. Development in clerical lines makes the bookkeeper, the
auditor, the office assistant, the stenographer. In trades lines grow up
among us, the milliner, the dressmaker, the paper shade and flower
worker, the plate engraver and printer, the designer, draughtsman,
decorator, show-card painter, the mechanic in repair of bicycles, dolls,
and so on. Exceedingly numerous and varied are the paths open, and in so
far as possible an early and definite selection and patient reasonable
progress along some one of these paths are insisted upon. Meanwhile
salaries are advanced systematically according to a minimum scale which
is increased as progress above the average and promotion to higher
duties may mark the course of the individual.

Does the program, thus far, sound too serious and strict for normal
happiness and hopefulness in the children? See our young people and you
will find the reverse to be true. Granted a child, normal in body and
mind, happily busy and interested in duties of genuine importance to and
among other busy people, and the question of training in the business
proper answers itself: the child learns, absorbs, grows by the easy
process of nature. His capital knowledge, as a business man, becomes to
him like the mud on the carpet at Willie’s home: “I didn’t bring it into
the house, mamma; it just stuck to my shoes and came in itself.” But the
youthful business students of to-day require for normal development more
than the round of duty of a succession of business days in a fixed place
can supply, and more than the average home and home circle of friends
and interests of the working boy or girl do supply.

And so we have found it practicable to bring into the business lives of
our young people most of the activities usual in the schools. The
smaller boys are organized into school and military companies. Each
company assembles in the school-rooms, on the fifth floor of the store
building, two mornings in the week, where regular instruction is given
in arithmetic, grammar, spelling, writing, composition and singing. On
two other mornings they have the setting-up exercises and drill of the
school of the soldier, with some other physical culture features. The
boys elect their own military officers, save, of course, their chief,
and these officers become successful disciplinarians, retaining well the
respect and obedience of their companies. A very successful fife, bugle
and drum corps, composed of the boys themselves, is a feature of this
branch of their organization. As fairly indicating the standard of these
special activities, let me mention here that this fife, bugle and drum
corps has twice marched at the head of the combined Boys’ Brigades of
Philadelphia, and has been pronounced the best junior organization of
the sort in the city.

Our girls have their school organization, also, each division having two
mornings in the week. The branches taught are those above mentioned and
also business correspondence, stenography and typewriting, and
bookkeeping. Attention is given to singing and physical culture, while
an elocution class and a mandolin club are successful outgrowths of this
branch of the store school.

The older boys, in number about three hundred, have supper in the store
and remain for their school, two evenings in a week. The branches taught
are arithmetic, spelling, writing, commercial correspondence, English,
stenography, bookkeeping, metric system, mechanical and free-hand
drawing, rapid calculation. Military and gymnastic training are given,
and as outgrowths of the school are a club for debate and literary
exercises, an orchestra, a field music band, a mandolin club, a glee
club, an elocution and dramatic class, and a minstrel troupe. Monthly
report of the standing and progress of each pupil is made to the
parents.

Each of these three branches of the store school has its separate annual
commencement exercises conducted similarly to those of other schools and
not falling below the latter in general merit. Association Hall has been
used in later years for this purpose, but is now much too small for the
gathering of the parents and friends interested. Certificates (they call
them diplomas) are given to the graduates, but these papers have double
significance. They testify to the attainment of a certain standard in
the school-work proper and also to the actual number of years of
satisfactory service in the business, with promotion from the Cadet
Corps to a position in the regular ranks of some one of the store
departments—equivalent to a stepping out of the ranks of the business
boy or girl into those of the business man or woman.

These graduates have organized themselves into Alumni and Alumnæ
Associations and maintain their fellowship, principally in social, but
partly in educative work. The school button or pin and the alumni pin
prove that these young folks are quite as human as those of other
schools and colleges. The standard of class-work done, while perhaps
less in quantity for the same length of time, does not, in quality, seem
to fall below the standard of other schools. The business training, the
business authority and the fact that excellence in school-work is also
an important element in business promotion, all give the teacher an
advantage, and the scholar an incentive greater than in ordinary
schools, and these substantially offset the disadvantage of shorter
class-hours. With justifiable pride we call the schools, collectively,
the “J. W. C. I.,” “John Wanamaker Commercial Institute.” The “Junior
Savings Fund” is another feature of the young people’s organizations of
the store, largely taken advantage of and helpfully stimulating to
habits of care with money. A summer camp, the outfit for which is owned
by the boys, provides for the vacation of many.

The results are very manifest. Jacob Riis says, “the small boy is a
boiler with steam up all the time, and if authority sits on the
safety-valve there is bound to be an explosion.” We have but few
explosions. There is so much of varied and interesting demand upon his
activities that our future business man has but little time to scheme
out mischief and practically no surplus steam to explode. The incentive
to faithful doing of his best is strong. Participation in the actual
work of the business daily is the broadest end of school-work. Beginning
early and with awakening interest and ambition, the children are in less
danger of developing wrong habits, temptation to dishonesty, a sullen or
resistful spirit toward those in control, and many another cause by
which a naturally well-equipped child fails to fulfill the promise of
his childhood.

While children here are children still, yet I know not of an equal
number of young people gathered together with an equal standard in
present character and ability and promise of future success and
usefulness. As would be supposed, such care in the early training of the
young people necessarily and naturally carries with it the advancing of
these people as the years go on, so that what is practically a system of
civil service promotion has resulted, and the higher positions are
continually filling with those who have grown up in the business from
childhood.

To be sure, it often happens that a young man, having made himself fit
for a larger position than is open to him at the time in this his
business home, goes out with our approval to some other establishment
which needs a chief and bids for him, but, on the other hand, it is true
that no young man or woman, having won a foothold in the regular store
service and continuing faithfully to do his or her best, need look
elsewhere for advancement or a business future.

Sometimes these changes to other service are invited before we think the
young man or woman fully qualified, and in any case much is risked in
the search elsewhere for sudden and uncertain advancement.

From these conditions develop three important features of modern
business life: First: A fair equivalent for the apprentice system still
so strong in the Old World, and for want of which our young business men
and mechanics have suffered in comparison with Old World competitors, in
point of thoroughness and detail knowledge; second: civil service
promotion; and third: service and disability pension.

May I presume further upon your patience with an additional question or
two? Are we prepared to say that better results than these I have tried
to indicate are observable in those trained solely in academic courses?
It is too large a question for me to attempt to answer. An answer is,
however, suggested by R. T. Crane in a pamphlet issued in 1901 in
Chicago, entitled “An Investigation as to the Utility of Academic
Education for Young Men Who Have to Earn Their Own Living and Who Expect
to Pursue a Commercial Life.” Mr. Crane comes, among other conclusions,
to this: “The truth of the matter is that, when it comes to considering
an applicant for a position, few of these gentlemen (employers in
various lines) will be found to pay any attention to the amount of
knowledge he may have of Greek, Latin, literature, etc., or care a straw
about the mental drill and discipline or the well-rounded character that
he may have acquired through a course at college. What they are
particularly interested in knowing is whether he understands their
business and can promote it. This is all that has any weight with them
in the selection of help.”

And further, “The great majority of our strongest and most successful
men in the country to-day came from farms and villages and obtained very
little education.... In my opinion, few of them would have been anywhere
near so successful in business had they gone to college, for their
success was largely due to the fact, which was impressed upon them in
the early part of their career, that they would have to struggle if they
expected to succeed.

“I feel quite sure that if the men who have been successful in business
were asked whether they regretted starting in business at the time they
did, in place of going to college and taking the chances of afterward
being able to gain the success which they have achieved, all would
answer in the negative.... I think it can be safely said that the great
men at the head of our railroads are the strongest business men the
world has ever produced, and so far as I have been able to ascertain,
not one of them is a consistent believer in college education.

“Certainly none of them have expressed in their letters any regret on
account of not having received such education themselves.

“On the contrary, Mr. Roswell Miller remarks that he spent one year in
college, and considers it fortunate that he did not spend more.”

Without depreciating the value of a college course, our business
experience tends to the conclusion that men and women trained up from
youth in the business are the most successful; that length of service,
with its unconscious absorption of and self-adjustment to the principles
and needs of the business, will carry a given degree of natural capacity
to a higher point of efficiency and success than an originally greater
degree of capacity will be likely to reach by the shorter road of
business training begun in maturer years.

I am aware that business success is but a partial test of true
education, and my mark is missed if I seem to have set up that as my
test alone. Perhaps from the unfavorable conditions of child labor in
the past, has arisen the assumption that to work for wages in early
years is necessarily a misfortune to the child, and, until now at least,
the instinctive choice of parents is for long years in the schools. But
as time brings to working men and women improved conditions, shortened
hours, higher standards of intelligence, increased rate of earnings, may
not a proportionate bettering for the child bring conditions so normal,
to the best education and development, as that labor in the real world
of business or trade will accomplish more, and more desirably, for the
child that which is striven for in business and trades courses of the
schools?

Modern educational methods have carried much of the shop and
counting-house into the school-room, while but little in the reverse
order has been accomplished, at least in this country. Pennsylvania
State law has done little more for the child than to forbid his being
employed in manufacturing or mercantile establishments before the age of
thirteen, and thereafter to surround his employment with some safeguards
against danger to life or limb. But considerably greater progress has
been made in Germany. Some present here will recall a paper read in this
room by our Consul at Chemnitz, the Hon. J. C. Monaghan, on “Industrial
Education, a German Example.” Mr. Monaghan tells of industrial schools
established in manufacturing districts for the benefit of the workers of
the factories, where the law requires so many hours in the week to be
spent in these schools by the younger employees, who thus combine the
practical of their business with the theoretical of their school. I
quote from Mr. Monaghan: “I have had exceptional opportunities during
three periods, since the war of 1870, of investigating the industrial
progress of Germany, and to make what might easily be a long story
short, I may say it is due mainly to education. When you are building a
house, you begin with the foundations. When you are building up a man,
you begin with the child. Germany a century ago, after its exhaustion
and humiliation caused by the great wars, fixed the foundation of its
new life and development on the rock of education. The country was poor,
its people could only exist by hard work, and their education was
organized so as to help them with their work.... Germany has a system of
further-developing schools, and industrial art schools, so close to the
people that they aid the trades and industries in such a way as to
commend themselves to all parties concerned therewith. Education in
Germany is compulsory. After graduating from the public schools (or
leaving the public school, for reference here is to the lower grade
schools which boys leave at fourteen or fifteen for work, as they do
with us at thirteen) and entering upon an employment, they are not only
expected but compelled to attend these further-developing schools for a
period of three years. They go two or three times each week, sometimes
on Sunday. They are developing the scientific side, if one may put it
thus, of the trade or business with which they are connected.” Here,
then, is the child at work and yet the school brought to him. But a step
further brings to him also those branches of study usually associated
with the school alone and suggested more by the liberal than the
strictly business and trade view of education. Instead, then, of
commercial and mechanical work in the school of the schools, we have
school-work in the school of actual commerce and industry, in the store
and factory.

And shall we say that this reversal of the older plan may not have a
wise and lasting place in educational life?

Is the labor of the store, shop or office more truly educative when
imitated in the class-rooms of commercial and trade schools, than when
done in course of actual business? Do not the labor and experiences of
business life, with their real responsibilities, their unartificial
rewards and retributions, their contact with men in real life, do all
the former can do and much more? Certainly the real thing done in
business or shop, and shaped and regulated to serve the ends of the
world’s actual economic life, must have an educative advantage above the
like thing theorized over in the school-room; while of unquestionably
great value is that further reward which the school of actual business
gives to its pupils, namely—a knowledge of men and affairs, confidence,
judgment, association with practical workers at the centre of the
world’s daily life.

Keep the children young, we are tempted to say as we see them in our own
home circles. A dangerous plan! Rather, let the children learn what they
must, of the best masters, and as their years are able! So wise and
devoted a parent as Lord Chesterfield wrote his young son: “Do not
imagine that the knowledge, which I so much commend to you, is confined
to books, pleasing, useful, and necessary as that knowledge is; but I
comprehend in it the great knowledge of the world, still more necessary
than that of books. The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in
the world, and not in a closet.” “Happy the man who, with a certain fund
of parts and knowledge, gets acquainted with the world early enough to
make it his bubble, at an age when most people are the bubbles of the
world, for that is the common case of youth.”

If, then, the commercial and trades training, the business or manual, or
whatever the course be called, can be found in actual commerce and
trade; if a sufficient degree of scholastic education can there be
added, and if with this the maturing man or woman shall gain a higher
degree of technical skill and a safer knowledge of men and affairs, does
not the plan of the school in business best meet the educational problem
for at least a majority of childkind? Answer as you may for present or
future, this is true now—that child labor in the Wanamaker store means
education, physical, scholastic, commercial; development in character,
fitness for intelligent work, and fitting into a place in the
bread-and-butter belt of the world; an open path and a helping hand to
the career of the man or woman who shall add a due part to the sum of
life and win the crown fashioned by the Great Father for each of us, His
children, who finds his duty and does it.


                              DISCUSSION.

“Q. Has the store any difficulty in keeping out boys under thirteen?

“A. Practically no difficulty. I have no doubt the truth is stretched
occasionally and those not yet thirteen brought in, but there must be an
affidavit as to age, and few of the class of people from whom our
employees are drawn are willing to swear to a lie in order to secure
earlier employing of the child.

“Q. Is there a physical examination, a physician in charge?

“A. There is no physical examination other than that which the eye of
the employer can give. The first weeks or months of the boy’s service,
or girl’s, develop the fact whether physically, mentally and otherwise,
the child is suited for the business.

“Q. How long has this system been in operation?

“A. I think it was six years ago that we began with the school for cash
boys. It was some two or three years before that the initial step, out
of which all the rest has grown, was taken. The plan arose originally
from a recognition of the fact that the young people who came into the
store were not sufficiently looked after. They were apt to be lost sight
of, as distributed in the various departments, and when the busy season
passed and some reduction in the force became necessary, the department
head was often not far-sighted enough to consider that the small boy now
would be his best man in the years to come. It was the recognition of
this fact that led to the beginning of the plan of which the first step
was merely the placing of the smaller boys of the establishment under
one head. All the other steps came one by one, as our experience led to
them.

“Q. You referred to the fact that your experience had shown that college
training was not useful in business career. Are there many college men
in your departments, or are you able to find that out?

“A. I did not give this as our own experience and conclusion, but was
quoting that of others as given in the pamphlet of Mr. Crane’s, to which
I referred, and which contains my answer to a letter from him. Mr. Crane
sent letters to representatives of various establishments, asking that
question. So far as I can recall the answer, it was that we were unable
to say exactly, but taking such departments as required salesmen,
bookkeepers and so on (that is, dropping out the delivery and packing
rooms, where the more highly educated would naturally not be found),
aggregating some five hundred and fifty men, we found twenty-six who had
had either a full or partial college education. It is not our custom to
inquire as to the college education. The difference in the success of
the college-educated man and the one not so educated has not, in our
experience, been sufficiently marked to make that a point of distinction
in engaging the rank and file of our men, although in the man of college
education we naturally look for quicker progress or brighter mental
work.”




           THE NECESSITY FOR FACTORY LEGISLATION IN THE SOUTH

                            By HAYES ROBBINS

             Dean, Institute of Social Economics, New York


The keynote that needs to be struck in the child labor matter, South or
anywhere, is not “hands off,” but hands on. It is fortunate for social
progress that the point of view of modern economic thought has drifted
so far away from the old-school doctrine of non-interference that we can
take hold of a problem like this to some robust, practical purpose,
without becoming intellectually disreputable; and the reason why this is
fortunate is that right here factory legislation has met its bitterest
opposition, ever since the first child labor act in England, in 1802.

The doctrine that cheapness is the all-sufficient goal of economic
progress, the only economic fact of any possible interest or concern to
the laborers, has been a corner-stone in political economy. Only within
recent years has the idea begun to dawn that an adequate theory of
economic welfare must include the interests of the citizen as a producer
as well as a consumer; that the conditions under which the man works,
and his opportunities of enjoying the fruits of his labor, are quite as
vital to his happiness as the price of potatoes or beef or clothing. It
is clear, now, however, that cheapness, important as it is, must come,
and in the long run can only come, through more effective utilizing of
natural forces, by invention and machinery, not through the overworking
and social degradation of labor; and the great enlightening circumstance
on this point has been the fact that the whole price-cheapening trend of
our modern industrial era has come hand in hand with increasing wages,
diminishing hours, and restrictions on the labor of women and children.

In respect to child labor alone, the progress of protective legislation
has been extraordinary. England has had a half-time factory and school
law for children of nine and over since 1844, the half-time age having
since been raised to eleven; and a fourteen-year age limit for full-day
work since 1874. In Germany the limit for full-day work is fourteen
years, and for any factory work at all thirteen; in Holland, Belgium,
France, Austria, Norway and Sweden it is twelve; in Russia fifteen,
half-time being allowed from twelve up. In Switzerland it is fourteen;
in Denmark fourteen, with half-time allowed from ten up; and even in
Italy child labor under nine years is absolutely prohibited.

Here in the United States, at the beginning of 1899, when the last
complete compilation on the subject was made, there were limitations on
child labor in thirty-four states and all the territories. To select for
comparison our greatest manufacturing states, as showing most clearly
the possibility of prosperity without child labor, the limit under which
such labor is prohibited in Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut,
Illinois and Indiana is fourteen years; in Georgia no limit. In Rhode
Island fifteen and Ohio fourteen, except during school vacations, and no
work at all under twelve; in North Carolina no limit. In New Jersey
twelve for boys and fourteen for girls; in Alabama no limit, except in
mines, twelve years. In Pennsylvania thirteen; in South Carolina no
limit. Happily, the tendency is moving Southward; Missouri, Maryland,
Tennessee and even Louisiana now have restrictive laws; so that the
section specially known as the new industrial South, the home of the
Southern cotton and iron manufacturing industries, is the only place in
the United States where the idea of protecting the physical, moral and
educational opportunities of little children has made practically no
impression in statute law.

At the outset, now, of her industrial development, the South has a
unique opportunity. She can transfer to her own conditions the results
of nearly all Christendom’s experience in humane factory regulation,
without having to suffer over again the hardships and struggles this
progress has cost. I do not mean to imply that all such legislation has
worked to perfection, without evasion or hardship; but the vast
improvement over no legislation at all indicates the soundness of the
effort and points the line of further reform. Those who have not yet
even made a start ought not to be frightened out of a beginning because
the others still have something more to do.

The Japanese are a case in point. They are now reported to be sending
students abroad to study modern labor legislation, with the object of
applying it to their own oncoming factory system at the beginning,
recognizing that it is as inevitable as progress itself. Russia, even
Russia, has already done this. Surely the new South does not need to go
to school in Russia and Japan.

It seems hardly necessary to prove the importance of doing something.
Bare statement of the admitted fact that children of eight to twelve,
and even younger, are working in the mills through the industrial South
tells the story, and ought to be sufficient. Personally, I have seen the
child labor system in operation in North and South Carolina, Georgia and
Alabama, and gathered some vivid impressions; have seen scores of little
people working in the dust and din of the spinning-rooms, seen scores of
others on their way to the mills before daylight, who would not come out
until after dark, the hours of labor ranging from eleven to twelve; have
been in the homes of these people and learned something of how they live
and the wages they receive. For example, we brought back from the South
some 154 weekly pay envelopes for both adults and children, collected
from operatives’ families in one of the best sections, and nearly 100 of
them are for less than $1.50 each, per week, the average in most cases
ranging from ten to thirty or forty cents a day; only older children
earning the latter sums, however.

In other words, low as the wage rates are, the _actual earnings_,
especially of children, are much lower. This is due partly to absences,
partly to constant deductions of all sorts, for faulty work, rent, money
advanced, car-fare advanced to get them down from the mountains or in
from the country to the mills, and what not. In forty-four out of the
154 envelopes, these deductions exactly cancel the entire amount of
wages due. Let me cite three or four specimen cases, omitting names. One
envelope, repeated two or three times, shows wages for the week $1.00,
rent seventy-five cents, balance twenty-five cents; another, wages
$1.20, tin cup five cents, transportation $1.15, balance nothing;
another, wages $3.00, rent $1.40, loan $1.00, balance paid sixty cents;
another, wages $1.50, transportation $1.00, balance fifty cents; and so
on.

It is impossible to state with exactness the number of children under a
given age, say fourteen years, employed in Southern factories. The
Federal census does not cover this point, and only one Southern state of
the group under consideration—North Carolina—makes any provision for
collecting and publishing industrial and labor statistics. Close
approximation to the facts of the general conditions, however, is not
very difficult. It appears from the latest report of Commissioner Lacy,
of the North Carolina Bureau of Labor, that about 7,600 children under
fourteen years of age were employed in 261 mills in that state. The
Federal census bulletins on manufactures, now being issued, show the
total number of employees in the cotton manufacturing industry in the
five Southern states where any important amount of cotton manufacturing
exists; and for North Carolina the total in 1900 was 30,273 operatives.
In other words, more than one-third of the total number of operatives in
the cotton mills of that state are children under fourteen years of age.
In South Carolina the total number of operatives in 1900 was 30,201, in
Georgia 18,348, in Alabama 8,332, in Mississippi 1,675, the total for
the five states being 88,829. Estimating the same proportion of child
labor throughout the entire group (and this is entirely legitimate,
since North Carolina conditions are even better than in some other
manufacturing sections in the South), it would appear that there are
more than 22,000 children under fourteen years of age in the cotton
mills of these states. On this basis, it is a conservative estimate to
say that at least eight or ten thousand of these children are under
twelve, while the lower extreme of the age limit is down even to the
almost unbelievable point of six years; the fact being well established
that children as young as six to eight and nine years are to-day working
in some of the Southern mills.

Remember, along with this, the fact just observed in the case of our
Northern states and European countries, where legislation on child labor
exists, that fourteen years is very nearly the average age under which
factory labor is prohibited altogether. In other words, the absence of
any restrictions in the South means that fully one-third of all the
operatives are younger than the age standard established by the forces
of humanitarian opinion and wise statesmanship throughout the larger
part of Christendom.

The amounts earned by the children in Southern mills would not be
necessary to the support of the families under any proper system of
factory regulation. The economics of the situation would inevitably take
care of that. If the labor of the children is not available, the mills
must employ older help, and in order to get such help must pay wages
sufficient to maintain the families, including the children. This is how
the matter has adjusted itself wherever child labor has been restricted,
and of economic necessity it must be so. The difference in labor expense
involved has never yet been sufficient to hamper industrial activity or
drive capital away from any industrial section, and, so long as
competing groups are not permitted to gain a permanent advantage by the
wholesale use of child labor, it never will.

The lack of restrictions on child labor makes possible also that
semi-barbarous institution of night work. Where all the family work by
turns in the mill, the results are shockingly demoralizing. Just as a
side-light on one phase of this system, let me quote a paragraph from a
discussion of factory evils in the South, just published this month, by
Rev. J. A. Baldwin, of Charlotte, N. C., a special student of these
problems. Where part of the family work by day and part by night, he
says:

“The mother has to get up at 4:30 in the morning to get breakfast for
the day hands, so they can be at the mill at six; then the night hands
come and eat about seven. She has to have dinner for the day hands
strictly at twelve. The night hands get up and eat from four to five, so
as to be ready to go to work for the night at six; she also gives them a
lunch to be eaten at midnight. Then the day hands get out at six and
have supper about seven. Besides this, there is house-cleaning, washing
and ironing, sewing, and often the care of little children.... The mills
usually run sixty-six hours per week at night; that is, the operatives
work twelve hours from Monday night to Friday night inclusive, and on
Saturday get up about two o’clock (before they have had enough sleep) to
go to work at three. They then work till nine, at night. As a matter of
fact it is usually ten or eleven when they get out.

“Night work is much worse in summer than in the winter. In the winter
they go to bed, cover up and sleep soundly. In summer it is difficult to
sleep on account of light, heat, flies and noise. In summer, while they
usually go to bed, it is a very familiar sight to see them lying across
the bed with their work-clothes on, or on a pallet in the passage or on
the porch. Their sleep is fitful and unsatisfying, and they never feel
bright and fresh from the beginning to the end of the week. They furnish
the most favorable conditions for the development of physical,
intellectual and spiritual disease germs.”

The children of factory families in the South to-day have no protection
against this. Night work for women and children ought to be absolutely
prohibited. It is, almost everywhere else, even in Russia. This would
practically force either the employment of men only in night work, or
else its abolition altogether. I would not deny that there may sometimes
be good economic reasons for night work, at least in rush times, but it
should be done by men if at all, never by women and children.

Nobody is urging any step that threatens to destroy Southern mill
profits, but it must be insisted that there is another way to secure
profits than the way of using child labor. Scientific improvement of
industrial methods is the only sure and safe road to permanent
prosperity, and it would not seem that the South has much to fear when
the great bulk of the most prosperous industry in Christendom is being
conducted under more or less advanced forms of factory regulation.
Furthermore, nobody need or ought to urge legislation as the remedy on
the ground that Southern manufacturers are all indifferent and inhumane.
Legislation is urged simply because it is the most uniform and least
costly method the South could of its own accord adopt. Southern
manufacturers are no more types of hardhearted callousness than are
manufacturers anywhere; they have all been opposed to factory
legislation at one time or another, under the influence of mistaken
economic doctrines. I do not know, but would risk it, that scores of
Southern manufacturers would be glad to see these evils abolished in
their own mills if they could do it without immediate competitive
disadvantage with all the rest. Here comes in the advantage of
legislation, that by establishing the same conditions and opportunities
for all, it imposes no special relative handicap on any.

Moreover, and here is one of the saddest features of all, the fathers,
sometimes even the mothers, are among the worst offenders in this whole
matter. I have seen cases, and there are others in abundance, where the
wife and children practically earn the family living in the mill, while
the father thoughtfully carries in the dinner-pail at noon, perhaps
working a little on odd days when he gets tired of loafing. We cannot
altogether blame the manufacturers when these people are fairly urging
them to take on the children in the mills; and we need to remember also
that to most of these unfortunate people factory life is a distinct
improvement over the log-cabin, salt pork and peach brandy, white-trash
and Georgia-cracker type of life from which many of them were sifted out
when the mills came. The manufacturer knows this, and it is not
surprising that he should even think himself something of a
philanthropist, just in furnishing mill jobs on almost any terms. He
does not see as yet that when these people drift down into the factory
centres they become industrial, social and political factors in an
altogether new and more serious sense than they ever could be while
burrowing in the mountain sides.

To have practically all of the next generation of factory operatives
growing up stunted in body and mind, and nearly all of them illiterates,
in a section of the country where the general average of illiteracy is
already appalling, is a matter of the gravest concern. Southern
manufacturers sooner or later will have to recognize this fact, and its
impending consequences. According to the 1900 census statistics just
appearing, the proportion of illiteracy among males of voting age, white
and black together, was, in Alabama 33.7 per cent, in Georgia 31.6 per
cent, in Mississippi 33.8 per cent, in North Carolina 29.4 per cent, in
South Carolina 35.1 per cent; as compared, for instance, with 6.4 per
cent in Massachusetts, 6.8 per cent in Connecticut, 9.2 per cent in
Rhode Island, 5.9 per cent in New York, 6.9 per cent in New Jersey, 7.7
per cent in Pennsylvania. The South simply cannot afford to permit the
processes to go on that are adding fresh groups every year to its grand
total of illiterate and unfit citizens. In the face of the present
situation, if a new race of degenerates, brought up in exhausting toil,
dense ignorance, and exposed to all the temptations of an unprotected
environment, is to be developed now in the fast-growing centres of the
new South, they are certain to form a social and civic and economic
menace to the community.

This will be true not only of the South; the matter is coming to have a
national significance. Within the limits of any one interdependent
industrial group, like the United States, there must be at least some
general approach to uniformity in the working conditions of the
laborers, by given lines of industries. Differences in competitive
success must come from differences in managing ability, quality of
plant, or natural environment, not from different standards of decency
in the use of labor. If long hours and child labor become the fixed
conditions of success, the whole field of competing industry must
eventually come down to that basis. A competitive influence which works
for the undermining of higher standards of living, wherever established,
is a matter of universal concern. In a democracy, no condition is safe
which offers a competitive advantage to anything that leads toward
ignorant, inferior citizenship. It is not safe anywhere, whether in
Southern mill villages or Northern city slums, because to make
degradation profitable in any quarter sets the current of tendency that
way, with demoralizing effect.

That is why it is not meddlesome interference for American citizens not
of the South to have a concern about this matter, from the broad
standpoint of national welfare. The real test-point of permanent
progress and prosperity, affecting the nation as well as the South, is
not the size of profits in Southern mills in the next five years, large
as we hope they may be through all proper means; but it is the quality
of Southern citizenship in the next five generations. That citizenship
is now in the making, and now is the time of times to safeguard its
development. Such action will be good economics, good morals, good
humanity. For the South, it is an inspiring opportunity.




                       CHILD LABOR IN NEW JERSEY

                             By HUGH F. FOX

        President New Jersey State Board of Children’s Guardians


For the discussion of child labor in New Jersey there are no official
data in which reliance can be placed. The reports of the State Bureau of
Factory Inspection are conclusive evidence of the incompetence of the
inspector and his deputies. The State Charities Aid Association has
recently analyzed the report of the Bureau for the year ending October
27, 1900, and has published the results in the New Jersey _Review of
Charities and Corrections_,[16] and it is shown that out of a total of
6,014 factories and bakeshops which were discovered by the Bureau, no
less than 1,543 were not visited at all, and yet the department reports
favorably on 5,862, indicating that 1,391 were reported favorably, but
not visited. According to the 1900 census, however, there were in New
Jersey 8,308 factories proper (excluding hand trades), and 1,485
clothing establishments, excluding families working in the tenements.
The factory inspectors also report on 1,185 bakeries, so that there
appears to have been a total of 10,978 establishments which it was the
duty of the inspectors to visit.

The factory inspectors found 5,968 children under sixteen in the 6,014
establishments which they reported; an average of about one child to
each establishment. Of these they ordered only fifty-nine children
discharged during the year. The census reports an average of 8,042
children under sixteen, employed in manufacturing establishments alone,
during the year. Attention should be directed, in this connection, to
the difference between the duties of a census taker and a factory
inspector. The former furnishes a blank schedule to the manufacturer,
which he fills out at his own discretion, without any verification on
the part of the census taker. In short, the census agent takes what is
given him by the employer, and his interest in the matter is entirely
perfunctory. The factory inspector is, however, supposed to make his own
investigation and get his own evidence, though it is generally believed
that in many cases he contents himself with a visit to the office only
and a polite exchange of social amenities with the employer. While the
factory inspector is expected to take a personal interest in his
figures, it involves a lot of extra work for him and serious trouble for
the employer, if the latter is so thoughtless as to inconvenience him by
entering into embarrassing particulars in regard to children. In some
instances it is reported that the inspector apprises the factory owner
of his intended visit beforehand, the children being given a holiday in
honor of the occasion.

The New Jersey laws prohibit the employment of boys under twelve and
girls under fourteen, “in any factory, workshop, mine or establishment
where the manufacture of any goods whatever is carried on.” Children
between the ages of twelve and fifteen must have attended school for
twelve consecutive weeks (or two terms of six consecutive weeks each)
within the twelve months immediately preceding their employment.
Children under fifteen must procure a certificate from their teachers
giving full particulars as to attendance, etc. The report of the
Department of Factory Inspection does not indicate how many of the 5,968
children, under sixteen, are over the age of fifteen, but of the total
number of children, only 1,343 were required to produce school
certificates. It seems hardly possible that 4,625 of the children
employed were over fifteen years of age.

The inspectors have the power to prohibit overcrowding in factories and
workshops, and to demand a certificate of physical fitness from some
regular practicing physician in the case of minors who may seem
physically unable to work. Apparently this gives the inspectors power to
prohibit the employment of any girl under eighteen, or boy under
twenty-one, who cannot obtain such a certificate, but it is evident from
the report of 1900 that this power has not been exercised.

The law prohibits the employment of any child under sixteen “at any work
dangerous to health, without a certificate of fitness from a reputable
physician.” The meaning of this is somewhat ambiguous. Is the physician
to certify to the condition of the child or the healthiness of the
occupation? Who is to decide as to whether the work is dangerous to
health? The questions are, however, entirely speculative, since the
factory inspectors have done nothing to indicate any anxiety to put the
matter to the test. It does not seem to have occurred to the inspectors
that their power to set a standard of physical fitness for children
really removes their chief difficulty. At a recent hearing before
Governor Murphy, Inspector Ward pleaded that there were many
difficulties in the way of enforcing the laws, his department being
confronted with sworn affidavits of parents that their children were
over the minimum age of twelve years, while the children themselves are
taught with threats never to admit that they are under twelve years old.
The test of physical fitness is really much more important than that of
age, and the power to apply it gives the factory inspector the whip-hand
over both the child’s parent and the employer. It seems strange,
however, that nothing has been done in this country to define fully the
dangerous trades or occupations. The British Parliament appointed a
committee some years ago on “Dangerous Trades and Diseases of
Occupations.”[17] The report of this committee established the fact that
lead poisoning is rampant in the potteries, that phosphorus necrosis is
common in the match factories, and that naphtha fumes in
rubber-manufacturing results frequently in premature aging and
paralysis. Among other specially unhealthy occupations may be mentioned
glass-making, printing, cutlery, silk-mills, hats, pearl buttons and
tobacco. What Mrs. Kelley said in 1896, at the National Conference of
Charities and Correction, is equally true to-day:

“The physical condition of working children has never received
attention, so far as I know, in any systematic way. There are some
desultory provisions in the New York and Illinois factory laws which
show there is a dim consciousness in the law-making mind that children
may be put at work beyond their strength, unless there is supervision of
them by some state officer. But these provisions are so loosely drawn
that they are nugatory. The Illinois inspectors are urging upon the
Legislature the necessity of adding to the staff a physician who shall
give her whole time to the care of the children. There is, at present,
no such material available as such a physician could furnish, upon the
condition of the children, except the records of measurements made by
two volunteer physicians for the inspectors, in 1893 and 1894, covering
about 200 children, taken from the factories and workshops of Chicago.
These records, published in the Factory Inspectors’ Report for 1894, are
startling in the proportion which they show of undersized, rachitic,
consumptive children at work. They are, however, so limited in number
that their principal value lies in indicating the wide field open for
investigating the working child as compared with the school child. What
they show, comparatively, is that the stature of the working child is
far less, upon the average, than that of the city school child. The
child study of the past ten years bears out the assertion that stature
in children is indicative of general development, physical and mental.”

The New Jersey Factory Inspectors have the power to call upon the public
authorities to furnish truant officers, who are required to act under
their direction. But this law is also a dead letter. So too is another
law which was passed to regulate the sweat-shop evil, and provides that
“No person, firm or corporation shall hire or employ any person to work
in any room or rooms, apartment or apartments, in any tenement or
dwelling-house, or building in the area of a tenement or dwelling-house,
at making, in whole or in part, any coats, vests, trousers, knee pants,
overalls, cloaks, furs, fur trimmings, fur garments, shirts, purses,
feathers, artificial flowers or cigars, unless such person, firm or
corporation first shall have obtained a written permit from the factory
and workshop inspectors, ... which permit may be revoked at any time
that the health of the community or of those employed as aforesaid may
require it, and that such permit shall not be granted until due and
satisfactory inspection of the premises affected shall have been made by
the said inspector.” By a recent act, overcrowding in tenements or
rented rooms is punishable at a fine of $25.00. Each adult must have 300
cubic feet of air; each child under twelve, 150 feet.

Public authority is thoroughly aroused on the whole question of child
labor in New Jersey, and some interesting facts are coming to light. The
trades unions are taking the matter up, in several directions, and the
searchlight of the press is trained on several of the leading
industries—notably the glass factories of South Jersey, the silk and
textile mills of Passaic county, and the various tobacco and cigar
factories which are scattered over the state. It is stated that each man
employed as a glassblower is required to furnish a boy as a “helper,”
and that a combination of the padrone system and veritable child slavery
exists. Incidentally it has been developed that many boys have been
placed in the families of glassblowers by private child-placing
societies and orphan asylums of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It
furnishes a striking argument for the public oversight of child-caring
agencies. Here are a few letters from local cigarmakers’ unions:

  NO. 101, ELIZABETH.—“We have Mr. Hilson’s machine cigar manufactory
  here, employing about 300 or 400 hands, all girls; about one-half of
  them are under age; our union has from time to time been obliged to
  see the factory inspector to remedy this evil; we informed him about a
  week ago that in case he further neglects his duty the Union County
  Trades Council and Cigar Makers’ Union would be compelled to see the
  Governor. The leading brand they make is the “Hoffman House,” which is
  done up in neat boxes, and as you can readily see they are able to
  undersell all union goods, as the lowest price for union cigars made
  is $8.00 per M., while they can furnish them with the girls working
  for them for $2.50 to $3.00.”

  NO. 230, MILLVILLE.—“There is no child labor in connection with our
  trade in this locality. This being a strong union city we have no use
  for the production of child labor in our trade. This union covers
  Millville, Vineland, Bridgeton and Salem. No child labor in either
  city in connection with this trade; you will find most of the children
  employed are employed by the American Tobacco Company or Trust. They
  have a factory in Camden, N. J., this being the nearest one to this
  city.”

  NO. 428, TRENTON.—“There is one place that employs 280, mostly
  children from ten years old. We had a committee last week working on
  the subject of child labor employed in this place known as the
  American Cigar Trust; they say it is safe to say that the ages won’t
  average over fourteen. We know for a fact that their children are not
  allowed to say a word to one another while at work, if they do they
  will be discharged. They claimed at one time to have over 300 at work
  and have room and machinery for over a thousand, but don’t seem to get
  them as fast as they thought. Our committee reported that some of
  these little tots when they came out at night actually fell down from
  weakness, but there seems to be no way to stop such work.

  “The work that these children do costs the Trust $2.10 per thousand
  for making cigars, and the low price for men is $7.50 per thousand;
  the average cigarmakers will make 1500 a week of this kind of work,
  and three of these children with machinery make six thousand a week.
  You can imagine, when the Trust surely get their feet in it, what will
  become of cigar-making.”

Many of the children in the glass works and in worsted mills are said to
have been employed on “night shifts.” If the children in state
reformatories were worked half as hard as the children in the factories,
there would be a perfect storm of indignation. There is, however, a
general awakening, and the leading papers in Newark, Paterson, Passaic,
Hoboken, Jersey City, Trenton, Camden and other cities have taken the
matter up vigorously. The Governor has announced his determination to
make the inspectors devote their entire time to their duties, in
accordance with the law just passed, instead of spending their odd
moments only in inspecting factories, as has been the case hitherto.
Good results are already apparent, and the new inspectors in Essex and
Passaic counties are making a strong effort to enforce the laws. The
latter has brought suits against several employers for the recovery of
the penalty imposed by the state for employing children illegally. There
is ample legislation in New Jersey for the regulation of child labor,
though the minimum age for boys should be raised to fourteen, and girls
to fifteen. Now that the community is informed of the evil, the
Legislature may be counted on to make an adequate appropriation for
expenses. There ought to be a lawyer on the staff of the Department of
Factory Inspection, and an effort should be made to bring the various
State Boards into co-operation in the work. It seems curious that no
reference has hitherto been made to child labor in any of the reports of
the state and local Boards of Health and of Education; nor does the
Bureau of Statistics of Labor and Industries seem to know anything of
the subject. The various departments of the government seem to be so
afraid of overlapping, that in this, as in other matters, they
studiously ignore each other.

The “Lord bill,” which was passed last session, authorizes the Governor
to appoint a woman inspector, and strong pressure is being brought upon
Governor Murphy to induce him to do so. The State Federation of Labor
has been working for the appointment of a woman inspector since 1897. It
is felt that the duties of the office involve personal qualities
possessed in an eminent degree by many women, and that a good woman
inspector would work a revolution in the department.

The following tables are given for purposes of comparison with other
states. The school census of 1900, taken by the state, gave 457,479
children of school age, the enrollment being 322,575. The number of
schoolable children is increasing from 7,000 to 10,000 per year. The
“persons of school age” in the Federal census cover all from five to
twenty years of age, inclusive. The total of them was 572,917 (282,180
males and 290,737 females). The particulars as to parentage are:

            Born of American parents                 271,827
            Born of foreign parents in United States 226,566
            Born in foreign lands                     54,837
            Born of colored parents                   19,693

                          [U.S. Census, 1900.]
  _Persons of School Age, 5 to 20 years inclusive, in New Jersey Cities
                           of 25,000 or more._
             _(Showing 62.4 per cent of foreign parentage.)_
 ─────────────┬───────────┬───────────┬───────────┬──────────┬──────────
              │  Total.   │  Native   │  Foreign  │ Foreign  │ Colored.
              │           │ Parents.  │ Parents.  │  Born.   │
 ─────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼──────────┼──────────
 Atlantic City│      6,782│      4,089│      1,265│       286│     1,146
 Bayonne      │     10,626│      2,812│      6,289│     1,426│       100
 Camden       │     22,943│     13,793│      6,510│     1,086│     1,557
 Elizabeth    │     16,229│      5,551│      8,729│     1,619│       331
 Hoboken      │     18,699│      4,463│     11,956│     2,258│        23
 Jersey City  │     63,495│     21,535│     35,271│     5,744│       953
 Newark       │     74,897│     25,210│     38,797│     9,114│     1,789
 Passaic      │      9,274│      1,653│      3,934│     3,553│       134
 Paterson     │     33,170│      8,270│     18,655│     5,965│       286
 Trenton      │     22,337│     10,591│      8,999│     2,241│       508
 ─────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼──────────┼──────────
              │    278,452│     97,967│    140,405│    33,292│     6,827
 ─────────────┴───────────┴───────────┴───────────┴──────────┴──────────

Notes from the Census Bulletins Nos. 88, 89, 135 and 157 for New Jersey
(1900):

           Total population of New Jersey           1,883,669
           This was made up as follows:
           Born of American parents                   825,973
           Born of foreign parents in United States   556,294
           Born in foreign lands                      430,050
           Born of colored parents                     71,352

The percentage of the New Jersey population living in cities is 70.6.
The states of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York are
the only ones which have a larger percentage of their population in
cities. In this connection it is interesting to note that New Jersey
ranks sixth in the United States in the value of its manufactured
products.

The average number of wage-earners employed by manufacturing
establishments in New Jersey during 1900 was 241,582 (12.8 per cent of
the total population), of whom 8,042 were children under sixteen years
of age.

The greatest number employed at any one time during the year was
307,933, or 16.3 per cent of the total population.

The total number of manufacturing and mechanical establishments in New
Jersey was 15,481. Of these, 11,115, or 71.8 per cent, were located in
forty-four cities and towns. The urban establishments employed 196,901
wage-earners, or 81.5 per cent of the total number employed. The list of
industries includes “hand trades.” Omitting them, the total number of
manufactures proper was 8,308.

The manufacture of textiles is the most important industry in the state.
Of these the silk factories employed 24,157 wage-earners out of a total
of 46,932 engaged in textile work.

Foundry and machine-shop products are second, with 17,918 wage-earners.

Refining and petroleum third, with 8,288.

Tobacco has 3,595, pottery 8,117, tanning 4,178, chemicals 3,048, rubber
2,609, jewelry 2,779, sewing machines 4,701, glass 5,383.

The fifteen leading industries of the State embraced 1,780
establishments, and employed an average of 117,008 wage-earners during
the year 1900.

Average number of children under sixteen years, employed in New Jersey
manufactories during the year 1900 (U. S. Census Bulletin No. 157):

               Boots and shoes                 192
               Brass wire                       65
               Bakeries                         64
               Buttons                          71
               Carpets                          86
               Clothing                        191
               Cotton goods                    641
               Dyeing and finishing textiles    70
               Fireworks                        85
               Foundry and machine shops       212
               Canning                          86
               Gas and lamp fixtures           181
               Glass                           850
               Hardware                         80
               Hosiery and knit goods          152
               Iron and steel                   65
               Linen goods                     316
               Pocket-books                     60
               Pottery                         193
               Printing                        174
               Roofing                          74
               Shirts                           50
               Silk                          1,199
               Stamped ware                    119
               Surgical appliances              75
               Tobacco                         183
               Woolen goods                    187
               Worsted goods                   456
                                             —————
                                             6,177
               Miscellaneous industries      1,865
                                             ————— 8,042

Comparison of the reports of the United States Census, and of the New
Jersey Factory Inspectors, for the year 1900, in regard to children
employed in certain industries in eleven cities in New Jersey:

                                                   Census      Factory
                                                  Reports.   Inspectors’
                                                              Reports.
 Bayonne—Petroleum                                        21           0
 Camden—Worsted goods                                    160         113
 Elizabeth—Tobacco                                         0          30
 Elizabeth—Clothing and shirts                             9          10
 Elizabeth—Sewing machines                                 0          22
 Hoboken and Jersey City—Silk                             60          60
 Hoboken—Clothing                                          9           0
 Jersey City—Clothing                                      3           0
 Jersey City—Electrical apparatus                         45          25
 Jersey City—Printing                                     48          16
 Jersey City—Soap                                         42          21
 Jersey City—Tobacco                                      92          87
 Jersey City—Boxes                                         0          44
 Newark—Boots and shoes                                  108           0
 Newark—Carpentering                                      65           0
 Newark—Clothing                                          82          11
 Newark—Corsets                                           34          17
 Newark—Foundry and mechanical shops                      52           0
 Newark—Hardware                                          75          16
 Newark—Jewelry                                           36          13
 Newark—Leather                                           22          11
 Newark—Stamped ware                                     116           0
 Newark—Tobacco                                           19          35
 Newark—Thread                                             0         100
 New Brunswick—Tobacco                                    29          45
 Orange—Hats                                              27           5
 Passaic—Woolen goods                                     98          15
 Paterson—Silk                                           832         504
 Paterson—Foundries                                       91           0
 Trenton—Iron and steel                                   54           0
 Trenton—Potteries                                       118         204
 Trenton—Rubber                                           28          47
 Trenton—Bakeries                                         19          47




                       CHILD LABOR IN BELGIUM[18]

                              By E. DUBOIS

                  Professor in the University of Ghent


The industrial census of October 31, 1896, of which the complete results
have just been published[19], furnishes the most recent and the most
complete information regarding the extent of the industrial labor of
children and the general conditions under which it exists.

Upon that date, out of a total of 671,596 laborers of all ages and both
sexes, employed in the manufactures properly so called, and excluding
the domestic workshops, there were 76,147 children less than sixteen
years of age working in factories and workshops—that is to say, out of
every 100 employees eleven were less than sixteen years of age.

The child labor was found principally:

(1) In the textile industries 11,863.

(2) In the mining industries 10,167, of whom 5,516 are employed in
underground labor, and 4,651 in surface labor.

(3) In the manufacture of clothing for men and women 9,674.

(4) In the glass industries 4,429.

Among 4,681 establishments and contractors employing both adults and
children, and having at least ten employees: 1,737 (37.1 per cent)
employed less than 10 per cent of children along with adults; 1,675
(35.9 Per cent) employed from 11 to 25 per cent of children along with
adults; 821 (17.3 per cent) employed from 26 to 50 per cent of children
along with adults; 361 (7.9 per cent) employed from 51 to 100 per cent
of children along with adults; 87 (1.8 per cent) employed more than 100
per cent of children along with adults.

There are, hence, in eighty-seven establishments more children than
adults. These concerns belong chiefly to the textile industries (26), to
the tobacco industries (10), books (8), clothing (7), manufacture of
chocolate (6). One woolen mill and two dressmakers employ only children.

The statistics of the children according to age is as follows:

Number of children aged less than sixteen, 76,147—50,493 boys, 25,654
girls; number of children from fourteen to sixteen, 54,946—36,431 boys,
18,515 girls; number of children from twelve to fourteen, 20,762—13,814
boys, 6,948 girls; number of children less than twelve, 439–248 boys,
191 girls. About one-half of these children less than twelve years old
belong to the manufacture of clothing (dressmakers and cutters).

The census has succeeded in determining the length of actual labor
(recess deducted), for 61,652 children employed in the industrial
establishments, not including the coal mines. Rather more than one-tenth
of them (about 7,000) work nine hours and less. One-third (about 21,000)
work about ten hours. One-third (about 19,000) work about ten and a half
to eleven hours. One-fourth (about 15,000) work more than twelve hours.
The days of more than eleven hours are most frequent in the textile and
clothing manufactures.

Under the head of time of labor: 61,314 children (38,414 boys and 22,900
girls) work during the day only (92.99 per cent); thirty-six children
(boys) work only at night (0.02 per cent), 4,611 children (4,238 boys
and 373 girls) work alternately by day and night (6.99 per cent). The
majority of these night laborers are employed in the glass industries,
viz.: 3,262. Then comes the iron industry with 657 children, and the
confectionery factories with 447.

Regarding the coal mines, the duration of labor has been determined for
9,153 children out of 10,167. Among these 9,153 children, 7,772 work
during the day only (5,550 boys and 2,222 girls); 4,482 (3,281 boys and
1,201 girls) work ten hours and less; 2,855 (1,900 boys and 955 girls)
work ten to ten and a half hours; 308 (246 boys and 62 girls) work ten
and a half to eleven hours; 127 (123 boys and 4 girls) work more than
eleven hours; 4,827 boys and 9 girls work underground. Working only at
night are 1,357 boys (no girls); and in gangs 24 boys. Almost the whole
number of the “underground” boys work about ten hours or less, between
the descent and the ascent.

One of the great merits of the Belgian industrial census of 1896 is the
particular care which was taken in gathering exact statistics regarding
the individual wages of the whole of the working population. The
statistics of the wages of the Belgian workmen, by their completeness
and exactness, are certainly of the best existing to-day. They have
succeeded in ascertaining the wages of 70,688 young workpeople (45,577
boys and 25,111 girls).

Number of children working by the day: with wages less than 0.50 fr.,
17,229 = 24.37 per cent; 7,511 boys (of which 2,844 receive no pay);
9,718 girls (of which 6,141 receive no pay); from 0.50 to 1.00 fr.,
21,192 = 29.98 percent; 12,748 boys and 8,444 girls; from 1 to 1.50 fr.,
19,723 = 27.91 percent; 15,090 boys and 4,633 girls; 1.50 fr. and over,
12,544 = 17.74 per cent; 10,228 boys and 2,316 girls.

In round figures one may say that one-fourth of these young employees
earn nothing or less than 0.50 fr.; a little more than half earn from
0.50 to 1.50 fr.; and less than one-fifth earn more than 1.50 fr. In
fact about two-thirds of the latter earn from 1.50 to 2 fr., and
one-third from 2 to 2.50 fr. These percentages relate to the entire
number of children, and would be modified somewhat if the boys and girls
were considered separately. The figures also show that smaller wages are
paid for female than for male labor.


                     _The Law of December 13, 1889_

The statutes affecting child labor in industrial establishments have
been under consideration in Belgium since 1843. At that time an
investigation conducted by the government unveiled the unfortunate and
often abusive conditions under which child labor was conducted, and a
scheme of very remarkable legislation was drawn up by M. Ducpetiaux,
chairman of the Investigation Commission.

But this project was premature. Manchesterian ideas were still the
prevalent ones in the country and with the government. Reform was still
to be waited for, for almost a half century longer, in spite of the
repeated efforts of divers groups of enlightened manufacturers, of
physicians, of philanthropists. All these united efforts succeeded
simply in causing to be introduced into the royal decree of April 28,
1884, containing regulations concerning the working of mines, an
article, No. 69, which forbade boys aged less than twelve, and girls
less than fourteen, to be allowed to labor in the mines.

The industrial troubles of 1886, and the efforts of the Labor Commission
instituted the same year, prepared at last the solution to the question,
and led to the law of December 13, 1889, upon the labor of women, of
youths and of children in industrial establishments.[20]

This law placed under restrictive measures the labor of children:

(1) In mines (coal and metal), quarries, stoneyards.

(2) In works, mills and factories.

(3) In establishments classified as dangerous, unhealthy or unsuitable;
as well as in those where steam boilers or machine motors were used.

(4) In harbors, terminals and stations.

(5) In transportation by land or water.

It applied both to public and private establishments, even when they
were of an educational or benevolent character. By virtue of this
provision the law regulated, for example, the labor performed by
children in the reform schools, in the lace-making schools, etc.

The law did not affect the family workshops, where only the members of a
family are employed, under the authority of either the father, the
mother, or the guardian; providing, however, that these workshops were
not classed as dangerous, unhealthy or unsuitable,[21] or that work
therein was not performed with the aid of steam boilers or machine
motors.

It also did not affect, according to the admitted official
interpretation, other workshops which could not be regarded as mills or
factories, or which are not classed among the dangerous, unhealthy or
unsuitable establishments. Hence, the greatest portion of the clothing
factories, which employ a great deal of child labor, escaped the
application of the law.

The principal legal provisions applying to children and youths of less
than sixteen years are the following:

(1) Prohibition to employ at labor children under twelve years of age
(Art. 2).

(2) The King can prohibit, or only authorize under certain conditions,
the employment of children and youths under sixteen, at labor that is
beyond their strength, dangerous or unhealthful (Art. 3).

(3) The length of the working day is twelve hours at the most, divided
by recesses, the total of which shall not be less than one and a half
hours.

The King has the authority to regulate the length of the working day, as
well as the length and the conditions of recess, in accordance with the
nature of the occupations in which the children are employed, and the
needs of the industries, professions or trades. (Art. 4).

(4) Night labor, that is to say, labor after nine o’clock in the evening
and before five in the morning, is prohibited to children and youths
under sixteen (Art. 6).

_Exceptions._ (a) The King can authorize the employment of children at
night, at occupations which, by reason of their nature, cannot be
interrupted or retarded, or which cannot be accomplished except within a
definite period.

(b) As relating to labor in mines, the King can authorize night labor by
a certain class of workmen more than fourteen years of age, also by male
children fully twelve years old, to begin their labor at four a. m. (c)
The governors of provinces, acting upon the report of the inspectors of
suitable labor, can authorize night labor for children and youths, in
all industries or trades, in cases of delay resulting from unavoidable
necessity, or in exceptional circumstances. This authorization cannot be
granted for more than two months at most; but it can be renewed. It must
be approved by the Minister.

(5) Children and youths under sixteen cannot be employed at labor more
than six days in the week (Art. 7). This regulation provides for the
Sunday holiday, but the legislation of 1889 did not intend expressly to
forbid Sunday labor. Indeed in 1889 the point was discussed whether the
Belgian Constitution (Art. 15) did not oppose the legal prohibition of
Sunday labor. Even to-day the question is still in controversy. Hence
the law of 1889 solved the difficulty by merely forbidding children to
labor more than six days in the week. In fact Sunday, the seventh day,
is the day of rest. There are, however, certain _Exceptions_: (a) As
regards the industries in which labor, by reason of its nature, cannot
stand either interruption or delay, the King can authorize the
employment of children over fourteen, during seven days in the week,
whether permanently or temporarily, or conditionally. They must,
however, be granted, in every case, the necessary time to devote to
their religious duties once a week, as well as one complete day of rest
in fourteen.

(b) In case of unavoidable necessity, the inspectors, burgomasters and
governors can, with respect to the industries, authorize the employment
on the seventh day of children and youths under sixteen.

(6) In order to facilitate the enforcement of these legal provisions,
children and youths over sixteen must carry a memorandum book, which is
to be given them gratis by the parish administration; and which must
contain their Christian and surnames, date and place of their birth,
their residence, and the full names with residence either of their
parents or guardians. Likewise the heads of the industries, chiefs or
managers, must keep a registry of the same information that appears in
the memorandum books (Art. 10).

The Belgian laws, in their principal provisions which we have just
examined, resemble for the most part the laws regulating child labor in
other countries. But there is a gap which must have struck the reader,
viz.: the absence of provisions for the education of children. Foreign
laws, and notably the German, English and French laws, require that the
children, whose industrial labor is effectively regulated, should devote
to attendance at school the time which they do not spend in the factory
or workshop. This is done in the interests of their welfare and for
their intellectual and moral development. The legislator only
imperfectly fulfills his mission when he confines himself to preventing
and repressing the abuses of industrial labor.

This defect in the Belgian law is due to the opposition that compulsory
education has met with and still meets among a notable part of the
population and among the majority in Parliament.

In order that the statement of legislation may be complete, the author
has collected in a table the provisions of the royal decrees which have
resulted from Articles 4, 6 and 7 of the law, and which concern the
determination of the duration of daily labor and the conditions of
recess in a number of industries (Art. 4); the exceptions to the
prohibitions of night labor (Art. 6), and the authorizations of work on
the seventh day (Art. 7). (See page 210.)

Art. 3 of the law gives the King the power to prohibit or to regulate
the labor of children or youths under sixteen, in certain industries
particularly unhealthful or dangerous.

The royal decrees of February 19, 1895, August 5, 1895, and April 5,
1898, have applied this legal provision in the following manner:

(1) Prohibition of labor of children and youths under sixteen in
sixty-five industries, enumerated in Articles 1 and 2 of the decree of
February 19, 1895. These industries are, for the most part, the chemical
ones, or those which manufacture injurious products.

(2) In the lucifer-match factories:

(a) The labor of children and youths under sixteen is prohibited where
paste containing white phosphorus is made, or in the factories where
matches dipped in such paste are dried. Such labor is also prohibited
where matches are dipped in white phosphorus.

(b) Children under fourteen may not be employed in filling boxes with
white phosphorus matches (Article 3 of the royal decree of February 19,
1895).

(3) In factories where india-rubber is treated with carbon sulphuret,
the presence and the labor of children and youths under sixteen are
prohibited (Art. 4 of the same decree).

(4) Art. 6 enumerated a series of industries in which certain places are
closed to children and youths under sixteen, because of the injurious
and unhygienic character of the labor performed there. Art. 7 prohibits
the admission into certain places and labor therein of children under
fourteen.

(5) The royal decree of August 5, 1895, regulates the employment of
children in rag-shops.

(6) Finally, by force of a royal decree of April 5, 1898 (intercalated
into the decree of February 19, 1895, Art. 5) it is forbidden to employ
children and youths under sixteen in all places where the treatment of
hare and rabbit skins is performed; in all places where the hare and
rabbit skins are prepared before the treatment; also in all processes
which the skins undergo after the treatment, carrying, brushing,
cutting.

    INDUSTRIES.     LENGTH OF LABOR    NIGHT LABOR.      LABOR ON THE
                   AND CONDITIONS OF                     SEVENTH DAY.
                        RECESS.

                    (Art. 4 of the    (Authorization    (Authorization
                         law.)       provided by Art.  provided by Art.
                                      6 of the law.)    7 of the law.)

 I. Spinning and   For children and
   weaving of        youths of 13 to
   flax, cotton,     16 years: 11½
   hemp and jute     hours a day, 3
   (royal decree     recesses of a
   of December 26,   total of 1½
   1892).            hours at least.
                     The recess at
                     mid-day to be
                     at least 1
                     hour. For
                     children of 12
                     to 13 years, 6
                     hours a day;
                     recess, ¼ hour.

 II. Woolen        For children and
   industry (royal   youths under
   decree of         16: 11¼ hours a
   December 26,      day. Recess as
   1892).            in No. 1.

 III. Newspaper    For children and
   printing (royal   youths under
   decree of         16: 10 hours a
   December 26,      day. Several
   1892).            recesses with a
                     total of 1½
                     hours at least.

 IV. Art           As for No. III;
   industries        but for type
   (royal decree     foundries, the
   of December 26,   labor of
   1892).            children under
                     16 is limited
                     to 8 hours a
                     day.

 V. Manufacture of For youths of 14  Authorization for
   paper, (royal     to 16: 10 hours   young men of 14
   decree of         a day. Length     to 16. The
   December 26,      of recess: 3      length of night
   1892).            recesses with a   labor and
                     total of 1½       recesses is the
                     hours at least.   same as for day
                     For children of   labor.
                     12 to 14: 6
                     hours a day.
                     Recesses: one
                     or more with a
                     total of ½ hour
                     at least.

 VI. Tobacco and   For youths of 14
   cigars (royal     to 16: 10 hours
   decree of         a day.
   December 26,      Recesses: 3
   1892).            with a total of
                     1½ hours at
                     least. For
                     children of 12
                     to 14: 6 hours
                     a day.
                     Recesses: one
                     or more with a
                     total of ½ hour
                     at least.

 VII. Manufacture  For children and  Authorization for
   of sugar (royal   youths of less    youths of 14 to
   decree of         than 16: 10½      16. The same
   December 26,      hours a day.      conditions of
   1892).            Recesses: 3       labor and
                     with a total of   recess as for
                     1½ hours at       day labor.
                     least.

 VIII. Furniture   For children and
   and industries    youths under
   pertaining to     16: 9 hours a
   ship-building     day during the
   (royal decree     months of
   of December 26,   October to
   1892).            March, and 10
                     hours a day
                     during the rest
                     of the year.
                     Recesses: 3
                     with total of
                     1½ hours at
                     least. The
                     recess at
                     mid-day shall
                     be 1 hour at
                     least.

 IX. Pottery and   For children and
   crockeryware      youths under
   (royal decree     16: 10 hours a
   of December 26,   day. Recess as
   1892).            No. VIII.

 X. Refractory     As for No. IX.
   products (royal
   decree of
   December 26,
   1892).

 XI. Glass         As for Nos. IX    Authorization of  One week in every
   industry (royal   and X.            night labor,      two, the boys
   decree of                           _for the          of 14 to 16 can
   December 26,                        glass-tapping_,   be employed a
   1892).                              to boys of 14     seventh day _at
                                       to 16. The same   the
                                       conditions of     glass-tapping_.
                                       labor and         On that day the
                                       recess as by      actual labor
                                       day.              must not exceed
                                                         6 hours, with a
                                                         recess of ½
                                                         hour for rest,
                                                         and the time
                                                         necessary for
                                                         their spiritual
                                                         devotions.

 XII. Lucifer      For children and          „                 „
   matches (royal    youths under
   decree of         16: 10½ hours a
   December 26,      day. Recesses:
   1892).            3 with a total
                     of 1½ hours at
                     least. One hour
                     at mid-day.
                     During these
                     recesses the
                     workmen leave
                     the premises.

 XIII.             For children and
   Ship-building     youths under
   industry (royal   16: 8 hours a
   decree of         day during the
   December 26,      months of
   1892).            November to
                     February, and
                     10 hours the
                     rest of the
                     year. Recess: 1
                     hour during the
                     first months,
                     and 1½ hours
                     during the
                     others.

 XIV. Zinc rolling Children from 12  Authorization for
   mills (royal      to 14: 5 hours    youths of 14 to
   decree of         a day. Recess     16. The same
   December 26,      of ½ hour at      conditions of
   1892).            least. Youths     labor and
                     of 14 to 16: 10   recess as by
                     hours. Recesses   day.
                     with a total of
                     1½ hours; noon
                     recess at least
                     1 hour.

 XV. Crystal and   For children and  Authorization for One week in every
   goblet            youths under      youths of 14 to   two, the youths
   factories         16, who work at   16. The same      of 14 to 16 may
   (royal decree     glass-making:     conditions of     be employed a
   of December 26,   10 hours and 20   labor and         seventh day at
   1892)             minutes.          recess as by      the manufacture
                     Recesses: 3,      day.              of glass tiles
                     one of 20                           and other
                     minutes at                          analogous
                     least, in the                       labor, which
                     morning; one of                     settled glass
                     ½ hour at                           demands. On
                     least, at noon;                     that day the
                     a third of 20                       actual labor
                     minutes at                          shall not
                     least, in the                       exceed 6 hours,
                     afternoon.                          with a recess
                                                         of ½ hour at
                                                         least, and the
                                                         time necessary
                                                         for their
                                                         spiritual
                                                         devotions shall
                                                         be provided
                                                         for.

 XVI. Industries   For children and                            „
   pertaining to     youths under
   clothing (1st     16: 11 hours.
   category:         Recesses: 3
   hosiery, lace,    with total of
   embroidery,       not less than
   tulles and        1½ hours. The
   blond lace,       mid-day rest
   wool-braid,       shall be at
   etc.), (royal     least 1 hour.
   decree of
   December 26,
   1892).

 XVII. Industries  For children and
   pertaining to     youths under
   clothing (2d      16, it must not
   category:         exceed 10 hours
   tanning,          a day. Recesses
   currying,         with a total of
   tawing,           at least 1
   cord-waining,     hour. During
   hat-making,       these recesses
   fine linen,       the workmen
   toilet and        shall be at
   millinery,        liberty to
   etc., in so far   leave the
   as the law of     premises.
   December 13,
   1889, applies
   to the
   establishments
   where these
   industries are
   performed),
   (royal decree
   of December 26,
   1892).

 XVIII. Bulky      Children of 12 to
   mechanical        14: 10 hours.
   construction      Youths of 14 to
   (royal decree     16: 11 hours.
   of December 26,   Recesses with a
   1892).            total of 1 hour
                     at least.

 XIX. Small        In a first group
   mechanical        of industries
   construction      in this branch
   (royal decree     (Table A), the
   of December 26,   length of labor
   1892).            of children 12
                     to 14 shall not
                     exceed 10
                     hours. For
                     youths of 14 to
                     16: 11 hours.
                     In the trades
                     enumerated in
                     Tables B, C, D,
                     children and
                     youths of less
                     than 16: 10
                     hours. Recesses
                     with total of
                     1½ hours at
                     least. One hour
                     at noon. Free
                     exit from the
                     premises.

 XX. Bricks and    Children and
   tiles             youths under
   “hand-made,”      16: 12 hours a
   and other         day. Recesses:
   similar           if the actual
   employments       day’s labor
   (royal decree     exceeds 8
   of September      hours: 3
   22, 1896).        recesses with
                     total of 1½
                     hours at least,
                     at noon. If
                     actual labor
                     exceeds 6, but
                     not 8 hours: 1
                     or more
                     recesses with
                     total of 1 hour
                     at least. A
                     recess of ¼
                     hour at least
                     is obligatory
                     after each 4
                     hours of labor.

 XXI. Window-glass For children and  Authorization for One week in every
   industry; basin   youths under      youths of 14 to   two, youths of
   kilns; drying     16: 10½ hours.    16. The same      14 to 16 can be
   ground; pot       Recesses with     conditions of     employed the
   kilns (royal      total of 1½       recess and        seventh day.
   decree of         hours. Each       labor as by
   December 31,      period of labor   day.
   1892).            shall be
                     followed by a
                     complete rest
                     of a duration
                     double that of
                     the labor
                     itself.

 XXII. Mining and  In underground    Authorization of
   quarrying         labor, the        night labor for
   (royal decree     length of stay,   male youths of
   of March 15,      descent and       14 to 16
   1893). N.         ascent            occupied in
   B.—For the coal   comprises,        cutting out and
   mines of          among children    maintaining the
   Mariemont,        and male youths   roads and
   where the         under 16, 10½     filling up the
   organization of   hours. Recess:    dumps. Length
   labor is          at least ⅛ of     of labor 10
   different from    the stay          hours, and
   that of other     underground.      recess as by
   coal mines, the   Male children     day.
   royal decree of   12 years old
   March 15, 1893,   may be employed
   provides a        underground
   special           after 4 a. m.,
   regulation.       under the same
                     conditions of
                     labor and
                     recess. For
                     surface labor,
                     the length of
                     labor for
                     children and
                     youths under 16
                     is 10½ hours.
                     Recess, 1½
                     hours at least.

 XXIII.
   Manufacture of
   coke (royal
   decree of March
   15, 1893).

   A. Ovens for    Children and                        A. One week in
   common coke.      youths under                        every two,
                     16: 10½ hours.                      authorization
                     Recess not less                     to work a
                     than 1½ hours.                      seventh day,
                     The principal                       for male youths
                     recess 1 hour.                      of 14 to 16.
                                                         Day’s work 8
                                                         hours, less the
                                                         recess of 1
                                                         hour and time
                                                         for religious
                                                         devotions.

   B. Coke ovens   Children and      For male youths   B. Same
   for the           youths under      over 14,          authorization
   recovery of       16: 10½ hours a   authorization     as for No.
   by-products.      day. Recesses     for night work.   XXIII A.
                     with total of     Same length and
                     1½ hours.         recess as by
                     Principal         day.
                     recess 1 hour.

 XXIV. Factories   Children and
   for the           youths under
   agglomeration     16: 10½ hours.
   of coal           Recesses: a
   (briquette        total of at
   factories),       least 1½ hours.
   (royal decree     Principal
   of March 15,      recess 1 hour.
   1893).

 XXV. Quarries and For underground
   works connected   labor, the same
   with them         conditions as
   (royal decree     for No. XXII.
   of March 15,
   1893).

         „         For surface
                     labor: 10
                     hours. In the
                     tool repair
                     shops: 10½
                     hours. Total
                     recess 1½
                     hours.

         „         In the works for
                     cutting and
                     carving the
                     rough products
                     of the quarry:
                     for children
                     and youths from
                     12 to 16: 8
                     hours a day, in
                     order to give
                     time for
                     professional
                     instruction.

 XXVI. Metallurgic Length of labor:  Male youths of 14 One week in every
   works governed    10½ hours a       to 16 years may   two, male
   under the law     day. Total        work at night,    youths of 14 to
   of April 21,      recess: 1½        under the same    16 may work a
   1810. (Blast      hours.            conditions of     seventh day, in
   furnaces, iron    Principal         labor and         order to feed
   and steel         recess: ½ hour    recess as the     the blast
   mills, rolling    between 11 and    day labor.        furnaces and
   mills,            2 o’clock for                       attend to the
   foundries,        the furnace                         zinc foundries.
   etc.), (royal     men; 1 hour for                     Time allowed
   decree of March   the other                           for religious
   15, 1893).        workmen.                            devotions.

 XXVII. Preserving Children and      Authorization for
   and pickling of   youths under      youths of 14 to
   fish (royal       16: 11 hours.     16 to work from
   decree of         Recesses: 3       9 p. m. until
   November 3,       with total of     midnight,
   1898).            1½ hours when     during a number
                     actual labor      of days which
                     exceeds 8         shall not
                     hours. When it    exceed thirty a
                     exceeds 6, but    year. Actual
                     not 8 hours,      labor may never
                     one or several    exceed 12
                     recesses with a   hours. Recesses
                     total of 1        as by day.
                     hour. A recess
                     of ¼ hour is
                     compulsory
                     after each
                     period of 4
                     hours’ labor.

 XXVIII. Factories                   Boys of 14 to 16
   for enamel                          may be employed
   products (royal                     at night, one
   decree of                           week out of
   November 29,                        every two, in
   1898).                              the work of the
                                       enamel cooking
                                       ovens. Length
                                       of labor and
                                       recess as for
                                       No. XIX.

In order to give a full account of the extent of the regulation of child
labor in Belgium, it was necessary to consider in detail the law of 1889
and the provisions of the various decrees of which we have just spoken.
Let us see now how the law and the regulations are applied:


                     _The Application of the Law._

In order to insure the application of the law and to watch its
execution, Article 12 prescribes the appointment of officials by the
government, whose powers shall be determined by royal decree.

At first the inspection of labor was vested in officers already charged
with other powers. This system, condemned by experience in other lands,
did not give good results, and a special body of labor inspectors was
organized by a royal decree of October 22, 1895.

According to this decree, the inspection of labor and the observance of
the execution of the law of 1889 in the mines, quarries and metallurgic
works is committed to the engineers of the mines. For all other
industries, the service of labor inspection is attached to the Labor
Bureau.

This service comprises:

(1) Inspectors of labor in the central administration, residing at
Brussels. These officers are six in number: two inspectors-general,
three labor inspectors and one female inspector.

(2) Inspectors and deputies residing in the country. There are actually
eight labor inspectors in the provincial service and six deputies. The
country is divided into nine districts, and the departments of
inspection have, on the last occasion, been defined by a ministerial
decree of December 16, 1899.

(3) Finally, a certain number of medical inspectors are charged
specially with watching over the application of the rules with reference
to the healthfulness and safety of the workshops.

The labor inspectors not only have charge of the execution of the law of
1889, but also of the laws on the payment of wages, the regulations of
factories, etc. They make an annual report, and their reports have been
published regularly since 1895, and from them information must be
secured concerning the law’s execution, even though the reports are
often incomplete and unmethodical.

I will refer here particularly to the last report published, that of
1900:

The law of 1889 was not applied seriously until 1895, following the
reorganization of inspection. Since then progress has been made, but it
is incontestable that in several of its provisions the law is not
applied as it should be in all parts of the country. The press and
Parliament[22] have several times pointed out this unsatisfactory
situation.

The inspectors certainly perform their complicated and delicate work
with fidelity. But they are too few in number to fitly discharge their
numerous duties. The opposition or the ill-will of the manufacturers is
still too frequent; and when the inspectors wish to apply the law and
enforce its respect, they do not always find the support which they
should have among their superior officers.

In certain industries, _e. g._, glass and hand-made brick, which employ
a considerable number of children, the application of the law is
particularly to be desired. It is true these industries have peculiar
economic characteristics. There has already been introduced a regulation
less severe for the brick-works, and certain mitigations are being asked
for the glass industry.

Too many children are still permitted to labor before having reached the
legal age of twelve years. The inspector for the district of East
Flanders (Ghent) announces that the number of children under twelve
found in the industrial establishments was particularly numerous in
1900. He found seventy-five such in his district in ten hosiery
factories, two tobacco factories, one lace-making school, one mechanical
weaving mill, one jute mill, one sugar refinery. (Report 1900, pp. 88,
89.) In some other districts the situation is better, according to this
report, but almost everywhere violations are still observed, as well as
the complicity of parents. “Families in need often make all efforts and
use all sorts of devices to cause their children under age to be
admitted to labor.” (Report, p. 143.) It happens that the regulation
note-books requiring the entry of the child’s age contain false
declarations, or they are delivered to the children under age by the
civic authority. (Report, p. 127.) Moreover, these note-books are often
missing, and the registries which the masters should keep do not always
come up to the demands of the law.

A royal decree of December 26, 1892, as we have said, organizes the
system of half-time—six hours of work—for children of twelve to
thirteen, employed in the textile industries other than the woolen
industry. This system has not given good results. The manufacturers
prefer to do without children under thirteen, rather than adopt this
special organization. In the works which have adopted this system, the
child does not benefit from it at all. “After having worked six hours in
the morning at the spinning or weaving of linen, the parents send that
child to complete the day’s labor at a chairmaker’s, at picking rags, or
in a preserved fruit and vegetable factory, where the law does not
protect him any longer within the same limits. Moreover, if he does not
work in the afternoon, he roams around the streets and becomes vicious,
the school refusing to admit as pupil a child who can only attend half
the time.” (Report, p. 65.)

This confirms what was said above, concerning the defect in the Belgian
law, which contains no regulations for the instruction of children whose
labor it limits.

On several occasions the labor inspectors have called attention to the
necessity of extending the application of the law to the workshops which
are not included, and especially to the clothing and millinery shops,
which freely employ numerous children. They ask, in every case, that the
legislator should state more clearly and precisely than the actual
interpretation of the law does, the distinction between the workshops
subject to the law and those that are not. (Report, pp. 3, 66.)

Finally, the inspectors think that it is necessary to revise and to
simplify the royal decrees, the complications of which give rise to many
difficulties. This revision is, by the way, at present under
consideration. (Report, pp. 3, 44.)


From what precedes, we may conclude that, except certain desirable
ameliorations and simplifications, Belgium possesses a law comprising
what is needed for the protection of children employed in the
industries, and a law regardful of the many interests of industry. The
most important present problem is to secure general, strict and complete
execution of the legal provisions. Nothing is more demoralizing, from
the social point of view, than to possess laws to which officials either
cannot or will not compel obedience.




                          MACHINERY AND LABOR

                             By HENRY WHITE

          General Secretary, United Garment Workers of America


This subject is one which involves the whole industrial problem. It is
the complexity of conditions due to the introduction of machinery which
has caused the wide differences of opinion upon the question of wealth
distribution. Under the simpler methods of industry the manner in which
the proceeds of labor were divided was readily understood; to-day,
however, the system is so highly organized that there is much confusion
as to its operations. The perplexity is so great that many who see in
labor-saving inventions some malign purpose, and others again who
discern that any means which enhances the productiveness of labor must
benefit mankind, are unable to comprehend the manner by which that
result is effected. The habit of judging the operations of so complex a
system by the effect upon special interests instead of viewing it as a
whole, accounts for the common misconception regarding the function of
machinery.

If people were to consider how meagre would be the rewards of toil
without the aid of machinery, how costly the necessities of life, and
how small the purchasing power of the laborer, its uses would soon
become apparent. The confusion is heightened by the dual relation which
a person occupies as a producer and as a consumer. As a consumer he
benefits almost at once by every saving in effort, while as a producer
his means of a livelihood may in consequence be threatened. The laborers
thrown out of work by a machine or even the merchant forced out of
business through some combination cannot be expected to appreciate the
beneficence of such economy. In both cases their horizon is limited to
their own means of a livelihood. When a person finds his occupation
suddenly gone, it outweighs all other considerations; and unmindful of
the benefits he may have received from similar economies in other
trades, inventions to him seem a curse. The rewards of the particular
invention which distresses him go to the body of consumers and he only
shares indirectly as one of them. In the case of the wage-workers the
gain is not evident as it is with the manufacturer who first utilizes an
invention, and consequently their views on the subject will differ
correspondingly. It is regrettable that even the temporary disadvantages
of industrial progress should fall heavily upon some to the advantage of
others, but it is as unavoidable as friction is to motion. The suffering
can be mitigated only in proportion as our knowledge of the methods of
industry increases, by recognizing the inevitableness of the changes and
preparing to meet them.

Economic laws, like the laws of nature, admit of no exceptions. Were
discriminations possible the consequences would make the present
hardships seem nothing in comparison. In fact, society would quickly
disintegrate and revert to its primitive state. If society had to wait
for the sanction of every person before a forward step could be taken it
would never start. In the process of adjustment and readjustment which
progress implies, it is unavoidable that some have to be forced out of
old grooves and made to fit into new ones. It is this adaptability to
change which characterizes modern enterprise; this willingness to suffer
immediate discomforts for the achievement of larger ends.

The general confusion as to the service rendered by machinery is not
strange considering the absurd notions which are rife regarding the
rudiments of social economy. No distinction is usually made between
useful and useless labor. There is supposed to be only a given amount of
work to be done, and hence the less each one does the more jobs there
will be to go around. If wealth be wasted or destroyed, it will in some
mysterious manner be replaced. The destruction of property by fire or
flood is regarded with complacency by those not directly affected, upon
the supposition that more work is thereby provided, without taking into
account that the wealth required to replace it must be diverted from
some productive use. The spending or circulating of money is equivalent
to creating wealth. Luxury is looked upon with more favor than
frugality, and it is even thought that gambling benefits a community as
much as industry because the fortunate ones spend freely, and the misery
which it begets is lost sight of in contemplation of the profits of a
few. With such erroneous ideas entertained even by educated people, it
is apparent why the complex operations of our industrial system are so
slightly understood. The expansion of industry which follows
labor-saving devices, the creation of new industries and the consequent
replacing of those displaced is unintelligible to all save those that
comprehend economic principles. In addition to the popular
misconceptions of the subject, there are historic causes which have
created this antipathy to machinery. During the transition from the
domestic to the factory system in England, machinery became a club to
subjugate the laborer. Untutored, unorganized, without any resisting
power, the former independent artisan, now a factory hand, was placed in
brutal competition with his fellows, and every invention only served to
add to his helplessness. The plight of the English laborers at that time
abundantly shows that there are circumstances in which the wealth of a
nation may increase tremendously, the productive power of labor multiply
many-fold, while the workers on the other hand become impoverished and
brutalized. Mill was of the opinion that machinery had not benefited the
working class, but happily, since the time in which he wrote, education
and organization, two indispensable factors in their advancement, have
come to their aid. An upward trend has in consequence taken place, and
the stimulus which it has given will make a relapse, owing to the
advances in sanitary science, as improbable as another visitation of a
plague. Where the workers have succeeded in acquiring some independence,
in raising their standard of living, machinery, despite the drawbacks
described, has undoubtedly become a potent factor in the elevation of
their class.

Under a collective system the immediate benefits which would be derived
by each individual through labor-saving inventions are its chief merit,
but to compare the good features of an imaginary social system with the
disadvantages of the existing one is not an easy task. It can, however,
be shown that this desired co-operative principle actually does work out
at the present time in a rough way by the distribution of the benefits
of inventions throughout society and that there are possibilities for a
more perfect application of it.

As to the workers’ share in production, Karl Marx in his incisive
analysis comes to the conclusion that the value of commodities is based
upon the labor cost plus the profits of the capitalist and in that he is
in accord with the authorities upon social science since Adam Smith. He
deduces from that, that labor alone represents the actual wealth which
is exploited for profit by the capitalist and that the very capital
invested was previously appropriated from the laborer. Granting this
conclusion, Marx should have made allowance for the competition between
capitalists by which the price of commodities is kept within certain
limits and the benefits of cheaper production are given to the
consumers. In the cases Marx deals with, cheaper production
unfortunately did not only mean more economical methods, but lower wages
and long hours and the sacrifice of the worker, while the consumer
represented some one else than the operative, who barely subsisted on
his pittance. Without the ability to purchase the goods he produced,
England had to dispose of in foreign markets that which should have been
consumed at home, always the best market. Her chief dependence being
upon outside markets, everything had to be subordinated to cheaper
production, no matter how obtained.

Concerning the attitude of trades unions upon the question of machinery,
the membership being composed of men with the usual abilities, their
views do not materially differ from others. Having, however, the
benefits of an education derived from a close study of economic problems
and an experience which has helped them form broader opinions, they are
gradually reconciling themselves to machinery. As for example the action
taken at the late convention of the American Federation of Labor held at
Scranton. In a resolution introduced by the delegates of the Cigar
Makers’ International Union requesting that a certain firm be declared
unfair, there was reference to a cigar-making machine used in the shop
of this employer. Although the machine was mentioned as an evidence only
of the inferiority of the product of the concern, a vigorous objection
was at once raised by the delegates against any mention of the use of
machinery by the firm. In the debate which followed, it was argued that
the convention could not afford to go on record as against labor-saving
devices and that any attempt to oppose them would prove futile. The
objectionable words were stricken out by a decisive vote. As to what
action the convention would have taken if the delegates had thought it
possible to suppress the machine is a question. The decision of the
convention, however, has brought the movement to a point in which the
members will be enabled to take a more liberal and complete view of the
subject, and realize that the limitation of work is not only impolitic,
but that by increasing their capacities the opportunity is afforded for
them to insist upon a fair share in the larger product. The British
unions have not advanced in that respect as far as the American unions
because the habits of the working people there are more set, but
circumstances have also changed very much their attitude toward
machinery.

The Typographical Union is a notable example of a union which accepted a
revolutionizing invention as being inevitable and thus succeeded in
securing a rate of wages for the operators considerably in excess of
that received by the hand compositors An officer of the New York Union
estimates that each linotype machine introduced into the newspaper
offices displaced three men, and that within three years, owing to the
increase in the size of the newspapers and the larger demand for printed
matter which it encouraged, the men laid off have been re-employed, and
that to-day the pay-rolls even exceed the former figure. This machine
has also had the effect of elevating the standards of the craft, owing
to the higher skill and education required. The competition among the
employers is such that profits are reduced to a minimum the public
therefore receiving the full benefit of the improvement.

In the building trades, similar results are also noted. Improved methods
have led to a prodigious expansion in building operations. The laborer’s
work is now largely done by mechanical means, and parts of a structure,
such as the trimmings, are made in factories and are only fitted
together upon the premises. The subdividing of the work is carried on to
an extent that a number of contractors, each performing a distinct
function, co-operate in the completion of a single building. When this
specializing began and the ingenious hod-hoisting device made it
unnecessary for men to make beasts of burden of themselves, a general
alarm was created over the prospect of great numbers of workmen being
thrown out of employment. To-day a far greater number of men are
steadily employed in this fundamental industry than at any time in its
history.

Examples of this kind can be cited indefinitely to demonstrate the
larger results which flow from greater economy in effort. Allowances are
seldom made for the enterprises which could not be carried on at all
were it not for labor-saving methods.

The lowering of the cost of commodities enables the average person to
indulge in what were formerly considered luxuries, and by this
encourages the development of new industries. The tendency under the
influence of machinery is for industry to spread out fan-shape, ever
widening as the distance from the starting point increases. Were it not
for the limitations set by the purchasing capacity of the people and the
periodical disarrangements or panics which occur as a result of what is
conveniently termed over-production, there would be no check. To fear a
surfeit of wealth seems absurd considering the needs of the average
person. What is meant by over-production is the inability to buy what
has been produced.

Russia with her immense population is unable to consume the products of
her few mills, while in the United States, where the efficiency of labor
is higher than anywhere else and is being increased at a marvelous rate,
not to speak of the half-million aliens absorbed every year, the
percentage of unemployed is lower than it has been for years, and even
less than during the earlier part of our history when manufacturing was
in its infancy.

To increase the purchasing capacity of the people either by higher wages
or cheaper products is to reduce the surplus and maintain an
equilibrium, hence the economic value of higher standards of living.
Production cannot be greater than the ability of the average person to
consume, any more than water can rise higher than its source, therefore
increased production must be accompanied by the same increase in
consumption, if normal conditions are to be maintained. No matter to
what extent machinery, division of labor or economy in management may be
perfected theoretically, the demand for labor ought not to be
diminished. The eight-hour work is advocated by many, not because of the
personal benefit to the workman, but upon the same grounds that they
would favor the curtailment of production, in the belief that it would
increase the number of the employed. By decreasing the average amount of
work done in order that it may be distributed more evenly may accomplish
that object temporarily, but if generally practiced would decrease the
demand for work through the increase of the price of the commodity.

It is doubtful if workmen in a particular craft have ever succeeded for
a length of time in erecting a wall around themselves and preventing as
many extra men as could be employed from getting in if the emoluments
were sufficient. So even if it were possible to so restrict work as to
create a scarcity of workmen, this pressure from without would prove
irresistible and the normal level would be maintained. If on the
contrary a lack of work would make a number of workmen superfluous,
there would be a tendency for them to find their way into growing
occupations. Union regulations, such as apprenticeship rules, can and do
prevent undue crowding into a trade owing to a sudden and temporary
demand which would prove highly injurious unless checked, for it would
serve to break down standards upheld by the union. Through such means an
assimilation of those entering the trade is gradually accomplished.

Unions have been frequently charged with trying to restrict output. The
same accusation has also with equal effect been made against industrial
combinations for seeking to create an artificial scarcity. In many cases
where unions endeavor to prevent rush or driving work injurious to the
worker, they have been accused of limiting work. Such restrictions can
be easily defended. That labor organizations have in some instances
attempted to prevent the use of labor-saving appliances there can be no
question considering the prevailing ideas on the subject, and organized
workmen can give force to their opposition, but that such is the policy
of labor movement is far from fact as I have just illustrated. The
opposition to labor-saving methods is not confined to workmen alone, for
employers will rail against competitors able to give better service for
less cost. The same resentment at being forced out of a settled
occupation is entertained by all.

The actual injury done by machinery is caused by the suddenness of the
changes that result. Since there could be no way of regulating inventive
genius, and the incentives for using improvements will remain as great,
the rational and the only way to meet them is by preparation. The
working class suffers most because it is less able to accommodate itself
to new situations. The rising generation should be better equipped with
a general knowledge of mechanics, and taught how to handle tools with
skill. Such a training would undoubtedly relieve the difficulty and it
could only be adequately supplied by the public schools. The results
would be to increase the independence of workmen, as they would not then
rely upon a small division of a trade or upon a single employer.
Independence and higher wages go together. Unskilled laborers in some
cases learn more than skilled mechanics for the reason that workmen
trained only in one craft are usually unfitted for other work, while
those accustomed to being thrown upon their own resources are more
adaptable.

In the case of the aged workman the situation is specially hard, as he
cannot find any place in an industrial system in which alertness counts
for more than skill. He cannot profit by accumulated experiences as
others do. It is the tragic side of the question, this grievous
predicament of the worker who has spent his energies adding to the
nation’s wealth. It can and ought to be overcome, not by any system of
alms-giving which must always prove inadequate, not by retiring him to
idleness, but by keeping him employed at such work as his long training
and peculiar abilities fit him for. As his earning power declines at a
certain period, some system of insurance could supply the deficiency.

In respect to the material advantages of machinery, it surely has
enlarged the capacities of the people and multiplied their
opportunities. The possibilities are such as to make the mind tremble in
anticipation. It is the agency which alone can raise wages, reduce the
working time and enhance the buying power of money—a threefold gain.

The feeling against machinery will not cease until the workman profits
more directly as a producer as well as a consumer, until he is treated
as a human being and not as a mere animated tool, until he becomes more
than a tender, an incident in production. The human element must become
more evident and the toiler made to feel his partnership. The true
mission of machinery, would then be revealed to all as the only means
which liberate man from drudgery, increase his control over nature and
provide the leisure essential to a higher culture.

One of the acknowledged evils of machinery is the exploitation of child
labor which usually follows its introduction. Such was the case in
England, and we find it repeated to-day in the new industrial districts
of the South. In such industries where the repetition of a small
mechanical process enables child labor to be employed, the temptation to
take advantage of the opportunity is great; for children have no rights
to assert, no wage scale to uphold or working time to protect. In that
respect child labor is akin to slave labor. It must be added for
fairness that the capitalists utilizing such opportunities are not alone
to blame, for shortsighted and grasping parents often drive their
children into the mills because of the paltry sum which can be added to
the family income, and in time they get into the habit of depending upon
the pittance purchased at so terrible a price.

The inducement of a “plentiful supply of cheap labor” is also held out
to capitalists by small communities as a means of persuading them to
locate factories in their neighborhood. These are the two chief
obstacles in the way of reform. In course of time, however, as the
consequences become more evident and the exultation over the
establishment of a new factory wears off, the public conscience revolts
against this debasement of the helpless children and the law is
eventually evoked to suppress the evil. The strenuous efforts being made
in the South upon the part of the labor organizations and sympathizers
to enact protective laws lead us to hope that we will at least be spared
the dreadful experiences of England during the first half century of the
factory system.




V. Tendencies of Factory Legislation and Inspection in the United States

            By SARAH S. WHITTELSEY, Ph.D., New Haven, Conn.




 TENDENCIES OF FACTORY LEGISLATION AND INSPECTION IN THE UNITED STATES

                     By SARAH S. WHITTELSEY, Ph.D.


The introduction of the factory system in American industry acted in
this country, as it had in England, to develop certain abnormal
conditions of labor that in the end required government interference.
Thus in the manufacturing states, chiefly in the North and East, there
has come into existence a very considerable body of factory law. The
enactment of such regulative statutes is the prerogative of each of the
several states acting independently and according to the discretion of
its own legislature; in consequence there is great variety in these laws
and in their scope,—from the comparatively complete codes of
Massachusetts and New York to absolutely no regulation whatever.


            _Present Factory Laws of the United States._[23]

“In all, about half the states have so far passed what may be called a
factory act; that is, laws for the regulation, mainly sanitary, of
conditions in factories and workshops. These include ... the New England
states generally, New York and the Northern Central and Northwestern
states following their legislation. There are almost no factory acts in
the South nor in the purely agricultural states of the West, but these
statutes are being passed rapidly and moreover, in states where they
have already been enacted, are being amended every year.

“The most usual statutes are those making provision for proper
fire-escapes, or against use of explosive oils, etc.; for the removal of
noxious vapors or dust by fans or other contrivances; requiring guards
to be placed about dangerous machinery, belting, elevators, wells,
air-shafts, crucibles, vats, etc.; providing that doors shall open
outward; prohibiting the machinery from being cleaned while in motion;
laws to prevent overcrowding and to secure sanitary conditions
generally.”[24] Building laws also reinforce these measures.

Antedating such factory acts proper, the same states have very generally
passed statutes regulating child labor and forbidding employment to
those under a stated age. In eleven states this age limit is fourteen
years, in nine over twelve, and in four,—New Hampshire, Vermont,
Nebraska, and California,—ten years; eleven also make educational
provision for older children and illiterate minors.[25]

The majority of states have further legislated upon the hours of labor
of minors, while fifteen limit the working time of women as well,
generally to sixty hours per week, but in Massachusetts to fifty-eight
hours, in New Jersey to fifty-five, and in Wisconsin to forty-eight.[26]
Eight also provide for time for meals, and five prohibit night work.[27]
This limitation of hours for women and children, considered “wards of
the state,” very generally necessitates a similar working day for the
adult male laborer in the factory, while it in a measure avoids the
serious question of constitutionality that a broader statute could not
fail to raise.

“There is absolutely no limitation for persons of any age or sex only in
Iowa, Kansas, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah,
Kentucky, Arkansas, Texas, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida,
Mississippi, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, and the District of
Columbia.”[28]

Besides these statutes, other laws that must be mentioned, as
immediately affecting the interests of factory labor, are those which
regulate wage payment and fines, also the employers’ liability acts
which allow recovery of damages for bodily injury sustained in service.
Thirteen states have passed laws regulating the period of payment by
individuals and corporations, and nine others stipulate weekly or
fortnightly payments by corporations. Only Massachusetts, Indiana and
Ohio have attempted to “prevent the withholding of wages or the
imposition of a fine by factory employers for imperfect work.”

Outside of the New England states “anti-truck acts,” similar to the
English statute and stipulating a money payment, have been passed in
sixteen states, five of which, however, limit its application to
corporations. It may be noted in passing that several of these
wage-regulating laws have already fallen under the ban of the courts.

Employers’ liability statutes supplement the factory acts by affording
additional reason for care on the part of the employer in guarding
dangerous machinery and otherwise providing for the safety of those in
his employ. Twenty-two states have legislated upon the “fellow-servant”
question, and ten make employers liable for injury caused by defective
machinery. Of these, however, only six apply in full to factory labor.

The states that have passed factory acts and regulated hours of labor
“have usually created one or more factory inspectors, charged with the
duty of seeing that the statutes are carried out generally with powers
to enter personally or by deputy and to inspect all factories at any
time.”[29]

The child labor laws are variously entrusted for enforcement to the
factory inspectors, school committee or board of education,
commissioners of labor, or left to the care of the police.


                       _Historical Development._

It may seem perhaps that such a sketch fails to show the underlying or
directive principle of this legislation, but a detailed study of the
laws adds confusion rather than enlightenment. Studnitz considered that
he had seized upon the real causal force and summed up the situation in
the statement that American labor legislation has been determined by the
political and social strength of the laborers demanding it, rather than
in accordance with the natural needs and varied conditions of industry
within the states.[30]

Allowing this explanation at least as to the immediate agency, we must
nevertheless recognize the fact that other forces are at work and that
there are traceable tendencies of a natural growth even when arbitrary
human action is so apparent. The most casual acquaintance with the
history of labor legislation must convince us that the action of
economic law has inevitably necessitated the legal regulation of labor;
and this really in spite of human opposition and in the face of extreme
doctrines of non-interference. Industrial labor unregulated has
everywhere developed the same symptoms. Competition between producers
tends to encourage all possible reductions of costs, to reduce wages, to
increase the use of cheap child labor, to perpetuate long hours of
labor, etc., and to range the interests of the employing class against
those of the operative class. In the struggle which results from this
antagonism the employer has the advantage of position to force his own
terms of contract upon the laborer, for he has in his hands an
accumulated capital which is equivalent in power to effective
organization. Such conditions left to work themselves out have
invariably acted to degrade the social status of labor, the heaviest
pressure falling upon those who could least resist it. This was the
experience of England first, then felt on the Continent and in this
country in the New England states and other centres of manufacture, and
to-day we are becoming aware of like tendencies in the cotton-goods
industry of the South.

It was almost universally the evils attending child labor that evoked
the first acts of regulation. But although abuses were very serious,
legal remedies were most timidly applied. Even with the example of the
successful issue of the English laws the New England legislatures
contented themselves with the passage of most inadequate measures,
measures that could hardly have been looked upon as anything more than
unenforcible threats. We realize how complete a change of attitude
toward this “intermeddling legislation” has been brought about during
the course of the past sixty years when we compare a few of these old
laws with those to-day in force. Contrast, for example, the detailed and
exacting requirements of the present law concerning child labor in
Massachusetts with the older Vermont statute, which is quite typical of
the earlier order and “merely requires the selectmen of towns to inquire
into the treatment of minors employed in manufacturing establishments;
and if a minor’s education, morals, etc., are unreasonably neglected, or
he is treated with improper severity or compelled to labor unreasonable
hours, they may, if he has no parent or guardian, discharge him from
such employment and bind him out as apprentice with the minor’s
consent.” (Vt. 2518.)[31]

Early measures were certainly neither severe in the regulation imposed
nor exact in defining the parties held to be responsible. They generally
involved a question of volition, making “willful” transgression alone
punishable, and thus unenforcible in the letter, were given into the
hands of town officials who had neither the power nor the effective
desire to investigate or to bring suit.

Such enactments stood for little more than a public recognition of
abuses which they in no wise checked, but the increasing menace of the
situation, the threat, not to be scorned, of a future sickly and
illiterate labor population, forced the passage of more adequate
measures and the resort to a better mechanism of enforcement than that
of town officials and the general police. In such reforms Massachusetts
took the lead, enacted and repealed several contradictory statutes, and
finally by the slow process of continued amendment evolved the present
really enforcible law.

We feel in studying the halting stages of this development not only that
there was a pardonable ignorance of ways and means in attacking a new
problem, but also the influence of a more or less skeptical public
opinion concerning this policy of interference which reflected itself in
hedging clauses that weakened and sometimes vitiated what would
otherwise have been good measures.

In spite of many drawbacks to advance, however, there was no retrograde
motion, but a continued development of strictness and detail in
exactions, of clearer definition and placement of responsibility and of
more adequate provision for inspection. As these laws gradually
demonstrated their practical usefulness and convinced the public of
benefit instead of harm, the former attitude of timidity gave place to a
decided peremptoriness, the former indiscriminate _omnibus ad quos hae
litteræ pervenerint_ to placed responsibility.

Meantime the way was opened for more wide-reaching regulations
concerning hours of labor, workroom conditions, etc., and a broader
conception of the province of such legislation and of that which might
be considered proper subject of legal interference. Whereas the first
attempts to protect even little children from conditions that imperiled
their health and life were bitterly opposed in England upon grounds of
national policy, to-day we find statutes that regulate not only child
labor, hours of labor, factory constructions and the use of machinery,
but also others that stipulate times and manner of wage payment, and
forbid fines in dealings with adult male employees. And this has come to
pass in America where “freedom of contract” is the constitutional right
of every individual citizen.

Our laws have indeed very steadily progressed from measures of simple
protection to detailed regulation of conditions, and even to the
securing of special benefits to labor.

This broader application of the legal remedy has been accompanied also
by marked territorial extension, following the growth and spread of
manufactures. Other states have felt the necessity of adopting a labor
code and have naturally, in a general way, followed the forms of New
England and New York. They range, however, through all stages of
incompleteness. A curious phenomenon constantly appears in this
imitative legislation. When a state legislature passes a new labor law,
or revises an old one, it does not necessarily adopt the latest form nor
that which has proved to work most satisfactorily in another state, nor
yet a combination of choice clippings from several. A state legislature
is generally perfectly content with a law that is about as poor as the
average and looks forward most placidly to the inevitable train of
amendments that must follow in its wake. By this I do not mean to
criticise in the least the enactment of less strict regulations as a
lower age limit or longer hours of labor, which may be proper under
given local conditions, but alone the continued repetition of blunders
and faults of construction that have elsewhere proved their character
and their power to nullify the intent of the law. Fortunately experience
proves in the end an effective, if dear, teacher and one of the lessons
that it ultimately drives home is that even a state legislature cannot
legislate the laws of nature out of the world arena. As Jevons said,
“The state is the least of the powers that govern us.” But as the
physician through his knowledge of medicine and physiology, and by his
diagnosis of the symptoms of disease, is able to pit law against law,
and to restore health where he found abnormal conditions; so the
statesman who understands the social order and the tendencies of
economic forces is often able to control their action. In either case, a
knowledge of the active agencies is absolutely necessary to the solution
of the problem. The recent organization of bureaus of labor statistics
is certainly significant in this connection. To-day, when a question of
labor legislation is presented, there is, in many states, such a
qualified advisory body to whom the whole matter may be referred for
investigation and study, and whose regular duty it is to inquire into
and report upon labor and industrial conditions within the state. This
indicates a growing appreciation of the necessity of accurate
information and of the exercise of due care in passing acts of
regulation.


                      _Enforcement by Inspection._

The problem of enforcement of these laws has proved even more serious
than that of their enactment. Labor laws, however good, cannot enforce
themselves. It may appear to be for the laborer’s own interest to report
violations and seek the legal remedy, but the indisputable fact is that
he does not do it. Moreover, not only is the individual laborer often
not in a position to do so safely, but even the labor union shrinks from
the task. The whole history of the movement for the regulation of labor
shows the absolute necessity of efficient inspection, a fact which has
unfortunately been most clearly demonstrated in the general lack of such
inspection. In nothing do the states differ more widely than in their
provision for inspection. There are such specifically differentiated
departments as that of Massachusetts or New York; there are such
combinations as that of Connecticut, where a single inspector with two
or three assistants enforces the factory, workshop and bake-shop acts,
while the Board of Education is charged with the child labor laws; and
there is dependence alone upon the general police force.

Inspection always lags too far behind legislation and has given some
ground of credit to the often-repeated criticism that this labor
legislation is not in fact intended seriously, but has been entered upon
the statute books rather to still the clamor of agitators for reform
than to effect any real change in conditions. It is certain at least
that the serious effectiveness of these laws develops in exact
proportion with the inspecting power,—with the organization, number and
qualification of inspectors. If the charge of insincerity, however, had
been true, we might expect to find that the better the laws became, the
stronger the pressure that would be brought against the development of
costly inspection. The legal remedy being given, is it not the privilege
of the individual to avail himself of it, rather than the duty of the
state to force it upon him? On the contrary, however, the history of
inspection runs parallel and in the same direction with that of the
legislation just reviewed. The same economic and social forces that were
the _raison d’être_ of these laws have quite as distinctly and steadily,
though more slowly, created the supplementary machinery of enforcement.
The unreliable and haphazard inspection of town officials has passed
entirely, superseded by the inspector whose sole duty is inspection, in
which duty he is aided by assistants immediately under his own command,
or by members of other departments of government. The tendency towards
the development of _distinct_ inspection departments is quite
unmistakable though the exact form of their future organization is less
easily predicted. There are two toward which present forms lean, one
exemplified in Massachusetts, the other in New York.

In Massachusetts the inspectors are organized as a division of police,
under the chief of police as chief inspector, exactly as the detective
division, for instance. That of New York is a separate and distinct body
under a chief appointed by the governor to hold that single office.

The question is therefore raised as to whether organic connection with
the police department or separate and distinct autonomy is the more
practical and advantageous form. It is conceded that Massachusetts has
developed the most efficient corps of inspectors in this country, but
this cannot at present be taken as conclusive proof of policy, because
Massachusetts was earlier in the field, and because opposing obstacles
were hardly so serious as those met in New York. Further, such
connection with the police department in Massachusetts seems to have
been largely due to local conditions and to have grown out of measures
dictated by immediate convenience at the time of the passage of the
early child labor laws, rather than a deliberately chosen system of
administration. A clipping from the history of the department will make
this clear.

“At first the unreliable mechanism of truant officers and local town or
city officials was solely depended upon for inspection. Then, under new
child labor statutes, a single deputy was in each case detailed by the
police department to aid enforcement (1866, c. 273; 1867, c. 285). The
law of 1877 (c. 214), increasing the duties of factory inspection by
regulations looking to the safety of employees, provided that members of
the State Detective Department should act as inspectors of factories and
public buildings, to report and prosecute violations of this act as well
as of other measures relative to the employment of women and minors....
In 1879 (c. 305), the governor was authorized to appoint two regular
inspectors from the police department....

“Better administration was finally secured in 1888 (c. 113), by
separating the detective and inspecting forces.... With the enactment of
stringent steam-boiler inspection laws, a new department of boiler
inspectors ... was created.”

While in some ways this affiliation with the police has been helpful,
there are also drawbacks in the combination under one head of work in
fields that are so large and so distinctly marked off from one another
not only in object, but most essentially in methods of work. It would
seem that a due co-operation between district departments could be made
to afford all of the advantages of the closer relationship, while it
would insure the whole time and energy of the chief to a task that is
quite enough to occupy his entire attention. Indeed, with the increasing
number and detail of regulations, the many technicalities that arise in
the application of labor laws and the rapid growth of the factory system
of industry, another specialist will soon be demanded to fill such an
office. The necessary increase in numbers alone must make the police
connection awkward.

In framing many of these laws, for example the factory acts, much has
necessarily been left to the discretion of inspectors in the decision of
what is “adequate” provision. Especially where appliances not
contemplated in the ordinary law are offered, very careful judgment is
called for. Such powers cannot be entrusted to untrained and
inexperienced persons, however well intentioned, nor is the training of
police duty any sufficient preparation. It would not be considered
appropriate to appoint a policeman inspector of stationary steam boilers
or examiner of engineers, yet under present factory laws, technical
knowledge of industrial processes, machinery, etc., is sometimes equally
demanded. In Massachusetts the original method of detailing police as
inspectors when occasion demanded, or even permanently installing them
in these positions, has been abandoned for the stricter and more
adequate tests of civil service examinations open to all applicants. And
again her example indicates a general trend.

The tendency in inspection already is, and in the future must be more
markedly, toward the growth of a distinct and specialized department, in
which the chief and his assistants are trained for their work. Such a
department, while it would not stand in the relationship which some at
present hold to the police, would come into closer touch with other
departments, as the Board of Education and Bureau of Labor.


                      _Uniform Labor Legislation._

The influence of state boundary lines upon the course of legislation in
this country is an interesting question, and one upon which entirely
diverse opinions are held. Some go so far as to claim that there never
can be really successful legislation so long as such boundaries hold;
that if a good labor law is passed in one state and enforced there, the
benefit that may result to the few operatives is balanced by the
restriction which it puts upon the producer and the consequent
discrimination against capital in that state as compared with its
neighbors. Capital therefore seeks investment in those sister states
instead of in the law-trammeled one, thus reacting against the interests
of the labor market there; while states that so profit in their freedom
are the more loath to give over their advantage by enacting similar
measures. Thus legislation in one state becomes at once detrimental to
its own industrial interests, and a check upon legislation elsewhere.
Loud protests of this tenor were heard, for example, in Massachusetts a
few years ago, when at a time of business depression the cotton mills
suffered from the competition of Southern rivals. A somewhat extended
study of the situation at that crisis, however, failed to show that
these detrimental consequences had followed in actual life, or that the
stress felt by the mills could have been removed by a suspension of the
laws complained of.

On the other hand, when we begin to reckon with the difficulties that
must be encountered in any attempt to legislate upon labor conditions in
this country treated as a whole (even disregarding entirely the present
constitutional impediment), we find arguments showing that local
self-government has probably furthered the development of labor
legislation. In the first place, it is much more difficult to persuade a
body with such wide jurisdiction to pass what must often be experimental
measures and may endanger national interests. Suppose, however, that
this legislation was undertaken, it would be well-nigh impossible to
frame a measure that would apply with justice throughout and in
communities where industrial occupations differ entirely in kind, or, if
of like order, range through many stages of development. It would mean
that such legislation must conform to a very low margin of production in
order to avoid injury to states where conditions are backward, and that
would leave unregulated much that has clearly shown need of regulation
in states where there is higher organization of industry. Would it not,
in fact, be absolutely necessary to mark out territorial divisions that
might not of course follow state boundaries, but would not in the end
differ essentially from them in character? Again, such divisions mapped,
what an impossible labor is put upon the central body if it would
legislate wisely for the several sections! Would it not be necessary at
least to appoint some advisory body to study the local needs of each
section and to report recommending appropriate measures? In the end,
what would we have in the least better than the present system?

Within a single state the labor interest is united, the pros and cons of
the situation can be more easily investigated, effects more easily
watched and even more accurately predicted. Jevons might indeed have
considered it a well-fitted laboratory for his scientific
experimentation in legislation. The success of a local experiment acts
often as an incentive to labor elsewhere to demand like privileges, and
as against the argument of an insignificant tax upon production, the
political power of the labor party has very generally won the day. The
second state feels itself at no greater disadvantage than that which
took the initiative in the movement, and may easily take the precaution
of passing restrictions that are a trifle under those of its neighbor.

This discussion, however, leaves us still face to face with a confusion
of local regulations, among which there is total lack of any uniformity.
The situation has for some time attracted public comment, and there is a
growing desire for uniformity especially in the protection of child
labor and in the curtailment of the hours of labor, which are the
regulations that particularly affect the interests of capitalists.
Quixotic attempts to force an amendment of the Constitution, and to
secure the passage of a national eight-hourday law, have been chronicled
in the movement, which nevertheless, with more moderate aims, has
steadily gathered strength. At last, under the Industrial Commission of
1898, the problem of uniform legislation has been clearly recognized and
carefully studied, “in order,” the act reads, “to harmonize conflicting
interests and to be equitable to the laborer, the employer, the producer
and the consumer” (Sec. 3). Empowered to report with recommendations
either directly to Congress or to the several state legislatures, the
Commission addressed itself in this “matter of domestic law” to the
state legislatures. The report submitted is of such interest and
importance that I quote in full its recommendations so far as they apply
to factory labor:

“Perhaps the subject of greatest public interest to-day is that of the
regulation of the hours of labor permitted in industrial occupations,
and especially in factories.... Obviously Congress has no power, without
a constitutional amendment, to legislate upon this subject. The
Commission are of the opinion that a uniform law upon this subject may
wisely be recommended for adoption by all the states. We believe that
such legislation cannot, under the federal and state constitutions, be
recommended as to persons, male or female, above the age of twenty-one,
except, of course, in some special industries, where employment for too
many hours becomes positively a menace to the health, safety, or
well-being of the community; but minors, not yet clothed with all the
rights of citizens, are peculiarly the subject of state protection, and
still more so, young children.

“The Commission are of the opinion, therefore, that a simple statute
ought to be enacted by all the states, to regulate the length of the
working day for young persons in factories (meaning by ‘young persons’
those between the age of majority and fourteen); and in view of the
entire absence of protection now accorded by the laws of many states to
children of tender years, we think that employment in any capacity or
for any time, under the age of fourteen, should be prohibited. The
question of shops and mercantile establishments generally appears even
more subject to local conditions than that of factories; therefore the
Commission see no need for even recommending to the states any uniform
legislation upon this subject. But child labor should be universally
protected by educational restrictions, providing in substance that no
child may be employed in either factories, shops, or in stores in large
cities, who cannot read and write, and except during vacation, unless he
has attended school for at least twelve weeks in each year.”[32]

These are certainly conservative recommendations and illustrate again
the difficulty of finding any common ground of action even in the
fundamental requirements of health and education. The exception made
with reference to shops and mercantile establishments upon the ground of
local differences in conditions is interesting. So much evidence has
been brought of abuse of child labor in the mercantile houses of many
large cities, especially in respect to these two matters of overwork
through long hours and of interference with common-school education
(above recognized) that several states have voluntarily extended
provisions of the factory laws concerning minors to cover such
establishments. These conditions appear to reproduce themselves with
remarkable similarity in various locations, and it is not altogether
clear what local conditions could intervene to make the universal
application of the measure proposed for factories undesirable.

Notwithstanding all moderation and the exceptions allowed, two of the
commissioners still recorded themselves as considering it “unjust and
impracticable to attempt any uniform laws regulating labor in all the
states,” and a third concurring with these adds that, “the conditions to
be dealt with will work themselves out better under local
self-government than under any iron-clad rule adopted by or suggested
from a central power.”[33]

The protestors are from the Southern states and their protest seems
peculiarly pertinent at this time, when the prevailing conditions of
child labor in these states are attracting so much attention. Not to
digress into a discussion that would lead us too far afield, let it
suffice to sum up the evident facts of the situation in a single
paragraph.[34]

Whatever their previous condition of freedom, barbarism or poverty,
there are to-day, in the cotton mills of the South, large numbers of
little children, some under ten years of age, who can be and are
employed sometimes eleven and more hours a day, sometimes eleven hours
of the night. Indeed conditions parallel the times of Shaftesbury in
England! Attempts to pass bills that can hardly be deemed extravagant in
the protection demanded, and even compulsory education measures, have
been opposed and frustrated. The reasons given for such resistance of
legal interference may be summarized about as follows, at least in
Alabama, which has been the field of a recent encounter: That the bill
presented by the Alabama Child Labor Committee[35] is “outside
interference” and “only the entering wedge”; that “Georgia (facing the
more difficult task in) having double the number of spindles, should act
first”; that against the expressed desires of mill officers, parents
insist upon the employment of their children or “take their families to
other mills where no objection is made” (and this the law would make
impossible);[36] that the prodigiously early development of this
particular class of Southern children together with “the length and heat
of the day” which “are prime factors respecting the hours that may be
appropriated to labor”[37] make it inadvisable to limit the hours of
labor of children to ten out of a possible twenty-four, or to require
that they should sleep and not work at night. We cannot say that the
movement for uniform legislation or even for labor legislation “under
local self-government” is unopposed.

The recommendations of the Commission also include the following:

“Further regulations, especially in the line of bringing states which
now have no factory acts up to a higher standard, is earnestly
recommended.

“In states which have many factories the well-known factory act of
Massachusetts or New York, based upon the English act which served as a
model to all such, is recommended for adoption.

“The sweat-shop law also, which is now practically identical in the
important states of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Ohio, is
recommended for general adoption.

“A simple and liberal law regulating the payment of labor should be
adopted in all the states, providing that laborers shall be paid, for
all labor performed, in cash or cash orders, without discount, not in
goods or due bills, and that no compulsion, direct or indirect, shall be
used to make them purchase supplies at any particular store.”[38]

The report refers also to other statutes which reinforce certain common
law doctrines, such as those concerning intimidation, strikes, boycotts
and black-listing, to those protecting the political rights and legal
rights in suit of labor and to the recognition accorded to trade unions
in provisions for incorporation and protection of labels, making however
no special recommendation concerning them to the states.[39]

We see, therefore, that beyond the elementary regulation of child labor
and hours of labor for minors, the Commission would have the states
establish a standard of good sanitation and of safe conditions in
factories everywhere, and above this, especially suggests a scientific
and well-tested law for adoption in states having large manufactures.
The restriction of hours is always looked upon chiefly as a health
measure, but it is certain that the general bodily vigor of the worker
has been more markedly affected by modern improvements in ventilation,
lighting and sanitation than by any of the shorter day statutes. Factory
acts assist materially in forcing this advance and have received a due
recognition of their usefulness. In recommending the universal passage
of a sweat-shop act, the Commission endorses the old saying, that an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. As a matter of fact, such
laws have been passed, and in an incredibly short time (since 1892, when
New York passed the first of this series), in those states in which the
evil is important. Attempts to extirpate the evil in these states
threaten to drive it into neighboring sections. Connecticut, for
example, lying between Massachusetts and New York, in both of which
quarters the anti-sweat-shop war is being vigorously pushed, has enacted
a similar statute simply as a protective measure.

It is clear that the ultimate effect of uniform labor legislation will
not be one law applying throughout the length and breadth of this great
land, but rather a graded system. It will determine a minimum standard
of regulations, a basal plane, of competition for American industry.
Above this it will still be necessary for the local government in many
places to impose stricter requirements where there is complexity of
organization, but in that which is fundamentally essential to the common
well-being of the community there will be one limit approved for all
that may not be transgressed.

The suggestion made in the Industrial Commission’s report as to how this
standard may be determined is especially well considered:

“In conclusion the Commission would recommend the establishment by all
the states of labor bureaus or commissioners, who shall, besides their
local duties as now defined, be charged with that of exchanging their
statistics and reports, and of convening at least once in a year in
national conference for general consultation, which national conference
shall have power to submit directly to Congress its recommendations for
such federal legislation as a majority of the state commissioners may
deem advisable, and shall also submit to all the states, through the
commissioners of each separate state, their recommendations for such
uniform state statutes upon labor subjects as may seem wise and
desirable.”[40]

If we rightly interpreted the action of local governments in
establishing these bureaus of labor, as a step towards more scientific
legislation in those states, surely this plan of a national conference
of state commissioners of labor stands for a still more important
extension of the scientific method in questions of labor legislation. It
also illustrates a tendency that is becoming more and more evident,
namely, the fuller reliance that is being placed upon “intelligence as a
social regulator” and “publicity for controlling industry and commerce.”
Make known the actual conditions that prevail, point out the appropriate
remedy, and the weight of an informed public opinion will go far to
force reform whether through an act of legislation or through the
influence which may be exerted by consumers upon producers. Indeed the
battle cry of the day is, “Give us but an enlightened public opinion and
our fight is three-quarters won.”

The suggestion of regulating business relations through the pressure of
public sentiment has been seized upon with almost too great avidity by
some who would apply it as the immediate and sufficient solution of all
labor difficulties and as an argument against the enactment of any
statutory regulations whatever. Such a proposition appears, however, of
doubtful value at present under the conditions of unenlightenment that
unfortunately prevail, and it may be feared, does not proceed from the
best friends of labor.


                          _Constitutionality._

Recurring to this fact of opposition, already earlier noted, it has been
questioned whether this counter-movement does not offer a real menace to
the future growth of the labor laws, and indeed to the continued
existence of the present body of legislation. In a number of instances
where labor laws have been brought to the test of a court decision they
have been pronounced unconstitutional and annulled upon the ground that
they “contravene freedom of contract,” are “class legislation” and so
forth. This has been the fate of statutes regulating the hours of labor
for women over twenty-one years of age in Nebraska, California and
Illinois; of weekly payment laws in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri,
West Virginia and Indiana; of anti-truck acts in Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Illinois and West Virginia; and of those prohibiting company stores or
coercion of purchase in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Tennessee.

In Massachusetts, on the contrary, the regulation of hours was sustained
“as a health or police regulation.” Also at the time when the bill for
the extension of the act concerning weekly payments was before the
legislature the justices returned as their opinion to the House of
Representatives that such an act was within the constitutional power of
the General Court to pass. It is also worthy of notice, that in spite of
the decision by the Supreme Court of Nebraska in 1894,[41] a new law
defining hours of labor for women was passed in 1899, and to-day applies
not only in factories, but in restaurants and hotels as well. Again, in
the report just reviewed, the commissioners have recommended the general
enactment of an anti-truck and freedom of purchase act in spite of the
decisions of Pennsylvania, Illinois and Tennessee courts.

Verdicts of unconstitutionality have therefore hardly affected more than
the very border of the factory laws; the regulation of child labor, of
workroom conditions, of hours of labor for minors, have never even been
questioned. It hardly seems likely that any of these laws will ever be
put to the court test at all. Both in England and in this country, they
have proven generally beneficial to public interest, they have been
pretty cheerfully accepted and obeyed; they have gained public approval;
they have the political support of a large labor party. Perhaps the
apparently adverse action of the courts ought rather to be looked upon
as a healthfully conservative influence against possible evil results of
hasty and ill-considered legislation or attempts to interpose
legislation where the object could be better obtained by the effective
organization of labor and should be left to the initiative of the
unions.


Factory legislation has been inevitably necessitated by the action of
economic and social forces, and may, in fact, be regarded as a natural
phenomenon accompanying the growth of the factory system of manufacture.
It has developed against the opposition of extreme doctrines of free
contract, and having demonstrated itself in the facts of actual life has
also created a new theory of the relation of the state to labor and
industry.

“The state may determine the plane of competition; it may equalize the
conditions of contract as between employer and employee; it may
intervene to protect the standard of living of the workers. The only
limits that theory places upon these lines of interference are
considerations of the general good.”

In the historical development of factory laws, well-marked tendencies
are traceable. The early attitude of timidity has given place to that of
peremptory command. Progress has been steadily toward increased severity
in the regulations imposed, increased exactness in detail and
definition, towards distinctly placed responsibility and towards more
adequate inspection.

The expansion of industry in this country has of course been accompanied
by a like territorial extension of the labor laws. Accomplished through
the independent action of the several state legislatures, the result has
been an unfortunate confusion of unrelated and non-uniform measures. One
of the recent and most important tendencies of this legislation is the
movement for greater uniformity, made especially prominent by the
attention given to it as a part of the study of the Industrial
Commission. It indeed seems probable that these efforts will eventually
issue in the determination of a minimum standard of labor legislation
for the country as a whole, above which common basis the states will
rise in grade according to the development of industrial organization
and consequent increase of regulation demanded. This is necessarily a
matter of voluntary conformity on the part of the separate state
legislatures and therefore a fulfillment to be awaited with all
patience.




                          VI. Juvenile Courts




                     PROBATION AND JUVENILE COURTS

             By MRS. EMILY E. WILLIAMSON, ELIZABETH, N. J.
   President New Jersey State Conference of Charities and Corrections


Perhaps the most practical movement in penal reform is probation,
putting a stop as it does to the source from which crime is recruited.
The principle involved in probation is prevention and, where properly
applied, has resulted in a very large diminution of crime. Massachusetts
reports a falling off of 75 per cent in juvenile crime, owing to
probation. Juvenile and first offenders should never be dealt with as
real criminals under the law except in special cases of depravity.
Penological science lays down general rules for the treatment of
juveniles and first offenders, absolutely prohibiting imprisonment
except for those convicted of flagrant crimes, as it breaks down
self-respect, placing a stigma on character that is never removed. Its
deterrent power is destroyed with its relief from care and comfortable
support and it hurts the physical, mental and moral health of the
prisoner. The main object in the sentence of the convicted juvenile or
first offender should be his rescue from a criminal life; therefore a
complete investigation should be made of his character, home and
environment before trial. In Massachusetts the probation act requires a
probation officer to inquire into the nature of every criminal case
brought before the court, and he may recommend that any person committed
by the court be placed on probation. The question for the court, upon
the information of the probation officer, is to decide whether it is
safe for society to allow the prisoner to go at large. It has become an
established fact among the people of Massachusetts, after several years
of trial, that in the administration of justice the probation system has
been wise and beneficial.

The probation law enacted by the legislature of Illinois in 1899
declares the purpose of the law to be as follows: “This act shall be
liberally construed to the purpose that its end may be carried out, to
wit: that the care, custody and discipline of a child shall approximate
as nearly as may be that which should be given by its parents; and in
all cases where it can be properly done, the child be placed in an
approved family home and become a member of the family by legal adoption
or otherwise.” The Illinois juvenile court in its instructions to
probation officers states that it will be the endeavor of the court to
carry out both the letter and the spirit of the foregoing act, and to
this end the court will have in mind the following considerations: _The
Welfare and Interests of the Child._—To save the child from neglect and
cruelty and from the danger of becoming a criminal or dependent. _The
Welfare of the Community._—Lessening the burdens of taxation and loss of
property through the ravages of the criminal class and by preventing
pauperism and crime. _Temporary Care._—The law forbidding the keeping of
any child in a jail or station-house, a place of detention is provided
under the care of the court. Whenever practicable the child is to be
left with his parents or with some suitable family. _Supervision After
Action of the Court._—The probation officer is expected to keep a
special oversight of the child by frequent visits at regular intervals
and by reports from parents or custodians.

In Pennsylvania the law requires that the probation officer shall be
notified when any juvenile offender is brought before the court, that he
shall make such investigation as shall be directed by the court, be
present to represent the interests of the child when the case is heard,
furnish such information and assistance as the judge may require and
take such charge of any child before or after trial as may be ordered.

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota
and New Jersey have state probation laws. San Francisco and Washington,
D. C., have probation officers for the cities alone. New York has at
last provided for probation and also for children’s courts, but the
plans are not yet completed.

Voluntary probation officers in many cases in the large cities assist
the paid officer, and in Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and New York the
child-saving societies of all denominations have placed
officers—appointed by them for this purpose—at the disposal of the
court. Their services have always been accepted. In New Jersey the State
Board of Children’s Guardians greatly assists the county probation
officers. Wise child-saving work can be done with this mutual
co-operation.

In March, 1900, a bill prepared by Justice Franklin T. Fort, of the
Supreme Court, was passed by the New Jersey legislature, providing for
the appointment of probation officers and authorizing judges of the
Courts of Quarter Sessions to appoint one probation officer and, with
the consent of the board of county freeholders, as many other probation
officers, not exceeding three, one of whom may be a woman, as the judge
deems wise. The classes of offenders who may be probated, _i. e._,
respecting age, etc., is left entirely to the discretion of the judge.
Seven counties in New Jersey have probation officers—Hudson, Essex,
Morris, Union, Middlesex, Mercer and Atlantic.

In February, 1902 at my request, I was appointed, by the court,
probation officer for Union county, New Jersey, to serve without salary,
the court granting fifty dollars a month for a clerk and allowing
necessary expenses—in all not to exceed eight hundred dollars annually.
The following are the descriptive blanks and rules prepared by me and
allowed by the court. In addition, case cards are kept in which all
records in detail are entered. A synopsis of each case is also entered
in a history book which is easily referred to by an index kept on the
Dewey plan. Each probationer is visited by the probation officer or her
clerk once a month and in special cases oftener. The probationer reports
regularly at the office, either in person or by letter, at such times as
directed.

                UNION COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER. RECORD.

 No.
 Name
 Address
 Age                      Height               Weight
 White or colored                   Color of eyes               Hair
 Complexion
 Special marks
 Religion                              Church
 School                                 Teacher
 Nationality                             Married or single
 Number of children, names and ages
 Occupation
 Employer’s name and address
 Father’s name and address
                            Occupation

 Mother’s name and address
                              Occupation
 Other members of family
 Previous offense
 Present offense
 Date committed to Probation Officer         Years expire
 Fine, $                      Costs, $
 Re-arrested
 Cause of Re-arrest
 REMARKS:

                                 Ledger number


                UNION COUNTY COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS.
                       RULES GOVERNING PROBATION.

  THE PROBATIONER is required by the Court,

  FIRST.—To furnish promptly, by letter or in person, such information
  as the Probation Officer may require.

  SECOND.—To mail on the first of each month a letter, stating his
  present residence and occupation, place of employment and the name of
  his employer; also the number of days employed during the previous
  month, the place or places of employment and the names of his
  employers. If the Probationer is of school age, the number of days of
  school attendance must be given. The truth of these facts must be
  certified by parent, employer, school teacher or some other person
  satisfactory to the Probation Officer.

  THIRD.—Evil companions and bad associations must be avoided. Strict
  temperance must be observed. The Probationer must in every way conduct
  himself as an upright and law-abiding citizen.

  FOURTH.—To report promptly to the Probation Officer every change of
  residence. To consult the Probation Officer before moving out of the
  State of New Jersey or out of Union County.

  FIFTH.—If the Probationer undertakes to pay fines or costs at stated
  periods these payments must be prompt. If unable to meet the
  obligation promptly he will send advance notice to the Probation
  Officer.

  The probation period is three years. If during this period of trial
  the Probationer fails to observe strictly each of the above rules, he
  is liable to be taken into custody at any time by the Probation
  Officer to serve the full term of his suspended sentence. Liberty
  depends entirely on the good conduct of the Probationer.

During the three months that I have held this office twenty-six cases
have been probated to me by the judge of the county court and forty-six
by the police justices of the county. The ages of the probationers and
the character of the charges made against them are as follows:

 ───────┬───────┬──────┬──────┬─────────┬───────────┬────┬──────┬──────
        │       │      │      │         │           │    │      │
        │ Total │      │      │         │           │    │County│Police
        │number.│White.│Black.│Catholic.│Protestant.│Jew.│Court.│Court.
 ───────┼───────┼──────┼──────┼─────────┼───────────┼────┼──────┼──────
 Males  │       │      │      │         │           │    │      │
   over │       │      │      │         │           │    │      │
   16   │       │      │      │         │           │    │      │
   yrs. │     31│    25│     6│       12│         18│   1│    14│    17
 Males  │       │      │      │         │           │    │      │
   under│       │      │      │         │           │    │      │
   16   │       │      │      │         │           │    │      │
   yrs. │     28│    28│      │       20│          6│   2│     6│    22
 Females│       │      │      │         │           │    │      │
   over │       │      │      │         │           │    │      │
   16   │       │      │      │         │           │    │      │
   yrs. │      6│     4│     2│        3│          3│    │     2│     4
 Females│       │      │      │         │           │    │      │
   under│       │      │      │         │           │    │      │
   16   │       │      │      │         │           │    │      │
   yrs. │      7│     6│     1│        6│          1│    │     1│     2
 ───────┼───────┼──────┼──────┼─────────┼───────────┼────┼──────┼──────
        │     72│    63│     9│       41│         28│   3│    23│    45
 ───────┴───────┴──────┴──────┴─────────┴───────────┴────┴──────┴──────

 ───────┬─────────────┬────────┬──────────┬────────┬─────────┬─────────
        │             │        │          │        │         │
        │             │        │Disorderly│        │Malicious│
        │Embezzlement.│Larceny.│ conduct. │Assault.│mischief.│Mischief.
 ───────┼─────────────┼────────┼──────────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────
 Males  │             │        │          │        │         │
   over │             │        │          │        │         │
   16   │             │        │          │        │         │
   yrs. │            1│      11│        16│       2│        1│
 Males  │             │        │          │        │         │
   under│             │        │          │        │         │
   16   │             │        │          │        │         │
   yrs. │             │       7│         9│       1│        5│        1
 Females│             │        │          │        │         │
   over │             │        │          │        │         │
   16   │             │        │          │        │         │
   yrs. │             │        │         4│        │        2│
 Females│             │        │          │        │         │
   under│             │        │          │        │         │
   16   │             │        │          │        │         │
   yrs. │             │       6│         1│        │         │
 ───────┼─────────────┼────────┼──────────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────
        │            1│      24│        30│       3│        8│        1
 ───────┴─────────────┴────────┴──────────┴────────┴─────────┴─────────

 ───────┬────────┬──────────┬─────────
        │        │          │Probated
        │        │ Previous │ without
        │Truancy.│Offenders.│ trial.
 ───────┼────────┼──────────┼─────────
 Males  │        │          │
   over │        │          │
   16   │        │          │
   yrs. │        │        12│
 Males  │        │          │
   under│        │          │
   16   │        │          │
   yrs. │       5│        13│
 Females│        │          │
   over │        │          │
   16   │        │          │
   yrs. │        │         4│
 Females│        │          │
   under│        │          │
   16   │        │          │
   yrs. │        │          │        4
 ───────┼────────┼──────────┼─────────
        │       5│        29│        4
 ───────┴────────┴──────────┴─────────

The secretary of the New Jersey State Charities Aid Association in his
report says: “It is easier in Union than in most counties to learn
whether such an officer is needed by the court, by the prisoner and by
society, for the records of the Union County Jail are exceptionally
complete. The Warden’s report contains statistics on two most important
points—the ages of the prisoners and the number of the commitments.
These two points are most important because the probation system
presumes that all persons who are inexperienced in crime, whatever their
actual age, can be better treated under supervision outside of jail than
in idleness within jail.

“The New Jersey law was made broad enough to include both children of 7
years and adults of 83, except where safety demands the prisoner’s
incarceration. From the Warden’s report it appears that 591 persons were
sent to the county jail last year for terms averaging twenty-nine days.
Of this number only 181, or 30 per cent, had served previous sentences.
The great majority, 70 per cent, or 410, had never been previously
committed. Among these first commitments are found persons of every age
from 7 to 70 excepting 52, 56, 58, 62 and 69, while the years 71, 77 and
83 have one representative each. Take what age we will, public sentiment
would approve another chance outside of jail, for every first offender,
provided the dignity of the law and the welfare of society would be in
no way jeopardized by suspending sentence. Our probation law provides
for failures to reform outside of jail and gives to the probation
officer and the court power to inflict the original but suspended
sentence at any time within three years from the date of conviction. It
is manifest that every successful case of probation nips in the bud a
potential and probable career of crime.”

The oversight of adult first offenders by a probation officer is of
immense value in reforming the offender and also results in a great
saving of expense to the taxpayer. The first is the primary object and
probably I cannot do better than cite some cases which are under my
care: J. E., aged 22, a bright Irishman, not intoxicated, in a quarrel
which took place in a saloon, interfered and used too much strength in
separating the combatants; charged with malicious assault, court would
have committed him to county jail for six months had there been no
probation officer. Probation officer returned the man to his home,
helped him to secure employment, visited his accuser and warned him not
to molest J. E. Young man’s weekly calls to report have become friendly
visits; he is always well dressed and is entirely self-respecting.

N. M.; American; aged 59; painter; married; offence—grand larceny; never
arrested before; while drunk, stole mayor’s horse and buggy from
hitching-post on main street; man not an habitual drunkard, character
good, provided comfortable home for his family, always industrious and
kind. Had there been no probation officer N. M. would have been sent to
state prison. He is now doing well and reporting regularly.

Two boys, 9 and 12 years, arrested on charge of disorderly conduct
(threw a fish-head at an old woman); belonged to the “gang;” had fairly
good homes; did not attend school regularly; found upon investigation to
be mischievous and truants only. Probation officer handed boys to truant
officer, who immediately placed them in school. Boys report each week,
come to office in Sunday clothes and evidently enjoy these visits. One
lad has been employed on Saturdays, by probation officer’s clerk, doing
odd jobs and is very proud of this evidence of favor. There has been a
great improvement in the whole family owing to pressure through this
little fellow.

In cases of non-support which are always tried before police justices,
probation has proved of inestimable value. The following is an example:
Mr. B. drank occasionally, earned eighteen dollars a week and failed to
support his family; was arrested and handed to the probation officer.
After a thorough investigation, including conditions in the home, the
man was ordered to request his employer to hand Mrs. B. ten and one-half
dollars every week—one and one-half dollars for each of the five
children and three dollars for Mr. B.’s own board. Besides this the man
was required to pay the house rent, eight dollars a month. After the
first month, at the request of the wife, he was allowed to give her the
money himself. Each week the man reports the payment. Had Mr. B. been
sent to jail, he would have lost his self-respect and his situation, he
would have become an expense to the taxpayer and his family dependent on
the charity of the community.

Three little Polish girls, aged 9, 10 and 11 years, arrested and
indicted by the Grand Jury for grand larceny; on investigation found
parents, who could not speak English, were not implicated; homes above
the average. Children had stolen ribbons, lace and other articles for
personal adornment, saying some had been presents; others were hidden
between two old mattresses in a garret; parents terribly frightened when
discoveries were made. Upon arrest of children and after bail had been
secured, I began to take supervision of them; examined each one
separately at my office; sent for priest, and arranged for daily
instructions by the Sisters—little girls had been regular attendants at
school. Later, without trial, they were probated to me by the court for
an indefinite period.

The police magistrates of Hudson and Union counties avail themselves of
the services of the probation officers and it is in these courts that
good preventive work can be done by seeing the accused as soon as a
charge is made and by investigating the case before trial, and also, in
many instances, preventing the charge being entered by talking the
matter over and promising to see the accused. In Elizabeth, the largest
city of Union county, arrests and commitments have fallen off 40 per
cent since the work of the probation officer has become known.

Three Italians appeared at my office, one to complain of two boys and
the others the fathers of the boys. These men had come to ask me to take
charge of the little fellows, who were mischievous and annoyed the
complainant. All three were satisfied with my decision.

A Jew, who was in the habit of making charges of disorderly conduct
against mischievous boys, after a talk with me, promised to bring no
more children before the court until I had investigated each case for
him. He had not realized the serious harm inflicted upon the boys’
characters by their being brought into court. At the end of an hour he
was fully convinced. The railway detectives also report cases to me
before making charges and abide by my decisions.

There is great danger of perfunctory work on the part of the probation
officer and very grave danger from the uneducated officer. Public
opinion has still to be aroused; therefore the need of the best work
along these lines. Where good work has been done, the public has
recognized that the practice of inflicting short terms of imprisonment
for minor offences is useless and harmful. The need of men and women of
sound judgment and high character for this work is great, and in the
development of the system it is hoped that many specialists will devote
some time to the installation of the work and help to bring about the
proper administration of the law.

Boston was the first city to set apart special hours for the trial of
juvenile offenders, and the excellent way in which these trials are
managed is an object lesson worth studying. Persons not connected with
the trial are required to leave the court room, the officer who made the
arrest tells his story, the complainant his, and the witnesses are
examined. The child is called to the judge’s desk and tells his story in
a quiet voice. Confidential relations are at once established between
the child and the judge. The probation officer then makes his report
upon the case, after which the judge announces his decision.

The same methods are employed in Chicago, Philadelphia and Minneapolis
and will be in New York. In Chicago, a judge has been appointed who only
tries children’s cases; in New York, a judge is to be chosen from time
to time. The value of this way of conducting juvenile trials cannot be
overestimated, as it robs the trial of all the sensational element. It
also makes it easy for the various child-saving societies, such as the
St. Vincent de Paul, Children’s Aid and Prevention of Cruelty to
Children and for truant officers to co-operate with the court.

The following is a pen-picture of a trial held before the court in which
I am probation officer: Court room crowded, twenty-two lawyers present;
prosecutor reads the indictment. Boy eleven years old arrested for
stealing brass worth eighty dollars, from railroad, and selling it to a
junk man for twenty cents; had been bailed by kind neighbor, who
delivered the boy. Court officer calls witnesses; boy brought; so small
that his eyes are just on a line with the rail; boy weeping; prosecutor
exclaims, and says boy should be in day-nursery; audience in back of
room rises and presses forward to look at boy; lawyers inside of rail
jump to their feet; court raps for order; boy realizes that he has
become an object of pity and curiosity, cries louder and calls for his
mother, who comes forward with a baby in her arms; judge and prosecutor
confer, boy is handed over to probation officer to be produced to stand
trial when called, virtually ending the matter.




                   THE JUVENILE COURT IN PHILADELPHIA

                      By JUDGE ABRAHAM M. BEITLER

               Court of Common Pleas No. 1, Philadelphia


At its session in 1901 the legislature of our state passed an act, with
a rather lengthy title, which has become known as the Juvenile Court
Act. It passed the Senate by unanimous vote and in the House there were
but three votes against it and one hundred and forty-seven for it. The
act commits to a Judge of the Court of Quarter Sessions some new powers,
and imposes upon him some new duties.

The scope of these powers and duties is, I am sure, understood by but
few. That there may be a wider acquaintance with the new law and a
clearer appreciation of the benefits possible to· be secured by its
enforcement, I have tried to condense into a brief article a statement
of its salient features, and, besides, to give some data as to the work
done since the act was put into operation in Philadelphia.

The act deals only with juveniles, and only with those under sixteen
years of age, and of juveniles under sixteen only with the unfortunate
and the erring. By its terms it applies to “dependent or neglected”
children, and “delinquent” children. The first class, the act says,
shall include any child who is destitute or homeless or abandoned or
dependent upon the public for support, or who has not the proper
parental care or guardianship, or who habitually begs or receives alms,
or whose home, by reason of neglect or cruelty or depravity of the
parents, is an unfit place for such a child, or any child under eight
years of age found peddling on the streets.

A “delinquent” child is one who “violates any law of this state, or any
city or borough ordinance.”

The Court’s jurisdiction may be invoked by a petition, which must be
verified by affidavit, stating that the child therein referred to is
either dependent or neglected or delinquent.

Upon the filing of the petition, the Judge may issue either a summons or
a warrant. The former requires the party having the custody of the child
to produce it in court. The latter imposes the duty of bringing the
child into court upon the officer armed with the warrant. Pending the
final disposition of any case, the child may be retained in the
possession of the person having it in charge, or in some suitable place
provided by any association having for one of its objects the care of
delinquent or neglected children.

As a matter of fact, very few cases are brought into court upon either
summons or warrant. The Judge holding the court finds, upon the day
fixed for the hearing of juvenile cases, that he has, perhaps,
twenty-five cases on his docket, and to him they are all new cases. Most
of them originated in the magistrates’ courts or in the station-houses.

The parent or parents of a child or children, for instance, may have
been arrested for drunkenness or vagrancy. The magistrate hearing the
case sends the parents perhaps to the House of Correction, and then
something must be done for the immediate care of the children. They are
turned over to the Children’s Aid Society or the Society to Protect
Children from Cruelty. On the day for the hearing of juvenile cases, the
children will be brought in by the Society’s agents, and a petition will
be filed setting forth briefly the facts.

Sometimes the children are abandoned or homeless waifs turned over to
the Society by the police.

The Judge sitting in the Juvenile Court proceeds to inquire carefully
into each case. He has the assistance of the prior examination into the
facts of each case by the Society’s agents. Sometimes the power of the
Court is invoked to compel the attendance of relatives, or even of
parents. After a careful hearing, the case of each child is decided, and
a decree made. The testimony heard is taken down in a short narrative
form by a stenographer, and then typewritten and filed for future
reference. If the Judge is satisfied that the parent or parents of a
child ought not to have the custody of the child, but are able to
contribute to its support, he may make an order requiring the payment of
such sum as the circumstances warrant. Children are sometimes turned
over to relatives, and sometimes to a charitable society, regard being
had always to the religion of the child in selecting the society.

Delinquents generally come into court from the magistrates’ courts;
sometimes directly, sometimes from prison.

Now that the act is being better understood, and its benefits more
generally appreciated by the magistrates and the police, a probation
officer is usually advised when a “delinquent” is taken into custody.
The hearings are generally held by the magistrate at the station-house,
and in a large number of cases, perhaps in a majority of cases, a
probation officer is present to hear the testimony against the child and
to set on foot an investigation not only of the charge on which the
child is held, but as to his or her previous record and home life and
surroundings. It is earnestly to be hoped that all our police
lieutenants and police magistrates will speedily come to appreciate how
greatly the probation officer can assist them and the Court, and will
let no case be heard without having previously notified the nearest
probation officer.

It is in the handling of these “delinquent” cases that the Judge has the
most delicate and difficult tasks imposed on him. Sometimes the boy or
girl is charged with some trifling offence, and the investigation made
by the probation officer shows that the child is not really bad. The
probation officer goes to the child’s home; if he attends school she
calls on his school teacher; if he attends Sunday school she
communicates with the Sunday school teacher; if he works, she goes to
his employer, and endeavors in every way to ascertain what the child’s
previous life has been and what his home surroundings are.

Sometimes it is apparent that even where the child is not depraved or
incorrigible, it is best for his sake that he shall not be returned to
his home. A single case will serve as an illustration.

Recently, a boy of thirteen was arrested for larceny. He was guilty. His
father was a drunken brute. His mother was a hardworking, honest woman,
but in the household she was a mere drudge, without voice or influence.
The father sent the boy upon the street to steal. The Judge before whom
the case came, heard the father and mother. The father promised to
behave himself. The mother begged to have the boy returned to her. He
was sent home, and a probation officer appointed in his case. Two months
later, the boy was again arrested for larceny. The case against him was
clear. This time the Court refused to listen to the pleadings or the
promises of the parents, and committed the boy to the House of Refuge.
The first time the boy was in the Juvenile Court was perhaps not the
first time he had offended. Had we had a Juvenile Court into which he
could have been taken when he made his first departure from the path of
rectitude he would have been perhaps committed to the Children’s Aid
Society, and that Society would have found him a home with some
Christian family and his whole life would have been changed for the
better. As it is, he has been committed to an institution whose splendid
work in reclaiming incorrigibles gives every hope that the boy will yet
turn out a good citizen.

What to do with a bad boy is a problem as old as time. If the wisdom of
the past had given us one formula to follow, the task imposed on the
Judge dealing with “delinquents” would be simple, but the question every
time it arises is as new and as difficult as when it was first
presented. That some boys would be better off if severely punished, the
first time they lie or steal, is undoubtedly true. That the way of the
transgressor is hard ought to be taught both as a moral precept and an
actual fact. Still, the question in every case is, how shall this boy be
handled? With the best motives and after the most careful and patient
inquiry, the Judge can at best but guess. To send the boy home from
Court after his guilt had been confessed or established, and do nothing
more, as was frequently the old way, was often to give rise to the
belief on the part of the boy that the law is not stern but lenient, and
that after all, to steal, to be caught, to be convicted and to face a
Court is not a serious but a trifling matter. To his companions the
released boy was often a sort of a hero. The bad effect on him reached
to all who were of his age and class and knew of his lucky escape. On
the other hand, to refuse to send the boy home left but one alternative,
to commit him to prison or to the House of Refuge.

Whether committed or sent home, the boy was given but little chance in
comparison to that which the Court can, under the Juvenile Court Act,
now extend to him.

This brings us to consider the probation officer.

The act says, Section 6:

“The Court shall appoint or designate one or more discreet persons, of
good character, to serve as probation officers during the pleasure of
the Court; said probation officers to receive no compensation from the
public treasury. In case a probation officer shall be appointed by any
Court, it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Court, if practicable,
to notify the said probation officer in advance when any child is to be
brought before the said Court; it shall be the duty of the said
probation officer to make such investigation as may be required by the
Court, to be present in order to represent the interests of the child
when the case is heard, to furnish to the Court such information and
assistance as the Judge may require, and to take such charge of any
child before and after trial as may be directed by the Court.”

Section 9 is: “In the case of a delinquent child the Court may continue
the hearing from time to time, and may commit the child to the care and
guardianship of a probation officer duly appointed by the Court, and may
allow said child to remain in its own home subject to the visitation of
the probation officer, such child to report to the probation officer as
often as may be required, and subject to be returned to the Court for
further proceedings whenever such action may appear to be necessary; or
the Court may commit the child to the care and guardianship of the
probation officer, to be placed in a suitable family home, subject to
the friendly supervision of such probation officer; or it may authorize
the said probation officer to board out the said child in some suitable
family home, in case provision is made by voluntary contribution or
otherwise for the payment of the board of such child, until a suitable
provision may be made for the child in a home without such payment; or
the Court may commit the child to a suitable institution for the care of
delinquent children.”

It is just here that the Juvenile Court Act, in my judgment, offers its
greatest good and opens up a new chance to deal intelligently with the
case of a delinquent. Instead of making the child promise to be good,
and sending him home, the Court places him in charge of a probation
officer, and then lets him go home. Sometimes the result is that, for
the first time a boy is given a fair chance in the battle of life to
make something of himself. Many of the cases of delinquents brought into
Court exhibit weakness, incapacity, and sometimes a worse condition on
the part of the parents. Their offending is sometimes passive, sometimes
active. The probation officer becomes the boy’s watchman and his friend,
guarding him against himself, and, in some cases, against his parents.

A few months’ practical working of the act has shown what a wonderful
agency for good the probation officer is. I shall speak of the officer
in the feminine, because most of them are women.

She has, by reason of her appointment by the Court, an official
position. Her station is one of grave responsibility and great honor,
but of no profit. The act distinctly says that the officer shall receive
no compensation from the public treasury. This will keep them from the
contaminating touch of party politics, and prevent this particular
office being sought after.

The probation officer is the child’s friend, but the Court’s adviser.
Each boy is kept under surveillance. If, after the promises he and his
parents have made to the Court, he stays away from school (if his
parents can send him) or refuses to work or goes with his former
associates, if they are bad boys, he is warned, and if he will not mend
his ways, he is brought back to Court, and then the Judge has more
knowledge of the case to guide him in intelligent action.

The first session of the Juvenile Court in Philadelphia was held July,
1901. Since that time there have been, up to May 21, 1902, 1,378 cases
before the Court. Of these, 481 have been dependents, and 897
delinquents. But fifty-six have been sent to the House of Refuge, and of
the rest (returned to their homes in almost every case) but thirty-three
have been before the Court a second time. Most of these were given a
second chance, and in but one case has the Court had a boy brought back
more than once. He was, on his fourth appearance before the Court,
committed to the House of Refuge.

One probation officer to whom since last July nearly one hundred
children have been committed, told me recently that she had had but one
child backslide. Surely such a record would be, if there were no more
like it, sufficient warrant for saying that the act will do great good.

The whole scheme of the act is to prevent delinquents from becoming
criminals. It is an act for child-saving. Its benefits, though conferred
directly upon the child, are reaped by the entire community. It is the
ounce of prevention which is far, far better than the pound of cure. It
aims to place the erring child, of years too tender to yet fully
appreciate the dangers ahead, under the restraining and guiding hand of
an officer of the Court, who is at the same time the child’s friend.

The restraint is that of oversight; the guidance that of kindly
admonition and advice, backed by that power everywhere recognized, the
power of the law.




                       JUVENILE COURTS IN BUFFALO

                            By FREDERIC ALMY

     Secretary and Treasurer Charity Organization Society, Buffalo


Juvenile probation is no new thing. It has been used in Massachusetts
since 1869, or for over thirty years, and for the same length of time in
that state a statute has required that children’s cases should be “heard
and determined by themselves, separate from the general and ordinary
criminal business of said courts.” There is no separate children’s court
in Massachusetts, but in some of the courts the session for adults is
formally adjourned, and the room is cleared of all except those who have
to do with the juvenile cases; in other courts the session for juveniles
is held in a separate room or in the judge’s private room. In either
case there are evils, as is shown in a letter from Mr. Charles W.
Birtwell, secretary of the Massachusetts Children’s Aid Society:
“Unfortunately in all the courts juveniles under arrest are apt to be
mixed with adults while waiting during the hour or so preceding the
trial. If not under arrest but only summoned, they may wait in the
outside lobbies, but get more or less mixed with the throng about and in
the court room.”

The first juvenile court was opened in Chicago in 1899 and at once had
wide notice, largely through the excellent work of the monthly
periodical, the _Chicago Juvenile Record_. It was through this juvenile
court that the probation system first became general. Mr. Folks tells
us, in his “Care of Delinquent Children,” that “the system did not
secure formal adoption, so far as we are aware, in any other state than
Massachusetts until the enactment of the juvenile court law in Illinois
in 1899.” “In 1901,” he says, “the probation system is in actual
operation, or is provided for by statute, in fifteen of the twenty-five
largest cities of the United States,” and the number is now rapidly
increasing. It is another instance of the contagion of ideas which in
this century outstrips the contagion of disease.

On February 26, 1900, the Buffalo Charity Organization Society appointed
a committee on probation which held several meetings, but found that
nothing could be done without legislation, which it was then too late to
procure. A law passed May 1, 1901, through the efforts of this
committee, allowed the Buffalo police justice to suspend sentence with
juvenile delinquents, and place them under probation for a term not
exceeding three months. The act allowed him to appoint five unsalaried
probation officers, and provided that when practicable the probation
officer should be of the same faith as the child placed in his care. The
court opened July 1, 1901. By an amendment passed in February, 1902, the
number of probation officers, still unpaid, was increased to ten, and
authority was given to extend the probation for additional terms of
three months in the discretion of the judge. A state probation law was
also passed in 1901, but was so amended that it applied only to those
over sixteen years of age. Consequently in New York State, outside of
Buffalo, a chance is given to adult delinquents which is denied to
little children.

Under the new New York City charter a juvenile court was created for the
boroughs of Manhattan and Bronx (excluding Brooklyn), but with no
provision for probation. This juvenile court was to open January 1,
1902, but for some reason did not do so.

Judge Murphy, of the Buffalo Police Court, was an active member of the
committee of the Charity Organization Society which procured the
probation law. Although the law was permissive only, he at once put it
into effect, and also on his own motion transferred all his juvenile
cases to a separate building, several blocks distant from the police
court, where he holds his juvenile court on Tuesday and Friday
afternoons. The great success of the court in Buffalo is chiefly due to
his interest. Where for any reason a good judge is not available a
juvenile court must suffer, for probation gives many opportunities for
favoritism to both the judge and the probation officers. It is hardly
too much to say that the character of the court will be the same as the
character of the judge.

Of the ten probation officers in Buffalo all are unpaid for this special
work, but two are truant officers, two are officers of the Charity
Organization Society, and one is the head worker of Welcome Hall, a
leading settlement. The city is divided into two districts, in each of
which there are a Catholic and a Protestant female officer for the girls
and the younger boys, and a Catholic and a Protestant male officer for
the older boys. There are a Jewish officer and a Polish officer for the
city at large.

It is not perhaps desirable to recapitulate here the peculiarities of
all the juvenile courts. In Massachusetts and St. Louis the probation
officers are paid. In New Jersey the court costs are paid them. In
Chicago, Pennsylvania, Milwaukee and Buffalo they are unpaid, or paid
from private sources. In Chicago the probation is until the child’s
majority. In Boston, as in Buffalo, it is for short terms renewable on
their expiration. It seems as if the short term would give the child a
goal in sight and so help his striving.

The Buffalo juvenile court has not quite completed its first year, and
no definite records have been compiled, but two results are already
notable—the decrease in the number of commitments to the truant school
and to reformatories, and the increase in the number of children
arrested. The first result was expected, for many children are now cared
for in their homes under probation who would otherwise have to be sent
to the public truant school or to a reformatory. The second result was
not anticipated, but is in this way excellent. Much juvenile lawlessness
formerly ran riot without arrest because the officers knew that the
judge would not send a child away for petty offences, and mere rebuke
meant so little that the child fresh from court would jeer at the
officer who had arrested him. With probation an arrest is taken more
seriously by the children. At a recent session of the court Judge Murphy
called attention to this increase in the number of arrests, and
recommended legislation which should make convictions in the juvenile
court inadmissible as evidence of character in either civil or criminal
actions, so that mere juvenile peccadilloes could not constitute a
criminal record.

The economy of probation greatly reinforces the support of the system on
ethical grounds. It is not often that a measure of social reform makes
an immediate appeal to the taxpayer, but probation relieves him from the
public maintenance of many delinquents who under this plan are
maintained at home at their parents’ charge. In Massachusetts, where
probation has been in operation many years, the district attorney has
prepared figures showing that it has saved the state much more than the
cost of its operation, though it is administered there by salaried
probation officers. On the side of morality the saving is still greater,
though less definite. If this saving of character could be translated
into dollars and cents the cash gain to the state through the diminution
of crime would be seen to be even greater than the saving in
maintenance.

Again, the presence daily in the court of a group of disinterested men
and women of character helps to maintain the moral tone of the court.
They sometimes see things which the court unaided might not see. More
than once in Buffalo pettifogging lawyers, who have been reaping fees
from parents on the pretence that their services caused the judge to put
children on probation instead of sending them away, have been excluded
from the court on report of the probation officers as to their
practices.

The teachers usually co-operate willingly in filling out the weekly
cards which show the behavior and the attendance of a child while on
probation, and they use their influence to hold children to their best.
Some have spoken with wonder of the favorable effect of probation on the
school work.

A day in a juvenile court is fascinating, and the experiences of a
probation officer are not less so. The little, curly-headed culprits are
so anxious to tell their story to the judge, or sometimes so stolid,
that either way it is pathetic. There is much weeping when children are
found guilty, and sudden relief when the meaning of probation is
explained to them, and the confidences made to the probation officer are
irresistible. In many of the courts the proceedings are quite informal,
and the children stand close to the judge and talk confidentially with
him, without fear.

The care taken to keep children from contact with the adult criminal
courts extends also to the jail. In several states the law prescribes
that children shall not be lodged either in the jail or in the police
court. If the child is unable to give bail, some place other than the
jail or police court must be provided. In Pennsylvania a separate act,
passed after the juvenile court law, authorizes the establishment of
houses of detention. In Wisconsin it is provided that when a child has
been sentenced he must be kept wholly apart from adult prisoners until
he is committed. The period after arrest and before trial is also
guarded.

It has been well said that the practice of arresting persons accused of
minor offences, who are not in the least likely to fail to appear if
merely summoned, is a relic of earlier times and should be abandoned. In
Buffalo it is the general practice on arrest to take the child to a
station-house and then let him go home under promise to appear in court
at the time stated, and as yet there has been no failure to appear.

Criminal law has relied too much upon confinement and compulsion, both
of which involve cost to the state and rancor and sullenness in the
individual. The features of probation are first, the retention of
natural conditions, in the home, if it is at all fit, and second,
loving, patient, personal service. Instead of withdrawing the child from
the environment in which it lives, it tries to assist that environment.
It is possible to draw many analogies. In medicine we now give fewer
drugs and rely on the natural powers of the body with the personal
service of trained nurses. In charity we give fewer alms, and rely on
the natural resources of the family with the personal service of trained
friendly visitors. In government we use less law, but rely on natural
forces with the aid of the Church, the school and other instruments of
social reform.

With children the question of reformation is especially important. The
chief cause of crime has been said to be neither intemperance, nor
avarice, nor lust, but neglected childhood, for neglected childhood
means neglected character, and at an age when character is still
plastic. Children under arrest for the first time are more peculiarly
susceptible to influence than even other children, and the impressions
made at this crisis go far to fix their lives. If you catch character
young, and at the right moments, you can do almost anything with it. It
is even possible to confine the baser parts of a child’s life, as the
Chinese do the feet of their children, so that the development of these
baser parts will be permanently stunted. Swaddling environments,
continued for years, can do much to form character by compulsion, so to
speak, and to thwart the growth of what is undesirable. This exclusion
of evil is the method of the military school and of the reformatory of
the military type. There is something unnatural about it, but there is
no doubt that in this way habits can be formed; and there is an inertia
of character which makes good habits difficult to break as well as bad
ones.

The other method is to leave the natural conditions with as little
disarrangement as possible; to let the feet grow and become a support
for the whole body; to take the activity which might become crime and
turn it into industry; to take the affection which might become lust and
turn it into love; and to do all this as far as possible under natural
conditions. It is possible to do this, not by a high wall which wards
off all contamination but casts a shadow on the young life within, but
by applying some antiseptic which will make the contagions of daily life
harmless. Those of us who with Milton “cannot praise a fugitive and
cloister’d vertue, unexercis’d and unbreath’d,” believe that everywhere
character is better formed by liberty than by force. Antiseptics against
temptation are being found by modern charity. I would wish to leave a
child undisturbed in its home, if the home is decent, and trust to the
Church, the school, the tenement house law and the settlements, as
antiseptics against contamination; next to this I would leave the child
at home, but under probation; next I would seek a foster home, well
chosen and well watched; next, for some children, an open reformatory of
the free type exemplified in the George Junior Republic; and last, a
reformatory of the more military type. In confinement a boy may find
himself kindly and wisely treated, but his social side is not much
considered, and this is not in keeping with modern pedagogy. Very much
can be done through a boy’s affections.

Where the germ of pauperism or of vice cannot be killed, may there not
be a treatment by antitoxin, as at the George Republic, by deliberately
helping the poison to run its course in a mild form in order to prevent
future attacks? It may be well to let a boy be idle and lazy for a time
and suffer all the consequences of hunger and cold; to let him be
violent, and as a penalty be duly and severely punished by his peers; in
fact, to give him a brief rehearsal of life under natural conditions
which will be very profitable when life arrives in grim earnest. These
lessons are taught in a reformatory of the military type, but the more
voluntary and natural the lesson is, and the more the child can be made
to feel that he has chosen his own course and experienced its natural
result, the deeper will be the impress on his life.

It seems to be the lesson of the past century, the lesson alike of
charity, of Christianity, and of civilization, that, in forming
character, force must give way to freedom with love. A militant
Christianity has already been condemned, and a militant civilization is
as bad. I believe in civilization by contact, in civilization by
commerce, but not in civilization by conquest. Force leaves rancor and
reaction, and the slower method of Christian example is more sure. The
United States has been called the pioneer in an age of republics, but it
is not through its force, but through its example, that in neither North
nor South America is there to be found a king. The republics of Central
and South America stumble and fall and make many errors, but they are
slowly developing good secondary education and commercial stability.
India and Egypt, with an original civilization and under as intelligent
and benevolent tutelage as the world has ever known, are less fit to-day
for self-government. With boy life as with national life, we may well
stop to ask whether the least possible interference and the largest
possible freedom, even with all the mistakes and struggles which this
involves, will not build character most surely in the end.




                                Appendix




     _Report of the Academy Committee on the Sixth Annual Meeting._

                          SIXTH ANNUAL MEETING
                                 OF THE
            American Academy of Political and Social Science
                  _Philadelphia, April 4 and 5, 1902_
                “SOCIAL LEGISLATION AND SOCIAL ACTIVITY”


The Sixth Annual Meeting not only met the expectations of your
Committee, but was generally regarded by those who attended as
completely fulfilling the high standards which were set by its
predecessors. The sessions were largely attended by members from
different parts of the country; in fact, the leading characteristic of
this meeting was the large attendance from points at a considerable
distance from Philadelphia. The Annual Meeting of the Academy has
assumed the proportion of a national convention to consider the great
economic and political questions that confront the country.

Before proceeding to an account of the individual sessions your
Committee desires to express its thanks as well as those of the officers
and members of the Academy to the Provost of the University of
Pennsylvania, to the President and Directors of the Manufacturers’ Club
and to the Committee of the Octavia Hill Association, whose co-operation
was of great value in making the meeting a success.

The expenses of the Annual Meeting were met in part from an
appropriation from the treasury of the Academy, but in the main by a
special fund contributed by generous friends of the Academy. Your
Committee desires especially to express its appreciation of the services
of those who took active part in the meetings and whose contributions
give to this volume its chief importance.


                 SESSION OF FRIDAY AFTERNOON, APRIL 4.

_Topic: “The Child Labor Problem.”_

The President of the Academy, in formally opening the Annual Meeting,
said

  _Members of the Academy, Ladies and Gentlemen._

It gives me great pleasure formally to open the Sixth Annual Meeting of
the Academy. The series of meetings, beginning with the discussion of
“The Foreign Policy of the United States,” four years ago, and taking up
thereafter “Corporations and Public Welfare” and “America’s Race
Problem,” has furnished us with a series of volumes which have come to
be standard reference works on the subjects with which they deal. It is
safe to say that the Sixth Annual Meeting, which is devoted to the
subject of “Social Legislation and Social Activity,” will not fall
behind the others, either in the interest of the topics or in the
character of the discussions. These Annual Meetings of the Academy focus
the best thought upon the questions which are in the foreground of
public attention.

The subject for discussion this afternoon is one which, as you know, has
been agitating different sections of the country at different periods.
Your Committee has succeeded in securing a representation of the
different points of view in the discussion of the afternoon. We are also
fortunate in having, as presiding officer of the afternoon, one of the
leading manufacturers, and it is safe to say, one of the most
public-spirited citizens of Philadelphia. You all know his services to
our city, but I am not sure whether many of you know how close and
careful a student of industrial conditions in both the North and South
he has been. I take pleasure in presenting to you Mr. Frank Leake.

On taking the chair, Mr. Leake said:

  _Mr. President and Members of the American Academy of Political and
    Social Science._

It was with pleasure that I accepted your President’s invitation to
preside here to-day. The particular subject which you are to discuss is
one having a very important bearing on the future of this country,
because at the bottom of all progress is education, and child labor, if
not properly regulated, will certainly prevent proper education.

I am, as your President has said, a practical manufacturer, and yet here
in Philadelphia, where my work lies, we have very little of the child
labor problem to contend with; it is almost self-regulating. There are
very few manufacturers who do not fall in line, not only gracefully but
gladly, with the laws of our state which regulate that matter for them.
There is very little of child labor in the textile mills of this city,
or of this state, so far as I am acquainted.

Whatever is done in the way of regulating child labor should be done in
a very conservative and openminded spirit. The one seeking progress
should be willing to consider local conditions. The key to the whole
situation will be found in local conditions, because child labor at one
point in our country does not present anything like the same problem
that it does in another portion of the country.

The Pennsylvania laws, for the most part, are wise in their treatment of
this question. I know of no organized opposition to the entire and
careful enforcement of these laws. I am speaking more particularly in
regard to textiles. That is my business and that is the line in which
the New South is finding her great industrial development. In the South,
textile mills started originally with the idea that proximity to the
cotton fields was the great desideratum. It has been found that the
question of proximity does not have much to do with their success.
Freights on raw materials North are as low, or lower, than freights on
the finished product, and in the North and West is where the finished
product finds its largest market. Such being the case, the mills in the
South have had to study the other problems that have come to be talked
about in making their success sure, but in studying these problems they
have found instinctively that the same conditions make for their success
as made for the success of the mills in the North. Long years ago our
New England forefathers found a sterile and rocky soil. They found it
very difficult to get a living from the farm, and so turned their
attention to manufacturing. In the South along the coasts and in the
middle country the soil is very rich and very fertile and the people get
their profit from the farm. It has always been an agricultural section,
but the mountain farms are the ones where the ground is sterile, where
the soil is frequently washed into the streams and where farming is on a
very small scale. The Southern mountaineer has his home in a little
cabin with a little patch of corn at the rear. Corn and bacon are the
staple articles of food. The whites largely predominate in the mountain
sections. At the foot of the Allegheny Mountains, the Appalachian Chain,
extending through North and South Carolina, Northern Georgia and
Northern Alabama, are conditions which should be considered in taking up
the problem of child labor. The people live in little mountain huts year
in and year out, scarcely seeing ten, twenty, very few of them seeing
fifty dollars in cash a year. The cotton mill has come in there, going
on the farms, taking the workers from them and bringing whole families
into the manufacturing town. The farmer takes the little cottage built
for him by the company, with a little patch of ground, given him on the
supposition that he will cultivate it. Frequently the ground is not
cultivated, and the man finds his employment in carrying the
dinner-pail, while the wife, the older daughters and the older boys work
in the mill. The younger ones are anxious to follow. These conditions
are an advance over what they have had, and they should be advanced
slowly and by degrees to anything which would be more theoretically
correct. Practically they have the advance. In any question involving
child labor, it is well to consider the local situation and the previous
condition of those whom you are seeking to benefit.

The first speaker this afternoon is a gentleman who has had every
opportunity to study the subject given to him. I am very glad that your
President has had the wisdom, instead of picking those who look at these
things solely from an academic standpoint, to take those men who have
come into actual contact with the subject itself, men who have brought
their best thought to the practical solving of this question, who desire
in their everyday walk of life to be of benefit to their fellow-men, and
while they are solving the hard problems of life, with which they must
necessarily deal in their business, are seeking always to help and
uplift those around them. Such a man is Mr. Franklin N. Brewer, General
Manager of the largest department store in this city, who will address
you on the subject of “Child Labor in the Department Store.”

Mr. Brewer then read his paper, which is printed on pages 165–177 of
this volume.

In introducing Mr. Henry White, Mr. Leake said:

The discussion of “Machinery and Labor” has been given to one who has
distinguished himself for broadmindedness in dealing with labor
problems, who has recognized the broad principle that wherever advance
is possible, either by machinery or by any other human function or
agency, humanity is bound to take advantage of that possibility. As the
latent forces are being developed in machinery, he has also advocated
that the labor which it represents should recognize that and adapt
itself to the new conditions with as little friction and as little loss
and with as little captious criticism as possible. His attitude in all
of these matters has been progressive, not radically reformative, but
always seeking the advantage along the progressive, conservative lines
which make for true progress. I have pleasure in introducing to you Mr.
Henry White, General Secretary of the United Garment Workers of America.

Mr. White then read his paper, which is printed on pages 221–231 of this
volume.

Following Mr. White’s paper and in introducing Mr. Hayes Robbins, Mr.
Leake said:

As Mr. White has just shown, machinery is a revolutionizer, and
machinery is so popular in this age of ours that it is revolutionizing
all of our methods. One of the chief questions we have before us to-day
is the harmonizing of the machinery of organization with Christian
ethics. Sociology to-day is advancing so far and calling for answers to
so many problems that it must of necessity merge itself with
Christianity; Christianity must broaden and take the position the Master
intended. All of the Master’s teachings were positive, not negative. Li
Hung Chang says that the Confucianists have a rule which is very similar
to our Golden Rule. He says very truly, something very similar, but
totally unlike in its operation. I will quote it to you. It is in
effect: “Thou shalt not do unto thy neighbor what thou wouldst not have
thy neighbor do unto thee.” Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you, is our Golden Rule. Everything Chinese is negatived; Christ,
on the other hand, taught the positive. His teachings send men out into
the world unto a life of helpfulness and benevolence; the contrary is
producing the conditions which we find in China, where every man tries
to live unto himself. It is these conditions there and here which
sociology and Christianity must of necessity take cognizance of and
unitedly bring to a conclusion.

The next speaker to address you has made an extended tour of the South
in company with Dr. Gunton, and their findings coincide with my
experience in the same country. I have made several trips to that
section and they have brought me to practically the same conclusion. I
have pleasure in introducing the gentleman who will speak on “The
Necessity for Factory Legislation in the South,” Mr. Hayes Robbins, Dean
of the Institute of Social Economics, New York.

Mr. Robbins here presented his paper, which is printed on pages 179–188
of this volume, after which Mr. Leake commented as follows upon the
ideas contained in the paper.

The people employed in the Southern mills are for the most part
descendants of the Scotch-Irish. They are not seekers for charity, nor
anything of that sort, but the communities in which they live, or many
of them, are burdened with an illiterate population composed of blacks,
and they are being taxed to support that population in schools. These
people coming down from the mountains are bringing to them an additional
tax. The Southern Educational Society, with its headquarters in New
York, has of late years taken cognizance of the conditions in which the
poor whites of the South are found, and it is doing magnificent work
along proper lines, without pauperizing, and is instilling in the hearts
of these people a desire for education. I am happy to add to the
speaker’s remarks that this work is bearing fruit. The movement toward
better education is increasing and it is for me and for you to help it
along.

In closing the meeting, the President of the Academy said:

I want to express to the speakers of the afternoon the sincere
appreciation of the Academy for their valuable contributions to the
subject. I may say, furthermore, that Dr. Murphy, who has led the
movement in the South for the betterment of conditions, fully expected
to be here, but has been taken seriously ill in New York and is now
gradually recovering from an attack which at one time threatened his
life. I regret very much that you had not the opportunity of listening
to him, as well as to the paper prepared by Mrs. Kelley, but you will
all have the opportunity of reading her paper, as well as the addresses
presented at this afternoon’s session, in a volume containing the
proceedings of the Annual Meeting.


                  SESSION OF FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 4.

The session of Friday evening was devoted to the Annual Address, which
was delivered by the Honorable Martin A. Knapp, Chairman of the
Interstate Commerce Commission. Professor Emory R. Johnson, of the
University of Pennsylvania and member of the Isthmian Canal Commission,
presided at the meeting.

Prior to the Annual Address the President of the Academy, Professor L.
S. Rowe, of the University of Pennsylvania, presented a review of the
work of the year.

Professor Johnson, in introducing Professor Rowe, said:

The Annual Meeting of the Academy has come to be a permanent and
important part of the Society’s activity. The four sessions lasting two
days, enable the Academy to discuss with some measure of detail several
phases of the general subject which seems, at the time of the meeting,
to be of greatest public interest. The most important of the four
sessions of the Academy is the one at which the President of the Academy
reviews the work of the organization and at which the Annual Address is
delivered by some distinguished scholar.

The work involved in arranging for this Annual Meeting is far greater
than one would suppose who has not undertaken such a task. In order to
make these meetings a success, thought and labor must be given to the
subject for many weeks. Success always seems easy until one undergoes
the labor by which success is achieved; but onerous as is the work of
arranging for the Annual Meeting, that constitutes but a part, and
indeed a small part, of the administrative duties which devolve upon the
President of the Academy. We are an organization of two thousand
members, about one-fourth of whom live in or near the city of
Philadelphia. The activities of the organization are national rather
than local. To keep up this membership and to cause it to increase
rather than to decline, to manage successfully the finances of a
scientific body such as ours, and to pass upon the many questions of
polity which arise in the administration of the Society, require the
exercise of sound judgment and a devotion to detail. If the Society were
to pay its officers for their work, the Board of Directors would not
think of suggesting a remuneration for the President of less than $2,000
a year; but, as you all know, none of the officers of the Academy or
editors of its publications receives any pay whatever. The work is
entirely gratuitous on their part.

The American Academy has been most fortunate in its Presidents. During
the first eight of the thirteen years of its existence, the President
and directing mind was the honored founder of the Academy, Dr. Edmund J.
James. When his academic duties called him to the University of Chicago,
Professor Lindsay succeeded him as the administrative head. Those who
know Professor Lindsay personally realize that he possesses in a very
marked degree the ability to organize and administer. He has most
exceptional powers of initiation and execution.

A few months ago, when President Roosevelt requested Professor Lindsay
to take charge of the important work of administering the educational
system of Porto Rico, the Board of Directors knew exactly whom to ask to
succeed Professor Lindsay as President of the Academy. As First
Vice-President of the Academy and for many years a member of its
editorial board, Professor Rowe had manifested his zeal for the Academy
and had in many ways aided the growth of the organization. Like his
predecessors, Professor Rowe always thinks towards action, and this
natural trait of mind has been strengthened by the training which he has
received, not only in academic life, but in the execution of responsible
public duties. When President McKinley selected the Commission which was
provided for under the Foraker Act, to revise and codify the laws of
Porto Rico, Professor Rowe was made one of the body of three men to whom
that task was entrusted. The Commission appointed by President McKinley
was succeeded the following year by one provided for by the laws of
Porto Rico and appointed by Governor Allen. Of this second Commission,
Professor Rowe was made the President, and in that position he has
carried to successful completion a thorough codification of the laws of
the island, has worked out a scheme of local government, and what is
perhaps most important of all, his work has been so practical that the
Porto Rican Legislature has adopted, with but slight changes, the
recommendations of the Commission.

At the beginning of this calendar year, Professor Rowe returned to his
duties at the University of Pennsylvania. He will now tell you of the
work which the Academy has done during the past year, and I am sure we
all feel that what he has already accomplished in the brief period of
his presidency of the Academy is an earnest of a large and most
gratifying growth of our organization during the coming year.

Dr. Rowe then presented the following review of the work of the Academy
for the year:


        REVIEW OF THE WORK OF THE ACADEMY FOR THE YEAR 1901–02.

The presentation of the work of the Academy during the last fiscal year
is so closely bound up with the activity of my predecessor that any
mention of the one necessarily involves reference to the other. Those of
you who have followed the work of the Academy during the last few years
thoroughly appreciate the great work which he has accomplished and the
splendid traditions which he has left with us. During the three years of
his direction of the affairs of the Academy as Acting President and then
as President, the Academy has gradually drawn to its ranks the
public-spirited men and women of all sections of the country, until
to-day it is the most influential organization of its kind in the United
States. Our meetings are attracting the leading authorities of the
country and in the publications of the Academy the most advanced thought
on the great political, social and economic questions is presented.

These results were accomplished by Dr. Lindsay by reason of his abiding
faith in the mission of an organization such as ours, reinforced by the
high standards of public service and public duty which he constantly
kept in mind. His resignation as President of the Academy, made
necessary by reason of his appointment as Commissioner of Education of
Porto Rico, is a severe loss, somewhat mitigated by the fact that he
still retains a keen and lively interest in our work.

The honor of succeeding him is commensurate with its responsibilities.
The activities of the Academy have become so manifold and varied that
the adequate performance of the duties of those entrusted with the
direction of its affairs must mean a severe strain unless the
co-operation and support of our members is assured. We are, in a sense,
a great co-operative body, each member of which contributes his share in
the study and solution of the great industrial, social and political
questions that confront our country.

The prospects of the Academy have never been brighter than at present,
nor have its opportunities ever been greater. Whatever our view as to
the direction which our national affairs have taken, it is clear to
everyone that we have reached a turning-point in both our domestic and
foreign policy. The need of a forum for the calm and dispassionate
discussion of the many questions arising out of this change is felt in
every section of the country. Our power as one of the important
enlightening forces of public opinion increases with each year and must
be met with a keen sense of responsibility not only towards our members,
but also towards the community at large. The Academy is a national, not
a local organization, and as such its activity must be national rather
than local. Every member of the Academy should feel it not only his
privilege, but his duty, to watch over the direction of Academy affairs
and to assure himself that the organization is fulfilling the high
mission which constitutes its reason for existence.

The period since the last Annual Meeting has been marked by a number of
important scientific sessions devoted to the following subjects:

On October 31 last, the topic for discussion was: “The Outlook for Civil
Government in the Philippines,” at which addresses were delivered by Dr.
George F. Becker, of the U. S. Geological Survey, and Mr. Abreu, a
native Filipino connected with the War Department at Washington.

On December 13 last, the topic discussed was: “The Policy of Commercial
Reciprocity,” and the speakers of the evening were Hon. John A. Kasson
and Mr. A. B. Farquhar.

On March 1 the subject of “The Extension of American Influence in the
West Indies” was considered; Dr. L. S. Rowe, of the University of
Pennsylvania, delivered the address of the evening, and Captain W. V.
Judson, of the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, presented a discussion of
the strategic considerations connected with the topic of the evening.

The publications of the Academy, which constitute the main channel of
communication between our members, have kept in close touch with the
trend of affairs. The plan of issuing separate volumes devoted to
special topics has been further developed and has met with great
success. In January a special volume on “Transportation and Commerce”
was issued, with such eminent contributors as Hon. Martin A. Knapp, John
Franklin Crowell, B. H. Meyer, Samuel Pasco, Emory R. Johnson, H. T.
Newcomb and Alfred Nerincx. In May a special volume on “The Government
of Dependencies” was issued, and the July number of THE ANNALS contains
the proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting.

The membership of the Academy at the present time is 1,990, of which
sixty-two are life members.

The magnitude of the Academy’s work has forced upon your Board of
Directors the question of adequate quarters for the library and offices
of the organization. At the present time the University of Pennsylvania
places at our disposal quarters in one of the University buildings. The
time is soon coming, however, when the work of the Academy will require
a separate building with adequate library facilities. This is a question
which I wish to bring to the attention of every member of the Academy,
and especially invite their co-operation in devising means by which this
end may be accomplished.

From whatever point of view, therefore, we examine the work of the
Academy, there is evidence of steady and healthy growth in all
directions. Our combined efforts must now be directed towards the
further extension of the work, for in an organization such as ours lack
of growth means retrogression and decay.

Professor Johnson, in introducing Judge Knapp, said:

When the Academy decided to devote the Annual Meeting to a discussion of
“Social Legislation and Social Activity,” it was felt that the Annual
Address should be devoted to the subject of transportation. Social
activity is everywhere, and at all times, conditioned by the facilities
for travel and shipment. They determine the measure and direction of
social progress; and the first and possibly the greatest subject of
social legislation is the regulation of transportation.

For the consideration of this great question, it was felt that the one
man pre-eminently qualified was the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce
Commission, and not alone because of his official position, although as
the guiding mind of that most dignified and influential body he has had
unrivaled facilities for acquiring a clear and comprehensive insight
into the problems of transportation, it was because of his exceptional
personal qualities, because of his calm poise of judgment, his judicial
fairness that makes him command the respect and admiration alike of the
railway official and the complainant shipper, and because of the clear
and lofty diction he has employed in all his numerous essays and public
addresses.

The work of the Academy has had the benefit of Judge Knapp’s frequent
co-operation. On the occasion of the Thirty-fourth Scientific Session he
addressed our Society upon the subject of Railway Pooling, and the able
paper presented by him was published in Volume VIII of THE ANNALS OF THE
ACADEMY. Judge Knapp again contributed to THE ANNALS last January, when
a paper by him on “Government Ownership of Railroads” was published.
Both of these papers have been highly serviceable to all students of
current transportation problems, and have done much to widen the
beneficent educational influence of the Academy.

The trained jurist is not infrequently a cultured scholar, but it is
seldom that a man possesses in addition to these attainments the genius
to instruct and the altruistic spirit that prompts to a devotion of his
talents to the furtherance of the public good. Judge Knapp’s powers are
generously active for the betterment of the age in which he lives; and
it is a source of satisfaction to the members of the Academy that the
Society has been one of the agencies by means of which Judge Knapp has
given to the public the results of his valuable experience and sound
thinking.

Judge Knapp then delivered the Annual Address, printed on pages 1–15 of
this volume.


                SESSION OF SATURDAY AFTERNOON, APRIL 5.

_Topic: “The Housing Problem.”_

The President of the Academy, in introducing the presiding officer of
the afternoon, said:

  _Members of the Academy, Ladies and Gentlemen._

It is fortunate for us, both as members of the Academy and as citizens
of Philadelphia, that when a subject of great importance is to be
discussed by our organization, we are always able to call upon some
citizen of Philadelphia whose interest in the subject, whose work, whose
activity along these special lines enable him to preside over our
deliberations with the authority that the subject calls for. I have very
great pleasure in presenting to you this afternoon as presiding officer
the Honorable William W. Porter, Justice of the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania, in whose hands I now place the meeting.

Judge Porter, in introducing the Honorable Robert W. De Forest, said:

We Philadelphians are apt to pride ourselves on the descriptive title
which others have given to our city and which we have adopted, namely,
that it is a city of homes. This is true of it to-day. It has ever been
true. But none of us can shut his eyes to the facts that the population
of the poor and the vicious has become congested in certain sections of
the city, and that tenement houses, unknown to us for many years, are
intruding in considerable numbers. To us Philadelphians, however, the
topic for discussion would have greater significance had it been made
the “Homing Problem” instead of the “Housing Problem.” The workingman’s
struggle has ever been, in Philadelphia, not for a “house” in the sense
of a room in a tenement, but for a home where within the four walls he
may know privacy and proprietorship. We have been wont to say that a
man’s home is his castle and that he would die in a struggle for its
protection. This may yet be said of the home owner who is a house owner.
But there is no instance on record, known to me, where there has been
any serious loss of life in the defence of a room in a boarding-house or
tenement.

It is with great pleasure that I introduce to you the first participant
in the discussion of the topic before us, Hon. Robert W. De Forest,
Tenement House Commissioner of Greater New York, a gentleman who comes
from a city which has had to meet the problem of housing the poor in its
most difficult form, a gentleman who, notwithstanding his large
professional obligations and duties and the time required by them, has
been able to give much thought and useful labor to the attempted solving
of what is, up to the present time, only a partially solved problem.

Mr. De Forest then presented his paper, which is printed on pages 81–95
of this volume.

In introducing Miss Addams, Mr. Porter said:

There was a time when true charity, as we understand it, was unknown.
The knowledge and practice of it came only with Christian civilization.
The impulse to do for others was first and strongest felt by women. The
early administration of charity by them was, however, largely of the
heart, rather than of the understanding. The time is here when women,
with hearts just as warm in the work, have tempered their enthusiasm
with cool, deep, serious, conscientious thought. These women are
furnishing to us the best type of the best citizenship in the department
of altruistic work.

It is with pleasure that I introduce to you a woman who exemplifies what
I have asserted; a woman who has been at the head of a charitable work
which has accomplished wonders; a woman who has thought, wrought and
written well. It is with very great pleasure that I present to you one
who will speak on the “Housing Problem in the City of Chicago,” Miss
Jane Addams, of Hull House.

Miss Addams’ address will be found on pages 97–107 of this volume.

Mr. Porter then introduced Mr. Nathaniel B. Crenshaw, who presented the
results of an investigation by the Octavia Hill Association into the
Housing Problem in Philadelphia. The paper read is printed on pages
109–120 of this volume.

The President of the Academy, in closing the session, said:

In closing the meeting I desire to express to the speakers of the
afternoon, as well as to the presiding officer, the sincere thanks of
the Academy, and I feel that I am simply giving expression to your
feelings when I say that we all go away with new ideas and a new
inspiration in the work of bettering social conditions.


                 SESSION OF SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 5.

_Subject: “Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration; Its Possibilities
and Limitations.”_

In giving the meeting into the hands of the presiding officer of the
evening, Mr. Charles Custis Harrison, the President of the Academy said:

  _Members of the Academy, Ladies and Gentlemen._

We have much of importance to hear this evening and there is therefore
little time for formal introductions. I have the honor of presenting to
you, as presiding officer of the evening, Dr. Charles Custis Harrison,
Provost of the University of Pennsylvania.


Dr. Harrison, in introducing Senator Hanna, said:

  _Ladies and Gentlemen._

The meeting to-night has to do with the questions which relate to the
maintenance of industrial peace or to the restoration of peace
relationships in industrial relations if they shall be disturbed.
Perhaps I may say that question has peculiar interest to myself entirely
outside of my academic connections, because many years before I entered
the service of the University I was myself a large employer of labor.
One of the testimonials, perhaps the testimonial which I most value of
any which I have received, was one which the two thousand men in our
service gave to us at the time we went out of business.

We do not realize that the conditions under which we are living are
totally different from those of twenty-five years ago. During almost all
my business life, and I suppose during Senator Hanna’s business life,
the maxim on which business was conducted was that competition was the
life of trade, and there was a constant struggle of competition between
producer and producer and between man and man for a position, and it is
only within a few years that it has dawned upon the mind of the world
that another economic maxim might have weight, the maxim that where
combination is possible, competition is impossible. We are working now
under that maxim, and so we have federations of labor and we have
federations of capital. So long as justice is not universal there will
be a conflict of interests between labor and capital, and the practical
question seems to be, how to bring these two interests together.

All these matters are really solvable only in a practical way. Most
people need a mediator—somebody to intervene. We know, ourselves, even
in the matter of the rental or buying of a house, a man is often not
willing to disclose himself fully and must employ a third party. The
practical question is, how to get the men together, because in that way
difficulties are settled and only in that way. Whosoever takes a part in
preserving industrial peace or in adjusting the conditions as between
employer and employed confers an extraordinary benefit upon the whole
community.

In everything the man is greater than the scheme. What one man finds
impossible to do, another man succeeds in doing. The first speaker of
the evening is Senator Hanna, a man who translates his oratory into
action. He has consented to add to the extraordinary responsibilities of
state, which he has borne for so many years, the duty of being one of
the members of a board of conciliation or arbitration, and I have the
very great pleasure of presenting him to you.

Senator Hanna’s address is printed in full on pages 19–26 of this
volume.

The next speaker of the evening was Mr. Samuel Gompers, who spoke on
“Limitations of Conciliation and Arbitration.” In introducing Mr.
Gompers, the presiding officer said:

  _Ladies and Gentlemen._

I shall now introduce as the next speaker the President of the American
Federation of Labor, who has devoted his life since boyhood towards the
betterment of the laboring classes, and not only towards that question
alone, but also to the philosophical side of everything which has to do
with questions concerning labor. I am glad of the opportunity of
introducing to you Mr. Samuel Gompers.

The address of Mr. Gompers is printed on pages 27–34 of this volume.

The speaker following Mr. Gompers was the Hon. Oscar S. Straus, who
spoke on “The Results Accomplished by the Industrial Department of the
National Civic Federation.” In introducing Mr. Straus, the presiding
officer said:

The man to whom was referred the important duty of appointing the
Industrial Committee of Thirty-six of the Civic Federation, to which
reference has been made so often this evening, and who, in response to
his first invitation received thirty-five affirmative replies, the Hon.
Oscar S. Straus, is the gentleman whom I now have the pleasure of
introducing.

The address of Mr. Straus is printed in full on pages 35–42 of this
volume.

The last speaker of the evening was Mr. William H. Pfahler, who spoke on
“Co-operation of Labor and Capital.” The paper read by Mr. Pfahler is
printed in full on pages 43–58 of this volume.

                     Respectfully submitted,
                                     LEO S. ROWE, _Chairman_,
                                     JOSEPH G. ROSENGARTEN,
                                     JOHN H. CONVERSE,
                                     JAMES B. DILL,
                                     STUART WOOD,
                                     SIMON N. PATTEN,
                                     J. GORDON GRAY,
                                     CLINTON ROGERS WOODRUFF,
                                     JOSEPH M. GAZZAM,
                                     EDWARD T. DEVINE,
                                     JAMES T. YOUNG,
                                     WILLIAM H. ALLEN,
                             _Special Committee on Sixth Annual Meeting_

-----

Footnote 1:

  This statement was made April 5, 1902.

Footnote 2:

  A strike was declared in the anthracite mines in May, 1902, and had
  not been settled when this paper went to press.—EDITOR.

Footnote 3:

  We have assurances from eminent corporation attorneys that the
  proposed issue of deferred stock with the suggested limitations
  thereon is entirely legal and feasible, and that it can be done
  without danger of having the concern forced into a court of equity by
  the holders of such certificates.

Footnote 4:

  The five wards are the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Seventh.
  One-half of the Seventh extends out of the district towards the west,
  but shows many of the same characteristics.

Footnote 5:

  Watson’s Annals, Vol. I, p. 43.

Footnote 6:

  The Second Volume of the Census of 1900 is not yet issued.

Footnote 7:

  “Homes of the London Poor,” by Octavia Hill.

Footnote 8:

  “Lessons from Work.” (B. F. Westcott.)

Footnote 9:

  The Board of Health, in their report for 1900, (p. 40) say: “A
  tenement house in Massachusetts is one occupied by four or more
  families, while in New York it is one occupied by three families which
  was the law in Massachusetts until the statute was amended in 1894.”
  This sentence is rich in blunders. No amendment was made in 1894. The
  Health Act of 1885, chapter 382, section 4, defined a tenement house
  as one with “more than three families.” The Act of 1889, chapter 450,
  section 4, changed this to “more than two families.” But the whole
  thing was repealed by 1892, chapter 419, section 138, so that _since
  1892 there has been no definition at all of a tenement house in the
  health code of Boston_.

Footnote 10:

  Entrance to nine houses within these blocks was prevented by
  owners—seven of the houses belonging to one person. While the Board of
  Health badge was worn by the investigator, no actual authority was
  conferred therewith, so that entrance to houses or apartments could
  not be insisted upon.

Footnote 11:

  These 2,154 apartments make up 98 per cent of all occupied apartments
  in the houses investigated. In the case of a few of the remaining
  apartments, information was refused by tenants; in most cases,
  however, the apartments were not investigated because tenants could
  not be found at home during the day, neighbors stating that they were
  absent regularly at work.

Footnote 12:

  A very few apartments were occupied by two families; hence the
  slightly greater number of families than of apartments covered.

Footnote 13:

  See topographical map prepared for the National Board of Health in
  1880 by Spielman & Brush. The only copy known to exist is in the
  Jersey City Public Library.

Footnote 14:

  Very little overcrowding was found in apartments of more than four
  rooms.

Footnote 15:

  John Wanamaker’s Store, of which Mr. Brewer is General Manager
  [Editor].

Footnote 16:

  Vol. 1, No. 4. May, 1902.

Footnote 17:

  See “The Government Factory Bill of 1900,” by Gertrude M. Tuckwell,
  the Honorary Secretary of the Women’s Trade Union League. _Fortnightly
  Review_ for June, 1900.

Footnote 18:

  Translated from the French by D. E. Martell, Ph. D., late Fellow in
  Romanic Languages, University of Pennsylvania.

Footnote 19:

  Eighteen volumes published by the Minister of Industry and Labor
  (Brussels, 1900 and 1901). We draw the greater part of these
  references from “General Statement of Methods and Results of the
  Census” (Brussels, 1902), which this publication completes.

Footnote 20:

  A penal law of May 28, 1888, relative to the protection of children
  employed in the itinerant professions, forbids the feats of strength
  and dangerous exercises, inhuman, or of a nature to affect the health
  of children and youths under eighteen, employed by those who carry on
  the profession of acrobats and mountebanks, etc.

Footnote 21:

  There exists a special regulation which puts under authorization and
  special watchfulness those industrial establishments, which, by their
  nature, threaten the safety, health and convenience of the public, or
  offer certain dangers to the health and safety of the workmen who are
  employed there. These establishments are known as “Classified
  Establishments.”

Footnote 22:

  See particularly the discourse of M. Renkin, Catholic Deputy of
  Brussels, proceedings of June 13 and July 2, 1901.

Footnote 23:

  This discussion is based upon the Report of the U. S. Industrial
  Commission, Vol. V, on Labor Legislation.

Footnote 24:

  Report of the U. S. Industrial Commission, Vol. V, pp. 100–101. N. H.,
  Me., Mass., Vt., R. I., Conn., N. Y., N. J., Penna., Ohio, Ind., Ill.,
  Mich., Wis., Minn., Neb., Del., Mo., N. Dak., S. Dak., Ga., La., D.
  C., Wash., Mont., Wy., Md., Cal., Tenn. These range from complete
  acts, like those of N. Y. and Mass., to fire-escape provisions only,
  as in N. H., Me., Del., Va., Ga. etc., while Ala., the Carolinas,
  etc., are still entirely outside of the group.

Footnote 25:

  _Child labor._—(14 yrs.) Mass., Conn., N. Y., Ind., Ill., Mich., Wis.,
  Minn., Col.; (girls 14 yrs., and boys 12 yrs.), N. J., La.; (13 yrs.),
  Penna., Ohio; (12 yrs.), Me., R. I., Wis., Md., W. Va., N. Dak., Tenn.

Footnote 26:

  _Hours of labor._—(Women and minors), Mass., Me., N. H., R. I., Conn.,
  N. Y., N. J., Penna., Wis., Neb., S. Dak., N. Dak., Okla., Va., La.;
  (Minors), Ind., Vt., Ohio, Ill., Mich., Minn.; Cal., Md., Ga.

Footnote 27:

  _Night work and meal hours._—N. Y., Mass., Neb., Ind., Mich.; (meal
  hours), La., Penna., Ohio.

Footnote 28:

  _Ibid._, p. 40.

Footnote 29:

  Report of the U. S. Industrial Commission, Vol. V, p. 100.

Footnote 30:

  Studnitz Nordamerikanische Arbeiterverhältnisse.

Footnote 31:

  Industrial Commission, Vol. V, p. 48.

Footnote 32:

  Report of Industrial Commission (1900), Vol. V (pp. 3–4).

Footnote 33:

  _Ibid._, p. 10.

Footnote 34:

  See pamphlet upon “Child Labor in Alabama,” “An Appeal to the People
  and Press of New England, with a Resulting Correspondence,” obtainable
  from the secretary of the Alabama Child Labor Committee, P. O. Box 347
  Montgomery, Alabama, and from Room 614, 205 East Twenty-second Street,
  New York City.

Footnote 35:

  Alabama Child Labor Committee: Edgar Gardner Murphy, Rector of St.
  John’s Episcopal Church, Montgomery; Thomas G. Jones, ex-Governor of
  Alabama; Lucien V. Lataste, Montgomery: J. H. Phillips, Superintendent
  of Schools, Birmingham; John Craft, Member of Legislature, Mobile; A.
  J. Reilly, Member of the Legislature, Ensley.

Footnote 36:

  J. H. Nichols, Treasurer, Alabama City Mill, Boston _Evening
  Transcript_, October 30.

Footnote 37:

  Report of Industrial Commission Vol. V, p. 10. J. W. Daniel,
  dissenting.

Footnote 38:

  Report of Industrial Commission, Vol. V., pp. 4, 5, 7·

Footnote 39:

  _Ibid._, p. 6.

Footnote 40:

  Report of Industrial Commission, Vol. V., p. 9.

Footnote 41:

  41 Neb., 127. Nebraska (1899, 197).—No female shall be employed in any
  manufacturing, mechanical or mercantile establishments, hotel or
  restaurant in this state more than sixty hours during any week, and
  ten hours shall constitute a day’s labor. The hours of each day may be
  so arranged as to permit employment of such females at any time from
  six o’clock in the morning to ten o’clock in the evening; but in no
  case shall such employment exceed ten hours in any one day.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                          TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES


 1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in
      spelling.
 2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
 3. Re-indexed footnotes using numbers and collected together at the end
      of the last chapter.
 4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
 5. Enclosed bold font in =equals=.