FOOTNOTES:

Nationality.No.Percentage.American parentage41.376Irish parentage30.276German parentage18.165English and Scotch parentage9.083Italian parentage3.027Swedish parentage3.027Other countries, parentage5.046Married17.156Single92.844Worked a little in country16.146Worked considerably in country7.064Men with regular trades31.289Union men6.055Men who looked efficient38.349Men who looked semi-efficient21.193Men who looked inefficient50.458Ages.15-202.01820-3055.50430-4023.21240-5020.18350-608.07460-701.009Length of time out of work.Less than 1 month8.073More than 1 month17.156More than 2 months16.146More than 3 months.[37]68.625

FOOTNOTES:[14]"Prospectus of the Salvation Army Industrial Homes Company."[15]"The Poor and the Land," p. 130.[16]Haggard places it at 500 in 1905; at the time of my visit, May, 1906, it was about 300.[17]"Hadleigh," p. 52.[18]"The Poor and the Land," p. 127.[19]"The S. A. and the Public," pp. 113-114.[20]Ibid., p. 114.[21]Ibid., p. 105.[22]"Hadleigh," p. 56.[23]Apparently no definite data are obtainable regarding these men since the time of treatment.[24]Introduction,p. 10.[25]For instance, the president, vice-president and secretary and treasurer are all Army officers of high standing.[26]The following extract is taken from the Salvation Army Social Gazette of February 5, 1908: "Whether the Officer of the Salvation Army takes charge of the industrial home to manage it in the interests of the concern, or whether he takes charge of the corps, the one great purpose of his whole life is to proclaim salvation to all with whom he comes in contact."[27]Seep. 36.[28]We think that this would probably be done, even though the presence of the home in the particular locality was a great boon to the poor, and although this would be contrary to the principles of the organization, so strong is the idea which the company has of financial success. This further strengthens the idea that the movement is drifting from its original purpose of uplifting the down-fallen humanity to the purpose of perpetuating and extending itself as an economic enterprise.[29]See "The S. A. and the Public," pp. 121 to 130.[30]A typical industry instanced to support this objection was the manufacture of fire wood. See "The S. A. and the Public," p. 124.[31]The criticism here of course would be that, to the extent that the army applies donations from the public to this industrial work, to that extent it has an advantage over another business enterprise and differs from it just to that extent in which it secures capital on which it need pay no interest or return. To what extent this is done, we have been unable to ascertain, but the Army is paying interest to investors who furnish money to carry on this work. This point is dealt with somewhat in the next paragraph.[32]See "The S. A. and the Public," pp. 122 to 127. Also "The Social Relief Work of the S. A.," pp. 11 and 12.[33]Several leading officers have stated that they never undersell paper or rags, the largest part of their business, and that the only underselling done by them is in the retail store and that this is slight. They justify themselves by the fact that the regular second-hand men are tricksters and will rob the poor of their money, in most cases carrying on a pawn shop, which the Army never does.[34]See Seager, "Introduction to Economics," p. 234.[35]See "Principles of Relief," p. 35.[36]To show the difference in the grade of the men at the Industrial Homes and those at the Hotels, I have given separate tables for each. The combined tables showing certain characteristics of the class of men in general with which the Army deals will be found atthe end of Chapter IV.[37]This number includes all the inefficient men and the men who are steadily working in the Industrial Home.

[14]"Prospectus of the Salvation Army Industrial Homes Company."

[15]"The Poor and the Land," p. 130.

[16]Haggard places it at 500 in 1905; at the time of my visit, May, 1906, it was about 300.

[17]"Hadleigh," p. 52.

[18]"The Poor and the Land," p. 127.

[19]"The S. A. and the Public," pp. 113-114.

[20]Ibid., p. 114.

[21]Ibid., p. 105.

[22]"Hadleigh," p. 56.

[23]Apparently no definite data are obtainable regarding these men since the time of treatment.

[24]Introduction,p. 10.

[25]For instance, the president, vice-president and secretary and treasurer are all Army officers of high standing.

[26]The following extract is taken from the Salvation Army Social Gazette of February 5, 1908: "Whether the Officer of the Salvation Army takes charge of the industrial home to manage it in the interests of the concern, or whether he takes charge of the corps, the one great purpose of his whole life is to proclaim salvation to all with whom he comes in contact."

[27]Seep. 36.

[28]We think that this would probably be done, even though the presence of the home in the particular locality was a great boon to the poor, and although this would be contrary to the principles of the organization, so strong is the idea which the company has of financial success. This further strengthens the idea that the movement is drifting from its original purpose of uplifting the down-fallen humanity to the purpose of perpetuating and extending itself as an economic enterprise.

[29]See "The S. A. and the Public," pp. 121 to 130.

[30]A typical industry instanced to support this objection was the manufacture of fire wood. See "The S. A. and the Public," p. 124.

[31]The criticism here of course would be that, to the extent that the army applies donations from the public to this industrial work, to that extent it has an advantage over another business enterprise and differs from it just to that extent in which it secures capital on which it need pay no interest or return. To what extent this is done, we have been unable to ascertain, but the Army is paying interest to investors who furnish money to carry on this work. This point is dealt with somewhat in the next paragraph.

[32]See "The S. A. and the Public," pp. 122 to 127. Also "The Social Relief Work of the S. A.," pp. 11 and 12.

[33]Several leading officers have stated that they never undersell paper or rags, the largest part of their business, and that the only underselling done by them is in the retail store and that this is slight. They justify themselves by the fact that the regular second-hand men are tricksters and will rob the poor of their money, in most cases carrying on a pawn shop, which the Army never does.

[34]See Seager, "Introduction to Economics," p. 234.

[35]See "Principles of Relief," p. 35.

[36]To show the difference in the grade of the men at the Industrial Homes and those at the Hotels, I have given separate tables for each. The combined tables showing certain characteristics of the class of men in general with which the Army deals will be found atthe end of Chapter IV.

[37]This number includes all the inefficient men and the men who are steadily working in the Industrial Home.

In a study of environment and its effects on the lowest classes of our great cities, the cheap lodging house affords a favorable field. Here we have crowding, unsanitary conditions, immoral atmosphere, and all the attendant evils. A good description of such lodging houses in New York City has been given by Jacob Riis, in the following words:

"In the caravansaries that line Chatham Street and the Bowery, harboring nightly a population as large as that of many a thriving town, a home-made article of tramp and thief is turned out that is attracting the increasing attention of the police, and offers a field for the missionary's labors, besides which most others seem of slight consequence"[38].

The cheap lodging houses of London and other great cities are similar in their environment and effects. This field was early entered by the Army. It was necessary that a very low rate of cost for the individual concerned be maintained because of competition with the lodging houses already existing, and because of the size of the prospective lodger's purse. The first experiments were tried in London. There, at first, the primary aim was to aid the needy and destitute, but later the Army entered into a competition with the existing lodging houses and paid more attention to the element of environment. It was soon definitely proved that such a work could be carried on to advantage, that shelter amid beneficial surroundings, could be provided to those almost destitute, and that the work could be self-supporting. Since then this work has extended to nearly all the larger cities of Europe and America, but it is of greatest extent in England and the United States. Along with this growth there has been differentiation. The hotels have been graded to suit the requirements of the different classes to whichthey appeal: the almost destitute class, and those who have steady employment. Hence, besides treating of conditions common to both, we shall describe special features of two grades of both men's and women's hotels.[39]

The location for a men's hotel must be determined partly by its propinquity to the class of men which it is seeking to attract and partly for facilities for ventilation, cleanliness and general sanitary conditions. These last features are of the greatest importance in this work. Led by the real need of the case, and working with regard to its reputation, the Army has, in this respect, shown a great advance over the general cheap lodging houses. Still, there is room for improvement in the Army hotels.[40]One great difficulty lies in the lodgers, many of whom are so habituated to uncleanliness in general, that it is with great reluctance on their part that they are induced to cleanliness. Especially in the lower class hotels is this true where the rough, brutal element finds its way. Another difficulty lies in the fact that the Army frequently takes old buildings and turns them into hotels, when they are not suitable for the purpose. A favorable tendency to overcome this, however, lies in the Army's desire to put up new buildings fitted for hotels, and this is being done in many cities.

In both the higher and the lower class men's hotels, the general plan is to have two or three grades of sleeping apartments. The first grade is in the form of dormitories, where each dormitory will contain from ten to fifty beds in the smaller hotels, and from fifty to one hundred and even two hundred beds in the larger.[41]For a bed in one of these dormitories, 10cand 15c per night is charged in the United States, and in England 2d up. This includes the use of a locker beside the bed, with sometimes a nightgown, and sometimes a bath. The second grade of lodging is in individual rooms, partitioned off, but inside rooms, for which the charge is 15c in the United States, and 4d to 6d in England. Then finally we have the third grade of lodging, which consists of individual rooms which have outside windows, and for which the price varies from 20c to 50c per night according to situation and furnishing.[42]Sometimes the three grades of lodging are found on the same floor, a part of the floor being dormitory, and a part partitioned off into rooms, the partitions running up to a height of eight or nine feet. This method of partitioning off the rooms is almost universal. It is cheap and to some extent sanitary, since by means of windows at either end of the building a continual current of air can be maintained all over the floor. In most of the higher class hotels one floor is given up to dormitories and another to individual rooms, while the majority of lower class hotels consist entirely of dormitories. Hotels are of all sizes, and run from one floor up to eight or ten.

The beds found in the Army hotels are iron, with mattresses usually covered with American cloth or some form of leather, but sometimes with strong canvas.[43]Each bed is provided with pillow, sheets, a coverlid, and sometimes an additional counterpane. The individual rooms, in addition to having better beds, contain a looking glass, a chair, a small table, and other furnishings according to the price of the room. In most cases washing facilities are only found in the lavatory, common to the whole floor.

Comparative cleanliness is enforced at all grades of hotels. Baths are sometimes made compulsory, though often this rule cannot be rigidly enforced. Usually each floor is provided with bath tubs and shower baths. Nearly every hotel has a fumigating room, an air tight apartment filled with racks, upon which clothing is hung. If a man's appearance or clothing looks suspicious in any way, his clothes are placed in a sack with a number corresponding to the number of his bed or room, and hung in the fumigating room over night. Early the next morning his clothes will be returned to him. The dormitories and rooms themselves, every few days, receive a fumigating and cleaning. Thus, except in very rare cases, no fault can be found with the cleanliness of the Army hotels. We hardly ever visited any of them without coming into contact with the scent of fumigation, or finding some individual working with mop and broom.

The above description, except where stated differently, fits both classes of men's hotels. The higher class, intended for transients of the better class of poor and for workmen with steady employment, has some distinctive features. In addition to better equipment along the line of furnishings, lavatories, etc., this class of hotels necessarily has a better social environment than the other. For instance, there are many lower class hotels where the reading room is dark, poorly furnished, without attractive reading matter, and where it serves as smoking room as well as reading room. While this might be improved, yet so low are the occupants that such improvement would not be appreciated. But when we come to the higher grade hotels, we find a difference. Take, for example, the Army Hotel in the city of Cleveland, O., on the corner of Eagle and Erie Streets. This corner building was built by the Army to answer its purpose, at a cost of $100,000.00. There are no dormitories in the building. The three upper floors are given over to the hotel, which comprises 130 rooms, each room being steam heated and electric lighted, and each floor being reached by elevators. Bathing facilities and sanitary arrangements arefirst class. A comfortable reading room and lounging room is provided for general use, where there are popular magazines, daily papers and writing conveniences. As another example, about the highest grade Army institution of this class is found in Boston, and is called "The People's Palace." It is a large, five-story, corner building, built by the Army for the purpose. In this institution the social environment is especially emphasized. There is a reading room, a smoking room, one or more social parlors, a gymnasium with a swimming tank, and an auditorium with a seating capacity of 600. The whole building, with its 287 single rooms, besides the above advantages, is equipped with steam heat, electric service and other modern conveniences. A special fee of 25c is charged for the use of the gymnasium and swimming tank, but the other advantages are free to lodgers. In this way, it is seen that the higher class hotels have more opportunity for a good social environment and for social work. We think that the addition of certain features, such as men's clubs, smokers, popular lectures, etc., would be of great advantage to this class of institutions. To overcome the difficulty of a transient population, however, would require considerable ingenuity.[44]

Along the line of religious environment we find the hotels differ a great deal. In London there seems to be a strong influence of this kind, most of the hotels of both classes holding gospel meetings frequently. For instance, at the Quaker Street Elevator Home, which is partly a hotel and partly an industrial home, meetings are held nearly every night with good attendance, and at the Burne Street Hotel well attended meetings areheld every night except Wednesdays and Saturdays, these nights being given over to the men for washing their clothes. But in the United States we find, as a rule, that the Salvation Army hotels are run with very little religious influence. In a few cases, meetings are held regularly, but more often no provision is made for them. Meetings are generally in progress somewhere in the neighborhood at the regular Army corps, and the men are left to attend these meetings if they wish. Generally they are willing to take advantage of the hotel, but do not care for the sentimental form of religion preached by the Army. Hence, in most of the hotels, we find the religious influence limited to the texts on the walls, and to the attitude of the employees, who are not always Salvationists or converted men.

Some hotels of both classes are fitted with a kitchen and lunch counter. This is nearly always the case in London, where the hotels have a counter, over which the food is sold, and then taken to a seat by the purchaser. In several cases the counter is divided so that it opens into different rooms, and there are two grades of prices, the lower price being paid for food somewhat damaged and stale.[45]

We need not dwell long on the subject of the women's hotels, as that does not form an important part of the Army's work. The women's hotels, even more than the men's, have tended to fall into two classes. There is a great difference between the hotel for women who are almost destitute, and the hotel for respectable working girls, who have positions as clerks and stenographers, and who happen to have no home of their own. A typical hotel of the former class is situated near the Dearborn Street Railway Depot in Chicago. It consists of three floors, and has accommodation for fifty girls or women.The woman officer in charge lives here herself, and seeks to have an environment as homelike as possible. She states, however, that occasionally the women come in noisily and are troublesome. There is a great difference between one woman and another, and she wishes she had one floor with better accommodation than the rest for the better element among them. The price paid per bed at this hotel is 10 cents. A good example of this class of hotel in England, is the one situated on Hanbury Street, Whitechapel, London, where there are three floors, two upper floors given over to dormitories containing 276 beds in all, and the ground floor containing a dining room, kitchen, small hall, and office. Here, women are turned away quite often because of lack of room. 2d. is charged for a bed, and for food a scale of prices, such as tea, ½d.—soup, ½d.—bread, ½d.—etc. There are nine officers working here, and nine other workers, six of the latter receiving 3s. per week, and three receiving 1s. per week.

With the higher class hotels for women, the Army has not had much success. This is easily understood, as the respectable girl does not like to be connected with a hotel run by an organization which is prominent for its slum and rescue work. These hotels charge a higher rate for rooms and are situated in a good quarter of the city.[46]They are frequented by shop girls, bookkeepers, clerks and stenographers. Apparently, no great religious pressure is brought to bear on the girls and women, but this would probably depend on the officer in charge.

The growth of the Hotel Department of the Army's work, like that of the Industrial Department, has, of recent years, been great. Soon after the publication in 1890 of General Booth's book, "Darkest England," the hotel work was started in England, and its progress has been rapid. In the United States at first the work did not make much headway. When Commander Booth-Tucker came to take charge in 1896, there were three small men's hotels situated in the cities of Buffalo, San Francisco,and Seattle. At the present time, nearly every large city in England and the United States has one or more of these hotels, the latter country having 71 men's hotels and 4 women's hotels, with a total accommodation of 8,688. The tendency now is toward fewer of the lower class hotels, and more of the higher class; in other words, toward fewer hotels where beds can be had for 10c and 15c, and more where they will cost 20c and 25c. The Army gives as its reason for this the fact that the cheaper hotel cannot be maintained in a wholesome manner and be self-supporting.[47]Similar to the Industrial Department in its management, the Hotel Department has its divisions, its graded officers with their various responsibilities, and its head officer in charge at the national headquarters. In the United States, however, unlike the Industrial Department, the Hotel Department has no separate financial company, in the form of a corporation, behind it. In some instances, deserving men are given bed tickets and meal tickets free, by officers detailed for the purpose, and, to that extent the hotels are a charity. This is done with due discretion and does not make an appreciable difference. The amount of charity indulged in by the Army in this way is, however, probably responsible for the fact that in 1907, there was a loss to the Army in this department of $4,500.00, not a very large amount, considering the number of hotels concerned.

Coming to the value of the Army hotels from the point of view of the social economist, care must be taken to discriminate between their commercial and their philanthropic aspects. The public has a mistaken idea of the work carried on by this branch of the Army. Many people have an idea that thousands of homeless, starving men and women are nightly taken care of in these Army hotels. Putting aside the question whether such would be good relief policy or not, the statement itself is not true. In a majority of cases the man or woman in order to gain admittance must have the price, and in many instances, that price will also admit them to the regular cheap lodging house outsideof the Army. We are not finding fault with the system of charging, since from the point of view of true relief, provided that bona-fide, destitute cases are not left without help, the price should be required, as it would be a great evil to throw open the hotels to the crowds of regular beggars and social parasites who constantly throng any institution supposed to be charitable; but since the Army hotel movement claims to be a self-supporting business, it is not to be regarded as different from any other lodging business, except in those points in which it excels the other. With this caution we believe that we still can distinguish two lines along which credit is to be given the Army. The first is the environment which the Army has created for its guests. It is not necessary here to show what a great factor environment is in this case, but simply to emphasize its importance. From our description of the Army hotel, it is seen that, with certain exceptions, the Army maintains cleanliness, cheerfulness, and a homelike atmosphere around its lodging houses.[48]In this important respect then, the Army hotel is to be commended. Secondly, the Army has indirectly, by its competition with the ordinary cheap lodging houses, led them to adopt improvement for purely commercial reasons. If a man has only ten cents, he is going to invest that ten cents to the best advantage, and the old time lodging houses have found it necessary to improve their conditions in order to meet the competition of the Army. For this too, credit is to be given the latter. In addition the competition reacts on the Army and tends to make it keep up its own standard.

In order more clearly to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of cheap lodging houses, whether Army hotels or not, it would be well here to consider objections to their existence. Three objections have been raised to all cheap lodging houses in general.

1. That they herd together a low class of vagrants and vicious characters.

2. That their cheapness lowers the standard of living.

3. That they encourage the youth of the country to come to the city and live in comparative idleness.[49]

No one who has looked into the matter has any doubt about the accuracy of the first objection. One glance at the faces of a group of men in the smoking room of any such hotel reveals many of the low, bestial, criminal type; many victims of dissipation and many who have acquired a dislike for work of any sort. This harboring of the vicious element is also true of the Army hotels of the lower class, but it is in company with this element that we find the men for whom more or less can be done.[50]

The second objection must be considered more carefully. To repeat the definition of the standard of living which was discussed in connection with the Industrial Department, it is the scale or measure of comfort and satisfaction, which a person or community of persons, regards as indispensable to happiness. Now the question is whether these cheap lodging houses lower this standard; whether their existence results in a tendency to live with less effort and less ambition, and thus renders men and women less productive and less proficient. This question must be separated into a question regarding the community as a whole, and a question regarding the individual. As regards the standard of living of any single community, the answer would be that the standard is not appreciably lowered by this hotel system, since the occupants are mostly single men wandering around, and the standard of living of the community is more concerned with the maintenance of homes in its midst, than of transients. This, however, brings in the further question as to whether the cheap living made possible by the lodging houses leads to the breakingup of homes, since if it does so, it would bear decidedly on the standard of living. We would answer this second question in the negative, because life in the cheap hotel is not such a desirable thing as to lead to the breaking up of homes. A man has already left home and is already reduced in circumstances, before the fact of such cheap living as the hotels and cheap restaurants of the Bowery in New York, or of Whitechapel in London, ever comes to him as an advantage. But, on the other hand, when it comes to the individual concerned, we think that the standard is lowered and that in many cases the objection holds good. For instance, take a man with a regular trade, say bricklaying or carpentering. He is thrown out of work and gradually drifts down to the cheap hotel. For months, possibly, he strives in vain to get work at his trade. He exists, however, by means of odd jobs picked up at random; he becomes shiftless; the life which consists of so much "hanging around" and loafing, decreases his efficiency, and, in this way, his standard is lowered. At the same time his character is affected, and even if no worse development takes place, he loses ambition, and that lowers his standard. Hence, in conclusion, we would say that the objection that the hotel movement of the Army leads to a lowering of a standard of living has no place as regards the community, but is sustained as regards individuals.

The third objection that the country youth are induced by this cheap living to leave for the city is not a strong one and needs but short notice. Some of the most successful men of our cities come from the country, but very few of the lower and pauper classes. This has been shown by the investigations of Mr. Fox in England, and by our own investigations in the United States.[51]

The consideration of these objections leads us to a closer examination of the class of men frequenting the hotels of the Army.The men's work being so much larger, let us look at the occupants of the men's hotels. Here we must separate the comparatively few hotels of the higher class, which, charging higher prices and harboring the working man, have a different environment from the others. In these, the higher class, we see a competition with the ordinary boarding and lodging houses which single men frequent, a competition which, owing to the more healthful social environment of the Army hotel, is to be welcomed and approved of as a preventive of vice and degradation. The latter is often the result of crowded, uncleanly, workingmen's lodgings, which drive their occupants to the saloon. But the majority of the Army hotels are filled with the lowest class of men, out of any steady employment. This class is composed for the most part and under present conditions, of men who are almost helpless cases.[52]Conditions can be conceived which would result in the betterment of a certain percentage of these, but a large number would always be hopeless. Many have been given their chances and have thrown them away; some have had no chances, and some could not use them if they had. Many are physical and moral wrecks. In their faces you see no ambition. They simply exist as do animals. For such, except in unusual cases, there is no remedy. Do all you can for them, and they will slide back again; give them work, and if they are willing to take it at all, they soon lose their positions. Some belong to the pseudo-social class and are mere parasites feeding on society. Others are anti-social, bitter and criminal.[53]

These men are not those with which the Army is successful, in its industrial institutions, although many of them have been tried. They secure their ten cents or fifteen cents for a bed in a cheap hotel by any means which comes along. They form a class, which especially in the older countries of Europe and increasingly in the new world, presents a problem that is the great puzzle of the statesman and the social economist alike.

The present tendency of the Army already mentioned to have fewer of the lower class, cheap hotels and more of the higher class brings up some important considerations. There are three points which come up for particular notice here. First, as has already been stated, the present tendency of the Army is to have fewer of the lower class or cheap hotels and more of the higher class. One reason for this is that, although the Army's competition has in many instances forced the ordinary cheap hotels to better their equipment, still, in the long run, the Army cannot successfully compete with the ordinary low class hotel and maintain an equally good or better environment, without having its hotel work subsidized by the public. The men whom we have just described do not appreciate better surroundings sufficiently to pay fifteen cents for a bed at the Army hotel, when they can get one for ten cents at another place around the corner. Secondly, as the Army extends its work, there is the ever present tendency of any organization to become an end in itself. Hence the Army tends to forsake its field of the lower class for the field of the working class for financial reasons. If it can carry on a hotel which appeals to a higher class of working men who are willing to pay $1.50 upwards per week for a separated room such as has been described, they may do better financially than with a dormitory whose beds are held at ten cents. This second point of consideration leads us to a third, and that is, what is to become of this lower class of vagrants and unemployables. This discussion hardly comes in the scope of this book, but we might suggest in passing that the cheap, lower class of hotels with which the Army has entered into competition should not be allowed to continue as at present. In case of the failure to provide competition, the city itself should provide a successful competition under good environment, or should take measures for the segregation of the vicious elements of the population from the merely weak, aged and unfortunate.[54]

On the other hand, among the occupants of these hotels a certain number are men for whom there is hope; some victims of misfortune; others degraded by dissipation and recklessness, but not entirely demoralized. With these the Army can deal successfully in its industrial homes, and some of them can regain a foothold without aid. For these men the Army hotel is certainly a boon.[55]A man who has not lost ambition and who can gather a few cents a day to sustain him, until some temporary difficulty is past is glad to take advantage of such an institution. Finally, regarding this class as a whole, something must be done with them, and it is necessary for those who find fault with their congregation in the Army hotels, to point out a better way of caring for them. As long as they exist, they will tend to congregate somewhere, and until some better solution is offered, we might as well take what is at hand, and if it is the Army hotel, hold that institution to its best efforts and its best environment.

To sum up, then, our conclusions of this part of the Army's work, we find that the hotels are commercial enterprises, with, as a rule, an environment superior to the regular cheap hotels of the same price, and that although there is an objection to the congregation of the vicious and vagrant along with the unfortunate, and although there may be a tendency to lower the standard of living of these people, individually considered, yet there is a justification for the existence of these hotels, as something must be done with this class of people, and this is the best solution offered, inasmuch as a certain percentage of this class is really aided and tided over temporary difficulty. At the same time, there remains the need of the segregation of the class concerned, with a more scientific, practical, individual treatment. Better work can be done along this line.

A collection of 76 cases made on seventeen different evenings during the months of March and April, 1908, at two of the Salvation Army hotels, both situated on the Bowery in New York City, one being a lower class hotel and the other a combination of lower and higher class. These cases were collected at first hand by the author and a friend of the author, Mr. James Ward, both of whom mingled among the men in the disguise of working men. In this way the facts were gained without much difficulty, with the exception of information regarding the family of the man concerned. Sometimes, therefore, this latter information is lacking.

No. 1.

Born in New York City of Irish parentage. Twenty-five years old. Single. Had no home and did not know whether or not his people were living. Only trade was that of hotel porter but had done other things. Had worked a little in the country. Had had no steady work for three months. Walked the streets the previous night and had had coffee and rolls on the "bread line." Received a bed that night through charity. Did not appear dissipated but showed lack of ambition.

No. 2.

Born in Ireland. About thirty years old. Single. Did not know about his people as he did not write home. Had been in New York seven years. Worked as stableman most of the time but had been out of steady work for six weeks. Never worked in the country. Appeared dissipated and inefficient.

No. 3.

Born in Pittsburg of American parents. About forty years old. Single. Had a brother, he thought, in Pittsburg but noother relatives alive. Had no regular trade. Had travelled a good deal in the United States but never west of Chicago. Had done odd jobs in the country. Evidently a tramp. Looked stupid and incapable.

No. 4.

Born in Germany. About twenty-three years old. Single. Wrote to his people sometimes, but they were poor. Trade, a waiter. Had worked in New York for five years. Had had no steady work for over two months. Had a little money saved but that was nearly gone. Expected to go to Albany the next day to work. Never worked in the country. Appeared to be a capable, steady man.

No. 5.

Born in Scotland. Fifty-three years old. Single. People all dead except a married sister. Regular trade, a boiler-maker. In this country most of the time for thirty-five years. Had travelled all around the world. Never worked in the country. Had no steady work all winter, but obtained work for one or two days every week and thus paid his way at the hotel. Said he lived up to his salary when working steadily. Is growing old. Sometimes went on a "spree" when he had money. Looked like a hard-working, efficient man.

No. 6.

Born in Ireland. About forty years old. Had married and separated from his wife. Trade was brick-laying, but he was not a union man. Never worked in the country. Came to New York at eighteen and had been there most of the time since. Claimed to be a Mason, and said that he expected help from a friend. Had been out of work all winter but worked occasionally around saloons and nearly always had the price of a bed. Admitted drinking heavily. Looked dissipated.

No. 7.

Born in Buffalo of American parents. Twenty-eight years old. Single. Waiter by trade. Parents were dead. Had two brothers but did not know where. Had worked a little in the country but knew nothing of farming. Had worked as waiter in New York for three years. Got into a fight three weeks before and had his face disfigured. As a result lost his job. Walked the streets two nights last week. Got coffee and rolls on the "bread line." Worked in a stable yesterday and made $1.00. Appeared somewhat dissipated but intelligent.

No. 8.

Born in New York City. Father German. Mother Scotch. Thirty-two years old. Single. His father lived somewhere in New York, and he expected to get work shortly and live with him. Trade was a machinist. Had mostly worked at bicycle repairing. Had travelled a good deal but never worked on a farm. Went to Philadelphia this Winter and lost position. Worked three days in a woodyard for board and lodging. Later had himself committed to jail for one month. Came back to New York last week. Did not appear dissipated, but looked bright and efficient.

No. 9.

Born in Lawrence, Mass., of American parents. About twenty-two years old. Single. Worked since a boy in Lawrence in the woolen mills until he lost position six weeks previously. Always lived with his people. Had never been hungry or without a bed. Came to New York two weeks previously but had done nothing since. Had just money enough left to go home, where he expected to obtain work again shortly. Looked thoroughly capable and reliable.

Nos. 10 and 11.

Two brothers born in New York of Irish parentage. Aged twenty-eight and thirty-one respectively. Both single. Parents dead. Had trade of awning makers, with plenty of work in summer but none in winter. Had never worked in the country. Had been living by means of odd jobs and charity all winter. Had received help from a mission and the Salvation Army. Quite often walked the streets all night and got coffee and rolls on the "bread line." Appeared shiftless and showed lack of initiative and intelligence.

No. 12.

Born in New York City of Irish parents. Twenty-six years old. Single. Did not know where his folks were. His mother was dead. Worked sometimes as a truck driver. Had worked at farm work in New Jersey. Had travelled a good deal. Had received help from charities in different cities. Got caught once riding a freight train through Philadelphia and spent ten days in jail for the offense. Said he drank when he got the chance. Now worked around the Army Hotel and received in return his bed and one meal ticket a day. Expected to leave the city as soon as the weather got warmer. Evidently a kind of tramp with a tendency to become worse. Looked wild and unreliable.

No. 13.

Born in Watertown, N. Y., of American parents. About thirty years old. Single. Had lost track of his people. Worked as steward on ship running to New Orleans. Was laid off three months ago. Expected to get position as steward again in the spring. Had walked the streets quite often, not being able to secure a bed. Had received help from several charities, including the Army. Looked dissipated and unreliable. Had never worked in the country.

No. 14.

Born in England. Came to this country when sixteen. People all dead. Thirty-two years old. Single. Never worked in the country. Regular trade was that of a painter but was not a Union man. Got odd jobs from time to time in paint shops. Made fifty cents the previous day. Had had no steady work for three months. Had forty dollars saved when he left his last steady job. Spent twenty dollars on a "drunk," and the rest had gone since. Appeared capable and fairly intelligent.

No. 15.

Born in Germany. Had come to this country with his people when young. His people all dead except a sister who was married and lived in Chicago. Single. About thirty-five years of age. Had no regular trade. Had worked as laborer in both country and city. Said that the city was best in Winter and the country in Summer. Expected to leave for the country as soon as the weather grew warm. Appeared lazy and inefficient. Had been aided by the Army. Evidently a tramp.

No. 16.

Born in Pittsfield, Mass., of American parents. Twenty-four years of age. Single. Ran away from home at seventeen. Did not know where his people were. Had no trade. Had worked at everything. Was in the navy for four years and afterward followed the water for several years working mostly as fireman. Never worked in the country. Had been out of steady work for six months. Secured lodging through charity but often spent the night on the streets. Said he drank when he could get it. Looked dissipated and demoralized.

No. 17.

Born in New York City of German parents. About thirty years old. Married but had left his wife. Had no regular trade.Had worked as waiter, porter and liveryman. Made fifty cents yesterday but spent forty for whiskey. Secured coffee and rolls on the "bread line." Had worked a little in the country. Appeared shiftless.

No. 18.

Born in Germany. Twenty-two years of age. Single. Wrote to his people sometimes. Always followed the water. Had sailed from different points to China and the Philippines. Drank and lost his boat. Made his way to New York where he had been out of work for two months. Wrote home for money which he expected shortly. Sold some of his clothing to get a bed. Was trying to get work on a boat. Never worked in the country. Looked wild and dissipated.

No. 19.

Born in Boston, Mass., of Irish parents. Twenty-five years of age. Single. Worked in machine shop when a boy and then joined the navy. After the navy experience he had worked both on water and on land. Had beaten his way on freight trains to different parts of the United States. Said he often got help from missions. Often slept in the parks in summer. Had been in jail several times. The last time for four months for stealing. Got out in August and had done odd jobs since. Had been several times in the Army hotel and several times in the City Lodging House. Had worked for a day or so in the country but did not know farming. Looked shiftless and demoralized.

No. 20.

Born in Binghamton, N. Y., of American parents. About thirty-five years of age. Single. Trade was lasting shoes in a shoe factory. Had worked in different cities but never in the country. Came to New York three months ago, as his factory had laid off a large number of hands. Had done odd jobs since.Walked the streets three nights the previous week and got coffee and rolls on the "bread line." Got a bed for the night this time through charity. Expected to get work in a factory when the weather became warmer. Drank occasionally but not often. Looked competent and of average intelligence.

No. 21.

Born in Ireland. Twenty-four years old. Single. Left home and had been in America one year. Worked in New York as waiter and lost his position three weeks previous to interview. Had some money saved but drank and lost it all on the Bowery. Walked the streets for one week and frequented the "bread line." Had a position, now, waiting on table during the dinner hour. Used to work on a farm in Ireland, and said that as soon as the weather got warm he would go to the country and look for work. Looked somewhat dissipated but hopeful.

No. 22.

Born in Brooklyn, N. Y. Twenty-six years old. Single. Had no trade. Had lost track of his people. Had travelled a good deal by means of freight trains and had been in several jails for vagrancy. Had never worked in the country. Said when he could get money, he spent it in drink. Secured a bed that night through an acquaintance. Looked like a confirmed tramp and vagrant.

No. 23.

Born in Hartford, Conn., of American parents. Twenty-one years old. Single. Parents dead. Had a married sister living in New Jersey, but he did not wish her to know that he was out of work. Had been working for years as a carpenter's assistant and hoped to become a full-fledged carpenter shortly. Had never worked in the country. Had been out of work for three months. Spent his money in a vain trip to Philadelphiaand back looking for work. Had been doing odd jobs but had often gone hungry. Did not like to ask for charity. Expected to work as soon as the contractors began the spring building. Did not drink. Looked intelligent, bright, and was a very hopeful case. Went through the grammar school.

No. 24.

Born in Boston of Irish parents. Fifty years old. Single. Had no people living. Trade was a hardwood finisher. Never worked in the country. Got out of work two months ago. Left Boston then and came to New York. Had a little money, but it was almost gone. Was crippled but could still work. Drank some. He was gray-haired and looked older than he was.

No. 25.

Born in Ireland. About sixty years old. Had been married, but his wife was dead, and he had no known relatives. Had been a seaman a good deal but had no regular trade. He worked on a farm two months in the West. Had travelled a good deal. He worked occasionally around the docks and made just enough to maintain himself. When he had money, he spent it rashly. Looked like a hard drinker.

No. 26.

Born in Boston of American parents. Fifty-seven years old. Single. Had no people. His trade was ship's cook. He had never worked in the country. Said that he was too old to get a position. He secured a bed that night through the kindness of a friend, also out of work. Had wandered around a great deal. He did not look dissipated but he was gray-haired and very feeble.

No. 27.

Born in Philadelphia of German parents. About forty years old. Single. Trade was that of a sign-painter. Said he hadworked mostly in Philadelphia and New York, and that he could get plenty of work, but kept losing his positions through drink. Had never worked in the country. Said he had people in Philadelphia but he did not write to them. Looked dissipated.

No. 28.

Born near Lynn, Mass., of American parents. Twenty years old. Single. Had no trade, but worked as dish-washer or at anything he could get. Said that he could run an engine and had been working on a boat in New York harbor but had to leave three weeks ago, on account of sickness. Was trying to get into a hospital. Money nearly gone. Was born and brought up on a farm but ran away nearly three years ago and did not want to go back, though his father and mother were living. Said he spent his money freely when he had it. He did not look dissipated but appeared to be a consumptive.

No. 29.

Born in New York City of Irish parents. About thirty-five years old. Single. Had no trade but had worked for years as driver on a horse-car. Got out of work four months ago and had no prospect of any. Got a small job cleaning out a saloon the previous day. Often walked the streets all night and went to the "bread line." Did not look very dissipated but evidently had no ambition. Did not know where his people were. Never worked in the country.

No. 30.

Born in Ireland. Sixteen years old. Single. Did not write home. Had trade of a cook and had been out of work for two weeks. Then had $100.00 and lost it all "on a drunk." Never worked in the country. Had walked the streets three nights the past week. Was going to New Jersey to look for work. Looked dissipated but otherwise capable.

No. 31.

Born in Scotland. Fifty-five years old. Married in Scotland and came with family to this country twenty-five years ago. Had no trade. Worked at anything he could get. Wife dead. Two children living, unable to help him. Had travelled widely. Obtained a steady job the previous month. Held it two weeks, then went "on a drunk." Still had enough money saved to keep him two weeks. Said that if he did not get work before then, he would leave New York. He knew a little about farm work in Scotland. Looked like a hard drinker.

No. 32.

Born in New York City of Irish parents. Sixty years old. Single. People all dead. Had no regular trade but had followed the water. Never worked in the country. Had some cousins in New York who helped him out a little. He looked dissipated and feeble.

No. 33.

Born in Philadelphia. American parents. Forty-three years old. Single. Salesman. Had been out of work all winter after losing a position through drink. Had received help from several aid societies and missions this winter. Had walked the streets a good many nights. Said he never worked in the country. Looked dissipated and unreliable.

No. 34.

Born in South Carolina. American parents. Twenty years old. Single. Did not write home. Said he ran away and his people were angry. Had no trade. Never worked in the country. Had walked the streets two nights this week. Looked intelligent but wild.

No. 35.

Born in Newark, N. J., English parents. Twenty-six years old. Single. Had no trade but worked as a janitor. Was in the navy for three years and had travelled widely. Had been out of work one month. Never worked in the country. Said he worked for a while and then "went off on a drunk." His people in Newark sent him money once in a while. Looked dissipated.

No. 36.

Born in Ireland. Thirty-eight years old. Single. When seven years old came to America with his people. Had two brothers and one sister in Schenectady, N. Y. Parents dead. His people did not aid him as he drank so much. Never worked in the country. Got an odd job now and then. Looked like a hard drinker.

No. 37.

Born in England. Thirty-six years old. Single. Came to America with his people when twelve years old. Went to Fall River, Mass., where his people lived. Ran away from home at eighteen and had followed the water since. Never worked in the country. Was paid off last Saturday. Went on a drunk on the Bowery and lost his money and his job. Walked the streets two nights, but received help from his people. Looked a little dissipated but capable.

No. 39.

Born in Yonkers, N. Y. American parents. Forty years old. Single. Father lived in Yonkers but was unable to help him. Plumber by trade. Did not belong to the Union. Was out of work for one month the past winter, but now had a job and was renting a room in the Army hotel. Never worked in the country. Looked like a hard drinker, but otherwise capable.

No. 40.

Born in New Haven, Conn. American parents. Twenty-five years old. Single. Relatives in New Haven poor. Was a telegraph operator and worked at that trade for two years, but lost position on account of bad health. Had worked on a farm quite a little, and said as soon as the weather got warmer he was going to the country. He now had a room at the Army hotel but his money was nearly gone. Looked intelligent and capable.

No. 41.

Born in New York City. American parents. Twenty-four years old. Single. Did not know where his relatives were. Had trade as truck driver, and since losing a steady job two months previously had worked at odd jobs about the docks. Spent two days at an Army Industrial Home and was now at the Army Hotel. He looked like a hard drinker. Never worked in the country.

No. 42.

Born in Scotland. Twenty-three years old. Single. Relatives lived in Scotland and sent him a little money sometimes. Had no regular trade. Had worked on the water a good deal. Came to New York two years previously, and had no steady work since. Had been nine months in the hospital from which he had been discharged two weeks. Expected to return to the hospital. Looked like a very sick man, but not dissipated.

No. 43.

Born in New York City. American parents. Twenty-eight years old. Single. No people alive. Had no trade. Had travelled around the world and never worked when he could help it. Never worked in the country. Looked like a regular tramp and hard drinker.

No. 44.

Born in Newark, N. J. French parents. Twenty-four years old. Single. Had two sisters in Brooklyn. Had no regular trade but had been working for three weeks in a grocery store and thus had a room in the Army Hotel. Never worked in the country. Looked capable and intelligent.

No. 45.

Born in Brooklyn. American parents. Twenty-four years old. Single. Had people in Brooklyn who were helping him. Had no trade but had worked all his life at odd jobs. Could not work steadily because of bad habits. Never worked in the country. Looked like a hard drinker.

No. 46.

Born in Jersey City. Irish parents. Thirty-five years old. Single. Was a painter by trade but did not belong to the Union. Had been out of work three months. Some friends gave him clothes and a little money. Looked intelligent but dissipated.

No. 47.

Born in Brooklyn. Irish parents. Thirty years old. Single. Had no trade. Worked on a farm in Long Island and hoped to go to the country shortly. Had had no steady work the past Winter. Had been in the Army Industrial Home six times during the Winter. Looked shiftless and dissipated.

No. 48.

Born in Lowell, Mass. Italian parents. Twenty years old. Single. People lived in Lowell. Had no trade. Never worked in the country. Came to New York two weeks previously with a little money, but this was soon spent and he had walked the streets two nights. Entered the Army Hotel through charity.Had written home for money and expected to return there. His appearance was very good.

No. 49.

Born in New York. American parents. Forty years old. Married. Separated from his wife three months ago because of his drinking. Had no trade. Never worked in the country. Had been out of work three months. Picked up odd jobs now and then, and thus secured a bed. Looked like a hard drinker.

No. 50.

Born in Germany. Seventeen years old. Single. Had people in Germany who were unable to help him. Had been in this country nine months. Said he was on a farm in New York State but ran away. The Salvation Army was keeping him, and he worked a little around the Hotel. Looked like a promising boy but rather wild.

No. 51.

Born in Denver, Col. American parents. Twenty-three years old. Single. Had people at home who sent him money now and then. Was an iron-worker. Belonged to the Union, but said the Union had not helped him any. Had been out of work some time. Never worked in the country. Had travelled a good deal in the United States. Looked bright and promising.

No. 52.

Born in Davenport, Washington. Twenty-four years old. Single. Had people at home where he had sent for money. Had travelled widely. Came to New York five weeks ago from Panama where he had been working for eight months. Had to leave on account of sickness. Had $100.00 when he came to New York but spent nearly all on doctors bills. Still had a little left.Said he had worked a good deal on a farm. Looked capable and intelligent.

No. 53.

American, born in New York. Thirty years old. Single. People dead. Bartender. Did not belong to the Union. Was out of work for one month until two weeks previous to interview, when he got a job as bartender. Was still working and had a room at the Army Hotel. Said he would be all right it he could leave drink alone. He never worked in the country.

No. 54.

Born in New York. Irish parents. Twenty-eight years old. Single. Had quarrelled with his people who lived in New York. Painter by trade. Lost his membership in the Union because he did not pay his dues. Had had no steady work for a year, but had wandered all over the country doing very little work, but receiving aid from charitable societies. Said he liked the warm weather, so that he could sleep in the parks. Looked shiftless and a typical tramp.

No. 55.

Born in Norway. About thirty years old. Single. Had people in Norway who did not help him. Came to New York from his native land two months previously. A carpenter by trade. Was working in Jersey and lost position two weeks previously. Had money in his pocket and was evidently wise enough to keep it. Conversed in broken English. Said he worked in the country in Norway. Looked like a capable man.

No. 56.

Born in Scotland. Forty-five years old. Single. Came to this country with his people when he was nine years old. People hadsince died. Bookkeeper by trade. Had been out of work all Winter. The Scotch Aid Society was keeping him, giving him bed and meal tickets. Said he had received help from four different missions in New York. Looked incapable and shiftless. Never worked in the country.

No. 57.

Born in Jersey City. American parents. Twenty-eight years old. Single. Had no trade. Did not work if he could help it. Came here from the West by means of freight trains. Never worked in the country. Looked like a regular tramp.

No. 58.

Born in Chicago. Single. Thirty-years old. Had friends in Chicago who sent him a little money. Had no trade. Never did hard work. Got odd jobs and received aid from missions. Said he was a Christian and liked to attend meetings. Had a room in the Army Hotel. Said he had been staying there off and on for two years. Looked stupid and incapable.

No. 59.

Born in Denver, Col. Fifty years old. Single. Plumber by trade. Belonged to the Union but left eight months previously and had not paid his dues since. Was in business for himself at one time, but lost it through drink. Said he got help from the missions whenever he could. Never worked in the country. Hoped to go West again shortly. Looked feeble and dissipated.

No. 60.

American. Born in Springfield, Mass. Fifty-five years old. Single. Said his people in Springfield were wealthy but would have nothing to do with him. Had no trade. In New York all Winter. Had walked the streets a good many nights. Neverworked in the country. Charity Organization Society had helped him, besides other organizations. Said he had consumption. Looked very weak and dissipated.

No. 61.

Born in America. Jewish parents. Twenty-six years old. Single. Stone-cutter by trade. Said he worked at the Insurance business at times. Had been out of work nearly two months. Never worked in the country. Looked bright and capable.

No. 62.

Born in Cleveland, Ohio. American parents. Twenty-six years old. Single. People lived in Cleveland, but did not help him. Had worked on a farm nearly all his life. Left the farm two years previously and had wandered most of the time since. He expected to be sent to the country by the Bowery Mission shortly. Looked shiftless but not dissipated.

No. 63.

Born in New York. American parents. About fifty years old. Married. Said his people were dead. Had no regular trade. Did office work, but was nearly always out of work. Said he was a Christian. He evidently followed the missions and "got saved" every time he needed help. Never worked in the country. Looked shiftless and inefficient.

No. 64.

Born in Brooklyn. English parents. Thirty years old. Married. Quarrelled with his wife five years previously and left her. Painter by trade. Did not belong to the Union. Had not worked all Winter. Said he had been all around the world and had beaten his way wherever he went. Had been in jail several times, for vagrancy and drunkness. Never worked in the country. Looked like a tramp.

No. 65.

Born in Maine. American parents. Twenty-four years old. Single. Had people in Maine from whom he expected help. Barber by trade. Came to New York three weeks previously. Met some friends on the Bowery and lost all his money. The Army was helping him. He had worked somewhat in the country. Looked very stupid.

No. 66.

Born in Scotland. About sixty years old. Single. Had no people. Had no trade. In this country for forty years. Out of work all Winter. The Scotch Aid Society had been keeping him now for three weeks. He never worked in the country. He looked like a regular vagrant.

No. 67.

Born in Boston. American parents. Twenty-four years old. Single. A waiter. Had wandered a good deal, and beaten his way by freight trains. Came to New York from the West one month previously. Had not worked since, but had been aided by the missions and the Army. Evidently did not like to work.

No. 68.

Born in Poughkeepsie, N. Y. Irish parents. About thirty-two years old. Single. Had no trade. Came to New York two weeks previously with some money which he got from his people. He had sent home for more. Worked somewhere in the country. Said he drank periodically and did not like to work steadily. Looked very shiftless.

No. 69.

Born in Ireland. Twenty-eight years old. Single. Had lost track of his people. Had been in this country eight years. Hadno trade. Had had no steady work all Winter. Drank a good deal. Never worked in the country. Looked very wild.

Back to Index Next