COMMUNICATIONS

To the Editor:

In most phases of life it is the little things that count. In the matter of prostitution we have heard so much about the big things—the inevitableness of it, because the man wants it, because the girl may have more money than her pay-envelope brings her, and the necessity for changing public opinion before any change in dealing with the situation can become effective—that we have become well-nigh overwhelmed by the magnitude of the evil. Yet, may we not expect shortly to gain public approval for two small and difficult yet perfectly feasible changes of method in handling the situation? These are my two suggestions:

1. When a house is raided, take all found in the house, women and men and put their names on the police-blotter.

2. Then, examine these people for venereal disease. Restrain the liberty of all the diseased, both women and men, till they are cured.

I am one of those heretics who are not particularly concerned with the exact law covering the matter at the present time in any particular place; it suffices me to know that not everywhere are these two regulations in force; nor does declaring unconstitutional the ordinances dealing with these things bother me. I am tremendously interested in seeing that these ideas get across.

When the public has made these two suggestions part of its conviction of the right way of doing things, then we will find the way to formulate workable, constitutional regulations embodying these suggestions.

“They” tell us that it is an infringement of the liberty of the individual when the women taken for soliciting or in houses are examined for disease. Most certainly it is. And practically all the other laws on our books curtail the liberty of the individual.

But, it is an infringement of the right of the community when men and woman with venereal disease go about freely. The community is interested in its own perpetuation. Therefore, it is interested that the prospective and the actual husband shall be just as clean from disease as the girl.

But, “they” say such handling of the situation does not meet the economic objection; these suggestions do not even attempt to provide more cash for the girl. Good, the suggestions do not solve the problem for her; that is just the point. She must solve it for herself. That is the only salvation worth having. Yet, not simply by herself and for herself. She will probably fail, if she attempts it alone. But, joining forces with other girls and working together, success will probably follow and there will probably be a greater amount of cash in the pay-envelope. That is worth most to the individual which is conquered into the person, not received as gift.

Putting these suggestions into practice will diminish greatly the number who “have to have it.” It will make sinning less popular.

Morgan T. Riley.

New York.

To the Editor:

In your issue of March 22 there is a reference and quotation from the statement of “Principles and Policies that Should Underlie State Legislation for a State System of Vocational Education,” adopted at the December meeting of the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education in Philadelphia, that tends to give a wrong impression of the attitude of the society regarding the matter of dual control referred to in Professor Dewey’s very clear and forcible article in the same issue.[4]

It may be stated without reservation that the executive committee of the society are unanimously of the belief that the best way to administer the new provisions for industrial education rapidly being enacted into laws in various states is by a state board of education which has all forms of education under its control.

The committee that developed the statement, however, recognized that in some states where no board of education exists and state control is represented by a superintendent of instruction, it is possible that the initial development of this new work may be best secured for a short period by a separate board of control. This point of view is embodied in a paragraph relating to statecontrol in the statement of “principles and policies,” as follows:

“Effective administrative control, on the part of the state, of both vocational and general education, requires the existence of a State Board possessing sufficient powers, effectively to supervise all forms of education receiving financial aid from the state. Should such a board not exist, in any state, or should it be found that an existing board is unprepared to deal effectively with the establishment and promotion of vocational education, then it is expedient that a special administrative Board of Control for Vocational Education shall be established until such time as a state board properly qualified to deal with all forms of state-aided education shall exist.”

The feeling of the representative committee which formulated the statement of “principles and policies” and which gave it careful consideration and discussion at the meeting at Philadelphia, was that such a separation of control while not desirable as a permanent arrangement, might under some circumstances be of value in effectively launching the new movement, might better secure a fair trial of new methods, and better arouse public opinion to its consideration.

The paragraphs quoted inThe Surveydo not relate to the matter of state control, which is the point under discussion in Professor Dewey’s paper, but to the question of separateness of instruction being accorded vocational schools and classes. By separate organization in this connection is meant a separate school organization. Separation to this extent, it is safe to say, a great majority of teachers and other educators who have been intimately connected with real work in industrial education (not merely with manual training as an element in the general course of study), thoroughly believe in as essential to effective results in this field. Such separateness of organization as is specified in the quoted paragraphs, is typified by the organization of the Manhattan Trade Schools for Girls, by the New York Vocational School for Boys, and by the various other vocational schools at Rochester, Albany and Buffalo in this state, all of which are administered by regular local school boards.

C. R. Richards.

[Director Cooper Union.]New York.

[Director Cooper Union.]

New York.

To the Editor:

Today it is Spring and in office and in schools, we find ourselves forgetting our work and leaning back to breathe the soft, warm air. Why is it that the Spring fever fills every one’s veins, and we find ourselves caring so little about the important interests upon which our minds were fixed. Why do we turn to dreaming of fields and blue distances and mornings when we discovered that some one was in love with us. On such days as these, for a few moments, the school-teachermuststop schooling, the tradermuststop trading, the reformermuststop reforming. What is the meaning of this? It is God’s holiday.

In these moments we learn one of the great lessons of life. After all, it is the cosmic forces that make the world. We learn the great lesson of trust. Little do our efforts accomplish to brighten and beautify the world. But when the Spring comes, even in Mulberry street the children sing and shout, and soft gray buds are ready to burst from the few trees in Alton Park Place.

In these moments we learn the highest, best in life: that which comes not from our own efforts but is the gift of God.

Clarence D. Blachly.

Chicago.

To the Editor:

The Woman’s Club of Havana would be very grateful if when social workers of the United States anticipate visiting our city they would kindly let us know as we want to avail ourselves of any opportunity to get in touch with their work.

Our club is young and working under unusual circumstances. It is composed of Cubans and Americans. A cordial welcome and appreciative hearing would be given to any one willing to help us by speaking before the club.

We feel that all such courtesies not only strengthen the union between our countries but make for the better understanding and development of both.

Ione R. Van Gorden.

[Secretary Woman’s Club of Havana.]

In readingThe Surveyof March 29, I was interested in the Shoppers’ Puzzle on page 913. It certainly seems unfair to people employed all during the week in offices and factories to deprive them of their only opportunity to do their shopping Saturday afternoons. On the other hand while they are having their half holiday the clerks who wait on them are deprived of the half holiday so much needed during the hot summer months.

Would it not be possible, however, for the St. Louis Consumers’ League to arrange with the heads of the department stores to give the customary half holiday on some other day—say Thursday or Friday?

I was in England last June and there was a great deal of discussion in the papers over the enforcement of a law compelling a weekly half holiday in every line of business. In London business was suspended at 1 P. M. Saturday, but in Oxford we learned to our sorrow that the closing day was Thursday.

One of our party being in need of a dentist one Thursday afternoon we started out to find one about 2 o’clock. Not one was to be seen until 9:30 Friday morning, we were told. “The next best thing, we decided, would be to consult a druggist or “chemist,” but there again we were met with barred doors and drawn curtains. Finallyappealing to a “bobby” we were directed to a shop where we could ring a night bell and get some attention. When we told the chemist that in America the drug stores were always open even when other places of business were closed he said that in England it was against the law. He also explained that the country towns in England had the half holiday during the week as Saturday was the country market day. In Winchester the closing day was Wednesday. This is offered as one answer, though there may be better ones for this modern industrial puzzle.

Jean Allison.

Allentown, Pa.

To the Editor:

In your issue of March 15, 1913, you describe the ringing of a bell, every five minutes, to indicate the unearned increment of $1,000 in New York city real estate. This corresponds to a yearly increase of a little over $106,000,000. As stated further on, however, the community takes over $57,000,000 of this, directly, in taxes. It is perfectly true that the industries of the city account for the increase in value. But, on the other hand, the men who own and have built skyscrapers on the land have made the space in which the community lives. The land area itself is utterly inadequate for the business and living room of the community. There does not seem to be any great injustice in leaving for the men who have bought and improved and who manage this land, between 40 and 43 per cent of the increase, especially as the increase is itself subject to an increased assessment and progressive taxation.

Looking at the matter in another way, the owner of land in New York is allowed a trifle over 1½ per cent a year interest on his investment. Unless he makes a high rate of interest on the buildings, and the general experience for most cities is that 5 per cent on a realty investment is rather beyond the average, it does not appear that his profits are usurious.

A comparatively small fraction of the great fortunes of the country is invested in realty, and for the country as a whole real estate is the safeguard of the poor but thrifty. To reduce rents below the average interest on conservative investments is to discourage thrift and home owning. Temporarily and to a small degree increase of land tax will stimulate building and thereby, by disturbing the relation of supply and demand, reduce rents. But this effect will last only until those who hold unsalable land have made the best of a bad investment. No one will continue to engage in any kind of a business beyond the point at which it yields a return fairly equivalent to that obtainable in other lines.

It is almost an axiom that 4 per cent of the total cost of any kind of a building must be allowed for taxes, insurance, repairs, depreciation, &c. As much as 9 or 10 per cent of the investment must therefore be charged in rentals, to equal even quiet investments which require very little personal attention. In a small town or in suburbs, where the land value is about $200 for a twenty-foot front lot, a cottage can be built, with proper plumbing and lighting equipment, so as to represent a total investment of somewhat less than $1,000. This corresponds to a yearly rental of $90, or thereabouts. How far the enormously increased land value can be counterbalanced by building on a large scale, but with inevitably more expensive material, is a question to be carefully considered. But the rental must be calculated on a business basis unless the problem is solved by a frank reversion to charity.

While it is unfortunate that any one should be poor, it does not seem strange that 30 per cent of the earnings of the very poor, in a city where there is literally too little land for the inhabitants, should go for a home. Rent nowadays often includes water, care of exterior of premises, and sometimes heat and light. A generation ago 25 per cent, without any of these extras, was considered a fair average for the moderately well-to-do family.

A. L. Benedict, M.D.

[EditorBuffalo Medical Journal.]Buffalo.

[EditorBuffalo Medical Journal.]

Buffalo.

To the Editor:

As long as most mothers were able to stay at home and personally care for their babies, the care of children remained an individual matter. But, present economic conditions which force so many young mothers to earn a living away from their homes and babies, present this problem. How shall these babies be adequately cared for, in their mother’s absence?

The public nurseries are charitable institutions for the children of the poor. The middle-class working women, who earn enough to pay a little for the care of their babies, are not permitted to leave their little ones in them. But, even if they are permitted to do so, no intelligent mother would be willing to do so. For these nurseries attempt to minister only to physical wants. Although the needs of the child at infancy seem to be largely physical, we know, that from the day of its birth, the infant is getting impressions and forming habits. The manner in which we satisfy his needs, the habits which he forms under our care, shape his future character,—and yet, the training of the so-called trained nurses in charge of the average nursery, enables them to attend to the physical needs only. We all realize the need of professionally trained teachers for the kindergarten and school age. Is it not equally important to have trained specialists at infancy, the most important stage of Childhood?

Though the present day nurseries need improvement, their charges fare better than those left at home, to the mercy of hired servants. The collective work of an institution carries with it a sense of social responsibility for those entrusted to its care. What sense of responsibility can we expect from an ignorant hired servant? The self-supporting mother of moderate means has no alternative. She must either give up herwork and sometimes deprive her family of the necessities of existence or else abandon her babe to the hands of an ignorant servant.

Women of means can hire trained specialists for their babies. The poor are helped by settlement nurseries, but the intelligent self-supporting mothers, such as school-teachers and journalists, are utterly helpless, each groping blindly with her own individual problem that can no longer be solved individually. These women, while compelled to do a man’s work, never can have that singleness of mind that a man has while attending to his business.

The problem faced by these mothers can be solved only by social co-operative measures. The establishment of a new type of public nursery to meet the demands of intelligent mothers is now under way. To distinguish it from the prevailing nurseries it is to be called “the baby garden.” The children are to be divided into the following groups according to age: Infants of one year or less; babies from a year to two years; those from two to four years. Only experts in baby culture specially trained to meet the needs of each of these individual groups are to be placed in charge. The baby garden will be surrounded by open-air balconies so that the children may be out of doors the greater part of the day. Mothers who are so tied up that they cannot go to the doctor or the dentist or attend to their necessary shopping for the family without dragging baby along, will be permitted to bring their babies for a few hours each day.

It is hoped that in time such baby gardens will become either self-supporting or public institutions. The plan here outlined has been approved by a number of public-spirited people who have promised to temporarily subsidize this baby garden provided fifty mothers endorse the scheme by their readiness to enroll their babies. The amount to be paid for the care of these babies will be decided at a meeting of the mothers who endorse the plan. All who are interested may communicate with me at 516 East 78th Street.

[Mrs.] A. Levitas.

New York.

To the Editor:

I want to get together a collection of pictures from which to make slides for a lecture on illustrated immorality in its relation to our people, to the city and to the state. Will you not publish this letter asking for suggestions from your readers. To give an idea of my purpose I have on my list the Laocoön, St. Michael and the Dragon and St. George, Sir Galahad, Circe and the Swine, the triumphal march of Bacchus, a picture published by the ChicagoTribunelast September illustrating the tale of a white slave, and a most effective picture used widely in Atlanta of a hideous monkey-man beast carrying the body of a girl under one arm and a bludgeon in the other hand.

I want more symbolical pictures like these and I want also pictures representing actual conditions in our cities, depicting perhaps the temptations to the young. With the latter I would have to have some exact information. I include, of course, the saloon in the scope of my interests as I see no distinction between the twin evils, the saloon and the bawdyhouse.

Howard A. Kelly, M.D.

Baltimore.

To the Editor:

So it seems that my fellow “Socialist agitators” and I are leading around by their noses such staid and proper citizens as are to be found in the City Club of New York, the New York Federation of Labor and the American Association for Labor Legislation.[5]And because some of us are advocating here and now in New York that employers shall be permitted self-insurance, mutual insurance or contribution to a state managed fund, we are “seeking to destroy private business in all its forms.” But F. Robertson Jones, who is one of those “employes of the casualty companies who have their bread and butter at stake,” really need not be so perturbed. No one really proposes “to transfer their jobs to political appointees and to leave them out in the cold.” That is a “pure figment of the imagination” to make use of Mr. Jones’ own restrained language. There are many good men working for the state now and there will be more when Mr. Jones and his fellow-employes are taken over to apply to the public good the experience and knowledge gained in private enterprises. And if public service is too contaminating, there will still be the self insurers, and the mutuals in which those left “out in the cold” may find ready employment. Let me hasten to add that I do not make this statement “sneeringly” and that I hope a sober consideration of it will carry conviction that if untrue, at least it is not “unqualifiedly untrue.”

One example will do as well as a dozen to illustrate my point about the attitude of the casualty companies toward “elective” acts. It is well known that those companies opposed the New Jersey “elective” act at the start. Seeing its tremendous advantages they then became active in its support. As illustrating this point, I need only refer to the energy and insistence with which the officers and counsel of various casualty companies tried to put through, in the closing days of the session last year in New York, a bill fashioned on the New Jersey model. A special message from the governor and a special session of the Legislature were talked of and only the uncompromising persistence of the State Federation of Labor and the American Association for Labor Legislation saved the employes of this state from something even worse than the New Jersey act. The author of that proposed New York bill, when it emerged from the conference called by certain casualty officials and attorneys disowned it, it was so bad.

The Pennsylvania commission is an example of a commission advised by more than casualtycompanyactuaries. Of that act a commissioner from another state writes: “The Pennsylvania act is calculated to turn the employe over to the “Shylocks” and loan sharks in the liability business. The report of the Pennsylvania commission outlines the most abominable act that it has been my privilege to examine, and it fully maintains the reputation of the state of Pennsylvania as being the ‘rotten borough’ of the world.”

No facts are quoted to prove that my statement as to the club feature is “diametrically the opposite of the truth.” If the scheme does not work out to the advantage of the casualty companies it would be interesting to know why not. We would all agree that what the companies most desire is that they shall get the employers, “or all large employers,” to “come permanently under the compensation feature or to stay out permanently”—exactly my point. Under such happy circumstances prospective profits are beyond the dreams of avarice. Maybe the profits have not been made yet, certainly I have not so stated, It is the prospect which is so alluring, the profits so nearly within grasp which are now slipping through their very fingers, because of these “ill-advised enthusiasts” and other undesirable citizens.

And is it, then, “a purely gratuitous misstatement of the fact” that the casualty companies opposed, tooth and nail, the Ohio compulsory act which, by the way, does not give a monopoly to political boards? Do they not oppose such an act here in New York today? Have they not opposed it in Iowa, California and Washington?

As to the casualty companies having been most active “for a constitutional amendment in New York,” so far as I have observed, that activity has been very largely confined, as has that of certain lawyers, to advocating such changes in the amendment as would defeat the whole broad purpose of last year’s amendment. If listened to by the Legislature these advocates would have put off for another three years the much to be desired amendment to our constitution.

The objections to the fixing of rates by the insurance department are two-fold. First, that that department is not “composed of officials expert” in casualty insurance; second, that Senator Foley at the public hearing at Albany, in order to meet the criticism of the American Federation of Labor, proposed a state fund divorced from the state insurance department. This was an important concession to labor and was so intended. Labor and many others had fears of the state insurance department, remembering the influence of the insurance interests before Superintendent Emmett took charge and fearing their influence after his retirement. That the “constitutional objections have been carefully considered and that the overwhelming weight of opinion is that they are not valid” is, as Mr. Jones would say, “a purely gratuitous misstatement of the facts,” “a figment of the imagination,” if not, indeed, “a gratuitous insult” to our intelligence. A few lawyers retained by the casualty insurance companies may disagree with us, but that hardly makes such a weight of opinion as to be overwhelming. As to bar associations, all that is needed is to look up the clients of some of these association committeemen. If what is wanted is a duly attested power of attorney of the casualty companies, I must admit that I cannot produce it.

If the Foley bill be studied with a little more care and with some understanding of the lengths to which insurance agents will go and have recently been going in Wisconsin, to misrepresent the state fund, the statement about turning over the rich New York field may not appear as such “nonsense.” It is to be remembered, too, that at the time the Foley bill was introduced, the accompanying bill providing for the organization of mutuals made such organization a matter of extreme difficulty. This has been somewhat remedied lately, more or less at the instigation, I fear, of the aforementioned enthusiasts and Socialists.

The men who were openly planning the rout of the casualty companies at the time I wrote were the State Federation of Labor, of course. To that valiant and determined host has now been added the American Association for Labor Legislation, the Progressive Party in which ex-Superintendent of Insurance Hotchkiss is so important a figure and Colonel Roosevelt.

Paul Kennaday.

New York.

Back to Index Next