COMMUNICATIONS

THE WEST VIRGINIA COAL STRIKE

To the Editor:

I read with much interest the article by Mr. West in the April 5 number ofThe Surveyand I must raise my voice in protest against taking Mr. West too seriously. I have lived with the miners of West Virginia for the past four years and have made a pretty thorough study of the entire situation.

It is perhaps hardly to be expected that a newspaper reporter visiting the field during the struggle would get an unbiased view of the situation.

No one who is conversant with the situation would deny that there are two sides to the fight and that both have made their mistakes. The question of union or non-union has little to do with it. The worst living and working conditions are to be found in some of the union settlements along the Kanawha river; perhaps there are some equally bad ones in non-union fields. The best working and living conditions of West Virginia are found in non-union fields. Yet, I do not wish to be understood as arguing against unions, as I do not believe that the union question has much bearing on the real conditions.

It is simply the character of the operators and the men themselves that determines the conditions of any mining settlement. There is much mis-understanding and mis-information among the men themselves.

Mr. West mentions the company stores as being a source of contention. Now, it is true that in some of the stores some articles are priced too high, but, on the other hand, men are often mis-informed as to prices in other places. To illustrate, in the early days of the strike a miner on Cabin Creek told me he was paying $1.20 per bushel for potatoes at the company store that could be bought in Charleston for $.60. The next day I was in Charleston and meeting a farmer on the street, selling his own product, I learned that the price was $.30 per peck. My miner friend therefore had jumped at a conclusion that the facts would not justify, and yet that same man could, by this mis-information, stir up much dissatisfaction.

When I lived in Charleston, I used frequently to buy meat at the company store and take it home, a distance of thirty miles, because I could buy it from three to five cents per pound cheaper than in Charleston. On the other hand, I saw in two different stores in another district, bedsteads marked $7, the exact counterpart of which I have bought myself in Charleston for $4.50. Such a profit as this certainly is not justifiable. Taken all in all, the prices on necessities do not vary to any great extent between the company and the independent stores when one considers the additional cost of transportation.

Nothing is more dangerous than truth and error mixed. Mr. West says the operators have a larger number of men than they can make use of at each operation and that the reason of this is that they may have their houses filled. The real fact is that nearly every operation must have from 20 to 30 per cent more men than are needed in order to run the mine to the full capacity, as about that proportion will lay off work each day. I have tried to find the reason for this and have been told repeatedly by the miners themselves that since they could earn enough money in four or five days to support themselves for a week they could see no reason why they should work every day.

The “guard system” is certainly not an ideal one. Neither are all of the men serving as guards ideal citizens. They certainly have been guilty of many of the abuses which might be expected from so much authority with so little responsibility to the state. But there must be some method of policing the mining districts. Thus far the state and county have failed to provide police facilities, and an “absentee” police system would make crime easy to commit in such a country. Thus far, there has been no improvement suggested by those who are leading this insurrection.

In regard to the housing, if Mr. West or any one else could build one of the four room cottages at a labor expense of $40., or even twice that, he would be in great demand as a contractor for house building. Moreover, any operator would be glad to get his houses built at a net expense of twice the figures given by Mr. West. One needs only to visit the houses vacated by miners to convince himself that the 10 per cent income on the actual investment will hardly pay for repairs. The average miner is not at all careful as to where he collects his kindling wood. I have seen many houses with from one to four doors and perhaps a quarter of the ceiling missing, having been used for this domestic purpose.

One real difficulty with the miners is a lack of constructive leadership. When they are taught such anarchistic ideas as that voiced by Mr. Houston at the investigation of the commission, it is no wonder that such men, under the leadership of individuals, whose past history will hardly bear the light of day, band themselves together for desperate purposes. Mr. Houston stated that the miner should be paid every cent that the coal brings in the market, except what the railroad gets for transportation, and there are many mine workers who actually believe this.

My sympathy is with the miner whose work is dangerous and who should have every consideration consistent with good order and business conditions. There is no calling which requires so little investment on the part of the worker that brings such returns in money. Any miner in the Cabin Creek or Paint Creek field who is willing to work steadily can earn anywhere from $3 to $6 per day and many earn more than this clear. The real difficulty with these men is that they need education and training as to how to care for their money after it has been earned. It is true that there are many days when the mines cannot run owing to breakdowns or lack of sufficient cars in which to load the coal. This latter reason is especially frequent in some sections.

I have hardly touched the subject but I dohope this matter will be thoroughly investigated and I personally believe no person is more anxious for a federal investigation than the operator himself, although Mr. West says the operators oppose such an investigation.

Ira D. Shaw.

[Industrial Department, the International Committee of the Young Men’s Christian Association.]

Pittsburgh.

To the Editor:

I went to the strike district unprejudiced. My instructions were to tell the truth about the situation. I did so to the best of my ability. I believe I was fair. In my article inThe SurveyI simply told what I saw in the mines. I believe such conditions as exist there are brutalizing in the extreme. I believe they are responsible for much of the lawlessness that exists throughout West Virginia.

In regard to the cost of the houses, I was told in the mines by a well informed man that the labor cost on a certain set of the cottages erected some years before had been $40 each. That is not at all unreasonable. Two carpenters at $2.50 a day each could build one of them in eight days. As I happen to be somewhat familiar with building operations I am confident that my figures are not out of the way, especially when you consider that the land on which the buildings stand cost little or nothing. The expense for lumber was only the cost of sawing the timber already at hand, plus the cost of window frames and doors, bricks for the chimneys, composition roofing and the little hardware required.

It is true that some of the things sold in the company stores are sold at prices no higher than those which prevail in Charleston. Some of the prices may even be lower. That is really not the point. It is the fact that men are compelled, by one means or another, to deal at the company stores. That has always been a grievance among miners. I reported the Frostburg strike in the George’s Creek region of Maryland twenty years ago for theBaltimore Sun. While the conditions there were ideal as compared with those now existing in the Kanawha valley, the company store was one of the greatest grievances of the men.

I stand by what I have said about the crowding of the mines and the mine guard system. I know the miners are not all they should be, but they are not to be measured by the standards among men whose opportunities have been greater. Theirs is a skilled occupation and a dangerous one. Yet they have few if any of the advantages of the men of other skilled occupations and live under conditions that are oppressive and brutalizing. The stock argument that they can earn anywhere from $3 to $6 a day if they work steadily is idle. No set of men who could earn from $18 to $36 a week would live under such conditions as prevail in the mines. Mr. Shaw says there is no calling which requires so little investment on the part of the worker that has such returns in money. That is a very broad statement. Investment in what, in tools or in time spent in learning the trade? How about the bricklayer, the Belgian block paver, the stone-mason, the plasterer or any one of a dozen trades that might be mentioned?

As for the desire of the operators for an investigation. I stated that the operators opposed such an investigation. Mr. Shaw has hisbeliefthat the operators would welcome one. I have the statement of the representative of the operators that they would oppose any investigation, state or federal, because of “its unsettling effect on the men.” And the letter of the operators opposing an investigation on the part of the state, proposed by the then Governor Classcock, and refusing to become a party to it, is on file among the records in the capitol of West Virginia.

My statements were conservative and most of them even at this late date are susceptible of proof by any commission of investigation. Finally it is up to theSurveyreaders whether they take the article seriously or not. If the criticisms of Mr. Shaw are the most serious that can be brought against my article, I do not fear that my reputation for accuracy will be greatly damaged.

Harold E. West.

[Staff of theBaltimore Sun.]

Baltimore.

To the Editor:

The excuses of the St. Louis firms quoted by the Consumers’ League of that city are all too familiar to those who have been interested in the Saturday half-holiday elsewhere. There is always one department at least under the roof of every reluctant merchant which positively cannot be closed on Saturday afternoon and evenings for the two summer months, either because of the heavy trade on that day, or because competitors among the single-line stores keep open. Then there is the alleged hardship to working people in that their only shopping time would be taken away.

The one thing which is not heard from such employers in discussing the question is that Saturday is the day when clerks most need a respite, especially in cities where it is not only the weariest day, but the longest.

Has it occurred to the St. Louis League that the day of heaviest trade bears some relation to advertising? Their reactionary firm probably makes an advertising feature of Saturday bargain sales. This firm ought to realize that in cities where the Saturday half-holiday is most general and successful the Saturday trade has not been lost but has been readjusted by a shift of bargain sales to other days.

The argument based on the working-men’s need has a semblance of truth and might have more if the early closing were for more than the eight or nine Saturdays of July and August. Most working-men can arrange to do necessary shopping at some other time for those few weeks. Many of them in trades which have the eight hour day have the hour from five to six, in addition to the noon-hour daily—and inthe case of family-buying there is the wife who is the natural shopper. When the matter came up in Syracuse labor leaders assured the Consumers’ League that the argument had no real basis.

Let us hope that the Consumers’ League of St. Louis may be able to convince its reactionary firm that the approval and consequent patronage of the public the year round is worth as much as its trade in men’s furnishings on Saturday afternoons of July and August.

Emily Lovett Eaton.

[President Consumers’ League of Syracuse.]

Syracuse, N. Y.

To the Editor:

It has always been a puzzle to me why the weekly half holiday, so strongly advocated for store and factory workers, should be Saturday rather than a mid-week afternoon and why all the stores in any city should close on the same afternoon.

Half the number closed on Wednesday, the others closed on Thursday afternoons would necessitate a change in pay day, possibly in positions where members of the same family work in different stores. Open stores on Saturday afternoon ought to be a help to the class of people who never have anything ahead, to keep the Sunday ordinances.

S. P. Quigley.

Ovid Center, N. Y.

To the Editor:

The Surveyof March 29 printed a letter from me telling of a problem with regard to Saturday afternoon summer closing. A St. Louis department store (one of a chain of stores established in various cities under one firm) kept open all last summer on Saturday afternoons. The president of the corporation told representatives of the Consumers’ League that the stock-holders would never consent to Saturday closing because a great bulk of business was done in the men’s furnishing department at this time, the only time men have for shopping.

A few weeks ago the Consumers’ League laid their problem before the Central Council of Social Agencies. The trades unions sent the firm word of their objection to the custom of remaining open Saturday afternoons during the summer months. The Retailers’ Association added their protest.

A committee from the Central Council called on the corporation president. He gave this committee the same negative answer that the Consumers’ League Committee had received. But the dismissal was not final. Soon he sent for the Central Council Committee to return. He gave them the news that the store would close Saturday afternoons during the summer months, as is the custom of all other large St. Louis department stores. He said that the firm had always done all in its power for its employes and, as it was agreed that keeping open Saturday afternoons was not consistent with the best welfare of the employes, the store would close at that time. Of course the contention that closing Saturday afternoons would deprive men of their shopping time and would only increase night shopping remains unanswered.

At any rate, the fear that other department stores might follow the example set by this particular one is banished.

Althea Somerville Grossman.

St. Louis.

To the Editor:

In the health section of your issue for April 19, the writer saw your article on Courses on Sex Hygiene. Considering the fact that these lectures were given expressly for social workers, it was surprising to learn that only the first few were well attended. If there is any subject demanding the attention of social workers, it surely is this most important one.

About eighteen months ago a young woman, a member of the Factory Committee of the Wolf Company’s plant, incidentally mentioned the interest taken in a series of lectures on this subject given to members of a girls’ club in one of the main social houses on the East Side. The question of giving these lectures was immediately taken up with the management, with the result that four series of four lectures each were given to about 175 employes. This was the first time that many of these workers had the opportunity of learning, in a dignified and instructive manner, the interesting story of reproduction.

The lectures were given by Nellie M. Smith whose book containing these talks, The Three Gifts of Life[1]has recently been published, and many of those who attended the lectures purchased copies of this volume with the intention of giving them to their mothers or younger sisters to read.

1. The Three Gifts of Life. By Nellie M. Smith. Dodd, Mead & Co. 138 pp. Price $.50; by mail ofThe Survey$.56.

These same lecturers are now being given by a large industrial corporation in this city which is always ready to investigate thoroughly, any work that makes for the betterment of the life of its workers. Furthermore, the question of giving these lectures to six other manufacturing establishments is now being seriously considered.

It might be well to mention that these lectures were merely announced to the workers and in no case was attendance compulsory. They were given without charge during regular working hours.

Our workers have surely benefited by the knowledge gained through this course and the writer trusts that many other manufacturing concerns will give this matter serious thought. It is an established fact that the worker cannot get full production from any power machine unless the human machinery is properly cared for, and but few persons thoroughly understand how to best care for themselves.

W. Irving Wolf.

New York City.

SEGREGATING VICE

To the Editor:

It is not a little curious that in all the agitation on the vice question no one has suggested what has always seemed to me the evident solution of the whole matter. Without a second thought, if there were no men there would be no prostitutes; the men are the sole and only source of the whole evil. I am aware that segregation has its drawbacks. It does stimulate clandestine prostitution. It has the fault of legalizing a shameful business. Also under our present conditions it supplies an opportunity for graft. But overruling all these disadvantages is the fact that it facilitates the catching of the men. This is impossible in hotels and apartment houses, but if men found frequenting the segregated district were seized and submitted to compulsory examination, it would only be the blatant sinners who would ever run the risk, and the number of such customers would be greatly reduced.

This suggestion may appear Utopian, for do not the originators of prostitution themselves make the laws? However, there now seems some chance of the public conscience, male and female, being widely aroused and it is possible that the originators of the whole evil may not escape the dragnet.

H. Martyn Hart.

Denver.

To the Editor:

The present excessive demand for prostitution which comes largely from young boys is, I believe, caused by the nature of our present social organism which abnormally emphasizes the sex relation and puts it before every other influence a boy meets. Women’s dress, current literature, musical comedies and problem plays, “smutty” stories told by boys among themselves, even our advertisements—all combine to throw a fascinating glamor around sex indulgence and develop an abnormal instinct in our boys, which takes command of their nervous system and insists that sex indulgence is necessary.

The average boy of eighteen cannot think of marriage for economic reasons, but his nature craves action, and under these ever-present influences he comes to believe that the perfect “good time” is sex indulgence—and he will exercise all his ingenuity, when with a girl, to attain his goal. No one, who is not in the confidences of young people, has the least idea of the pressure thus brought to bear on girls. The girl finds it necessary in order to hold a boy’s attention, with the amusements and companionship that goes with it, to do as he wants; many girls fall through their perfectly natural desire for healthful recreation which they can get more plentifully by giving in—or through a sentimental desire to retain the favor of boys who are satisfied with nothing short of intercourse.

The ultimate remedy must be to put against this “prevailing spirit of the times” a powerful combatting influence, which will establish in our boys a high ideal of womanhood and marriage.

E. C. S.

Swissvale, Pa.

To the Editor:

Many persons interested in social betterment work, have written to me enquiring about the Free Acres Colony at Berkeley Heights, N. J.

If you can get along without gas and a janitor and plumbing and a land lord and other modern improvements, you can build your own one room tent-shaped bungalow for $40 there, and make your own clothes and be as respected as you are respectable. Later, you may make it your residence. Any handy man or woman might make a living chopping wood, or gardening, and so forth, and no one there will either give you anything or try to take anything away from you; for in this co-operative land-ownership there is no speculative element.

On a co-operative basis, Free Acres affords an opportunity to own a rural home without having to buy land. But it is as secure as buying, for the lease is a perpetual lease and can be transferred. At present it is pioneering; there are no established industries there as yet, but opportunity is open to anyone to establish them. You can lose yourself in the woods which surround the farm, although it’s only twenty-seven miles from the City Hall in New York.

Bolton Hall.

New York City.

To the Editor:

In 1908 when, after a revolution, Turkey proclaimed a constitutional government someone had to pay the penalty for the disturbance. As usual the Armenians paid it with the massacre of 25,000 Christians at Adana. Now that the Turk is being driven out of Europe upon whom is his wrath going to fall?

Greeks, Bulgarians, Servians and Roumanians all have served their time under the Turkish rule of massacre and oppression but they were fortunate. Geographical conditions helped them to free themselves. The Armenians revolted, too, although isolated from Christian neighbors and surrounded by ten Turks and Kurds to one Armenian.

The Armenian is the tiller of the land in Asia Minor. During the old regime because of the systematic oppression, some of the Armenians had to emigrate to earn a living. Others could not work their lands for the government had sold their oxen for taxes. The lands of these unfortunates, were grabbed by force by the Turks. For four years during the constitutional government this question was before the Turkish Parliament and was never settled. The Ottoman government can never realize that the poverty of the public means the poverty of the government.

Asiatic Turkey is blessed by fine agricultural land, yet Turkey instead of exporting wheat has to import flour. During the war while I was in Constantinople half of that city was without bread for a day and a half on one occasion. The soldiers brought over from Asia Minor werewithout food and they were plundering the bakeshops in the city.

In 1908 when Austria annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, the young Turks invited all the Moslem population of these regions to migrate to Turkey and promised them money and lands. Thousands responded but they were disappointed and were saddled on the Christian population of Macedonia. This started a natural hatred towards the Moslems, and when the war started these immigrants wisely flew towards Asia Minor, the promised land. The government is shipping them to Asia Minor and Armenia at the rate of 1,500 a day. What will become of the Armenians on whom is already saddled twice more than they can endure by the Asiatic horde of Turks and Kurds?

The war was renewed because Turkey did not wish to have a few Mosques in Adrianople under the Christian rule. Yet the Turk did not think anything about the ancient churches in Asia Minor that were defiled and ruined by the Moslem hordes, nor of the bodies of the clergy which were mutilated in time of peace.

What kind of government can one expect from a race that has no such thing as home and family in the civilized sense of domestic conduct, laws, sincerity and happiness? And what kind of laws and ruling can be expected for the infidel and subject race to the above government? Yet Europe will content itself believing that the Turk will be good hereafter and will enforce the traditionary promised reforms in Armenia.

Y. M. Karekin.

New York City.

To the Editor:

The Surveyof April 12 announced the appointment of the new committees of the National Conference of Charities and Correction, stating that pursuant to the recent amendment to the by-laws Frank Tucker, the president of the conference had requested the committees to begin their work immediately. It was pointed out in your article that the Committee on Organization has been in many respects the keystone of the national conference and that its duties have been difficult and arduous.

Under the revised by-laws the duties of this committee are simplified. It is no longer obliged to make its report within a few days of its appointment. There are, however, certain disadvantages in the new plan from the point of view of members of the conference who desire to have a voice in its organization. Under the old plan, in spite of the fact that the committee was thrown into the turmoil of conference politics, the active members of the conference were all there and had an opportunity to be heard by the Committee on Organization. Under the new plan the committee is expected to have its work practically done by the time the conference meets. Unless the committee adopts a procedure which is democratic it may properly be open to the charge of making conference politics worse instead of better.

As chairman of the committee, therefore, I desire to announce through the columns ofThe Surveythat it is the desire of Mr. Tucker and myself, in which I am sure the members of the committee concur, that all interested members of the National Conference of Charities and Correction will have ample opportunity to express their views in reference to matters with which the Committee on Organization is concerned. There will be a number of open meetings both before and after reaching Seattle at which all those interested in the conference will be welcome.

It is my desire that this committee shall truly represent the wishes of the conference with reference to all matters of organization. Inasmuch as the president is anxious that this committee shall have a tentative report ready soon after the conference opens in Seattle I wish to urge all readers ofThe Surveywho are interested in the national conference to submit their suggestions as early as possible. We especially want your suggestions regarding the following:

1. Topics for discussion.

2. The names of the committees.

3. The membership of the committees, the committee chairmen and vice-chairmen.

The following dates have been set for open meeting: Friday, May 16; Tuesday, May 27; Friday, June 13.

These meetings will be held at 4 P. M., in Room 214, United Charities Building, 105 East 22nd Street, New York city. Kindly put the dates on your calendar. If you cannot come send your suggestions to the undersigned at the above address.

John A. Kingsbury.

[Chairman Committee on Organization, National Conference of Charities and Correction.]

New York City.

To the Editor:

During the year 1912, the Domestic Relations Court of Brooklyn, established in 1910, disbursed through the Department of Charities, which maintains a branch office in the court building, $101,660.45. That amount was made up of small payments ranging from $1 to $10, which the delinquent husband and father was ordered by the court to pay toward the support of his wife and children.

The method of disbursing the money is crude and archaic. The women are paid in cash at the cashier’s office in the court, thus necessitating the expenditure of time and carfare. The office of the cashier in the Brooklyn court is open from 9 A. M. until 3 P. M., except Saturday and Monday. Saturday the office closes at noon. On Monday only is there an evening session from 7 P. M. to 10 P. M. In Manhattan conditions are worse, for there banking hours are closely observed, and there is no evening session, though many of the women work during the day. Collection of the week’s money thus involved the loss of a half day’s work.

Mrs. A made nine trips to collect a total of $8, and from that must be deducted at least ninety cents for carfare, loss of time not beingconsidered. Mrs. B is very old. Mrs. C is an invalid, Mrs. D has a very young child and four older children to look after. Mrs. E lives a long distance from the court. Her carfare is always twenty cents and frequently it is necessary for her to take the two youngest children with her. Mrs. F works during the day and goes to school at night. These are only a few of the many reasons why the present plan of payment should be abandoned.

Philadelphia disburses about $200,000 a year on cases of this kind. The money is paid by checks sent by mail. We are informed that no case of fraud has occurred. Chicago has a similar system that works equally well.

It was not to be expected that the originators of the Domestic Relations Court idea would construct a perfect machine, and efforts are being made to correct this defect by an order to the effect that any woman who can prove to the satisfaction of the Department of Charities that it is a great hardship for her to go to the court, can have her money sent by mail. Unfortunately, there is a lot of red tape in some of our city departments and often it is very hard to prove things to their satisfaction; so it is to be hoped that this order, which is a step in the right direction, will soon be stretched into a big, manly stride, long enough to cover all cases.

Clyde N. White.

[Brooklyn Bureau of Charities.]

Brooklyn, N. Y.

To the Editor:

In your issue of April 19 the splendid article on The Housing Problem As It Affects Girls, by the president of the Chelsea House, has greatly interested me. May I add a few words on the subject and the names of other cities where such houses are already started or are under consideration?

There is a splendid though small Girls Friendly Lodge in Washington, D. C. In Cincinnati the Anna Louise Home accommodates about 150 girls, and Bishop Frances of Indiana has converted his spacious school Knickerbocker Hall in Indianapolis into a boarding home for young girls. This, I suppose, is the most complete and pretentious house of its kind. It has a gymnasium, swimming pool, almost entirely single rooms, and will accommodate nearly one hundred girls. In Louisville besides the Girls Friendly Inn, there is the Business Woman’s Club which meets the needs of a better paid class of young women, and the Monfort Home which like the Inn meets the needs of a girl earning a more moderate wage.

I have had letters from all parts of the country asking questions relative to starting such homes, and know that the subject is under consideration in Denver; Watertown, N. Y.; Lexington, Ky.; Minneapolis; Memphis; and Mobile.

The cherished hope I believe of all such houses should be to make them self supporting. No self respecting girl wishes to be even a partial object of charity. From the starting of the Girls Friendly Inn we have aimed to make the house self supporting, and with the exception of the interest on the mortgage, the house mother’s salary and coal, the weekly income meets all the expenditures. As soon as we can enlarge the house it will be entirely self supporting. I find this a great help, in securing the co-operation of the girls and in preventing waste in light, water and so on. The dominating thought is to make the inn a normal home and with this in view there are almost no rules. No one but those close to the young working girl knows what it means to her to be able to entertain her “gentlemen friends” in a quiet and home-like living room or to be able to give a party or entertain her Sunday School class in an attractive room.

The problem of sickness is an important one. Girls must often struggle along half sick because they can not afford a doctor or medicine or because they are afraid of losing their position. The inn has an endowed bed in the Norton Infirmary, and the services of some of our best physicians, also a discount of 25 per cent on all drugs and prescriptions. I find a word from the house mother is always received kindly by the employer and in my experience of eighteen months I have never had a girl lose her work on account of sickness.

Josephine M. Kermm.

[Housemother Girls’ Friendly Inn.]

Louisville.

To the Editor:

The following is a remarkable illustration of the advance in our conception of social obligations to unfortunates:

The president (of the Chicago Medical Society, December 13, 1867) “appointed a committee to consider the wisdom of the members of the society signing a petition requesting that the physician who was then imprisoned (Dr. Mudd) for caring for the wounds of Lincoln’s assassin should be released. The members of the society were of various opinions in regard to the ethical position of the unfortunate doctor.”[2]

2. Chicago Medical Recorder, April, 1913, p. 238.

Julia I. Felsenthal.

Chicago.

To the Editor:

One of the greatest disfigurements to the landscape as one looks out the back window of the average house is the row after row of unsightly wooden fences which rigorously mark off each twenty-five or thirty feet of land and constitute a barrier of exclusiveness very chilling in its effect on one’s friendly disposition. Of course one does not want his neighbor’s children to tramp unceremoniously over his little flower or vegetable garden, but could not the same results he brought about by a simple wire division covered with virginia creeper, grapes or clematis? Think of the beauty of such an outlook, and the aesthetic humanizing effect such a display offloral wealth would have on the minds of young and old! It might possibly result also in breaking down some of that proverbial coldness and hauteur which is said to characterize city neighbors. Life is short at best and sufficiently lacking in familiarity and cordiality to warrant some attempt to reform the wooden back fence out of existence.

J. J. Kelso.

Toronto.

To the Editor:

“We want to know ‘how the other half lives.’” This was said fifteen years ago, and we are saying it today. But it is theotherhalf that we now have in mind. Library shelves are filled with books about the one half. Sociologists have studied it; health officers have examined it; sanitary boards have considered it; laws have been made to regulate it. Juvenile courts, protective leagues, visiting nurses’ associations, social settlements, charity organization societies, have been bringing us day by day information as to howthathalf lives. Now we want to know how theotherhalf lives.

Recently there has been a great investigation of one special phase of the life of the poor. Great business firms have been asked how certain sums of their earnings were distributed as wages to the poor, and the wage-earners have been asked what use they made of these wages. How much do working girls receive and how much does a working girl need to live decently? These are the questions that have been asked. “We want to know more of the life of the working people,” has been the cry.

But wait. Now we want to know how theotherhalf lives: Society is a whole, not a half. These great questions are questions of society, and they can not be answered by investigatinghalfof society.

Yes, we want to know about the $2,000,000 that was paid in wages; to whom it went, and how it was spent, but we also want to know about the $7,000,000 that was paid in dividends. To whom diditgo, and how wasitspent? How much did the dividend receivers need a week on which to live? Were they judicious in their expenditures? These questions also ought to be investigated by a commission.

What do we know about the occupations, the health, the morality, the family life of the very rich?

If we are suspicious that the home life of the children of Mrs. Zambrowski of Mulberry street is not all that could be desired, we send a juvenile court officer to investigate. If there is evidence that the father is not honestly employed, if there is disease in the household, some officer is on hand to see what is the matter. What do we know of the home life of the Van Astor children? Is Mr. Van Astor an industrious bread earner? Are the home conditions of the Van Astor children morally healthful?

We want to know more about these excursions to Europe. Are they always cultural? We want to know more about the life of Mrs. Astorbilt in her Paris home. We want to know more about the employment conditions of the “Four Hundred.” Perhaps a law should be made in the interests of health limiting the number of continuous hours spent in certain social activities. We want to know more about the lives of boys and girls in wealthy boarding-schools. We desire to find out just how a working girl spends $8 a week, but we also wish to learn just how the dividend receiver spends $800 a week. The poor need visiting housekeepers to instruct them, but may not the wealthy need visiting home-keepers?

The unexplored continent of sociology is the life of the wealthy. It is to the interest of the health and well-being of society that a careful and dispassionate study be made of this subject.

Back to Index Next