════╤═══╤════════╤══════════════════════════╤════════╤════════╤════════
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ Total │ │
│ │Average │ │ number │ No. of │ No. of
Name│Age│ Weekly │ Husband’s Work, Wages, │ of │Children│Children
│ │Earnings│ etc. │Children│ having │ now
│ │ │ │ Born │ Died │ Alive
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
────┼───┼────────┼──────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │Mill laborer. Wages $9.00 │ │ │
Mrs.│43 │ $7.00 │ week but is often sick. │ 5 │ 5 │
M. │ │ │ Drinks heavily. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
────┼───┼────────┼──────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
│ │ │Laborer. Often unemployed.│ │ │
Mrs.│ │ │ Average wage the year │ │ │
K. │38 │ $6.50 │round not more than $7.00 │ 7 │ 5 │ 2
│ │ │ a week. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
────┼───┼────────┼──────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
│ │ │ │ │ │
Mrs.│ │ │ │ │ │
C. │34 │ $7.00 │ Deserted wife. │ 6 │ 4 │ 2
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
────┼───┼────────┼──────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Mrs.│ │ │Sick two years and unable │ │ │
S. │29 │ $6.00 │ to work. Was a laborer │ 6 │ 3 │ 3
│ │ │ formerly. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
────┼───┼────────┼──────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
│ │ │ Dead 6 months. Was a │ │ │
│ │ │ laborer, often sick and │ │ │
Mrs.│41 │ $6.00 │unemployed. Widow does not│ 8 │ 5 │ 3
H. │ │ │ think he earned $6.00 a │ │ │
│ │ │ week the year round. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
════╧═══╧════════╧══════════════════════════╧════════╧════════╧════════
════╤═══════════╤════════╤════════╤════════════════════════════════════
│ │ │ How │
│ │ │Children│
│Nationality│ Age of │ are │
Name│ of the │Youngest│ cared │ General Remarks
│ Parents │ Child │ for │
│ │ │ while │
│ │ │ Mother │
│ │ │ Works │
────┼───────────┼────────┼────────┼────────────────────────────────────
│ │ │ │All five died under 18 months of
│ Mother, │ │ │age; three of them under 6 months.
Mrs.│ Irish; │ │ │All the children were cared for by
M. │ Father, │ │ │other children while mother worked.
│ Scotch. │ │ │Three died of convulsions, two of
│ │ │ │diarrhœa.
────┼───────────┼────────┼────────┼────────────────────────────────────
│ Mother, │ │ │All five that died were under 12
Mrs.│ Irish │ 10 │By girl,│months of age. Two of them died of
K. │ American; │months. │ aged 9 │convulsions, one of acute gastritis,
│ Father, │ │ years. │two of measles. The baby is a puny
│ Swede. │ │ │little thing.
────┼───────────┼────────┼────────┼────────────────────────────────────
│ Mother, │ │ By │
Mrs.│ German; │ 18 │ oldest │One child was scalded to death while
C. │ Father, │months. │ girl, │mother was at work; one died of
│ Austrian. │ │ aged 9 │convulsions and two of bronchitis.
│ │ │ years. │
────┼───────────┼────────┼────────┼────────────────────────────────────
│ │ │ │The first two children and the last
│ Mother │ │ By │born are alive; the third, fourth,
Mrs.│ English; │ │ father │and fifth are dead, each of them
S. │ Father, │2 years.│and girl│dying within the first year. Mother
│ American. │ │ of 7 │says they were poor, puny babies.
│ │ │ years. │Causes of death: Debility, 2;
│ │ │ │convulsions, 1.
────┼───────────┼────────┼────────┼────────────────────────────────────
│ Mother, │ │ By │The first two and the eighth born
│ American; │ │ oldest │are alive; the five intervening are
Mrs.│ Father │ 20 │girl, 11│dead. Four of these died within the
H. │(deceased),│months. │ years │first year. Causes of death:
│ French- │ │ old. │Debility, 2; intestinal dyspepsia,
│ Canadian. │ │ │2; bronchitis, 1.
════╧═══════════╧════════╧════════╧════════════════════════════════════
It will be observed that out of a total of 32 children born only 10 were
alive at the time of the inquiry, and that of the number dead no less
than 18 were under one year of age, the cause of death in most cases
being associated with neglect and defective diet. Of the ten children
surviving, six were decidedly weak, and the mothers said that they were
“generally sick” and that somehow it seemed as if they “took” every sort
of disease, a well-known condition of the undernourished child.
In the same town the case of a poor Hungarian mother was brought to my
attention by one perfectly familiar with all the details, a witness of
unassailable veracity. This poor Hungarian child-wife and mother was
barely fifteen when her baby was born, but she had been working fully
three years in the mill. When the child was born the father disappeared.
“He was afraid he could never pay the cost,” the wife said in his
defence. On the ninth day after her confinement she returned to her
work, leaving the baby in charge of a girl nine years old.
[Illustration:
A GROUP OF CHILDREN WHOSE MOTHERS ARE EMPLOYED AWAY FROM THEIR HOMES
]
Upon the day the baby was two weeks old, word came to the mother while
at work that it had been taken suddenly ill and imploring her to return
to it at once. Terrified, she sought the foreman of her department and
begged to be allowed to go home. “Ma chil seek! Ma chil die!” she cried.
But the foreman needed her and scowled; they were “rushed” in the
winding-room. And so he refused to grant her the permission she
sought—refused with foul objurgations. Heartbroken, she went to another,
superior, foreman and in broken English begged to be allowed to go to
her sick babe. “Ma chil seek! Ma chil die!” she cried incessantly. This
foreman also refused at first to let her go. Perhaps it was because he
thought of his own daughter that he relented at last and gave her
permission to go home—_permission_ to give a mother’s care to the child
born of her travail! Eye-witnesses say that she sank down upon her knees
and, with hysterical gratitude, kissed the foreman’s rough, dirty hands.
“You good man! You good man!” she shrieked, then fled from the mill with
frenzied haste.
But when she reached her little tenement home in “Hunk’s town” the baby
was already dead, and there was only a lifeless form for her to clasp in
her arms. The life of an infant child is too frail a thing, and too
uncertain, to permit us to say that a mother’s care would have sufficed
to save that babe. But the doctor said neglect was the cause of death,
and the poor mother has moaned daily these many months, “If I no work,
ma chil die not. I work an’ kill ma chil!”
Thirty-five years ago Paris was besieged by Germany’s vast army. For
months the war raged with terrible cost to invader and invaded; industry
was paralyzed and factories were closed down, with the result that there
was the most frightful poverty due to unemployment. But, because the
mothers were forced to stay at home, and were thus enabled to give their
children their personal care and attention instead of trusting them to
the “little mothers,” the mortality of infants decreased by 40 per cent.
No other explanation of that striking fact, so far as I am aware, has
ever been attempted.[30] Very similar was the effect upon the infantile
death-rate during the great cotton famine in Lancashire as a result of
the prolonged unemployment of so many hundreds of mothers.
Notwithstanding the immense increase in poverty, the fact that the
mothers could personally care for their infants more than compensated
for it and lowered the rate of mortality in a most striking manner.[31]
These examples of a profound social fact are sufficient for our present
purpose, though, were it necessary, they might be indefinitely
multiplied.