{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43040/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43040","id":"gutenberg_43040","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43040","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Economics","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Sociology","Consumers -- United States","Wages","Wages -- United States"],"text":"CONSUMERS  AND\n                              WAGE-EARNERS\n\n\n\n\n                               CONSUMERS\n                            AND WAGE-EARNERS\n\n                          THE ETHICS OF BUYING\n                                 CHEAP\n\n\n                                   BY\n                         J. ELLIOT ROSS, Ph.D.\n\n\n                                NEW YORK\n                        THE DEVIN-ADAIR COMPANY\n                                  1912\n\n\n\n\n                          Copyright, 1912, by\n                        THE DEVIN-ADAIR COMPANY\n\n\n\n\n                                  NOTE\n\n\nJ. ELLIOT ROSS is a member of an old and prominent Southern family. He\nhas long been an ardent student of economics, of sociology, and of the\nenslaved condition of the Wage-Earner,--and _who, save the idle rich\nand the social drone, is not a wage-earner_? Dr. Ross is a graduate\nof George Washington University. The Catholic University of America\nconferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Philosophy for this, his\nexcellent work in behalf of the Consumer, the Wage-Earner, and the\nOppressed.\n\n\n\n\n                           TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n  CHAPTER I\n    THE POINT AT ISSUE                             3\n\n  CHAPTER II\n    OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSUMING CLASS             8\n\n  CHAPTER III\n    WHAT IS A JUST EMPLOYER?                      38\n\n  CHAPTER IV\n    THEORY OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION             47\n\n  CHAPTER V\n    INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS: WAGES                  66\n\n  CHAPTER VI\n    INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS: HEALTH                 77\n\n  CHAPTER VII\n    INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS: MORALS                 95\n\n  CHAPTER VIII\n    WHAT SHOULD THE INDIVIDUAL CONSUMER DO?      107\n\n    APPENDIX                                     133\n\n    BIBLIOGRAPHY                                 135\n\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER ONE\n\n                           THE POINT AT ISSUE\n\n\nHave you ever stood in a country store and from the superior heights of\nmature wisdom watched a chubby-faced, bright-eyed boy invest a penny in\na prize-bag? To you it is simply a paper enclosing a few nuts, a piece\nof candy, and a variable quantity in the shape of a tin flag, an\nimitation ring, etc. But to the child there is an excitement in getting\none knows not what. All the gambling instincts of the race that\nsquanders thousands upon the turf, all the love of adventure that\npeopled our continent, are summed up in that one act. The child has,\nperhaps, contentedly endured the routine of the farm for weeks in the\nanticipation of this one moment of blissful joy when his anxious fingers\nnervously reveal the delight or the disappointment.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYears have brought wisdom (or is it disillusionment?) and imitation\nrings no longer have the same importance in our eyes. No matter how\nwistfully we may look back, those days will never return. Yet prize-bags\nmay once again loom large in our intellectual horizon, though with a\ndifference. This time we look beyond the rosy-cheeked, healthy country\nlad, bred amid the beauties of God's fields and nourished with\nunadulterated home products, to the pale, nervous, over-worked girls who\nspend their days filling these bags. In an ill-lighted, ill-ventilated\nroom, in a great dusty, dirty city they work feverishly for ten hours at\nthe rate of four cents a hundred bags. \"They stand at a table with boxes\nbefore them, from which they take peanuts, candy and prizes with quick\nautomatic motion. They turn down the corners of each bag, and string the\nbags when full in long bulky curls of seventy-two.\"[1]\n\nSpeeding to the utmost they cannot make enough to live on. A room in a\ncheap boarding-house, morally and physically dirty, insufficient food,\nand no chance for legitimate pleasures--this is the prize-bag life holds\nfor them. What wonder if the temptation to supplement these wages in the\nway always possible for women prove too strong? Who is to blame?\n\nIs the little chap hundreds of miles away in the country, happily\nunconscious of their existence, in any way responsible? This is the\nquestion with which we are going to busy ourselves.\n\nOur little boy and over-worked girl are not, probably, typical Consumers\nand Producers. Still they represent large numbers of the economic world,\nand the solidarity of industry is such that one could not exist without\nthe other. In a way, the country lad is a shadow of President Taft\npressing a button to start the machinery of a world's fair. The child,\nwith wonderful effect on others, furnishes a portion of the nation's\nindustrial mechanism. In the satisfaction of his own desires, he is all\nunconscious of this, and unconscious, too of the responsibilities of\npower that modern social workers would thrust upon him.\n\nIt was once, indeed, the object of reformers to excite a sense of wrong\nin the oppressed. The fashion found expression in Thomas Paine's \"Rights\nof Man.\" Now their purpose is also to arouse a sense of obligation in\nthe powerful, and the change of front is indicated by Mazzini's \"Duties\nof Man.\" One duty after another has been forced upon the race's\nconscience, and to-day the attempt is made to compel the final, and\nsome say the most powerful, element of the industrial world,--the\nConsumer,--to shoulder his share of responsibility.\n\nBriefly, the line of argument is this: Laborers have a right to \"a fair\nwage for a fair day's work.\" If employers fail in their duty of meeting\nthis right, then the obligation neglected by the employers must be\nassumed by those who also benefit by the laborers' work,--by the\n_Consuming Class_. At first, the obligation is made abstract and\nhypothetical in this way because of difficulties in establishing the\nconcrete content of the workman's right to a fair wage, and just what\nline of conduct is incumbent upon the individual Consumer confronted by\nthis situation. Persons who readily agree that the laborer has a right\nto a fair wage, and that if this right is violated the Consumer ought to\ndo something, will wrangle unendingly as to just what is a fair wage and\njust what a Consumer ought to do.\n\nAfter fixing this general obligation upon the Consuming Class, however,\nthe other question as to whether the employers are actually neglecting\ntheir duties towards their employees, and what the individual Consumer\ncan and should do, will be considered.\n\nThe fixing of an abstract, hypothetical obligation for a whole class,\nrather than a concrete duty for a particular individual, is not useless.\nIf it is proved, that, provided employers neglect their duties and the\nConsuming Class can do anything to fulfill them, there is an obligation\nupon the Consuming Class to carry out these duties--if this is\nestablished, it is only necessary when a particular case presents itself\nto ask: Have the men through whose labor this Consumer is benefiting\nbeen unjustly treated by their employers, and can this Consumer, without\na disproportionately grave inconvenience, do anything to help them?\n\nUnless both questions are answered in the affirmative, this particular\nindividual Consumer can have no duty of fulfilling the abstract\nobligation. This is much easier than working out the principle anew for\neach case. It is the difference between blowing bottles and molding\nthem.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] \"Women and the Trades,\" The Pittsburgh Surrey, by Elizabeth\nBeardsley Butler: N. Y., 1909: p. 47.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER TWO\n\n                   OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSUMING CLASS\n\n\nPractically all are agreed on the fundamental point that laborers have a\nright to a fair wage for a fair day's work. Leo XIII has said, that\nthough contracts between laborers and employers are free, \"nevertheless,\nthere is a dictate of natural justice underlying them more imperious\nthan any bargain between man and man, that remuneration ought to be\nsufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner.\"[2] Later\nin the same encyclical, he indicates that this wage should be large\nenough to enable a workman to \"maintain himself, his wife and his\nchildren in reasonable comfort\" (p. 237), and allow a margin for saving\nagainst a rainy day.\n\nThe present Pope, Pius X, has quoted these words of his predecessor and\nagreed that workmen have a strict right in justice to a fair wage, time\nto fulfill their religious duties, and freedom from work unsuited to\ntheir age, strength, or sex.[3] The Rev. J. Kelleher, one of the most\nrecent and respected writers on the question, goes even further. \"_The\nright to work_,\" he says, \"or some other right that will secure an\nopportunity of providing for reasonable living to the less fortunate\nmembers of the social body who do not happen to be possessed of\nproperty, is an essential condition of any equitable economic\nsystem.\"[4]\n\nCardinal Capecelatro has said that each one has \"a right to raise\nhimself towards the infinite, a right to the intellectual nourishment of\nreligion, and, therefore, a right to the time necessary for the worship\nof God, a right to repose, a right to honest enjoyment, a right to love\nin marriage, and the life of the home. In woman Christianity recognizes\nwith her function of child-bearing in Christian marriage, a right to the\ntime for the nurture of her children. In children it recognizes a right\nto the supreme benefit of health, given them by God, but endangered by\novermuch work. In young girls it recognizes a right to such moderation\nin their duties as may assure them health and strength. In all,\nfinally, it acknowledges the immortal soul, with its rights to\neducation, to salvation, to the time that these things need.\"[5]\n\nNow when Pope Leo and the other authorities quoted used the words\n\"right,\" \"just,\" \"duty,\" what did they mean? These words are often\nemployed vaguely and carelessly, but we may be sure that here they were\ntaken in a strict and well-defined sense, such as usually found among\nCatholic ethicists.\n\nA right, as it is thus ordinarily defined, is \"a legitimate power of\ndoing or acquiring something for one's own good.\"[6]\n\nThe word power is not taken here in the sense of physical ability. It\nmeans that moral potency or capacity without which nothing can be\nacquired or recovered: for a person may have a right to do what he has\nnot the physical power to perform. \"Legitimate\" means granted by or\nconformable to law: hence we have not a right to do everything for which\nwe have the physical power.\n\nOnce we get this idea of \"right\" firmly fixed in our minds, the\nconcepts of \"justice,\" \"injustice,\" and \"duty\" easily follow. For\n\"justice,\" in a definition of Ulpian that has been accepted all down the\nages since, is simply the constant and perpetual will of giving to each\none his right.[7] And injustice, naturally, is merely a voluntary\nviolation of another's right.\n\nA \"duty\" is simply the obverse of a right, it is the obligation\ncorresponding to a right. Or as Bouquillon put it, it is \"something\nreasonably due from one person to another because of a necessary\nconnection between the end to be attained and the means used.\"[8] As the\nend varies between justice and charity, so does the duty. In the one\ncase, our object is to fulfill the precept, \"love thy neighbor as\nthyself\"; in the other, to give to each man what he has a right to have.\n\nThe fundamental concept of a \"right\" may be looked at from four points\nof view: (a) the _subject_, or who has the right; (b) the matter, or\n_content_ of the right; (c) the _title_ or reason for the right; (d) and\nfinally, the _term_, or who has to respect the right.\n\nAsking these questions about the right at present under consideration,\nwe find that the subject of the right is each individual who\ncontributes to the production or distribution of the articles purchased\nby the Consumer. The content of this right we have already given in the\nwords of Leo XIII and others. Briefly, it may be summarized as the right\nto a decent living.\n\nOn what grounds have employees these rights? By the very fact that they\nare men; that is, intelligent beings destined for a supernatural end.\nTherefore these rights are _connatural_, as belonging to them by their\nnature; _inalienable_, because they cannot be renounced; _perfect_,\nbecause so strict that the duties corresponding to them are matters of\ncommutative justice.\n\nAnd who has the duties corresponding to the workman's right to a decent\nliving? Primarily, the direct employer. He has a strict duty of justice\nin the matter. If he fulfill it, then no one else is bound. But in the\ncase before us, we assume that the direct employer has failed to do his\nstrict duty of commutative justice to his employees. It makes no\ndifference whether the direct employer be formally guilty or not. He may\nbe unable to perform his duty, or he may wilfully neglect it. That does\nnot matter. _De facto_, he does neglect it. What then is the duty of\nthe Consuming Class?\n\nWe think that the Consuming Class is bound to assume the obligations\nthat the direct employers have neglected. And we are going to support\nthis contention by four arguments. These arguments are:\n\nI. _The devolution of duty argument_: the direct employer has failed to\nfulfill his duty, and this duty thereupon devolves upon the indirect\nemployer, the Consuming Class.\n\nII. _The value argument_: ideally, the buyer of an article is bound to\npay its value, and, as a general rule, if proper economy has been\nexercised in its production, this must be sufficient to pay a living\nwage to the men engaged in producing and distributing that article.\n\nIII. _The co-operation argument_: the direct employer is guilty of an\ninjustice in which the Consuming Class is bound not to co-operate.\n\nIV. _The social argument_: it is for the common good that the average\nemployee should be paid a living wage. And since the Consuming Class is\nmerely the body politic, from one point of view, it is bound to\nsacrifice the advantage of cheap buying for the sake of the rounded\nadvantage of the whole.\n\nI. We have explained briefly to what every employee has a right--that is\nto say, what every employer must give his workmen, or commit injustice.\nWe have assumed, further, that the employee often does not get what he\nhas a right to have.\n\nNow, this is not always the employer's fault. Often an employer would be\nglad to raise wages, to improve sanitary conditions, to shorten hours,\nbut the stress of competition prevents him.\n\nBut the employer being unable or unwilling to pay a proper wage, etc.,\nwhat becomes of the employee's right? Does it cease? Has he no claim\nupon anyone else?\n\nThose who would fix an obligation on the Consuming Class say that the\nemployee's right does not cease. He has a claim, they contend, upon all\nwho in any way benefit by his labor, the strength of the claim depending\nupon the closeness of the relationship, the importance of the benefit\nderived, and the injustice suffered.\n\nFirst of all, they point out, there is the rent-taker. But for the labor\nof these men (assumed to be underpaid, etc.), there would be no return\nout of which to pay rent. For the mere fact of ownership, which in\nitself may not stand for any addition to the ground's productive\ncapacity, these men are allowed to take a part at least of what would be\nnecessary to raise the condition of the men producing the wealth to a\njust standard. Therefore, because the rent-taker seems to receive the\nmost gratuitous benefit from the employee, the duty of the employer\ndevolves first upon him. If the employer fail, wilfully or not, to\nfulfill his duties to his men, then they become binding upon the\nrent-taker.\n\nShould he, too, fail, the laborer still has a claim. There is another\nvery important sharer in distribution--the interest-taker. It is true\nthat the product is the joint result of labor and capital. But when\nthere is the case of anonymous, impersonal capital receiving interest,\nand living, breathing, human machines being under-fed and unprotected,\nthen humanity's claims supersede those of capital.[9] The inalienable\nrights of the laborer, which Cardinal Capecelatro has so excellently\nsummarized, replace the alienable rights of the individual capitalists\nbased upon the mere possession of property. The interest-taker is bound\nto give even the whole of his share to maintain a just standard of\nwages, etc. And this principle is admitted in civil law by making wages\na first lien upon the product and exempting wages from legal action.[10]\n\nBut if the interest-taker, also, be unwilling to fulfill his duties,\nthere is still an economic element upon which the laborer has a\nclaim--the Consuming Class. Production on a huge scale, the\ninterposition of wholesalers and middlemen of all sorts, shopping by\nmail or telephone, should not disguise the fact that the Consuming Class\nare really employers. It is only in an indirect way, it is true, but\nstill a real way for all that. If the direct employer, the rent-and\ninterest-taker refuse or are unable to perform their duties, then\n(leaving aside the legislature for the present) these devolve upon the\nConsuming Class _in so far as they benefit by the laborer's work_.\n\nThis argument for the obligation of the Consuming Class is based upon\nthe devolution of duties. Here it may appear new and strange, because\napplied to a new field, but it is admitted elsewhere as beyond\ncontradiction. If, for instance, parents will not or cannot support\ntheir children, then the grandparents have just as real a duty towards\nthem as if they were their own immediate children. And if they, too,\nneglect this duty, then it devolves upon collateral relatives until\nfinally it falls on mere neighbors.\n\nLikewise, the Consuming Class, it is claimed, if those whose duty is\nprior to theirs refuse to perform it, must fulfill the duty that has\ndevolved upon them. The rent-and interest-taker may be unjust to the\nemployee and to them, but that is not a valid excuse.\n\nThe same principle, though arrived at by a different process of\nreasoning, underlies the dictum, coming to be more and more recognized\nby legislators and economists, that the costs of production should be\nborne by the Consumers. That is to say, that the risks of professional\nhazard and accidents due to the carelessness of fellow-servants have\nbeen transferred from the employee to the employer. Naturally then, the\nemployer compensates himself out of the price.\n\nII. This question of the duty of the Consuming Class towards the men who\nmake or sell the goods they buy, may be viewed from another angle than\nthat of the devolution of duties or the obligation of indirect\nemployers. Leaving out of consideration the idea of indirect employer,\nit is further contended that the Consuming Class, simply as purchasers,\nmay be guilty of injustice in another sense.\n\nFor what are the duties of the buyer? To pay the true \"value\" of an\narticle.[11] And what determines the true value of an article? Not\nnecessarily the price.\n\nThis may be fixed by law, as is the case with bread in many large\ncities. A loaf of a certain weight must be sold for five cents. Or we\nmay have the natural or market price, which is determined by common\nconsent. This is nothing more than the price resulting from the\ninteraction of supply and demand.\n\nBut although ordinarily, justice is fulfilled if a person pay either the\nlegal or market price, neither is really based on justice. The price\nfixed by law will come closer to being a just price. In a self-governing\ncommunity, it probably will not do a great injustice to either party for\nany length of time. In this country its field is so limited, that it may\nbe disregarded in the present discussion.\n\nThe market price, however, makes no pretense of being determined by\njustice. It is the shrewdness of one man pitted against the shrewdness\nof another, or even the greed of one against the other's need. One wants\nto sell for as high a price while the other wants to buy for as low a\nprice as he can. When there are numerous buyers and numerous sellers,\nall knowing their business pretty well, the result will be a close\napproximation to what would be a just price, if the cost to the\nentrepreneur producing the commodities or the person managing the\ndistributing agency were all that should be taken into consideration. In\na society where the actual producer sells directly to the Consumer,\nwhere there is no production on an enormous scale employing hundreds and\nthousands of hands who have no voice in fixing the price of the product,\nthen the price reached by the higgling of the market is likely to be\njust.\n\nUnder the medieval system of craftsmen and one or two journeymen or\napprentices who formed part of the household it was possible (by lack of\ncompetition) to maintain the rate of reward by limiting the supply. \"No\nserious attempt was made to push trade or develop business, but only to\ncarry on each trade according to the habitual rate of reward. According\nto this policy, the conditions of the producer were allowed to be the\nfirst consideration, and the consumer had to pay a price at which these\nconditions could be maintained.\"[12]\n\nBut conditions of business have changed immensely since the Middle Ages.\nThe Industrial Revolution has brought big scale production, driving out\nof existence the small producer ministering directly and immediately to\nthe wants of the community. Department stores have supplied the same\nprinciple in the distributing end of industry, and very largely replaced\nthe small retailer. The employees of the big producer and distributor,\nthe ones most concerned, have no voice in fixing the price of the\narticle made or distributed by their labor. As a consequence competition\nwill often depress the price below the point where it will yield a\nliving wage to them. Not their rights determine this point, but what\ncrude irresistible hunger will force them to accept. Many times it is\nonly a difference between starving rapidly or slowly. But competition is\ninexorable.\n\nIt is true, that sometimes the actual producers or distributors may not\nbe getting living wages because the entrepreneurs or the rent-or the\ninterest-takers are absorbing too much. But ordinarily it is probable\nthat stress of competition between capitalists and between managers will\nkeep their shares within fairly moderate bounds. Capital competes with\ncapital for a share in production just as one firm competes with another\nto secure a market for its product. Hence it may be reasonably presumed\nin any given case, when nothing is known to the contrary, that where the\nlaborers are insufficiently remunerated, it is because the price\nobtained for their product will not cover just wages. Nor are\nappearances always a safe guide. A man who owns and manages a factory\n(thus drawing by himself alone wages of management, rent, and interest)\nmay seem able easily to afford higher wages. Yet to divide his whole\nincome among all his employees might give only an inappreciable increase\nto each.\n\nTherefore, it would seem that the principle of the market price being\njust, cannot be applied strictly to-day. On the contrary, many persons\nare claiming that the market price fixed by competition is usually\nunjust. A better principle, a more fundamental principle, one that\nreally strikes its roots down into justice itself, would be to say that\na just price is one that will yield a just return to all concerned--the\nactual laborers who produce the commodities, the clerks in the stores\nthat distribute them, wages of management to the entrepreneurs\nconcerned, and interest on the capital invested.\n\nCertainly if this be not done, the equality between the \"value\" of the\narticle and the price is not preserved. And as Ballerini says, \"when the\nequality is not preserved, so that the seller sells for more than the\nhighest price or the buyer buys for less than the lowest ... injustice\nis committed.\"[13]\n\nBut even though the price asked were sufficient to pay the employees\njust wages and the entrepreneur simply refused to do it, would the\nConsuming Class be justified in buying the article? It is contended that\nthey would not. For one of the duties of the seller is to give a just\ntitle. And it would seem clear that one who hires a person to make a\ncertain article, playing upon his necessity to avoid paying what his\nlabor is worth, has not acquired a just title to the object produced.\nThere is something in that article for which he has not paid. Human\nflesh and blood that has not been compensated for have gone into its\nmaking. The seller not having a good title himself, cannot transfer such\nto another. Persons who buy from him do not, therefore, secure a just\ntitle, and hence, it is argued, commit a grave injustice by buying such\nan article.[14]\n\nIII. The third argument adduced in favor of an obligation on the part of\nthe Consuming Class is, that the purchase of articles made under unjust\nconditions is co-operation in the injustice. It makes no difference\nwhether or not the employers are formally guilty of injustice. They may\nbe forced by the competitive system, as many contend, to underpay their\nworkmen. Nevertheless, material injustice at least is committed, and the\nConsuming Class have no right to co-operate formally in what may be\nmerely material injustice for another. Yet the Consuming Class by buying\ngoods made under unjust conditions does co-operate, it is alleged, in\nthree ways: (A) as the recipient of the result of the injustice; (B) by\nfurnishing the means for the act; (C) and by counselling the action.\n\"For a co-operator is one who at the same time with another is the\ncause of the injury, whether secondary or equally principal, whether\npositive or negative. For there is not the same manner of co-operation\nin all cases, but this is common to all, that one person should concur\nwith another to commit an injury.\"[15]\n\n(A) One of the ways of positively co-operating with an injustice, is by\nreceiving the results of the injustice. Thus a thief will not steal a\nbulky piece of silver unless he has a fence to receive it, and the fence\nbecomes guilty of the theft by receiving the article. So a business man\nwill not manufacture an article and thus commit an injustice against the\nlaborers whom he underpays, unless he is reasonably sure some one will\nreceive this article after it is made. The persons who receive it, then,\nor the purchasers, it is argued, are in the position of the thief's\nfence: They are receiving an article that was obtained by injustice; and\nit matters not whether the article was stolen outright or the injustice\ncommitted in a more gentlemanly way. Nor does the fact of the\nmanufacturer committing the injustice to increase his profits, rather\nthan (as has been shown elsewhere) to meet a demand for cheapness on the\npart of the Consuming Class, alter the situation. For a thief steals\nfor his own enrichment, not for the advantage of the recipient of the\nstolen goods.[16]\n\n(B) One can co-operate in an injustice not only by receiving the\nresults, but by furnishing the means for committing the injustice, and\nit is contended that the Consuming Class co-operate also in this way.\nNor is this simply a different name for the co-operation just\nconsidered. For in the previous case, the Consuming Class co-operated\nwith an act already performed in anticipation of this co-operation.\nWhereas in the phase now under discussion they co-operate with an act to\nbe done in the future. A concrete example will make this clear. Mr. ----\ninvests $50,000 in the shoe business. After paying for his plant, raw\nmaterial, and the wages of his men until he has produced marketable\narticles, he has practically nothing left. His continuance in business\ndepends upon his selling these articles to gain money for current\nexpenses. The purchasers of these goods co-operate (by receiving the\narticles) in the injustice under which they are assumed to have been\nmanufactured, _and also_, by furnishing the necessary means, in the\ninjustice he will commit by manufacturing more under the same\nconditions.\n\n(C) Nor is the Consuming Class's co-operation yet exhausted. For they\nmay be looked upon as truly counselling, voting for this injustice on\nthe part of the manufacturer. The Consumers do not go personally to the\nmanufacturer and urge him to produce a certain article at a certain\nprice, nor do they vote as specifically as an alderman for a contract\nwith a factory, but their action amounts to practically the same thing.\nThey go from one store to another seeking the cheapest price, and the\nmanufacturer knows this. To meet this demand (a very real, though to\nsome extent impersonal) demand for cheapness, the manufacturer commits\nthe injustice of underpaying his employees. It makes no difference\nwhether you call this \"demand,\" or \"counsel,\" or \"voting,\" it is the\nreal cause of the injustice, and hence the Consuming Class are guilty of\nco-operation.[17]\n\nIt makes no difference if the Consumer knows that the injustice will\ncontinue whether he purchase or not.[18] In purchasing he is guilty of\na moral wrong. For as a man who buys a ticket for an obscene show,\nco-operates in this obscenity even though his money be not necessary for\nits production, so do they participate in the manufacturer's\ninjustice.[19] Or, to give Ballerini's illustration, if ten men suffice\nto launch a ship and an eleventh helps, certainly he is truly said to be\nhelpful.[20] In the same way, Consumers who buy an article that was made\nunder unjust conditions co-operate in this injustice even though it\nwould have taken place without the money received from their purchase.\n\nFor these reasons, it is contended, the Consuming Class, in buying goods\nmade under unjust terms, co-operate in this injustice by receiving the\ngoods, by furnishing the means for committing the injustice, and by\nurging such production by practical financial support.\n\nIV. We now come to the _social argument_, that is especially popular\nto-day, though it is by no means new. It was familiar to the\nScholastics, and it was pithily formulated by Suarez as, \"Public is to\nbe preferred to private good.\"[21] Aquinas expresses it more at length:\n\"For any individual in respect to what he is and has is related to the\nmultitude, just as a part is related to the whole: whence nature\nsometimes injures a part to save the whole.\"[22] Elsewhere, Suarez\nconfers upon the civil law the power of binding in conscience because\n\"this power is necessary for the good government of the republic.\"[23]\n\nVarious extremely important and far-reaching rights and obligations are\nfixed by this argument. It is lawful, for instance, for the state to\nkill criminals \"if they are dangerous and injurious to the\ncommunity.\"[24] Ballerini says it is lawful to kill a criminal in so far\nas it is ordained for the safety of the whole society.[25] But only the\nproperly appointed persons have this right, because greater evils would\nbefall the _state_ if each one were the judge in his own case. (L. c.)\nAnd not only may the state directly kill a guilty person, it may also,\nwhen necessary for the _common good_ indirectly kill an _innocent_\nperson.[26] Wholesale organized slaughter, called war, is right and\nproper when the good of the state requires it.[27] Whereas sedition is\nwrong, because it violates the good of \"public quiet and civil\nconcord.\"[28]\n\nAgain, while suicide is unlawful, because, for one reason, a man is part\nof the community and whoever kills himself does an injury to the\ncommunity, a man may yet lawfully expose himself to certain death for\nthe _good of the community_. Similarly, though it is illicit to cut off\na member of the body, because it is a part of the whole and cannot be\nremoved without injuring the whole (Aquinas, l. c., Q. 65, A. 1),\nLiguori approves of at least one form of serious mutilation for the good\nof the community.[29]\n\nPrivate property is justified because it tends to the peace of the\nstate.[30] Lehmkuhl determines the gravity of an injustice not only from\nthe injury done to the individual, but also, \"from the injury and danger\nwhich the public good and security would suffer, if it were allowed with\nimpunity.\"[31]\n\nSocial necessity, then, is widely recognized as a valid proof for a\nright or duty. The binding force of civil law, the wickedness of suicide\nand self-mutilation, the morality of executing guilty and innocent, the\nrighteousness of private property, are all settled by this norm.\nTherefore, since the social necessity of the average workman getting a\nliving wage is beyond contradiction, the Consuming Class, who benefit\nespecially by the labor of these workmen, are especially bound to see\nthat these rights are obtained.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe have now considered the arguments advanced to prove that justice\nbinds the Consuming Class to see to it that goods are made under fair\nterms. These arguments may be summarized as follows:\n\nI. Because as indirect employers the Consuming Class are bound to\nmaintain just conditions for those whom they indirectly employ.\n\nII. Because as buyers the Consuming Class are first bound to pay the\nfull value of the article, which must include sufficient to give the\npersons employed in its manufacture and distribution a living wage,\netc.; and secondly, because the Consuming Class are bound not to buy an\narticle to which the seller has not a just title, the seller of an\narticle made under unjust conditions not having a just title since there\nis work in the object for which he has not paid.\n\nIII. Because the Consuming Class would co-operate in an injustice in\nthree ways: (A) by receiving the goods made under unjust conditions; (B)\nby furnishing the means for committing the injustice; (C) by urging such\nproduction by this practical financial support.\n\nIV. Because the Consuming Class are bound to seek the social good, and\nthat demands the payment of fair wages.\n\n\n                                   II\n\nSo far we have considered only the arguments for an obligation of\njustice on the part of the Consuming Class. But may there not also be a\nduty of charity?\n\nCertain general considerations relating to this second of the two\ngreatest commandments, \"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,\" must\nbe referred to before answering that question.\n\nThe precept of charity requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves.\nAnd by the term neighbor we mean everyone. No religion, \"race, color,\nor previous condition of servitude\" removes a man from the category of\nour neighbor. A Christian's love must be all embracing. T. H. Green has\nwell said that progress in civilization has been an enlargement of the\nmeaning of neighbor and neighborliness. The meaning of these terms, once\nconfined to one's relatives, then extended to one's city, tribe, nation,\nhas now widened out until it embraces the world.\n\nBut while we must look upon everyone as our neighbor, and love him as\nourselves, this does not mean that we must love each one in the same\ndegree. We must love him as ourselves, but not necessarily _as much as_\nourselves. We must have a universal internal love by which we wish our\nneighbor well in his spiritual, corporal, and material goods and succor\nhim in necessity.\n\nYet the amount of good we wish him, and the strength of the obligation\nto effect it, vary both with the special relationship existing between\nus and our mutual conditions. By mutual conditions, is meant his state\nof indigency and ours of prosperity. Almost innumerable grades of\nnecessity may be distinguished, but for present purposes four will be\nsufficient: (1) extreme necessity, in which a person is in danger of\ndeath, or will be very shortly; (2) quasi-extreme necessity, in which\none is in danger of falling into extreme necessity or a grave evil,\neither perpetual or lasting for a long time; (3) grave necessity, where\none suffers a serious evil, but not for so long a period, or not so\ngreat; (4) common necessity, when one experiences some inconvenience,\nbut not grievous inconvenience.\n\nThe obligation varies, too, with the conditions existing on our part.\nFor if the duty of succoring our neighbor from our own goods is to bind,\nwe must be in possession of superfluous goods. Otherwise our own need\nwould have a prior claim. Material possessions may be superfluous to\nlife, that is, just more than enough to keep body and soul together;\nsuperfluous to our state in life, or goods without which we should have\nto sink to a lower social plane; or superfluous to the decency of our\nstate, those over and above what are required even for the proper\nsupport of our family in accordance with the usual custom of those in\nthe same position, the education and starting of our children in life,\nthe giving of charity, gifts, entertainment of guests, etc. This last\nclass of goods may be called absolutely superfluous.\n\nNow, it would not seem rigoristic (especially in these days when the\nright to any private property is seriously questioned) to say, that a\nperson in extreme or quasi-extreme necessity is to be succored from\ngoods that are necessary to the decent support of our station in life.\nOne merely in grave or common necessity need be helped only out of\nabsolutely superfluous goods. This would certainly be the minimum that\nany Christian would require.\n\nBut this obligation also varies directly according to the closeness of\nour relationship with the person in want. A connection of blood, whether\ndirect as between father and son, or collateral as between uncle and\nnephew, evidently produces stronger reciprocal obligations of charity\nthan simple kinship through Adam. So, too, there is a stronger bond\nbetween those who have assumed artificial relationships, such as a\npastor to his people, or those of the same religious faith, or those in\nthe same social class, or those who have acquired, whether voluntarily\nor not, associational or economic ties. A captain, for example, has\ngreater obligations of charity towards a man in his own company than\ntowards one in another company, towards one in his regiment than towards\none in another regiment, and so on.\n\nCertainly not least strong among these artificial relationships of\nsociety is that of employer and employee. There was a time in social\norganization, when the permanent subjection of Gurth to Cedric brought\nout more clearly the mutual obligations. The ties of the relationship\nseemed stronger because more lasting. Fortunately or unfortunately, the\nright of free contract has abolished this permanency. Men wander from\none employer to another, from one city to another, from one country to\nanother. But no transitoriness of employment, no mobility of labor,\nshould obscure the fact that while the relationship of employer and\nemployee lasts, there also exist special and stronger obligations of\ncharity between the two.\n\nNot as strong, probably, as between master and serf, yet nevertheless\ntoo strong to be entirely fulfilled by the simple payment of the current\nwage. As Carlyle says, \"Never on this Earth was the relation of man to\nman long carried on by Cash-payment alone.... Cash-payment never was, or\ncould except for a few years be, the union-bond of man to man. Cash\nnever yet paid one man fully his deserts to another: nor could it nor\ncan it, now or henceforth to the end of the world.... In brief, we shall\nhave to dismiss the Cash-Gospel rigorously into its own place: we shall\nhave to know, on the threshold, that either there is some infinitely\ndeeper Gospel, subsidiary, explanatory, and daily and hourly corrective\nto the Cash one: or else that the Cash one itself and all others are\nfast travelling.\"[32]\n\nThat infinitely deeper Gospel is the teaching of Christian charity. This\ntells us that there is another bond between employer and employee than a\nmere \"cash-nexus.\" The needy employee has a claim upon his employer in\npreference to others, and the employer must discharge it before\ndispensing charity to those in no greater necessity who stand in no such\nrelation to him. Charity begins at home, and the employee is closer home\nthan one related simply by the tie of a common nature.\n\nOf course, the relation between the direct employer and his workmen is\nmore obvious than that between the Consuming Class (which we have called\nthe indirect employer) and these same men. But the relation of the\nlatter is none the less real and important for being obscure.\nOrdinarily it will probably be less close than that of the direct\nemployer, but circumstances are conceivable in which the situation would\nbe reversed.\n\nAnd certainly it would seem that the benefit which the laboring class\nconfers upon the Consuming Class is such that there is some special\nclaim arising upon their charity. Not labor in itself but consumption is\nthe object of work, and this terminus of all activity, the Consuming\nClass, would seem to be bound both in justice and charity to see that\ntheir own satisfaction is not attained at the cost of the comfort and\nhappiness of those who minister to it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe may conclude, then, that if the direct employers fail to fulfill\ntheir duties towards their employees, that the Consuming Class, as being\na beneficiary of the work done, are bound to assume these duties. As\nyet, however, the obligation is abstract as being fixed upon a class and\nnot some particular individual about to purchase an article; and it is\nhypothetical as simply assuming that employers neglect their duties.\n\nThe further question now presents itself: Do employers actually neglect\ntheir duties, and what can and should the Consumer do?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[2] Great Encyclicals of Leo XIII, \"On the Condition of Labor,\" p. 236:\nN. Y., 1903.\n\n[3] \"Pope Pius X on Social Reform,\" London, 1910: p. 8.\n\n[4] Kelleher, \"Private Ownership,\" Dublin, 1911: p. 174; cf. also p.\n179. Italics added.\n\n[5] \"Christ, the Church, and Man,\" p. 74: St Louis, 1909.\n\n[6] Gury: \"Compendium theologi\u00e6 moralis,\" n. 579: De just. et jure:\nRatisbon, 1874.\n\n[7] See Appendix, 1.\n\n[8] See Appendix, 2.\n\n[9] Cf. John A. Ryan, \"The Church and Interest-Taking,\" p. 31: St.\nLouis, 1910.\n\n[10] Cf. Bull. U. S. Bur. Lab., Jan. 1, 1911, pp. 876, 878, 881.\n\n[11] Cf. St. Thomas, Summa, 2a 2ae, Q. 77, A. 1-2; St. Alphonsus, Lib.\nIV, Tr. V, n. 793.\n\n[12] W. Cunningham, \"Christianity and Social Questions,\" p. 114: London,\n1910.\n\n[13] See Appendix, 3.\n\n[14] Cf. Liguori, l. c.\n\n[15] See Appendix, 4.\n\n[16] Cf. De Lugo, XIX, II, 4-5.\n\n[17] Cf. De Lugo, L. c., XVII, II, n. 37.\n\n[18] L. c., n. 16, n. 19.\n\n[19] Liguori, Lib. IV, Tr. IV, n. 427.\n\n[20] Ballerini, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 696-7.\n\n[21] See Appendix, 5.\n\n[22] See Appendix, 6.\n\n[23] See Appendix, 7.\n\n[24] Aquinas, l. c., Q.64, A.2.\n\n[25] L. c., Pt. I, Tr. VI, Sec. V, n. 49.\n\n[26] Liguori, l. c., Lib. IV, Tr. IV, n. 393; Ballerini, l. c, n. 62.\n\n[27] Liguori, l. c., n. 402.\n\n[28] Ballerini, l. c., n. 126.\n\n[29] Liguori, l. c., n. 374.\n\n[30] Aquinas, l. c., Q.66, A.2; Noldin, l. c., De Sept. Praec., n. 368,\ned. 8a.\n\n[31] See Appendix, 8.\n\n[32] \"Past and Present,\" Bk. III, Ch. X.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER THREE\n\n                        WHAT IS A JUST EMPLOYER?\n\n\nThe terms \"fair wages,\" \"reasonable comfort,\" \"living wage\" have often\nbeen used in the previous discussion. No attempt was made to make them\nmore definite because it was not necessary at the time. Employers were\nsimply assumed to violate the standard represented by these expressions.\nBut if we are going to decide _de facto_ that employers are actually\nneglecting their duties, we must manifestly have some norm by which to\njudge them.\n\nWhat is this standard?\n\nAt first sight, this may seem easy to define. But its apparent ease is\nan illusion. Even the simplest and least questionable standard, that of\nbare subsistence (and to simplify it still further, restrict the\nconsideration entirely to the question of food), is extremely elusive.\nOf course a man needs some clothing, a certain amount of fresh air, and\na shelter from the weather. But we shall have a sufficiently\ncomplicated problem without introducing these factors.\n\nHow much food, then, does a man need to repair the daily waste and keep\nhim in good physical condition? This depends to some extent upon the\ncharacter of the work he does. A stevedore needs more food than a clerk.\nIt will depend, too, upon the climate. Those in northern latitudes\nrequire more food, and usually of a more expensive kind, than those\nliving in the tropics, and they ought to have more in winter than in\nsummer. Again, racial characteristics must be taken into account. A\nChinese coolie may get fat on fish and rice, or an Italian may do well\non cheese and macaroni, while an Anglo-Saxon would starve on such a\ndiet.\n\nIn addition to all these points, there is an individuality about the\ndigestive organs that must be weighed. With our exact chemical science\nit looks simple enough to calculate how much muscle and blood and\nnervous force are lost in doing a certain amount of work, and just how\nmuch food would be required in a given time to make good that loss. This\nwould be easy if we could buy muscle and nervous force done up in neat\npackages and simply apply them where needed just as we apply a coat of\npaint to a weather-beaten house. But, unfortunately, we cannot do this.\nThe brawn and nerve must be bought in entirely different forms, broken\nup by certain interior organs, and gradually sent by a long and\ncomplicated assimilating process to the point requiring them. And what\nbecomes of the subsistence standard if the organs of some people refuse\nto assimilate what those of others heartily relish? or if at different\nperiods, and for no apparent reason, the same man can get no strength or\nsatisfaction from what he formerly craved?\n\nBut if we cannot tell what mere subsistence requires are we not getting\neven vaguer when we add an indefinite \"more\" to it? When people talk of\n\"frugal comfort,\" \"decent livelihood,\" \"living wage,\" etc., what do they\nmean? Do these terms mean to-day just what they did fifty years ago or\nwill mean half a century hence?\n\nA little reflection will show us that they do not. They are largely\nrelative. When the gentry scorned to read and write, farm hands could\nhardly consider it an injustice not to have instruction in the three Rs;\nand when everybody went barefoot, it would have been foolish to riot\nfor shoes. As means of production are perfected, as we get away from the\ndanger of starvation, always threatening primitive nomadic peoples, the\nstandard of living of the more fortunate rises, as does that standard\nwhich they are willing to allow the lower classes, and which the lower\nclasses demand.\n\nAs a consequence, what is looked upon in one age as just and generous,\nmay in another be considered thoroughly unfair. Concrete standards of\njustice vary with the time and are soon superseded by others. This is an\nimportant fact, and it must be mastered before one can use the current\nstandard with honesty or intelligence. The principle of justice upon\nwhich the changing concrete standard is based, the moral right of each\nindividual as a human being to the fullest development of all his\nfaculties consistent with such rights in others, is doubtless\nunchanging. But it is conditioned by the stage of production that\nsociety has reached, upon how much there is to go round; and the wage\nnecessary to secure this standard is conditioned by governmental\nsupplement such as free education, insurance, etc. It would seem\nimpossible, therefore, to determine the exact wage that a particular\nindividual is entitled to until we can determine the total net product\nand this individual's contribution to it as compared with other\nindividuals. We are not aware that this has been done.\n\nThe attempt has been made, however, to establish both the absolute\nminimum standard and this relative standard. In the sixteenth volume of\nthe report of the United States Bureau of Labor on \"Woman and Child\nWage-Earners in the United States,\" the former is fixed at $400.00. But\nhave we an absolute minimum below which wages could not fall without\nendangering existence when a girl of ten and a boy of six are allowed\nmore money for clothing than their mother?\n\nUpon the relative living wage, whole volumes have been written. But they\nwould seem either to deal with the concrete expression of the standard\nof a particular class, or, if they do attempt to establish the right of\nindividuals here and now to a particular remuneration in money, they do\nnot quite prove their contention.\n\nBut there are people who believe that the right of the laborer to a\nspecific wage (and hence the employer's obligation of paying it) can be\ndemonstrated. Dr. John A. Ryan, whose treatise on \"The Living Wage\" has\nattracted marked attention, has made such a claim for an estimate of\n$600.00 as a family living wage in cities of five hundred thousand or\nover in the United States.[33]\n\nThis was in 1906 and the cost of living has advanced considerably since\nthen. Dr. Ryan would probably, therefore, not consider too high the\nestimate of the Bureau of Labor (l. c.) of $600.00 for cotton mill\noperatives in the South. Under this standard, the father supports the\nfamily, the mother stays at home looking after the house, and the\nchildren go to school. It includes insurance.\n\nNow for the sake of argument let us assume that laborers have a strict\nright in justice to a standard represented by $600.00 a year in a\nSouthern mill town. I must reluctantly admit that $600.00 cannot be\nproved conclusively to be the sum to which all laborers have a right.\nBut for the time being we shall take it for granted, and from the\nstandpoint of this assumption judge the justice or injustice of\nindustrial conditions.\n\nI have said that I do not think that this obligation can be _proved\nconclusively_, that is, as conclusively as a proposition in geometry.\nBut I do think that it is capable of the same proof that we have for\nmany other moral truths that pass unquestioned. We must beware of\napplying to new propositions that corrosive logic which, if impartially\nexercised on old and new alike, would destroy the very basis of\nmorality.\n\nThis principle, that moral truths cannot be absolutely demonstrated, is\ngenerally admitted and many concrete examples could be given from\nprominent ethicists: thus De Lugo in speaking of so fundamental a\nquestion as the unlawfulness of suicide, does not hesitate to say: \"The\nwhole difficulty consists in assigning a reason for this truth: for\nthough its [suicide's] turpitude is immediately apparent, it is not easy\nto find the foundation of this judgment: whence (_a thing that happens\nin many other questions_) the conclusion is more certain than the\nreason adduced by various authors for its proof.\"[34]\n\nAgain, Ballerini, in treating of the unlawfulness of one of the sins\nmentioned by St. Paul in the sixth chapter of his first Epistle to the\nCorinthians, remarks that \"it is most difficult to assign a reason for\nthis.\" Then, after rejecting all the reasons usually brought forward, he\nadds: \"It must be admitted that there are some practical truths\nnecessary for the right association of men with each other, which men\nfeel and perceive by a sort of rational instinct, whose reason,\nnevertheless (at least a demonstrative one), when these same men seek it\nanalytically, they find it hard to discover. It would seem that nature,\nor the Author of our nature, wished to supply the defect of the exercise\nof reason by an instinct or rational sense of this kind: ... Among the\ntruths of this nature, the one of which we treat happens to be\nfound.\"[35]\n\nIf unquestioned authorities like Ballerini and De Lugo admit their\ninability to prove such fundamental and important obligations (it will\nbe noted that De Lugo says there are _many_ such) as those of\nrefraining from the above mentioned sins, it need not surprise us to\nfind that the obligations of Consumers cannot be proved _apodictically_.\nIt would be foolish, therefore, to claim absolutely to demonstrate this\nobligation. All that can be done is to adduce the same proofs that\nAquinas, Suarez, and other master minds have used to fix other duties,\nand show that they have equal force in the present discussion. It is\nsimply the familiar argument _a pari_, and the claim would seem\nreasonable, that any objectors meeting these arguments on purely\nrational grounds, must show that they do not equally apply to this\nobligation, or else deny their force as proof for the other duties.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[33] Others have approximated this estimate, though possibly without\ngiving it exactly the same ethical implications as Dr. Ryan. Thus\nChapin, \"Standard of Living in New York City,\" N. Y., p. 245, claims\n$800.00 as the minimum for New York City. Miss Butler, \"Women and the\nTrades,\" N. Y., p. 346, says $7.00 a week for a single woman in\nPittsburgh. The United States Bureau of Labor in the third volume of its\nreport on \"Woman and Child Wage-Earners in the United States,\" p. 560,\ndeclares for $2.00 a week per capita.\n\n[34] See Appendix, 9.\n\n[35] See Appendix, 10.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER FOUR\n\n                   THEORY OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION\n\n\nModern industrial conditions may be considered either _a priori_ or _a\nposteriori_, either theoretically or _de facto_. We may examine the\nprinciples of economic organization, and conclude that they will or will\nnot lead to low wages; or we can go to the facts themselves, and decide\nfrom an examination of actual conditions whether or not wages are low,\netc., always remembering the standard we have adopted.\n\nBeginning with the first method, we may, speaking roughly and with\nsufficient allowance for monopolies, say that we live under a\ncompetitive system. Men compete with others for their share in the\nproduct of industry. Goods are not put in one general fund and\ndistributed according to each one's needs. Nor are they awarded to suit\nthe whim of some ruler. Undoubtedly our present industrial organization\nis individualistic rather than socialistic, and its chief characteristic\nis probably a rivalry between its various members. Some assume that\ncompetition is universal and unrestrained. Then they draw conclusions as\nto the present system from what would happen if such competition\nprevailed. Others forget that competition is as universal as it really\nis, and that it exists not only between laborer and laborer to get the\njob, but between capitalist and capitalist to secure the laborer.\n\nTo subscribe to either of these errors will vitiate any conclusions as\nto social policy. For if unrestrained competition have certain evil\ntendencies, we cannot therefore assume that the present restricted form\nwill have such results. And the fact that competition exists between\ncapitalists as well as between laborers has very wide-reaching\nimplications. It means no less than that competition may raise wages as\nwell as lower them.\n\nThe average person is apt to look upon an object as drawn only to the\nearth by gravitation. He forgets that the same force is also pulling at\nit in an opposite direction. And in the same way the average person is\nlikely to forget that competition is continually pulling wages both up\nand down. If we imagine some object suspended between the earth and the\nmoon, and being constantly drawn towards each according to some power\ninherent in them which varies from time to time so that the object now\napproaches one and now the other, we shall have a rough illustration of\nhow competition affects wages.\n\nWe can look upon the amount of wages as the object of attraction between\ncompetition on the part of laborers and competition on the part of\ncapitalists. According as competition among capitalists is keen as\ncompared with that among laborers, wages will rise, and vice versa; just\nas when, in our illustration, gravity was strong in the moon, the object\nrose towards it, and when it was stronger in the earth the object fell\ntowards that body. But in both cases the result is due to the same\nforce, though acting from different points. It would be an error,\ntherefore, to attribute all the evils of our present system to\ncompetition, and all the good to some other agency. Competition has good\nresults as well as bad, and this two-fold influence must always be\nremembered.\n\nDoubtless absolutely unrestrained competition between laborers with no\ncorresponding rivalry between capitalists would depress wages. But such\ncompetition does not exist. Competition is not absolutely unrestricted.\nIt is limited by organization among the workmen, by legislation, by\nnatural ability, and in various other ways. As a result, the effects are\nlimited in various ways. If a bricklayers' union is strong enough\npractically to eliminate competition between this class of laborers\nwhile capitalists compete with each other to obtain their services, then\nthe working out of competition has been modified in such a way as to\nhave an upward effect upon wages.\n\nCompetition, then, is not necessarily bad. In many cases, competition is\nnot only the life of trade, but the builder of character as well. As a\nwhole, those who have to earn their living amid keen business rivalry\nare more energetic, quickwitted and resourceful than those government\nemployees who live in a somewhat listless, non-competitive atmosphere.\nAnd the superiority of Western to Eastern civilization and character may\nbe due to the fact that there competition has been too much limited by\ncaste systems, repressive legislation, and unchanging custom.\n\nUnder the restricted form of competition existing to-day, many employers\npay living wages and treat their employees fairly in every way. Indeed,\nthe entrepreneur sometimes finds it to his advantage to give his\nemployees even more than strict justice would demand. When competition\nfor workmen is keen between employers, certain inducements may be\nnecessary to prevent experienced men leaving and to avoid the consequent\nloss of breaking in new laborers.\n\nAt any rate we find that many employers do all that can reasonably be\nexpected. For instance, in contrast with the conditions of the garment\ntrade prevailing in many places, the Pittsburgh Survey found two\nfactories in that city to be run on excellent lines. They were\nwell-lighted by large windows, the ventilation was good, the walls newly\nwhitewashed, and the floors swept and scrubbed. In one, indeed, the\nupper windows were opened at intervals, and the work-rooms had windows\non three sides. (Butler, l. c., p. 109.) Nine others were good because\nthey were swept daily and exhibited a manifest standard as to a\nwork-room (l. c., p. 107). One firm, too, was found to allow its\nemployees to share in its progress. Thus when new buttonhole machines\nwere introduced a few years ago the girls could turn out a third more\nwork than formerly, but they were paid at the same piece-rate (l. c.,\npp. 119-120).\n\nThe variation between individual stores as regards wages will be shown\nfrom the following table, adapted from page 121 of the first volume of\nthe Pittsburgh Survey:\n\n  -------------+-----------+---------------+--------\n               |           | Weekly wages  |\n    Article    |  No. of   +-------+-------+ Average\n  manufactured | operators |  Min. |  Max. |\n  -------------+-----------+-------+-------+--------\n  Shirts       |    15     | $ 6   | $12   |  $ 7\n  Shirts       |     1     |  10   |  10   |\n  Shirts       |     3     |   8   |  10   |    8\n  Shirts       |    24     |   6   |   8   |    8\n  Shirts and   |           |       |       |\n   Overalls    |    39     |   4   |  12   |    8\n  Overalls     |    26     |   6   |  10   |    8\n  Overalls     |    75     |   6   |  10.5 |    7\n  Shirts       |     5     |   7   |  11   |\n  Shirts       |    18     |   7   |  14   |   10\n  Shirts       |    51     |   5   |  15   |    8\n  Shirts       |     7     |   6.5 |  12   |    8\n  Pants        |   114     |   4   |  14   |    9\n  Pants        |    37     |   3   |  12   |    8\n  Pants        |     6     |   3   |   9   |    7\n  Pants        |   284     |   4   |   9   |    7\n  Pants        |    10     |   4   |   9   |    8\n  -------------+-----------+-------+-------+--------\n\nSuch differences are reproduced in all the needle trades.[36]\n\nSimilar distinctions are also found in laundries. A very few have\nproperly constructed plants, with wash-rooms on the upper floors and\nsome arrangement for carrying off the inevitable steam (Butler, l. c.,\np. 170). In one, however, there are \"exhaust pipes over the mangles, and\nfans in the walls, and there are windows along the side. The feeders are\nseated while handling small work, and the folders have comfortable\nbenches\" (p. 174). Wages, too, are considerably higher here than in\nother laundries. Four laundries in Pittsburgh have adopted an improved\ncuff-ironing machine which saves the operator from the extreme physical\nexertion of the old style (p. 182). A North Side laundry has set aside a\nbright sunny section of the building \"for a lunch-room; there are\nattractive dishes, tables covered with white cloths, comfortable chairs.\nThe noon interval is an hour and a half\" (p. 312).\n\nTurning to mercantile houses we also find a great contrast. Some provide\nonly half a dozen chairs for five hundred girls, while others do not\nallow chairs to be used at all.[37] Many stores have a working week at\nChristmas of from seventy-two to eighty-four hours without extra pay\n(Butler, l. c., p. 303). \"Some employers are generally reputed among\nsalesgirls to assume that their women employees secure financial backing\nfrom outside relationships, and knowingly pay wages that are\nsupplementary rather than wages large enough to cover the cost of a\ngirl's support.\" (L. c., p. 306.) Indeed, some employers frankly admit\nthis and advertise for sales-women, \"preferably those living at\nhome.\"[38]\n\nCompare with these stores the one that \"exemplifies a higher standard at\neach point under discussion; in the comprehensiveness of its ventilating\nsystem; in its observance of the spirit of the law in providing an\naverage of four seats to a counter for its employees; in the fact that\nit has no Christmas overtime; ... and finally in its wage standard....\nSeven hundred girls are paid $7.00; ... one hundred girls are paid $8.00\nto $10.00, and sometimes $15.00 in the case of a head of stock.\"\n(Butler, l. c., p. 304.)\n\nSome glass factories furnish shutters over the leer-mouths to protect\nemployees from heat;[39] prevent radiation from the melting tanks by\nvarious devices (l. c., p. 79); provide blue glass screens at the glory\nholes (ib.); artificially cool the shops in summer (l. c., p. 80); work\nshorter hours (p. 98); eliminate night-work (p. 104); provide hoods and\nexhausts for the etching baths (p. 322) and the sand blasts (p. 317). In\none woolen factory the milligrams of dust in a cubic centimeter of air\nwere reduced from twenty to seven by the installation of an\nexhauster.[40]\n\nThe fact, too, that organizations such as trade unions and consumers'\nleagues can allow the use of their labels to certify that an article has\nbeen made under fair conditions, is a striking confirmation of the fact\nthat some manufacturers do maintain proper factories and treat their\nemployees justly.\n\nNevertheless, competition has a black as well as a silver lining. It is\nself-evident that for any length of time laborers cannot get more than\nthe total product of their work coupled with the necessary capital. Nor\nwill it be denied that capitalists will always be in a position to\nappropriate a part of this joint product, how much depending very\nlargely upon the relative supply of capital and labor and the keenness\nof competition between them. The share that is left and which goes to\nthe laborers is not divided equally. It is distributed competitively.\nThose who are economically strongest seize what they can, and the\nweaklings must be content with the remainder. Frequently this is not\nsufficient to afford them the standard we are considering, but they are\nhelpless to remedy matters.\n\nAnd there are some things that tend to keep this share at a minimum.\nIndustrial organization is not simply a case of competition between\ncapital and labor, but capitalists are competing with capitalists as\nwell as with laborers, and laborers with each other as well as with\ncapitalists. The result is that the weakest parties to this fray get hit\nhardest, and their only hope would seem to be the addition of some other\ncheck to competition that will prevent the present distressful\nconsequences. This is not to say, as Socialists argue, that competition\nis to be abolished entirely, for we have seen that it may really have\nexcellent effects for the workman. Rather it is to be harnessed and\nguided into beneficent channels, as a miller directs a stream to turn a\nwheel. He does not destroy the stream but makes it do his will.\n\nAn analysis of industrial society will show, I think, that despite the\ngood work the stream of competition is doing, there is a little eddy\nundermining the bank and working havoc in some places. The description\nof one phase of competition, even though it be isolated from the rest,\nwill probably give a correct enough idea of how this force while working\nout to the advantage of some, is resulting in harm to others. The\nconsiderations that must be omitted in a short sketch do not change the\nmatter essentially. They limit the hardship wrought, but they do not\nprevent a considerable number of workmen from being mercilessly ground\ndown.\n\nModern industry, then, is organized for sale, not use. Business men care\nnothing about what they manufacture so long as they can find a\nprofitable sale for the article. The typical employer makes shoes not\nbecause he likes to, as an artist may paint a picture. He does it\nbecause he thinks a sufficient number of purchasers will want this\ncommodity at a price paying him for his trouble.\n\nBut to get these purchasers he must (unless he have some sort of\nmonopoly) offer his product at a price no higher than other\nmanufacturers are willing to take for the same article. If he deviate\nonly a few cents, the expert buyers of retail stores will know it and go\nelsewhere. There is a constant demand for cheapness, a universal\neagerness to \"get your money's worth\"; and factories and retail firms\nmust meet it, or see their trade taken away by competitors. The intense\ndesire of individual buyers for minute savings of a cent here or a\nfraction of a cent there, becomes, in the aggregate, an irresistible\nDemand with a capital D, \"a blood-power stronger than steam,\" compelling\nthe retailer (who in his turn reacts upon the manufacturer) to sell\ncheap. \"The phenomena of sweating are a standing warning against the\ndangers that are inherent in unregulated competition.... The underlying\ncause of the evil,\" affirms a noted English economist, \"is certainly to\nbe found in the indiscriminate preference of the public for that which\nis low-priced.\"[41]\n\nThe seller, then, must meet the Consumer's demands; and since these are\nfor cheapness, he must sell cheap. But how can cheapness be obtained?\nOnly by cutting down the expenses of production. Other manufacturers\npossess the same machinery, about the same advantages of location, and\napproximately the same talent. Given a system of unrestrained\ncompetition, each firm will have to count costs to within a fraction of\na cent and reduce expenses to the lowest possible amount. To this end\nwages are often cut, workmen speeded, and the health of employees\nendangered.\n\n\"No one of us,\" says the manager of a big department store in St. Louis,\n\"has any particular consideration in the purchase price of goods; the\nease of communication and the large amount of advertising make it\nimpossible for us to have any serious advantage over others in point of\nselling price. The women can go from one store to another, effectually\npreventing one store from being materially higher priced on the same\ngoods than another.\n\n\"The great struggle is over the expense account. This brings up the\nwhole question of salaries, the amount that can be paid to employees\ndirectly, the amount that is spent by us in caring for them,\ncompensation for length of service.... All these have to be handled from\nthe expense account, and it is on this point that some of the most\ndelicate questions of morals arise, and they involve both the employer\nand the customer in the treatment of the employee.\"[42]\n\nIt is true that some economists have maintained that the price of an\narticle must cover its cost of production.[43] But as Professor Carver\nsays, such an opinion \"is probably the source of more error and\nconfusion in economic discussions than any other mistake.\" (Loc. cit.)\nIt may be granted, indeed, that the price will never be much below the\n_expenses_ of production, understanding by \"expenses of production\" what\nthe entrepreneur must pay out in wages, interest, etc. Yet even this is\nnot because the expenses of production directly govern prices. They\naffect the price only indirectly by limiting the supply. For no\nentrepreneur will long continue in business if he be not able to sell\nhis product at a profit, and his going out of business will decrease the\nsupply and so raise the price by the well-known law of supply and\ndemand.\n\nBut \"costs of production,\" being the sum of the efforts and sacrifices\nof all concerned in making an article, are very different from \"expenses\nof production.\"[44] It is by no means true, as Professor Sidgwick\npointed out twenty-five years ago, that the amount necessary to enable a\nlaborer to keep himself in good physical condition and reproduce himself\nforms a minimum below which the self-interest of an employer will not\nallow wages to fall.[45]\n\nFor in the first place, there is no assurance that a laborer is going to\nspend his wages for this purpose. How, then, can it be to his employer's\nadvantage to pay him more than he is willing to take, when the surplus\nmay be squandered in drink? And even assuming that the generality of\nlaborers must receive such an amount in order to meet the demand for\nworkmen, still they need not all receive it from their employers. An\nindustry, such as the department stores, may try to get girls who obtain\npart of their support from fathers or brothers employed in other\nbusinesses.[46] Or wages of large classes may be supplemented by public\nor private alms. This was long the case under the English Poor Law. As\nthe land-occupiers paid the greater portion of the rates, it was to the\nManufacturers' advantage to have wages really come partly from the\nparish.\n\nAnd the numbers of laborers can be kept stationary without each workman,\nor even every class, receiving enough to perpetuate himself. For their\nranks can easily be recruited from an over-supply of some higher class.\nThere is a constant pressure upon the upper strata, forcing down the\nunfit, and it is readily conceivable that these failures should take the\nplaces of still greater failures below.\n\nThere is, then, no physical or economic necessity forcing employers to\npay fair wages to each individual worker, in the sense in which we are\nusing the word \"fair\" for the sake of argument. \"The effort to organize\nbusiness with a view to cheap production, may be carried on in such\nfashion as to press unduly on those who work for wages; employers are in\na position in which they may be able to drive hard bargains as to hours\nof work and rates of pay, and to pass on the risk of loss, which arises\nfrom fluctuations of business, to be borne by those who are thrown out\nof employment.\"[47] And not only may this, but there is every inducement\nand almost necessity urging that it should, be done except where the\nworkmen are organized. No employer can afford to pay a workman more than\nhis surplus over and above what would be produced without him, and it\nwill be to his advantage to pay less. He is a purchaser of labor, and\nlike every other purchaser wants to get that commodity at the lowest\nfigure. And there are several differences between him and the purchaser\nof any other commodity that give him a distinct advantage in the\nbargain.\n\nIn the first place, not merely increased profits, what would be\nrepresented by a housewife's saving in shopping, urge him to buy cheap\nlabor, but his own industrial existence, which will be lost if he does\nnot get his workmen as cheap as his competitors. Having a greater prize\nat stake, he develops a greater skill. He has a wider view of economic\nconditions, a better knowledge of the state of trade elsewhere, and so\nhe can outbargain the unorganized laborer.\n\nAgain, the laborer is in a worse position than the seller of almost any\nother commodity. For what he does not sell to-day disappears absolutely.\nIf he does not dispose of it now he cannot to-morrow. A fruiterer can\nkeep his oranges until the next day, if he is not satisfied with the\ncurrent price. But to-day's labor can be sold only to-day. And if it be\nnot sold, it is probable that the workman will be physically less fit\nto-morrow. Yet even if he does accept the wage offered, and it is less\nthan enough to repair the daily waste of force, the same result will be\nbrought about gradually. He is, therefore, confronted by the dilemma of\ntaking what the idle are willing to accept, or becoming idle himself.\n\nIt needs only the imagining of one's self in the position of the\nunemployed to see that there is hardly any limit below which the wages\nof the weakest may not fall. A man without special skill and without\nsavings, with not only himself but others to look out for, will be glad\nto get even what he knows will not completely support him.\n\n\"Without organization and by means of individual bargaining, wages are\ndrawn downward toward the level set by what idle men will accept, which\nmay be less than they will produce after they receive employment and\nwill surely be less than they will produce after they have developed\ntheir full efficiency. When labor makes its bargains with employers\nwithout organization on its side, the parties in the transaction are not\non equal terms and wages are unduly depressed. The individual laborer\noffers what he is forced to sell, and the employer is not forced to buy.\nDelay may mean privation for the one party and no great inconvenience or\nloss for the other. If there are within reach a body of necessitous men\nout of employment and available for filling the positions for which\nindividual laborers are applying, the applicants are at a fatal\ndisadvantage.\"[48] Such is the opinion of a conservative economist with\nan especially kindly feeling towards the competitive system.\n\nIt would seem, therefore, that the competitive organization of industry\nhas a tendency to crush out the weaklings. How numerous are these\nweaklings, we shall now discuss.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[36] L. c., pp. 121, 122, 134, 152; U. S. Bur. Lab., \"Men's Ready-Made\nClothing,\" p. 303.\n\n[37] Butler, p. 301; U. S. Bur. Lab., \"Women Wage-Earners in Stores and\nFactories,\" pp. 109, 178.\n\n[38] U. S. Bur. Lab., l. c., p. 22; Report Minneapolis Vice Commission,\n1911, p. 127.\n\n[39] U. S. Bur. Lab., \"Glass Industry,\" p. 54.\n\n[40] U. S. Bur. Lab., \"Industrial Hygiene,\" 1908, p. 79.\n\n[41] W. Cunningham, \"Christianity and Social Questions,\" pp. 122-123:\nLondon, 1910.\n\n[42] \"The Socialised Church,\" p. 120, address on \"The Relation of the\nChurch to Employees in Department Stores,\" by Hanford Crawford, B.S.:\nSt. Louis, N. Y., 1909.\n\n[43] Cf. T. N. Carver, \"Distribution of Wealth,\" p. 31: N. Y., 1908.\n\n[44] Cf. H. R. Seager, \"Introduction to Political Economy,\" pp. 53-54:\nN. Y., 1908.\n\n[45] H. Sidgwick, \"Principles of Political Economy,\" p. 297: London,\n1887.\n\n[46] Cf. \"Wage-Earning Women in Stores and Factories,\" p. 22: U. S.\nBureau of Labor, 1911.\n\n[47] W. Cunningham, \"Christianity and Social Questions,\" p. 118: London,\n1910.\n\n[48] J. B. Clark, \"Essentials of Economic Theory,\" pp. 453 and 456: N.\nY., 1907.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER FIVE\n\n                      INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS: WAGES\n\n\nWhat has been said regarding industrial conditions is not mere\ntheorizing. Private, state and federal investigations into actual\nconditions confirm the contention that there is a large margin of\nunemployed, and that a considerable portion of those who do find\nemployment are overworked and underpaid regardless of life and limb.\nAnyone who studies the various official reports on this subject, must\nconclude that Dr. Devine's summary of the _Pittsburgh Survey_ was well\nwithin the truth and is applicable to practically the whole country:\n\n     \"Low wages for the great majority of the laborers employed by the\n     mills, not lower than in other large cities, but low compared with\n     the prices--so low as to be inadequate to the maintenance of a\n     normal American standard of living; wages adjusted to the single\n     man in the lodging house, not the responsible head of a family.\n\n     \"Still lower wages for women, who receive, for example, in one of\n     the metal trades, in which the proportion of women is great enough\n     to be menacing, one-half as much as unorganized men in the same\n     shops and one-third as much as men in the union.\n\n     \"The destruction of family life; not in any imaginary or mystical\n     sense, but by the demands of the day's work, and by the very\n     demonstrable and material method of typhoid fever and industrial\n     accidents; both preventable, but both costing in single years in\n     Pittsburgh considerably more than a thousand lives, and\n     irretrievably shattering nearly as many homes.\"[49]\n\nAssuming, throughout this discussion, that $6.00 a week ($1.00 a week\nless than Miss Butler's estimate), or $312.00 a year is the lowest fair\nindividual wage; and $11.00 a week, or $572.00 a year is the lowest fair\nfamily living wage:[50] it is easy to show from reliable reports that\nscores of thousands of individuals and heads of families fall below this\nstandard. But in considering any figures quoted here, or to be found\nelsewhere, it should always be remembered that the actual wage may be\nmuch below the rate of wage. One employed at the rate of $6.00 a week\nmay not make anything like that because of loss of time.\n\nHow much is lost through unemployment, it is hard to say. The United\nStates Industrial Commission was of the opinion, that \"it is impossible\nto collect statistics of any value whatever relative to the unemployment\nof unorganized labor, among whom lack of employment is a much more\nserious thing than it is with skilled or organized labor.\"[51] It would\nseem, however, that in the clothing trades, the employees lose at least\none day in every six.[52] According to a Federal report issued in 1911,\nin Baltimore one-fifth of the force worked between five days and full\ntime; one-tenth between four and five days; one-seventh between two and\nthree, and five per cent, two days or less.[53] A report of the New York\nState Bureau of Labor for 1906[54] contains the following suggestive\ntable regarding the unemployment of certain classes of _organized_\nlabor. It may rightly be assumed that among unorganized workmen\nconditions are worse.\n\n                                  TABLE I.\n\n               NO. AND PROPORTION OF UNEMPLOYED WAGE-EARNERS\n\n  ----+--------+--------+--------+-----++----------------------------------\n      | No. of | No. of |No. idle|Per  ||           Per cent idle\n  Mon.| unions | memb'rs| at end |cent |+------+------+------+------+------\n      |report'g|report'g|of month|idle || 1905 | 1904 | 1903 | 1902 |1902-5\n  ----+--------+--------+--------+-----++------+------+------+------+------\n  Jan.|   191  | 84,539 | 12,682 |15.  || 22.5 | 25.8 | 20.5 | 20.9 | 22.4\n  Feb.|   190  | 85,155 | 13,031 |15.3 || 19.4 | 21.6 | 17.8 | 18.7 | 19.4\n  Mch.|   192  | 25,956 |  2,952 |11.6 || 19.2 | 27.1 | 17.6 | 17.3 | 20.3\n  Apr.|   192  | 90,352 |  6,583 | 7.3 || 11.8 | 17.0 | 17.3 | 15.3 | 15.4\n  May |   192  | 91,163 |  6,364 | 7.0 ||  8.3 | 15.9 | 20.2 | 14.0 | 14.6\n  June|   192  | 92,100 |  5,801 | 6.3 ||  9.1 | 13.7 | 23.1 | 14.5 | 15.1\n  July|   195  | 94,571 |  7,229 | 7.6 ||  8.0 | 14.8 | 17.8 | 15.6 | 14.1\n  Aug.|   195  | 94,220 |  5,462 | 5.8 ||  7.2 | 13.7 | 15.4 |  7.1 | 10.9\n  Sep.|   195  | 94,290 |  5,252 | 6.3 ||  5.9 | 12.0 |  9.4 |  6.3 |  8.4\n  Oct.|   195  | 92,052 |  6,383 | 6.9 ||  5.6 | 10.8 | 11.7 |  4.2 |  9.8\n  Nov.|   195  | 93,042 |  7,052 | 7.6 ||  6.1 | 11.1 | 16.4 | 14.3 | 12.0\n  Dec.|   195  | 93,318 | 14,352 |15.4 || 11.1 | 19.6 | 23.1 | 22.2 | 19.0\n  ----+--------+--------+--------+-----++------+------+------+------+------\n  Mean for year|        |        | 9.3 || 11.2 | 16.9 | 17.5 | 14.8 | 15.1\n  -------------+--------+--------+-----++------+------+------+------+------\n\nOther deductions that must be made from the apparent wage are the\nwithholding of pay for long periods, exorbitant prices and rents\nobtained through company stores and houses, fines, and increases in the\ncost of living.\n\nTherefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the per diem or\nweekly wage rate as given by the Bureau of Labor and other reports,\naffords, by itself, an accurate statement only of the maximum yearly\nwage. This should always be remembered in judging any facts hereafter\nadduced.\n\nIn the fifteenth volume of the bulletins of the Bureau of Labor will be\nfound many interesting tables bearing on this question of wages. But as\nit is impracticable to quote them at any length here, a few of the more\nsalient facts must suffice. Laborers in the flour mills of the South\nwere working twelve hours a day for 11c. an hour.[55] Women in the\ncarpet factories of the North were getting no more.[56] In the factory\nproduct of the clothing trade great numbers received less than 10c.,\n11c., and 12c. an hour (p. 35), and the compensation in sweatshops was\nmuch less. Male boarders in the knit-goods factories of the\nNorth-Central section were averaging less than $387.00 per annum. Women\nin the same factories were getting much less, some even as low as 7c.\nand 8c. an hour (p. 43). Silk-spinners in the North-Atlantic section\nwere making only $5.00 a week, or less than $260.00 a year, for a nine\nand one-half hour day (p. 58). Male cigar-stemmers in the same section\nwere making $6.00 a week (p. 59). In Michigan, in 1905, there were 3414\nboys between fourteen and sixteen earning on an average 77c. a day, and\n1725 girls making 64c. a day. In 1904, the average yearly earnings in\nthe food preparations industry was $441.00; in salt production, $451.00;\non tobacco and cigars, $393.00 (p. 334).\n\nIn New Jersey, in 1904-5, the average earnings in the cigar industry\nwere $316.70; silk-weaving, $480.11; woolen and worsted goods, $373.43.\nIn the same State in 1903-4, there were 1985 adult males receiving less\nthan $3.00 a week; 3234 between $3.00 and $4.00; 5595 between $4.00 and\n$5.00; 6037 between $5.00 and $6.00; 12,406 between $7.00 and $8.00;\n14,300 between $8.00 and $9.00, though $9.00, working full time every\nweek, would be only $468.00 a year.\n\nThe very latest reports available confirm these figures. In the cotton\ntextile industry alone, 29,974 employees, or 53.77% of the total number\ninvestigated (11,484 men and 18,490 women) were being paid at a rate\nless than $6.00 a week.[57] If we take the $11.00 rate, or family living\nwage, we find that 19,382 men (89% of the total) fall below it (l. c.).\nAnd as only 55% of the men employed in this industry were single (l. c.,\np. 132), at least 7285 of these men must have been married, and hence\nreceiving less than the normal family living wage. It must be\nremembered, too, that these figures are based upon the assumption that\nfull time is made. Could we get the actual wages, these groups would be\nmuch larger. This is shown by the table on page 329 of this report,\nwhere actual wages average $1.32 less than computed full time earnings.\n\nIf we turn to the clothing industry, we find conditions even worse. In\nthe five cities investigated (New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Rochester,\nand Philadelphia), 6788 employees, or 37% of the total (1217 men and\n5571 women) were being paid at a rate less than the individual living\nwage of $6.00. Taking the family living wage of $11.00 as our standard,\n3499 men, or 62% of the total, fail to reach it.[58]\n\nAgain it must be repeated, that the actual wages are from 7-1/2 to\n20-1/2% lower than these figures (l. c., p. 161). In one New York\nspecial order shop, the earnings for December fall to 55% of the\naverage (l. c., p. 178).\n\nThese figures, however, are for shop-workers only. The _average_ wages\nfor home-workers are: Chicago, $4.35; Rochester, $4.14; New York, $3.61;\nPhiladelphia, $2.88; and Baltimore, $2.24. \"Here again the caution must\nbe borne in mind that home-workers' wages, low as they are, often stand\nfor the earnings of more than one worker. Sometimes, as reported on the\nbooks of the firm, it represents the earnings of more than one week\" (l.\nc., p. 139). Ninety-eight per cent. of the married shop-finishers, and\npractically all of the home-finishers, too, earned less than $350.00 a\nyear (l. c., p. 226). The average yearly earnings of home-workers are\ngiven as varying from $120.00 in New York to $196.00 in Rochester. From\npage 235 to 239 inclusive, the details of the earnings, size of\nfamilies, and number of those working is gone into at great length. It\nmust suffice here to say that families of five are recorded whose total\nyearly earnings are less than $100.00. One family of eleven is\nchronicled whose yearly income was $445.00, sixty-five dollars of which\nwas earned by home-work. Working six days a week for ten hours a day,\nthe home-worker cannot hope to make more than $156.00 a year.[59]\n\nSeventy-six per cent. of the women employed in the glass industry earned\nless than six dollars a week.[60] Their average annual earnings, in\nfact, are stated as ranging from $163.00 for those sixteen years old to\n$292.00 for those from twenty-five to twenty-nine (l. c., p. 544).\nNearly one-third of the female department-store employees receive less\nthan $6.00 a week.[61] Yet many of them had other persons depending upon\nthem (l. c., p. 55). One family, consisting of a mother,\nseventeen-year-old daughter, and three younger children, was supported\nby the daughter's $5.00 a week. They managed it by living in two rooms\nand eating practically nothing besides bread and tea or coffee (l. c.,\np. 56).\n\nIn New York State in 1906,[62] it was found that even among organized\nlaborers reporting to the Bureau of Labor, 6078 men and 2011 women were\nearning less than the lowest individual living wage ($300.00), and\n59,226 men and 8881 women (17.6% and 63.8% respectively) were earning\nless than the lowest family living wage ($600.00). If conditions were so\nbad among union men, they were probably much worse among unorganized\nworkers.\n\nIn Pittsburgh, in the canneries, 59% of the girls make only $6.00 a\nweek, or less (Butler, l. c., p. 38). Of those employed in the\nconfectionery trades, only twenty-one earn as much as seven dollars (l.\nc., p. 50). And these two trades have inevitable dull seasons that cut\nwages much below these figures. Seven hundred out of nine hundred girls\nin the cracker business receive less than $6.00 a week (l. c., p. 70).\nLaundries are amongst the worst paying establishments, and there is\npractically no chance of advancement. The shakers-out never earn more\nthan $4.00 a week, and usually only $3.00 or $3.50 (l. c., p. 170). No\nmangle girl makes more than $6.00 and most between $3.00 and $5.00 (p.\n173). Broom-making often gives only $2.50 a week, and the highest is\n$5.00 (p. 252). Many box-makers earn only 60c. or 80c. a day, and 80% of\nthe girls are being paid less than $6.00 a week (p. 261). Packing\nsoap-powder in stifling rooms pays $4.50 (p. 270). Nearly 50% of the\ngirls in the printing trades are below the $6.00 standard.\n\nThese, then, are the facts concerning wages. But no social fact can be\nentirely isolated. It is always intimately connected with many others,\nand no treatment of wages can be at all satisfactory without going to\nsome extent into the ramifications of this subject along other lines. A\nchapter, therefore, will be devoted to the question of health and of\nmorals as affected by industrial conditions and low wages.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[49] Report of annual convention of the American Sociological Society,\n1908, or Charities and the Commons, now the Survey, March 6, 1909.\n\n[50] Cf. p. 36f for discussion of fair wage.\n\n[51] Vol. XIX, p. 754.\n\n[52] Loc. cit., p. 755.\n\n[53] U. S. Bureau of Labor, \"Men's Ready-Made Clothing,\" p. 113.\n\n[54] P. XI.\n\n[55] Loc. cit., p. 37.\n\n[56] P. 31.\n\n[57] U. S. Bureau of Labor, \"Cotton Textile Industry,\" p. 305, 1910.\n\n[58] U. S. Bureau of Labor, \"Men's Ready-Made Clothing,\" p. 129.\n\n[59] L. c., p. 301; cf. also 20th Annual Report Bureau of Labor\nStatistics of N. Y., pp. 66-67, here quoted.\n\n[60] U. S. Bureau of Labor, \"Glass Industry,\" p. 405, 1911.\n\n[61] U. S. Bureau Lab., \"Wage-Earning Women in Stores and Factories,\" p.\n46, 1911.\n\n[62] Report of Bureau of Labor Statistics of New York for 1906, p. XXXI.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER SIX\n\n                     INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS: HEALTH\n\n\nThe inevitable result of low wages is poor health. Bad housing\nconditions and insufficient food must follow upon the heels of scanty\npay, unless the wages are supplemented in some other way; and that means\nanemia, tuberculosis, typhoid, and general physical debility. \"In the\nNew York block\" bounded by E. Houston, Mott, Prince, and Elizabeth Sts.,\n\"one of every nine children born dies before it attains the age of five\nyears. The death and disease rates are abnormal. The death rates for all\nages in the City of New York in 1905-6 was 18.35 per thousand, and for\nthose under five years it was 51.5; but in this block it was 24.0 for\nall ages and for those under five years it was 92.2.\"[63] \"Nothing could\nbe added to or taken away from these homes to add to their squalor.\" (P.\n296.)\n\nThe conditions of many workers' homes can be learned in detail from\npages 254-259 of the Federal report just quoted. Here only a few of the\nleading facts can be mentioned. Thus in Pittsburgh 51.1% of the families\ninvestigated had as many as three persons per sleeping room.[64] Eleven\nper cent. of female factory and miscellaneous employees and nine per\ncent. of store girls are rated as having \"bad\" housing conditions and\nbad food.[65] Very few girls doing \"light housekeeping\" get proper\nbreakfasts (l. c., p. 18), or, indeed, any other meals. It is not\nbecause they can't cook, but because they have to keep food expenses to\na minimum in order to buy clothes, pay room-rent, doctors, etc.\n\n\"'You see I'm dieting,' said a frail slip of a department-store girl as\nshe held out her tray upon which the cafeteria cashier, in the presence\nof the Bureau's agent, put a two-cent check, covering the cost of the\ngirl's lunch--a small dish of tapioca. She may have been dieting, but\nthe evidences were pathetically against the need thereof, and there were\nsome things telling other tales to a thoughtful observer. The girl's\nshoes and waist and skirt were plainly getting weary of well-doing, and\nto hold her position as sales-woman they must soon be replaced\" (l. c.,\np. 17).\n\nThe tables on pages 80 and 81, to one who practises the \"great\ntransmigratory art\" (as Charles Reade calls it) of putting yourself in\nanother's place, tell pitiful stories of making ends meet (l. c., pp.\n54-55).\n\n               NUMBER OF WOMEN WAGE-EARNERS KEEPING HOUSE\n              CLASSIFIED BY COST OF LIVING AND WAGE GROUPS\n\n  ------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n              |          No. of women with average weekly cost of living ($)\n              |                 (food, shelter, heat, light, laundry)\n  ------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+------\n     Average  |Un- |1.00|1.50|2.00|2.50|3.00|3.50|4.00|4.50|5.00|5.50|6.00|6.50|\n     weekly   |der | to | to | to | to | to | to | to | to | to | to | to |and |Total\n    earnings  |1.00|1.49|1.99|2.49|2.99|3.49|3.99|4.49|4.99|5.49|5.99|6.49|over|\n  ------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+------\n  $1.00: $1.49| .. | .. |  1 | .. | .. | .. |  1 |  1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  3\n   1.50:  1.99| .. | .. | .. |  1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  1\n   2.00:  2.49| .. |  1 |  1 |  1 |  2 |  1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  6\n   2.50:  2.99| .. |  1 | .. |  2 |  1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  4\n   3.00:  3.49| .. | .. |  2 |  2 |  2 |  1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  7\n   3.50:  3.99|  1 | .. |  1 |  2 |  1 | .. |  3 | .. | .. | .. |  1 | .. | .. |  9\n   4.00:  4.49|  2 |  2 |  2 |  2 |  1 |  3 |  1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 13\n   4.50:  4.99|  1 |  5 |  4 |  6 | .. |  5 |  3 | .. |  2 | .. |  1 | .. | .. | 27\n   5.00:  5.49|  2 | .. |  3 |  2 |  2 |  3 |  3 |  1 |  2 | .. |  1 | .. | .. | 19\n   5.50:  5.99| .. |  2 |  2 |  2 |  2 |  2 |  1 |  3 |  1 | .. |  2 | .. | .. | 17\n   6.00:  6.49| .. |  3 |  2 |  5 |  3 |  3 |  2 |  1 | .. | .. | .. |  1 | .. | 20\n   6.50:  6.99| .. | .. | .. |  2 |  1 | .. |  1 |  2 |  2 | .. | .. | .. |  1 |  9\n   7.00:  7.49| .. |  1 |  4 |  1 |  4 |  4 |  2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 16\n   7.50:  7.99|  1 | .. |  3 |  3 |  1 |  2 |  3 |  5 | .. | .. |  2 |  1 |  1 | 22\n   8.00:  8.49| .. |  1 |  3 |  1 |  3 |  5 |  5 |  2 |  2 | .. |  1 | .. | .. | 23\n   8.50:  8.99| .. | .. | .. | .. |  1 |  1 |  1 |  1 |  1 | .. | .. | .. | .. |  5\n   9.00:  9.49| .. |  1 | .. | .. | .. |  2 | .. |  2 |  2 |  1 |  1 | .. |  1 | 10\n   9.50:  9.99| .. | .. | .. | .. |  1 | .. |  1 |  1 |  1 | .. | .. |  1 | .. |  5\n  10.00: 10.49| .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  2 |  4\n  10.50: 10.99| .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  1 | .. | .. | .. | .. |  1\n  11.00: 11.49| .. | .. |  1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  1 | .. |  1 |  3\n  11.50: 11.99| .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  1 | .. | .. | .. |  1 | .. | .. | .. |  2\n  12.00: 12.99| .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  1 | .. | .. |  2 | .. |  1 |  1 | .. |  5\n  13.00: 13.99| .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  1\n  14.00: 14.99| .. | .. | .. | .. |  1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  1 | .. | .. |  2\n  15.00 & over| .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |  1 |  2\n  ------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+------\n  Total       |  7 | 17 | 29 | 32 | 26 | 36 | 29 | 19 | 16 |  2 | 12 |  4 |  7 |236[A]\n  ------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+------\n\n[A] 16.6% of those for whom the information necessary was secured. In\nthe cities investigated (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis,\nBoston, Minneapolis, and St. Paul) there were, in 1905, 400,000 women\nemployed in stores, mills, factories, and other similar establishments.\n\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n         NUMBER OF WOMEN WAGE-EARNERS KEEPING HOUSE WHO HAVE SPECIFIED\n              NUMBER OF PERSONS WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY DEPENDENT\n                   ON THEM FOR SUPPORT, BY WAGE GROUPS\n  --------------+-----------------------------++----------------------------\n                |     No. of women having     ||     No. of women having\n                |       wholly dependent      ||     partially dependent\n                |           on them           ||           on them\n                +-----------------------------++----------------------------\n     Average    |  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |     ||  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |\n      Weekly    | per-| per-| per-| per-|     || per-| per-| per-| per-|\n     Earnings   | son | sons| sons| sons| Tot.|| son | sons| sons| sons|Tot.\n  --------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----++-----+-----+-----+-----+----\n  $ 1.00: $ 1.49| ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  || ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  | ..\n    1.50:   1.99| ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  || ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  | ..\n    2.00:   2.49| ..  | ..  | ..  |  1  |  1  ||  1  |  3  | ..  | ..  |  4\n    2.50:   2.99| ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  ||  1  | ..  |  1  | ..  |  2\n    3.00:   3.49|  1  | ..  |  1  | ..  |  2  ||  2  |  1  | ..  | ..  |  3\n    3.50:   3.99|  1  | ..  | ..  | ..  |  1  ||  1  |  2  | ..  |  1  |  4\n    4.00:   4.49|  2  | ..  |  1  | ..  |  3  ||  2  |  3  |  3  |  1  |  9\n    4.50:   4.99|  1  | ..  |  2  |  2  |  5  ||  4  |  2  |  3  |  2  | 11\n    5.00:   5.49| ..  | ..  |  1  |  1  |  2  ||  7  |  1  | ..  |  2  | 10\n    5.50:   5.99|  2  |  1  | ..  | ..  |  3  ||  4  |  1  | ..  | ..  |  5\n    6.00:   6.49| ..  |  1  |  1  | ..  |  2  ||  5  |  3  |  1  |  1  | 10\n    6.50:   6.99| ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  ||  4  |  1  |  1  | ..  |  6\n    7.00:   7.49|  3  |  1  | ..  | ..  |  4  ||  1  |  1  | ..  |  1  |  3\n    7.50:   7.99| ..  |  3  |  2  | ..  |  5  || 10  | ..  | ..  |  1  | 11\n    8.00:   8.49|  6  | ..  |  1  | ..  |  7  ||  4  | ..  |  2  |  1  |  7\n    8.50:   8.99|  2  |  1  | ..  | ..  |  3  ||  2  | ..  | ..  | ..  |  2\n    9.00:   9.49| ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  ||  2  |  2  |  1  | ..  |  5\n    9.50:   9.99|  1  | ..  | ..  | ..  |  1  || ..  | ..  |  1  | ..  |  1\n   10.00:  10.49| ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  ||  2  | ..  | ..  | ..  |  2\n   10.50:  10.99| ..  |  1  | ..  | ..  |  1  || ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  | ..\n   11.00:  11.49|  1  | ..  | ..  | ..  |  1  ||  1  | ..  | ..  |  1  |  2\n   11.50:  11.99|  1  | ..  | ..  | ..  |  1  || ..  | ..  |  1  | ..  |  1\n   12.00:  12.99|  1  | ..  | ..  | ..  |  1  ||  1  | ..  |  1  | ..  |  2\n   13.00:  13.99| ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  || ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  | ..\n   14.00:  14.99|  1  | ..  | ..  | ..  |  1  || ..  | ..  | ..  | ..  | ..\n   15.00:  over |  1  | ..  |  1  | ..  |  2  || ..  |  1  | ..  | ..  |  1\n  --------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----++-----+-----+-----+-----+----\n      Total     | 24  |  8  | 10  |  4  | 46  || 54  | 21  | 15  | 11  | 101\n  --------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----++-----+-----+-----+-----+----\n\nBut bad food and bad housing are not the only enemies of the workman's\nhealth. The nature of his daily toil and the conditions under which it\nis performed are often against him. Even ventilation becomes important\nwhen one has to spend ten, eleven, or twelve hours a day in one room,\nand yet this is almost entirely neglected.\n\nIn 1908 a special officer was appointed in New York State to make tests\nof the atmospheric conditions in places of business. One hundred and\nthirty-six factories were examined, and in some printing establishments\nas many as forty parts of carbonic-acid gas (CO_{2}) in ten thousand\nvolumes of air were found, though a legal limit of twelve is\nrecommended. One cigar factory, with windows partly open, had eighty\nsuch parts. The following table will exhibit the results of this\ninvestigation.[66]\n\n  ------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----\n  Parts of CO_{2} in|    |     |     |     |     |     |     |\n   10,000 vols. air |5-12|13-20|21-25|26-30|31-40|42-60|65-70|75-80\n  ------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----\n     Factories in   |    |     |     |     |     |     |     |\n      each class    | 82 | 166 |  80 |  67 |  30 |  8  |  3  |  3\n  ------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----\n\nSometimes the exigencies of the trade require that there should be no\ndraft, as in the handling of carbon filaments for incandescent lamps,\nand then the conditions of the atmosphere become acutely unhealthy. In\naddition, in some of the rooms numerous bunsen burners are always\nlighted and all currents of air carefully excluded to prevent their\nflickering.[67]\n\nElsewhere, the process of manufacture often vitiates the air, as the\n\"blow-over\" in bottle shops. \"In some factories, at times the air is so\nfull of this floating glass that the hair is whitened by merely passing\nthrough the room. It sticks to the perspiration on the face and arms of\nthe boys and men and becomes a source of considerable irritation.\nGetting into the eyes it is especially troublesome\" (l. c., p. 66).\nSomething similar occurs in etching glass by a sand-blast. Unless a\nhood and exhaust are provided, a pressure of from fifty to ninety pounds\nscatters fine sand and glass dust through the air and is breathed in by\nthe operator (l. c., p. 440). Even worse, however, is the acid etching,\nas the fumes of hydrochloric acid cause severe irritation to the throat\nand lungs (l. c., p. 442).\n\nEven when there is no such irritant in the air as just mentioned,\nextreme differences in temperature between the work-room and the\noutside, or between various parts of the shop, may be a source of\nserious danger to health. In the glass industry, many persons have to\nwork in temperatures ranging from ninety to one hundred and forty\ndegrees, and as high as fifty degrees above the outside air (l. c., p.\n75). Industries where an artificial humidity is required, such as silk,\ncotton and flax spinning, are likely to induce rheumatism, pleurisy,\netc. After working ten hours in a room filled with live steam to prevent\nbreaking of threads, to pass into a New England blizzard is apt to\nproduce serious results. The boys in bottle-making shops are obliged to\npass continually from a temperature of 140 degrees at the \"glory-hole\"\nto one of 90 degrees or less in other parts (l. c., pp. 49ff.).\n\nAnd even if conditions of atmosphere and ventilation are good, the mere\nfact of continuing work for thirteen hours seven days a week tells\nseriously upon the physical endurance of the strongest.[68] When night\nwork is required in addition to the day's labor, as in the glass\nindustry, the consequences are likely to be worse, especially where\nchildren are concerned.[69] Night work frequently means a presence in\nthe factory of at least twenty hours out of the twenty-four. \"During the\ncourse of the investigation there were found two cases of recent death,\nboth children, which could be directly attributed to exhaustion due to\ndouble-shift work in the furnace room\" (l. c., p. 122).\n\nIn the clothing trade, \"some piece and task-workers reported that they\ncommonly worked seventy-two and even seventy-eight hours a week during\nbusy periods\" (l. c., p. 115). \"There were instances where women said\nthey worked from 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning to 9, 10, or 11 o'clock\nat night\" (l. c., p. 241). For store girls, \"thirteen and one-half hours\non Saturday is not only excessive but works considerable hardship.\"[70]\n\"One girl worked 24-1/2 hours at one stretch with but two half-hour\nintermissions for meals.... Four girls working in one establishment on\nthe 'night force' one day for each week reported their 'longest day's'\nlabor as 16-3/4, 20-1/4, 22-1/2, 24-1/4 hours\" (l. c., p. 205). On the\nelevated railways in Chicago, at the time of the investigation, 1907-08,\nwomen worked for 80-1/2 hours a week (l. c., p. 208).\n\nWhen the business requires the maintaining of practically one position\nall day, whether standing or sitting, such long hours are bound to have\na bad physical effect. This is the case, for example, in department\nstores (l. c., p. 178); in the glass industry where many growing boys\nare cramped before the furnace holes all day long;[71] in many processes\nin the manufacture of incandescent lamps (l. c., p. 482-483); and\nnumerous other occupations.\n\nBut there is frequently added to mere length of hours a feverish haste\nin working induced by starvation piece-rates or by the necessity of\nkeeping up with a machine. When a woman perforates 3100 bulbs a day and\nwelds tubes to them, there must be a constant nervous tension to attain\nsuch rapidity (l. c., p. 469). The even more complex operation of\nstem-making for these bulbs proceeds at a rate varying from 2600 to 3500\na day (l. c., p. 467). Three thousand stems and bulbs are assembled each\nday (p. 470), while in one day, an expert will test the candle-power of\n5000 lamps (p. 472). The operation of mounting Tungsten filaments in\nsmall copper wire is very much like threading an exceedingly small\nneedle. If one imagines this repeated 3000 times a day, with thread that\nhas to be handled with the greatest care to prevent breaking, he will\nhave some idea of the strain on eyes and nerves (p. 478). Twenty\nthousand completed lamps are tested daily at a piece rate of 6c. per\nthousand lamps (pp. 486-487).\n\nVery frequently, too, these long hours at an intense strain must be\nspent at work positively dangerous on account of the process, such as\nmatchmaking[72] or painting lamps.[73] Chemical poisoning is frequent in\nhatters' and furriers' work, and plumbism, which is very similar to\nphosphorous poisoning, besets any trade in which lead is used. This is\nthe case, in the production of white, red, or yellow lead, industries in\nwhich goods dyed with them undergo the process of building, winding,\nweaving, etc., and such an apparently innocuous occupation as the\nmanufacture of earthenware and pottery. \"One of the first symptoms of\nplumbism is a blue gum, followed by loosening and dropping out of the\nteeth. Blindness, paralysis, and death in convulsions frequently follow.\nBesides plumbism there are serious indirect results from lead-poisoning\nin a number of industries.\"[74] Readers of George Bernard Shaw will\nremember that Mrs. Warren adopted her profession through fear of\ncontracting this disease. Her sister had fallen a victim to it and the\nfrightful ravages made among her friends drove her to this course. In\nother industries such as wool sorting, blanket stoving and tentering,\nand warp dressing, lock-jaw is an incident.\n\nClosely allied to a question already discussed, that of ventilations, is\nthe insidious injury wrought by dust in the air. Some trades in which\nthis condition is pronounced, seem materially to shorten life, as shown\nby a bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor for May, 1909, on\n\"Mortality from Consumption in Certain Occupations.\" The proportion of\nthose reaching the age of 65 and over among tobacco and cigar factory\noperatives was 1.8%; glove-makers, 2.3%; bakers, 2.4%; leather curriers\nand tanners, 2.9%; and confectioners, 3.1%: as against 4.7%, the average\nexpected normal on the basis of all occupied males in the United States\n(l. c., p. 623).\n\nEighty-nine per cent. of the clergymen who died in 1900 were over 44,\nand 55% over 65 years of age; 76% of the lawyers dying in this year were\nover 44, and 41% over 65; 73% and 41% of the physicians had passed these\nrespective ages; 80% and 37% of the bankers, officials of companies,\netc., were over 44 and 65: yet more than half of the compositors dying\nin the United States for the year were under 49 years of age. About\none-half of these died of pulmonary tuberculosis. Only 18% were over\n60.[75] Between 1892 and 1898, 32% of the deaths of glass bottle-blowers\nwere due to tuberculosis, largely induced, probably, by the strain on\nthe lungs, the \"blow-over,\" and conditions of temperature.[76]\n\nIndustrial mortality insurance statistics show that 23% of the deaths of\nthose employed in trades exposed to organic dust are from consumption\nand 14% from other respiratory diseases, as against 14.8% and 11.7%, the\nexpected respective averages for the United States.[77] The following\ntable taken from the bulletin just quoted will probably exhibit the\nresults more strikingly (p. 626):\n\n  -------------+--------------------------------------------\n               |   Per cent. of deaths due to consumption\n               |                   among:\n  Age at death +---------------------+----------------------\n               | Occupations exposed | Males in registration\n               |   to organic dust   |    area, 1900-1906\n  -------------+---------------------+----------------------\n  15-24 years  |        40.1         |         27.8\n  25-34 years  |        49.0         |         31.3\n  35-44 years  |        35.3         |         23.6\n  45-54 years  |        21.6         |         15.0\n  55-64 years  |        11.0         |          8.1\n  65 and over  |         4.5         |          2.7\n  -------------+---------------------+----------------------\n\nIt will be seen from this table, that deaths from consumption in these\ntrades exposed to organic dust were more than half again as much as\nmight reasonably have been expected. And it must be remembered that\nstatistics indicate, \"that general organic dust is less serious in its\nfatal effects than mineral or metallic dust, and as a result the\nproportionate mortality from consumption and other respiratory diseases\nin this group is more favorable than in the groups of occupations with\nexposure to mineral and metallic dusts\" (l. c., p. 627).\n\nMore evident dangers of occupation, because more directly traceable to\ntheir causes, are industrial accidents. Manufacturers and employers\nsometimes wantonly, sometimes through ignorance, neglect the precautions\nand appliances necessary properly to safeguard their workmen. The\nintroduction of complicated machinery, the use of high-power explosives,\nthe strenuous conduct of production, without corresponding efforts to\noffset the natural tendencies of these conditions and tools, has made\npeace more horrible and dangerous than war.\n\nOf all such sources of accident, mines are probably the most prolific.\n\"The percentage of miners killed in this country is greater than in any\nother, being from two to four times as large as in any European\ncountry.\"[78] \"Every year of the past decade,\" 1890-1900, \"has seen from\n500 to 700 Pennsylvania miners killed and from 1200 to 1650 injured. By\ncomparing these figures with the total number employed, it will be found\nthat on the average about one man in every 400 employed in the mines is\nkilled yearly and about one out of every 150 injured.\"[79]\n\nIn 37 New England cotton mills in 1907, 1428 employees were injured.[80]\nThe Bethlehem Steel Works alone had a record of 927 accidents in\n1909.[81] In New York State, during a year of industrial depression,\n1907, there were 14,545 accidents recorded,[82] and we know that they\nare more numerous in prosperous years.\n\nTime and again we find in the succinct official reports such terse\nstatements as: \"While working on top of boiler was overcome by gas: dead\nwhen found,\" \"struck by pieces thrown from bursting emery wheel, died\nfrom injuries ten days later,\" \"heavy piece of machinery was being moved\nby crane which broke, allowing machinery to fall against tank, which in\nturn fell against deceased, crushing his legs and injuring him\ninternally: death occurred one hour later,\" \"caught in belt and whirled\naround shafting; death occurred before machinery could be stopped,\"\n\"struck in face by broken belt; eyeball broken: death ensued two days\nlater at hospital from effects of an\u00e6sthetic,\" \"broken elevator shaft\ncaused elevator to fall with operator; skull fractured and ear\nlacerated: death ensued later at hospital\" (l. c., pt. I, pp. 109-113).\n\nSuch are the official reports. They give no idea of the suffering of the\nfamilies, the struggles of widows and orphans when the head of the\nfamily has been struck down; they do not show the carelessness or greed\nthat subjects men to the danger of working with worn-out cranes, or\ndefective emery wheels, or weak belting; but they do show, in connection\nwith the other data quoted, in a cold official way, that hundreds of\nthousands of men and women in this country are working for excessive\nhours, amid unsanitary surroundings, and without proper protection from\nthe dangers of their work: judging by the standard which for the time\nbeing has been accepted as just.\n\nSuch conditions are hard enough for grown men and women to face, they\nare harder still for children. And by taking children away from school\nand putting them at work, frequently beyond their capacity, they are\nhandicapped mentally and physically for making enough later on to\nsupport a family. The percentage of children so injured cannot be\ndefinitely arrived at, but they are employed in considerable numbers in\na large variety of occupations. Sweatshops, glass factories, the making\nof neckties, cigars, paper and wooden boxes, picture frames, furniture,\nand shoes are a few of the widely different trades that take their\nquota. In the Southern cotton mills, twelve appears to be the age at\nwhich children are ordinarily expected to begin work; but some of the\nmills employ children under that age, now and then, in fact, as young as\nnine, eight, and even six years.[83]\n\n\"Probably the most serious and far-reaching effect of child-labor is the\nprevention of normal development, physical and mental. Besides being\ndeprived of the schooling they would otherwise get, children are injured\nby confinement and sometimes worn out by work. In other cases the work\nis demoralizing because it does not call out the best faculties of the\nchildren, or leaves them altogether idle for a part of the year.\n\n\"It has been found that children are much more liable to accidents in\nfactories than adults. Thus a recent report of the Minnesota Bureau of\nLabor shows that boys under sixteen have twice as great probability of\naccident as adults, while girls under sixteen have thirty-three [_sic_]\ntimes as great a probability of being hurt as women over sixteen.... It\nhas also been found that overstrain of the muscular or nervous system is\nmuch more serious in children than in adults, and that children are also\nmore susceptible to the poisons and injurious dusts arising in certain\nprocesses than grown persons.\"[84]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[63] U. S. Bureau of Labor, \"Men's Ready-Made Clothing,\" p. 297.\n\n[64] U. S. Bureau of Labor, \"Glass Industry,\" p. 607.\n\n[65] U. S. Bureau of Labor, \"Wage-Earning Women in Stores and\nFactories,\" p. 134.\n\n[66] Cf. Report of Commissioner of Labor of New York for 1908 Vol. I,\npp. 76-93.\n\n[67] U. S. Bureau of Labor, \"Glass Industry,\" p. 500.\n\n[68] U. S. Commissioner of Labor, \"Strike at Bethlehem Steel Works,\" p.\n10, 1910.\n\n[69] U. S. Bur. Lab., \"Glass Industry,\" p. 118.\n\n[70] U. S. Bur. Lab., \"Women Wage-Earners in Stores and Factories,\" p.\n127.\n\n[71] U. S. Bur. Lab., \"Glass Industry,\" p. 48.\n\n[72] U. S. Bur. Lab., Bulletin No. 68, Jan., 1910: \"Phosphorus Poisoning\nin the Match Industry.\"\n\n[73] U. S. Bur. Lab., \"Glass Industry,\" pp. 485-486.\n\n[74] U. S. Indus. Comm., Vol. XIX, p. 901f.\n\n[75] Rep. N. Y. State Bur. Lab., 1906, pp. CVII-CXXXV.\n\n[76] U. S. Bur. Lab., \"Glass Industry,\" p. 240.\n\n[77] Bull. U. S. Bur. Lab., May, 1909, p. 626.\n\n[78] \"Monthly Catalogue U. S. Public Documents,\" Nov., 1909, p. 184.\n\n[79] U. S. Indus. Com., Vol. XIX, p. 906.\n\n[80] U. S. Bur. Lab., \"Cotton Textile Industry,\" p. 383.\n\n[81] U. S. Commissioner of Labor, \"Report on Strike at Bethlehem Steel\nWorks,\" p. 121.\n\n[82] Report of Commissioner of Labor of N. Y., 1908, pt. I, p. 62.\n\n[83] L. c., pp. 45, 65, 83, 85, 86: U. S. Bur. Lab., \"Cotton Textile\nIndustry.\"\n\n[84] U. S. Industrial Commission, Vol. XIX, p. 917f; cf. also U. S. Bur.\nLab., \"Cotton Textile Industry,\" p. 385f.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER SEVEN\n\n                     INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS: MORALS\n\n\nIndustrial conditions, as at present constituted, not only injure the\nhealth of the body; they also endanger the soul. The Chicago Vice\nCommission has thus summarized these influences: \"Among the economic\nconditions contributory to the social evil are low wages, unsanitary\nconditions, demoralizing relationships in stores, shops, domestic\nservice, restaurants and hotels: the street vending of children in\nselling papers and gums, collecting coupons and refuse; the messenger\nservice of boys, especially in the vicinity of disorderly houses,\nvicious saloons, dance halls and other demoralizing resorts; employment\nagencies which send servants to immoral places; the rest rooms or\nwaiting places where applicants for work resort; too long hours and the\nhigh pressure of work; the overcrowding of houses upon lots, and of\npersons in single rooms\" (Report, 1911: p. 230).\n\nWhen inability to secure decent lodging forces men and women to occupy\nthe same sleeping rooms, there must be an inevitable lowering of moral\nstandards. One case is recorded in \"Packingtown,\" where eight\npersons--men and women--were sleeping in a room approximately ten by\nfifteen feet.[85] When a woman pays less than $1.50 a week for board and\nlodging, as many are forced to do (see page 71f) she can have no\nprivacy. \"If there are men lodgers in the house, the entrance to their\nroom is sometimes through the girl's room, or vice versa. In one house\nvisited, the women received the agent about nine P.M. in the room of a\nman lodger who had already gone to bed. This seemed to be the only\navailable sitting room and disconcerted no one save the agent\" (l. c.,\np. 62).\n\nThe girl who lives away from home in a cheap boarding house is no myth.\nIn Pittsburgh, \"in the garment trades she numbers 38% of the total\nforce; in the wholesale millinery trade 10%; in the mercantile houses\n20%. On the lowest estimate, there are 2300 of her kind in\nPittsburgh.\"[86]\n\nIt is not only low wages, as leading to a lack of decent housing, that\nhas a bad moral effect. All are born with a natural craving for\nhappiness, and long hours of work under a nervous strain intensify this\ndesire. Economic conditions have kept most of those in the grip of such\na situation from developing the higher side of their nature until they\ncan find pleasure and recreation in a symphony concert or an epic poem.\nThe jaded nerves need a stronger stimulus to cause pleasure. \"The desire\nfor ecstasy,\" says Algar Thorold, a keen psychological observer, \"is at\nthe very root and heart of our nature. This craving, when bound down by\nthe animal instincts, meets us on every side in those hateful\ncontortions of the social organism called the dram-shop and the\nbrothel.\"[87]\n\nAs a consequence of this insatiable longing for pleasure and the\ninability to pay for it, thousands of young women in our big cities\npatronize public dance halls and other questionable places of amusement.\nThe code of their social set has come to sanction accepting tickets for\nsuch places, refreshments, etc., from men met haphazard at these\nresorts.[88]\n\nDance halls are such a serious menace to public morals that legislation\nhas become necessary. Elizabeth, Paterson, Newark and Hoboken, New\nJersey, Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Louisville,\nMinneapolis, Seattle, San Francisco, Kansas City, and Cleveland are all\nagitating the question of their regulation (Survey, June 3, 1911, p.\n345). A. B. Williams, general secretary of the Humane Society of this\nlast city, is quoted as declaring that \"one out of every ten children in\nCleveland is born out of wedlock. In nine out of every ten cases that we\nhandle, the mothers tell us, 'I met him at a public dance'\" (l. c., p.\n346).\n\nIn Chicago alone there are about 306 licensed dance halls and nearly 100\nunlicensed. Among these, \"one condition is general: most of the dance\nhalls exist for the sale of liquor, not for the purpose of dancing,\nwhich is only of secondary importance. A saloon opened into each of 190\nhalls, and liquor was sold in 240 out of 328. In the others--except in\nrare instances--return checks were given to facilitate the use of\nneighboring saloons. At the halls where liquor was sold practically all\nthe boys showed signs of intoxication by one o'clock\" (l. c., p. 385:\nLouise de Koven Bowen).\n\nAnd just as women who have toiled hard all day long, crave some strong\nexcitement such as can only be afforded by the dance hall or a similar\nplace, so men in the same circumstances naturally turn to the saloon. It\nis in the cheerfully lighted, comfortably heated gin-shop, in the\ntemporary stimulus of liquor, that insufficient food, unhealthful\nsurroundings at home and at work, a cold, uninviting house are\nforgotten. It is often said that workmen would have enough to live on\ncomfortably if they did not squander their wages in drink, and that to\nraise their pay would only be to increase the profits of saloon-keepers.\nIn some cases this may be true. But in the vast majority, it is probable\nthat to increase their power of getting the comforts at home that they\nfind in the saloon would be to lessen the drink evil, rather than\nincrease it. The marvel is not that laborers who come home day after day\nfrom hard, long toil to poor food, cold rooms, a generally comfortless\nhome should seek out the gin-palace, but that they drink as little as\nthey do.\n\nThese are some of the indirect, though important, moral results of\neconomic conditions. Oftentimes the direct influences of a person's\noccupation also make for evil. The messenger boy, for instance, on the\nstreets at all hours and in all sections, can hardly fail to see and\nhear much that no parent would want a child of fourteen, sixteen, or\neighteen to know. Indeed, a great part of his employment at night comes\nfrom those indulging in debauchery, and it is his most profitable source\nof tips.[89]\n\nFrom the nature of the case, women are probably more exposed in their\nwork than men. Such occupations as will occur to every one, are manicure\nparlors where girls are peculiarly exposed to danger and insults. But\nmost important, because employing the largest numbers, are the\ndepartment stores. It has been charged over and over again, that many\nemployers knowingly pay wages that are insufficient to support a girl in\nthe expectation that she will be subsidized by some \"gentleman friend.\"\n\nHow far this is true is hard to say; and it is just as difficult to\ndetermine how many department-store employees are really immoral. The\nreport of the United States Bureau of Labor on \"Wage-Earning Women and\nChildren\" combats the idea that immorality among them is widespread.\nNevertheless, there is a strong opinion that store girls are not all\nthey should be, and many careful observers have enumerated quite a\nstartling array of individual instances where a girl's fall can be\nlargely traced to her employment as a sales-woman.\n\nAn investigator for the Chicago Vice Commission, for instance, gives in\nthe report of that body quite a number of cases which are said to be\ntypical. \"Violet works in a department store, salary $5.00 per week. Was\nseduced and left home. Baby died and she solicits on the side to support\nherself.... Mag 18 years old. Works in department store. Salary $5.50\nper week. Tells parents she receives more. Helps support parents and\n'solicits' at dances for spending money. Father is sickly.... Marcella\n(X913), alias Tantine (X904). Came to (X905) about three years ago, and\nstarted to work in the (X916) department store. One of the managers\ninsisted on taking her out, which she finally had to do 'to hold her\njob,' as she asserts\" (pp. 187, 195).\n\nMiss Elizabeth Butler, investigating for the Pittsburgh _Survey_,\nreports the same thing in that city. \"Vera ----\" she says, \"is twenty\nyears old. Four years ago she was employed as a salesgirl at $3.50 a\nweek. After a year she left for another store where she was employed as\na cashier at a salary of $10.00 a week, for making concessions to her\nemployer. After two years she left the store for a house of\nprostitution.... Jennie ---- came to Pittsburgh from Akron, Ohio. She\nhad no friends in the city and was obliged to be self-supporting. She\nobtained a position at $6.00 a week as a sales-woman. After five months\nin the store she consented to be kept in an apartment in the East End.\nShe still keeps her position in the store.... A girl whose father was\nkilled by an electric crane was the only one of the family old enough to\nwork. Forced by financial needs to accept a wage fixed by custom at a\npoint below her own cost of subsistence, much more below the cost of\nhelping to maintain a family of dependents, she drifted into occasional\nprostitution.\"[90]\n\nThese are only particular instances, it is true, and one must not\ngeneralize too widely. But there is undoubtedly considerable foundation\nfor the charge so often made and so firmly fixed in the public mind. And\nif many of the girls exposed to such dangers have hitherto remained\npure, we must thank the sterling characters inherited from those raised\nunder different conditions, not conclude that the system needs no\nimprovement.\n\nAll these and certain less tangible economic influences making for evil\nhave been well summarized by the Minneapolis Vice Commission. It points\nout that the advent of great numbers of young girls into industry has\nproduced conditions that lead to the blasting of thousands of lives\nyearly. \"The chance for the making of promiscuous male acquaintances,\nthe close association of the sexes in employment, the necessary contact\nwith the general public, the new and distorted view of life which such\nan environment compels, taken with the low wage scale prevailing in so\nmany callings and affecting so many individuals, combine to create a\nsituation that must inevitably weaken the moral stamina and lead to the\nundoing of many. The fault is plainly not so much in the individual; it\nis rather the results of the industrial system. The remedy lies in large\npart in the reforming of the system\" (Report, 1911, p. 126).\n\nSome of the remedies suggested by this commission are higher wages,\nbetter sanitary conditions, and \"_the education of public opinion in\nthis field to the point where it will demand a living wage and proper\nworking conditions and social conditions for those who serve them in\nindustry_.\"[91]\n\nNor is this commission alone in attributing a great moral influence to\neconomic conditions and in looking to the public for a large part of the\nremedy. In fact, it was simply following in the steps of the New York\nand Chicago Vice Commissions.[92] And all merely voiced a widespread\nconviction among social workers and the public generally.\n\n\"Are flesh and blood so cheap,\" asks the Chicago Commission, \"mental\nqualifications so common, and honesty of so little value, that the\nmanager of one of our big department stores feels justified in paying a\nhigh school girl, who has served nearly one year as an inspector of\nsales, the beggarly wage of $4.00 per week? What is the natural result\nof such an industrial condition? Dishonesty and immorality, not from\nchoice, but necessity--in order to _live_. We can forgive the human\nfrailty that yields to temptation under such conditions--but we cannot\nforgive the soulless corporation, which arrests and prosecutes this\ngirl--a first offender--when she takes some little articles for personal\nadornment.... Prostitution demands _youth_ for its perpetration. On the\npublic rests the mighty responsibility of seeing to it that the demand\nis not supplied through the breaking down of the early education of the\nyoung girl or her exploitation in the business world\" (Report, pp.\n43-44).\n\nThis insistence upon the _public_ as being really responsible for these\neconomic and moral conditions is significant. For the Consumers are the\npublic. Each individual of which the public is composed is, in one\naspect, a Consumer, and it is important to notice how widespread is an\ninsistence upon his responsibility in the matter.\n\nFrom this discussion it may be reasonably concluded: (1) that many\npersons in many industries are receiving less than a living wage, in the\npresent acceptation of that term; (2) that many persons are being\ninjured in health and limb by long hours, unsanitary workshops, and\nimproperly guarded machinery; (3) that the conditions of work often tend\nto produce vice.\n\nThe treatment has been largely statistical. No matter how thorough,\ntherefore, it is subject to the limitations of this method. Sissy Jupe\nlong ago called statistics \"stutterings,\" and newer editions of\nGradgrind have not perfected their articulation. Statistics are\nnecessarily quantitative. They do well enough for computing rainfall, or\nsomething of the sort, but human life with its pleasures and pains, its\njoys and tragedies, refuses to be labeled and ticketed. It is intangible\nto such gross systems of classification.\n\n    \"All the world's coarse thumb\n    And finger fail to plumb\"\n\nthe depths of happiness and suffering in the least of human creatures.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[85] U. S. Bur. Lab., \"Women Wage-Earners in Stores and Factories,\" p.\n119.\n\n[86] E. B. Butler, \"Women and the Trades,\" pp. 320-1.\n\n[87] Preface to \"Dialogue of St Catherine of Siena,\" p. 13: London,\nKegan Paul, 1896.\n\n[88] U. S. Bur. Labor, \"Women Wage-Earners in Stores and Factories,\" p.\n75.\n\n[89] Cf. Report of Chicago Vice Commission, p. 242f, and unpublished\nreports of the National Child Labor Committee, Washington, D. C.\n\n[90] \"Women and the Trades,\" pp. 305-306, 348.\n\n[91] Italics added. Cf. pp. 114, 115, 126.\n\n[92] Survey, Apr. 15, 1911, p. 99; May 6, 1911, p. 215.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER EIGHT\n\n                WHAT SHOULD THE INDIVIDUAL CONSUMER DO?\n\n\nThe question now arises, even supposing the conditions are bad and that\na duty of improving them rests upon the Consuming Class; what is the\nindividual Consumer bound to do? Making all due allowances for the fact\nthat we have assumed what is a just or unjust wage, and without any\nintention of forcing this standard upon the conscience of individuals,\nthere will be times when a particular Consumer is convinced, e.g. that\nthose employed at stores he patronizes are not being paid anything like\nwhat they have a right to receive. What should he do? Does any\nobligation devolve upon him?\n\nIn answering this question, the general principle must be kept in mind,\nthat a Consumer is not bound to act under a disproportionately grave\ninconvenience. He is not bound to sacrifice considerable personal good\nto do a very little good to the laborers making the articles he buys;\nnor is he obliged to put himself to any inconvenience if no good\nwhatever is going to follow.\n\nBut if he can conveniently buy goods made under just conditions rather\nthan under bad, and the price is no higher, then he is bound to do so.\nAnd if he is well off and can easily afford to pay a little more for the\njustly made goods, he ought to buy them, provided he can be reasonably\nsure that the increase in price will go to maintain good working\nconditions and not simply to swell the manufacturer's profits.\n\nAs Father Cuthbert, a Capuchin, says, not the employers only are\nresponsible for the oppression of workingmen, \"but all who patronize\nsuch labor contribute to the sin. The insatiable yearning to buy cheap\nwithout any thought as to how cheapness is obtained, this is the\nincentive which tempts men to buy cheap labor and to underpay workmen.\nWere people in general not willing accomplices, there would be no\nsweating system, no unfair competition. The sin falls not on the few\n[manufacturers] but on the many [patrons] who too readily condone the\nsin of the few for the sake of the resultant advantage to themselves.\nThey pay half a penny less for a pound of sugar or a shilling or two\nless on a ton of coal: what does the public care that the shop\nassistant or the miner is unable to get a human wage?\"[93]\n\nThe purely individual action of Consumers, however, can have but little\neffect for good. For only comparatively few have sufficiently developed\nsocial consciences to realize the desirability of such action; and even\nif more had, their means of discovering which goods are justly made are\nso limited as seriously to hamper their activity.\n\nThe remedy for this difficulty would seem to be organization among\nConsumers. There can be little doubt that if they united in sufficient\nnumbers in patronizing only those shops that maintained good working\nconditions their action would exert considerable pressure. The labor\nunions have shown that the boycott is a powerful weapon. How efficient\nit can be, may be guessed from the sums spent by employers in opposing\nit. Astute business men do not tilt at windmills, and if they have\nfought the legality of the boycott in every tribunal in the land,\nincluding the Supreme Court, it was only because they realized the\ncompelling power it placed in labor's hands.\n\nBut some greater animus than pure philanthropy seems necessary to make\nConsumers band together in this way on a large enough scale. They need\nthe class spirit, the enthusiasm of industrial warfare afforded by the\ntrade unions. For though an organization of Consumers has been in\nexistence now for more than twenty years, it is forced sorrowfully to\nadmit that the good accomplished simply through the economic pressure of\nits members has been but slight.\n\nBut if it had been possible so to unite Consumers in a powerful society\nfor the collection of information and the distribution of patronage, it\nhas been asked: Would it not have become wofully corrupt? Can we safely\ntrust an irresponsible club with such power? And, therefore, is it wise\nfor conscientious individuals now to join this league? For either it\nwill remain practically powerless, or else it will become so strong as\nto be a menace.\n\nThe answer must be that if the Consumers' League ever does become strong\nenough to exercise a great influence in the industrial world, it will\nprobably abuse and sell its power. Rich unfair firms may be able to\nbribe those in control to give them a recommendation they do not\ndeserve, and various other kinds of corruption will most likely creep\nin. But such an argument proves too much. If we are to give no authority\nwhere it will not be misused, we shall come to anarchy at once. For have\nnot political parties, and states and employers and trade unions--all,\nat one time or another, abused power. Seldom have men enjoyed power for\nlong without using it for selfish ends.\n\nBut we must not, therefore, destroy all authority and power. Rather we\nshould embrace the dictum of de Maistre, that power must be balanced\nagainst power, one organization set to watch another. And if it should\nhappen that a league of Consumers became too strong and abused its\nstrength, it would be time enough then to set about checking it by\nbuilding up power somewhere else.\n\nSo far, however, there has been no danger of such a contingency. The\nConsumers' League has been active, earnest, and honest--and sufficient\nfor the day is the evil thereof. The League has embraced all work that\ncame to hand whether strictly within the economic field first marked out\nfor it, or extending to other preserves. Its activity in the Legislative\ndomain has not been inconsiderable, and it is probable that the\ninfluence of Consumers will be most marked here in the future.\n\nThere is much talk now of minimum wage legislation to guarantee laborers\na certain standard. If we look upon compulsory arbitration as\npractically the same thing, we can say that it has already been\nextensively tried. Canada, England, Australia, and New Zealand have\nshown that it is possible in some fields but the controversy always\naroused by a new project has not yet subsided sufficiently to enable one\nto speak definitely concerning its success. The elaborate system of\nstate insurance against sickness, accident, old age, and unemployment,\nnow in operation in England and Germany is another governmental attempt\nto secure a certain standard of living for all. And the public-schools,\nin which rich and poor are put on a plane of equality regarding\nelementary education, are so familiar that we are apt to lose sight of\nthe fact that they are really only one link in this chain of state\nintervention to provide the means for everybody enjoying certain\nadvantages that have come to be looked upon as necessities in our\ncivilization.\n\nIn our own country during 1911, there was much discussion, some action,\nand every prospect for still further activity along these lines. A\nconspicuous feature was the movement to introduce a more equitable\nsystem of compensation or insurance for industrial accidents.[94] There\nwas a non-compulsory minimum wage law passed recently in Massachusetts,\nand several States prescribed the rate of pay for public work done by\ncontract. An amendment to the Charter of San Francisco fixes the minimum\nof employees on street railways at $3.00 per day, with one and one-half\npay for overtime. Vermont, Wisconsin and South Dakota have given wages a\npreference over other debts (l. c., pp. 876, 878, 881).\n\nIt would seem then that the legislative field is the one in which most\nsuccess is to be expected. And since the Consumers are the beneficiaries\nof labor's exertion, they are especially bound to effort in this\ndirection. Those who have influence and leisure are more bound than\nthose who have but little power or opportunity, but all are obliged to\ndo something.\n\nThe results of our examination of this question may be summed up in the\nfollowing conclusion:\n\nI. Assuming that employers are violating the rights of their laborers\nthen there is a duty incumbent upon the _Consuming Class_ to do what\nthey can to secure these rights.\n\nII. Employers are violating the rights of their employees to such an\nextent as to create a serious social problem.\n\nIII. The individual Consumer is bound to do what he can without serious\ninconvenience to remedy these conditions. He can act individually, by\njoining an organization, and through legislation.\n\nShould it be asked which is the most effective way, the answer would\ncertainly incline towards legislation. If we survey the industrial\nhistory of the last quarter century, we can see gain after gain by this\nmethod;[95] while the Consumers' League, in its strict capacity of an\norganization of _purchasers_ has done but little. What it has\naccomplished has been largely through the advocacy of legislation,\nrather than by merely economic pressure. And so, while Consumers could\ndoubtless effect tremendous changes if they wished, it seems impossible\nto get them to co-operate in sufficient numbers.\n\nNevertheless, the Consumers' League is founded on a great and noble\nprinciple, and for the moment I want to put aside the judicial attitude\nand enthusiastically chronicle what it has done, and what could be done\nalong the same lines. The Consumers' League is unique in the field of\nphilanthropy as affording an opportunity to everyone no matter how big\nor how little. For by its original principle of buying only goods made\nunder fair conditions, it gives a chance to the unimportant individual\nto share in a great philanthropic movement, somewhat as a private does\nin an imperial army; and by its activity in the legislative field, it\nopens up an opportunity for those who have the time, and talent, and\nposition necessary for effectiveness there.\n\nAnd whether or not we look upon the dictates of charity and justice as\nclearly indicating a duty, whether or not one's \"moral resonance\"\nresponds to what has been said, surely we cannot deny that here is a\nsplendid opportunity. Here is a practical way for each and everyone to\nplay the Good Samaritan. Not all of us can meet men along a road who\nhave been set upon by thieves, bundle them into an automobile, and carry\nthem to a hospital. We cannot all give thousands in charity. We cannot\nall engage in publicly urging reforms by legislation, nor give\ngenerously of time in philanthropic ministration to the poor. But we can\nsee to it in the way already outlined that some at least of our\nexpenditures go to ward off misery rather than foster it. We can see to\nit that we prevent misery from spreading at least in one little sphere.\n\n[96]This is no mere theory. Reforms have actually been accomplished in\nsome places by the Consumers' League. Realizing that to be effective\nthey must be organized, it is the object of members of this League to\nact as a sort of inverted megaphone gathering up the weak whisperings of\neach individual purchaser and blending them with thousands of others\nuntil they all become one mighty concerted shout that must be heard.\n\nLaborers have known the strength of combination in fighting industrial\nconditions for more than a generation; the aggregations of capital have\nbeen growing larger and larger; why should not the most powerful of all\nthe elements of industrial society, the Consumer himself, learn by their\nexperience?\n\nOrganized in 1891 in New York City, the Consumers' League now has almost\na hundred branches in eighteen of the United States, in France,\nSwitzerland, Germany, and Belgium. To Mrs. Josephine Shaw Lowell is due\nthe credit of its inception. An investigation during 1889-90 into the\nconditions of work among sales-women and cash-children, which she\ndirected for the Working Women's Society, forced upon her the futility\nof starting reform from the producing end. The competitive system of\nindustry ties the hands of the employer, while it seems impossible\nsuccessfully to organize a union among women. There was but one element\nof the economic world left to work with--the Consumer.\n\nTherefore, in May, 1890, a public meeting was called in Chickering Hall,\nNew York, to discuss the organization of this all-powerful factor of\nindustry. It was decided to found the Consumers' League upon the\nfollowing platform:\n\n\"I. That the interest of the community demands that all workers should\nreceive, not the lowest, but fair living wages.\n\n\"II. That the responsibility for some of the worst evils from which\nwage-earners suffer, rests with the Consumers, who persist in buying in\nthe cheapest markets, regardless of how cheapness is brought about.\n\n\"III. That it is therefore, the duty of Consumers to find out under what\nconditions the articles they purchased are produced, and to insist that\nthese conditions shall be, at least, decent and consistent with a\nrespectable existence on the part of the workers.\n\n\"IV. That this duty is especially incumbent upon Consumers in relation\nto the product of women's work since there is no limit beyond which the\nwages of women may be pressed down, unless artificially maintained at a\nliving rate by combinations, either of the workers themselves or of the\nConsumers.\"[97]\n\nThe first step taken to carry out these objects was to prepare a \"white\nlist\" of stores coming up to a certain standard. Since it is illegal to\nboycott, or to urge persons not to deal with stores placed on a \"Black\nList,\" the Consumers' League accomplishes the same results by\npersuading persons to buy from firms on a white list. Once published,\nmerchants feel the effects of such a list, and, to get the patronage of\nthe League, volunteer all the good points about themselves, not to\nmention the bad ones about their competitors. The list itself thus\nbecomes an invaluable means of getting information not otherwise\nobtainable.\n\nNecessarily this list had to be somewhat elastic and considerably below\nthe ideal. The people at the head of the Consumers' League were\npractical persons of wide experience and they went on the principle that\nhalf a loaf is better than none at all--that every little bit helps.\nAfter consultations with the employers and the Working Women's Society,\na standard was adopted from which no retreat has been made. Whatever\nchanges have been made, have been on the side of greater strictness.\nTo-day it stands as follows:\n\n\n                                 WAGES\n\nA Fair House is one in which equal pay is given for work of equal value,\nirrespective of sex, and in which no sales-woman who is eighteen years\nor over--and who has had one year's experience as sales-woman receives\nless than six dollars a week.\n\nIn which wages are paid by the week.\n\nIn which the minimum wages for cash-children are three dollars and a\nhalf per week, with the same conditions regarding weekly payments.\n\n\n                                 HOURS\n\nA Fair House is one in which the number of working hours constituting a\nnormal working day does not exceed nine. At least three-quarters of an\nhour is given for luncheon. A general half-holiday is given on one day\nof each week during at least two summer months.\n\nA Vacation of not less than one week is given with pay during the summer\nseason.\n\nAll overtime is compensated for.\n\nWages are paid, and the premises closed for the seven principal legal\nholidays, viz., Thanksgiving Day, Christmas and New Year's Day,\nWashington's Birthday, the Fourth of July, Decoration Day, and Labor\nDay.\n\n\n                          PHYSICAL CONDITIONS\n\nA Fair House is one in which work, lunch and retiring rooms are apart\nfrom each other, and conform in all respects to the present Sanitary\nLaws.\n\nIn which the present law regarding the providing of seats for\nsales-women is observed, and the use of seats permitted.\n\n\n                            OTHER CONDITIONS\n\nA Fair House is one in which humane and considerate behavior towards the\nemployees is the rule.\n\nIn which fidelity and length of service meet with the consideration\nwhich is their due.\n\nIn which no children under fourteen years of age are employed.\n\nIn which no child under the age of sixteen years works for more than\nnine hours a day.\n\nIn which no child works, unless an employment certificate issued by the\nBoard of Health has been first filed with the employer, and the name,\netc., of the child has been entered on a register kept by the employer.\n\nIn which the ordinances of the city and the laws of the State are obeyed\nin all particulars.\n\nWhen it is remembered that in 1891 only eight stores in New York were\neligible for the standard (then less strict), while to-day there are\nmore than fifty; that then overtime was never paid for, and fines often\nreduced the pay to almost half, while to-day fines go to a benefit fund,\nand overtime is paid for, or a corresponding time off is given; that\nthen the child-labor law was openly violated, and many grown women\nreceived less than four dollars-and-a-half, sometimes less than two\ndollars, a week, while the standard now is six; that the chair law,\nproviding one seat for every three girls, was disregarded, or the girls\nnever allowed to use them, while to-day inspectors of the State Labor\nBureau strictly enforce its regulations; that the year after the\ninfluence of the Consumers' League passed the Mercantile Employers' Bill\nproviding for the essentials of the above standard, there were twelve\nhundred infractions reported, and nine hundred under-age children\nreleased from drudgery as shipping clerks, etc.: when this advance\ntowards a decent standard of living, and the considerable part of the\nConsumers' League in bringing it about, is kept in mind, the power of\nthe purchaser is seen to be no day-dream of an idealist, no mere pretty\ntheory of an arm chair economist.\n\nAs one reform after another was accomplished, the League turned itself\nto new labors. To-day it is agitating strongly against the cruelties of\nsuch seasons as Christmas, that should mean peace and joy to all. \"Glad\ntidings of great joy\" sounds like a hollow mockery to the sales-women\nand children who work from eight in the morning until midnight.\nTherefore the League sends out thousands of post-cards, and advertises\nin newspapers, magazines, and street-cars, urging persons to shop early\nout of consideration for the employees of stores. The first large\nsuccess from this movement came in 1910 when the leading department\nstores of Philadelphia, employing 35,000 persons, decided to close at\nsix o'clock during the entire Christmas season. Late on the evening of\nDecember 1, the head of one of the largest retail firms in the city\ncalled up the Consumers' League to say that he had good news. \"I thought\nthat you should certainly be the first to hear that we are going to\nclose early,\" he said. \"I congratulate you and the women you represent\non what you have enabled us to do.\"[98]\n\nAll this activity, however, is concerned with the retailer; in the\nmeantime manufacture was not neglected. The League early saw the evils\nprevailing in many factories, and therefore decided to carry the\nwhite-list idea under a slightly different form into this field. After a\nthorough investigation by its own representatives and consultation with\nthe State factory inspectors, the League, where the situation is\nsatisfactory, allows the use of its label guaranteeing that the goods\nare made under clean and healthful surroundings. The conditions under\nwhich the label is issued are:\n\n1. The State factory law is obeyed.\n\n2. No children under the age of sixteen are employed.\n\n3. Work at night is not required, and the working day does not exceed\nten hours.\n\n4. No goods are given out to be made away from the factory.\n\nSimilar to the Consumers' League label are the labels of various trade\nunions. These latter, indeed, were in the field many years before the\nConsumers' League was even organized. They are based upon exactly the\nsame principle. When a factory maintains the conditions demanded by the\nunion, it is allowed to use the label on its goods. Anyone, therefore,\nwho buys union-made goods at a store where the employees are protected\nby the retail-clerks union can be sure that those engaged in both the\nproduction and distribution of these articles have obtained their just\nrights so far as this is possible.\n\nBy having firms on the white list handle labeled goods and, recently, by\nestablishing a store of its own in New York, a market is created for\nthem among the members of the League. The practicalness underlying the\nwhole management of the League is very clearly shown here both in the\ndove-tailing of its activities in manufacture and distribution and in\nthe appeal made to the self-interest of purchasers to buy white goods,\nwrappers, etc., made in clean factories rather than germ-carrying\nsweatshops goods. It has been the aim of the League all along to make it\nto the Consumer's personal advantage to buy labeled goods at white-list\nstores. The idea is to give him a better article and better service for\nthe same money, the increased cost to the manufacturer and retailer to\ncome out of the increased sales.\n\nIn 1898 the various local Leagues that had sprung up in different\nsections were united into one national organization and the activities\nbecame even more important. The sweatshop, child-labor, excessive hours\nfor women, were attacked with considerable effect. In many States the\npublic conscience was sufficiently aroused by reform agencies with which\nthe League zealously co-operated to pass stringent laws, and the\nLeague's representatives, either as private individuals or as honorary\ninspectors of the State tried to see that they were carried out. If New\nYork to-day has the strictest child-labor law in the United States, a\ngood share of the honor is due to the untiring labors of an enlightened\nConsumers' League.\n\nHere one concrete instance of these activities must suffice. England had\nas early as 1844 enacted laws protecting women, but, owing to the\nConstitution of the United States various State Supreme Courts had held\nthat any restriction of the right of free contract of adult women was\nunconstitutional. Therefore when the State of Oregon proceeded against a\nlaundryman for violation of a State Law by working women longer than\nallowed by that Law, the laundryman promptly appealed from the State\nCourt to the United States Supreme Court. The local Consumers' League\nthereupon notified the National League, with headquarters in New York\nCity, that information concerning the effect of work upon women was\nnecessary to win the case before the highest tribunal of the United\nStates. Expert counsel was obtained, and Miss Josephine Goldmark, of the\nLeague, was detailed to collect the information. She employed ten\nreaders, some of them medical students, and special privileges were\ngranted her at Columbia University Library, the Astor Library of New\nYork City, and the Library of Congress in Washington. The result was a\nsweeping verdict sustaining the State.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere are two great classes of the poor--those who for some reason or\nother do not work, and those who, while working, do not receive enough\nto support themselves and their families. To the former the Church has\nbeen a staunch friend. It is one of her glories that her enemies accuse\nher of fostering pauperism by too lavish charity. Her hospitals and\norphanages, her homes for the fallen and aged, her refuges for the sick\nof soul and body are dotted over the whole land, and are administered\nwith a devotion and self-sacrificing heroism compelling the admiration\nof all. As John Boyle O'Reilly said, hers is not\n\n    \"Organized charity scrimped and iced\n    In the name of a cautious, statistical Christ.\"\n\nBut what are we doing for that other great class of poor, those who work\nbut do not receive a just compensation? What are we doing in the way of\npreventive philanthropy, to keep these men from becoming utterly\ndestitute? It is for the sublime struggle of the underpaid workman that\nour sympathies need now to be aroused. No Crusader ever fought for the\nSepulcher with more heroism than many a poverty-stricken laborer to\nsupport himself and family. Day after day he takes up the hopeless task,\nwhile nearer and nearer yawns the slough of pauperism where four million\nhuman beings who were once self-respecting workmen like himself, now\ncrawl in lethargic content.[99] No waving pennons and blare of trumpets,\nbut a factory whistle at 6 A.M. and a chimney puffing black smoke summon\nhim to battle with powers stronger than Saladin in his might. What\nRobert Southwell wrote of himself during imprisonment might to-day be\napplied to millions of wage-slaves:\n\n    \"I live, but such a life as ever dies,\n      I die, but such a death as never ends;\n    My death to end my dying life denies,\n      And life my living death no whit amends.\"\n\nYet notwithstanding the workman's almost superhuman efforts to avoid\npauperism, once he reaches that abyss he loses all desire to rise from\nit. You cannot drive him back into that industrial war which is daily\ncrushing better and stronger natures.\n\nSuch being the situation, is it not an inspiration to the Consumer who\nlongs to do something for humanity to feel that he is contributing his\nmite to keep some workmen from becoming paupers? There are persons, I\nknow, to whom their utter helplessness in the face of all the social\nevils oppressing us to-day, has been the keenest suffering. To them this\ndoctrine of the responsibility of Consumers and the plans of fulfilling\nit have come as a gospel of good news. They have felt that they could\nnow find rest from their tortures of conscience: they have felt that\nthey could now have a purpose in life worth living for.\n\nAnd what if in our sober moments we must admit, that the good we\nindividually accomplish as regards the workman be small? What if we are\ntempted to look upon it as useless? Let us take courage from the fact\nthat we are members of an organization, that everything that the group\naccomplishes is in some way attributable to us. One hundred men\nassociated together can accomplish much more than those same men\nworking separately for the same ends. This fact is evident in the case\nof a religious community. If the members of these communities were\nscattered as individuals over the earth, how paltry would be the results\nof all their self-sacrifice and devotion compared with what it is\nto-day. And so each individual Consumer, banded with others in an\norganization, can feel that all the work of the whole body is to some\nextent his. His powers of doing good are multiplied, and the mere fact\nof his association with others multiplies their capacities too.\n\nBut even if this were not so, the mere fact of realizing this principle\nand co-operating with other noble-minded persons in its fulfillment will\nbe an immense gain to ourselves and will finally result in unexpected\ngood to society. Simply to know that we are accomplishing some little\nmite in the field of preventive philanthropy will be an inspiration in\nour lives.\n\nTo ask ourselves, not whether a hat be exactly the latest style, not\nwhether it be absolutely the cheapest we can get, but how it was made,\nwhat effect is our buying it going to have upon the workers and society\nin general, will beget an invaluable spirit of self-effacement. A\nsocial conscience will be generated and grow until it becomes a dominant\nnote in our lives. And from us this gospel of charity and justice, this\ngood news to men of good will, will spread until it becomes a mighty\nforce for social amelioration.\n\nWe have passed through ages of autocratic tyranny; the individualistic\ndemocracy of the last century is waning; there is approaching an era of\nsocial effort, social morality, a recognition of social interdependence.\n\"The quick and sensitive ear,\" to quote Miss Scudder, \"hears the beat of\na new music, to which men begin to rally.[100] It is a concerted\nharmony, no mere solitary bugle call; and those who march to it are more\nor less consciously swayed by a new rhythm. For it is notable that the\nrhythms of life are coming more and more to connote harmony rather than\nmelody, or rather to weave many melodic phrasings into one complex\nwhole. Association--or to use the fairer word, fellowship--becomes a\nterm of increasing modern cogency.\"\n\nWhat matter, that to any but the superficial observer, the situation\nlooks dark. It may be that the more we study it, the blacker it grows.\nAs we look back upon the history of man's strivings for some better\nsocial organization, the conflict may seem hopeless. We may be tempted\nto reflect with William Morris, \"How men fight and lose the battle, and\nthe thing they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and when\nit comes it turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to\nfight for what they meant under another name.\"\n\nBut it is nobler to say with Mrs. Browning:\n\n      \"We will trust God. The blank interstices\n    Men take for ruins, He will build into\n      With pillared marbles rare, or knit across\n    With generous arches, till the fane's complete.\n      This world has no perdition if some loss.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[93] Father Cuthbert, O.S.F.C., \"Catholic Ideals in Social Life,\" p.\n211: N. Y., 1904.\n\n[94] Bulletin of U. S. Bur. of Lab., Jan. 1, 1911, p. 869.\n\n[95] Cf. Mrs. Florence Kelly, \"Some Ethical Gains through Legislation,\"\nN. Y., Macmillan, 1905; Bulletins of U. S. Bur. Lab. giving resum\u00e9 of\nlabor legislation.\n\n[96] The next few pages appeared substantially as here given in The\nMonth, March, 1911, under the title \"The Consumer's Opportunity.\" The\nauthor thanks the editor of this magazine for kind permission to\nreproduce this matter.\n\n[97] \"Historical Sketch of the Pioneer Consumers' League,\" p. ii,\nConsumers' League of New York City, 1908. For further information\naddress Mr. V. P. Kellogg, 105 E. 22nd St, New York City.\n\n[98] Cf. _The Survey_, Dec. 17, 1910.\n\n[99] Cf. Hunter, \"Poverty,\" New York, 1906.\n\n[100] Hibbert Journal, Apr., 1909.\n\n\n\n\n                                APPENDIX\n\n\n   1 Constans et perpetua voluntas jus suum unicuique tribuendi;\n     voluntaria laesio et violatio juris alieni: De Lugo, De just. et\n     jure, Disp. VIII, Sec. I, n. 1.\n\n   2 Debitum rationale ex necessaria connectione mediorum cum fine\n     necessario resultans: Theologia moralis fundamentalis, ed. 2a,\n     Bruges, 1890, p. 188.\n\n   3 \"Quoties aequalitas non servatur ut venditor ultra supremum\n     pretium, vel emptor emat infra infimum ... injustitia commititur.\"\n     L. c., Tr. VII, n. 380.\n\n   4 In hac re cooperator est, qui simul cum alio est causa damni,\n     sive immediata sive positiva sive negativa. Non enim in omnibus\n     eadem est ratio cooperationis, sed hoc est omnibus commune, quod\n     cum alio concurrant ad damnum seu injuriam damnosam.\n     Ballerini L. c., Tr. VII, n. 128: cf. De Lugo, L. c. XVII, II, 37.\n\n   5 Praeferendum est enim commune bonum privato. Pt. I, Tr. III, Tom.\n     IX, Sec. IV, p. 1171.\n\n   6 Cum enim unus homo sit pars multitudinis, quilibet homo hoc ipsum\n     quod est, et quod habet, est sicut et quaelibet pars id quod est,\n     est totius; unde et natura aliquod detrimentum infert parti, ut\n     salvet totum: 2a 2ae, Q.96, A.4.\n\n   7 Haec potestas est necessaria ad bonam rei publicae humanae\n     gubernationem.\n     Op. cit., Pt. I, Tom. V, Lib. III, Cap. 21.\n\n   8 Ex damno et periculo, quod bono publico publicaeque securitati\n     inferretur si impune id agere liceret.\n     Theol. Mor., Pt. I, Lib. I, Div. II, Par. 4, n. 761.\n\n   9 Tota difficultas consistit in assignanda ratione hujus veritatis:\n     nam licet turpitudo haec statim appareat, non tamen facile est ejus\n     fundamentum invenire: unde (quod in aliis multis quaestionibus\n     contingit) magis certa est conclusio, quam rationes, quae variae a\n     diversis afferuntur ad ejus probationem. De Just. et Jure, Disp. X,\n     Sec. I, Num. 2.\n\n   10 Fatendum est esse aliquas practicas vertitates humano convictui\n     necessarias, quas homines instinctu quodam rationali percipiunt et\n     sentiunt, quarum tamen rationem prorsus demonstrativam, cum eam\n     iidem analytice quaerunt, difficulter inveniunt. Videtur voluisse\n     natura sive auctor naturae hujusmodi instinctu aut sensu rationali\n     supplere defectum rationis se exercentis: ... Inter hujusmodi\n     veritates haec quoque forte, qua de agimus, invenitur. Theologia\n     Moralis, Tr. VI, Sec. VI, Num. 119, Vol. II, pp. 727-728.\n\n\n\n\n                              BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n\n     J. Kelleher, Private Ownership, Dublin, 1911.\n\n     Capecelatro, Cardinal, Christ, the Church, and Man. St. Louis,\n       1909.\n\n     Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, secunda secundae.\n\n     De Lugo, Cardinal John, De Justitia et Jure.\n\n     Bouquillon, Theologia Moralis Fundamentalis, ed. 2a, Bruges, 1890.\n\n     Liguori, Alphonsus, Theologia moralis.\n\n     Noldin, H., Theologia Moralis, 3 vols., 8th ed., N. Y., 1911.\n\n     Ballerini, Antonio, Theologia Moralis.\n\n     Cuthbert, O. F. M. Cap., Catholic Ideals in Social Life, N. Y.,\n       1904.\n\n     Cunningham, W., Christianity & Social Questions: London, 1910.\n\n     Clark, J. B., Essentials of Economic Theory, 1907.\n\n     United States Bureau of Labor: Report on the Condition of Woman &\n       Child Wage-Earners in the United States, 19 vols., 1910-1912.\n\n     Charities Publication Committee, The Pittsburgh Survey.\n\n     Minneapolis Vice Commission, Report, 1911.\n\n     Chicago Vice Commission, Report, 1911.\n\n     Seligman, E. R. A., The Social Evil, N. Y., 1912.\n\n     United States Bureau of Labor, Industrial Hygiene, 1908.\n\n     Kelly, Florence, Some Ethical Gains through Legislation, N. Y.,\n       1905.\n\n     Hunter, Robert, Poverty, N. Y., 1905.\n\n     Le Play, F., La Reforme Sociale, Tours, 1878, 3 vols.\n\n     Missiaen, Berthold, O. M. Cap., L'Appauvrissement des Masses,\n       Louvain, 1911.\n\n     Clark, J. B., The Distribution of Wealth, N. Y., 1889.\n\n     Woods, Robert A., ed., Americans in Process, Boston, 1903.\n\n     Bliss, Wm. D. P., ed., New Encyclopedia of Social Reform, N. Y.,\n       1908.\n\n     Clark, Sue Ainslie, & Edith Wyatt, Making Both Ends Meet, N. Y.,\n       1911.\n\n     Streightoff, Frank Hatch, The Standard of Living among the\n       Industrial People of America, Boston, 1911.\n\n     Butler, Eliz. Beardsley, Saleswomen in Mercantile Stores, N. Y.,\n       1912.\n\n     Ryan, John A., A Living Wage, N. Y., 1906.\n\n     Devine, Edw. T., Principles of Relief, N. Y., 1904.\n\n     Bousanquet, Helen, The Standard of Life, London, 1908.\n\n     Chapin, Coit, The Standard of Living among Workingmen's Families in\n       New York City, N. Y., 1909.\n\n     Journal of Political Economy.\n\n     Economic Journal.\n\n     Quarterly Journal of Economics.\n\n     Journal of the American Sociological Society.\n\n     Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science.\n\n     The Survey.\n\n     International Journal of Ethics.\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX\n\n\n    Accidents: 90ff.\n\n    Alphonsus, Saint: See Liguori\n\n    Aquinas: 11, 18, 28, 29, 46\n\n\n    Ballerini, Antonio: 22, 27, 28, 29, 45\n\n    Bouquillon, Thomas: 11\n\n    Bowen, Louise de Koven: 98\n\n    Browning, Eliz. B.: 132\n\n    Butler, Eliz. B.: 4, 43, 51ff, 67, 96, 101, 102\n\n\n    Capecelatro, Card.: 9\n\n    Capital punishment: 28\n\n    Carlyle, Thomas: 35f.\n\n    Carver, T. N.: 60\n\n    Chapin, Coit: 43\n\n    Charity:\n      Consumers' obligations of, 31ff;\n      duties of, 11\n\n    Cheapness: demand for, 58ff.\n\n    Chicago Vice Commission: 95, 100, 101, 104\n\n    Child-Labor: 93f.\n\n    Child-Labor Committee, National: 100\n\n    Clark, J. B.: 65\n\n    Common good: Scholastic conception of, 28ff.\n\n    Competition: 19ff, 47ff, 55f.\n\n    Compulsory Arbitration: 112\n\n    Conscience, Social: 131\n\n    Consumers:\n      Duties of, 13ff, 16f, 129ff;\n      individual action, 107, 109, 114;\n      organization among, 109, 110, 130;\n      responsibility of, 5ff.\n\n    Consumers' League: 110, 111, 114ff.\n\n    Consumption (disease): 88ff.\n\n    Co-operation in evil: 13, 23\n\n    Costs of production: 60ff.\n\n    Crawford, Hanford: 60\n\n    Cunningham, W.: 20, 58, 63\n\n    Cuthbert, Father: 108\n\n\n    Dance Halls: 97f.\n\n    Dangerous occupations: 86ff.\n\n    De Lugo, Card. John, S. J.: 25, 26, 44\n\n    Department Stores: 100, 103\n\n    Devine, Edward T.: 66f.\n\n    Dust: 87f.\n\n    Duty:\n      definition of, 11;\n      devolution of, 13ff.\n\n\n    Employers:\n      duties of direct, 12;\n      liability of, 17\n\n    English Poor Law: 62\n\n    Expenses of production: 59ff.\n\n\n    Food, Insufficient: 78ff.\n\n\n    Goldmark, Josephine: 127\n\n    Green, T. H.: 32\n\n    Gury, J. P.: 10\n\n\n    Hibbert Journal: 131\n\n    Hours of work: 4, 84f.\n\n    Housing conditions: 77ff, 95f.\n\n    Hunter, Robert: 128\n\n\n    Industrial Commission, U. S.: 68, 87, 94\n\n    Injustice, definition of: 11\n\n    Innocent: indirect killing of, lawful, 28\n\n    Interest: 15\n\n    Interest-takers, duties of: 15\n\n\n    Justice:\n      Consumers' obligations of, 13ff;\n      definition of, 11;\n      duties of, 11\n\n\n    Kelleher, Rev. J.: 9\n\n    Kelley, Florence: 114\n\n\n    Label: See White List\n\n    Labor, N. Y. S. Bureau of: 68f, 74ff, 88\n\n    Labor, N. Y. S. Commissioner of: 82, 91\n\n    Labor, U. S. Bureau of: 16, 42, 43, 52ff, 61, 68, 70ff, 77ff, 89ff, 96, 97, 113\n\n    Labor, U. S. Commission of: 84\n\n    Law: binding force of civil: 28\n\n    Lehmkuhl, Aug.: 29\n\n    Leo XIII: 8\n\n    Liguori, Saint Alphonsus: 18, 23, 27, 28, 29\n\n    Living, Standard of: 9, 38ff, 66\n\n    Lowell, Josephine Shaw: 117\n\n\n    Maistre, de: 111\n\n    Mazzini, Giuseppe: 5\n\n    Mercantile Employers' Bill: 122\n\n    Middle Ages, Medieval system: 19f.\n\n    Minneapolis Vice Commission: 54, 103\n\n    Morris, William: 132\n\n    Mouth, The: 116\n\n\n    Necessity: definition of, 33\n\n    Neighbor: meaning of, 31\n\n    Night work: 84f.\n\n    Noldin, H.: 29\n\n\n    O'Reilly, John Boyle: 127\n\n\n    Packingtown: 96\n\n    Paine, Thomas: 5\n\n    Pittsburgh Survey: 51, 52, 66\n\n    Pius X: 8\n\n    Poisoning: 86f.\n\n    Poverty: 127ff.\n\n    Price: 18ff, 57f, 60\n\n    Property:\n      justification of private, 29;\n      superfluous, 1, 33\n\n    Prostitution: 95, 101ff.\n\n\n    Rent-takers: duties of, 14\n\n    Right: definition of, 10ff.\n\n    Ryan, John A.: 15, 42f.\n\n\n    Saloon, The: 99\n\n    Scudder, Vida: 131\n\n    Seager, H. R.: 61\n\n    Sidgwick, H.: 61\n\n    Social argument: 13, 27ff.\n\n    Southwell, Robert: 105, 128\n\n    Speeding-up: 85f.\n\n    State: authority of, 28\n\n    State-Insurance: 112\n\n    Suarez, Francisco, S. J.: 27, 28, 46\n\n    Subsistence standard: 39\n\n    Suicide: 29f.\n\n    Survey: 67, 98, 101, 104, 123\n\n\n    Thomas, Saint: See Aquinas\n\n    Thorold, Algar: 97\n\n    Title, just: 22f.\n\n    Tuberculosis: 88ff.\n\n\n    Ulpian: 11\n\n    Unemployed: 66\n\n    Unemployment: 68f.\n\n\n    Value: 13, 17ff.\n\n    Ventilation: 79ff.\n\n\n    Wage, Minimum: 42, 46, 112, 113\n\n    Wages: 4, 48ff, 62ff, 66ff, 70ff;\n      right to living, 9;\n      standard of living, 8, 9\n\n    War: 29\n\n    White List: 55, 118, 124, 125\n\n    Williams, A. B.: 98\n\n    Women:\n      conditions of work, 4;\n      hours of work, 4;\n      wages, 4, 67\n\n    Work:\n      conditions of, 4, 51ff;\n      right to, 9\n\n    Working Women's Society: 117, 119\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n                            _Just Published_\n\n\n                            My Unknown Chum\n\n                             \"_AGUECHEEK_\"\n\n                       Foreword by Henry Garrity\n\n\n             _What critical book-lovers say of this book_:\n\n  \"The best book in the English language.\"\n\n  \"A treat for those who are regretting that graceful, delightful\n  English is a lost art.\"\n\nRev. CHARLES A. CASSIDY, World Traveler and Lecturer on Art and\nLiterature:\n\n  \"I have read it with the greatest of pleasure, and have turned to it\n  often. I could read it a hundred times. It is a great book. Its fine\n  humor, its depth, its simplicity and high ideals commend it to all,\n  especially the highly educated--the scholar.\"\n\nDr. J. C. MONAGHAN, the well-known Lecturer and Educator; for many years\nU. S. Consul in Germany:\n\n  \"It is one of the best, one of the most wholesome, one of the most\n  fascinating books I have ever had in my hands. When I get a good book\n  I read it more than once, and this is one of the books that I want to\n  read again and again. Members of my household are also reading it.\"\n\n\n                            MORE CRITICISMS\n                                   ON\n                            My Unknown Chum\n\nJustice COWEN:\n\n  \"A remarkably interesting book. My daughter liked it so much that\n  I read it, too, and urged her to take a copy to Europe with her.\"\n\nJOHN M. WALKER:\n\n  \"Nothing as yet written equals in charm the story of the supernal\n  character and beauty of the English girl and woman--the writer's ideal\n  of girlhood and womanhood--who might well have inspired the poet's\n\n    'A perfect woman, nobly planned,\n    To warn, to comfort, and command;\n    And yet a spirit still and bright\n    With something of an angel light.'\"\n\nJOSEPH I. BREEN:\n\n  \"A splendid book; the only one I know that I can read often or at\n  random and always find therein some new charm. Is there anything more\n  delightful than the author's description of Behind the Scenes, of\n  Theatre Alley, and of Napoleon's room at the Louvre?\"\n\nMrs. WOODROW:\n\n  \"A delightful book. I liked it so much I read my borrowed copy twice.\"\n\n\n      At your bookseller's, or sent postpaid to any address, $1.65\n                        THE DEVIN-ADAIR COMPANY\n                       437 Fifth Avenue, New York","title":"Consumers and Wage-Earners: The Ethics of Buying Cheap","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":28572}