═══════════════════════╤═══════════╤═══════════╤═══════════╤═══════════
Age │ 13 │ 14 │ 15 │ 16
───────────────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────
Non-laboring class │ 28.41│ 29.65│ 30.72│ 33.08
Artisan class │ 25.24│ 26.28│ 27.51│ 28.97
───────────────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────
Difference │ 3.17│ 3.37│ 3.21│ 4.11
═══════════════════════╧═══════════╧═══════════╧═══════════╧═══════════
It will be seen, therefore, that the children of the non-laboring class
at thirteen years of age exceed those of the artisan class in height
almost three inches, in weight almost ten and a half pounds, and in
chest girth almost three and a quarter inches. And these figures by no
means represent fully the contrast in physique which exists between the
very poorest and well-to-do children. The difference between the
children of the best-paid artisans and the poorest-paid of the same
class is nearly as great. Mr. Rowntree found that in York, England, the
boys of the poorest section of the working-class were on an average
three and one-half inches shorter than the boys of the better-paid
section of the working-class. As regards weight Mr. Rowntree found the
difference to be eleven pounds in favor of the child of the best-paid
artisan.[58]
Dr. W.W. Keen quotes the figures of Roberts with approval as applying
almost equally to this country,[59] and all the studies yet made by
American investigators seem to justify that opinion. There exists a
somewhat voluminous, but scattered, American literature tending to the
same general conclusions as the European. The classic studies of Dr.
Bowditch,[60] in Boston, and Dr. Porter,[61] in St. Louis, showed very
distinctly that the children of the poorer classes in those cities were
decidedly behind those of the well-to-do classes in both height and
weight. The more recent investigations of Dr. Hrdlicka[62] fully bear
out the results of these earlier studies.
The Report on Physical Training (Scotland) calls attention once more to
the fact that children in the pauper, reformatory, and industrial
schools are superior in physique to the children in the ordinary
elementary schools. Says the report: “The contrast between the condition
of such children as are seen in the poor day schools and the children of
parents who have altogether failed in their duty is both marked and
painful.”[63] Commenting upon which an English Socialist writer says:
“The obvious deduction is that if you are doing your duty ... and your
children are brought up in the way they should go, they will not be half
as well off as if they were truants or thieves. Therefore, ... the best
thing you can do for them ... is to turn your children into little
criminals.”[64] Without accepting these cynical deductions, the fact
remains that in a great many instances those children who, by reason of
the criminality of their parents or their complete failure to provide
for their offspring, find their way into such institutions, are far
better off, physically, than their fellows in the ordinary schools whose
parents are careful and industrious. But for the taint of institutional
life, and the crushing out of individuality which almost invariably
accompanies it, they would be far better equipped for the battle of
life.
The real significance of this physical superiority is not so obvious as
the writer quoted appears to assume. The fact is that these children are
generally below the average even of their own class when they are
admitted to these institutions. Their superior physique shows the
regeneration which proper food and hygienic conditions produce in the
worst cases.