THE STEAL OR STARVE UNFORTUNATES
Many of our most recent sociological writers commenting on some of the
causes of crime, omit all mention of poverty. They speak of heredity,
environment, intemperance, and many other things, but of poverty they
say nothing whatever. Even Henry George in his book on Progress and
Poverty is silent on the latter subject as one of the great producing
causes of crime. Any one who carefully studies the relation between
poverty and crime will see that these two in many cases are vitally
connected.
It is not necessary in this discussion to enter into all the
ramifications of the subject. Indeed nothing would be gained by doing
so. In the present instance we simply wish to present to our readers a
few cases which will go to show that the question of “bread and butter”
is one of paramount importance to the average man. And we shall endeavor
to show that poverty is one of the most potent causes of crime in our
day, especially in our large cities.
The London police authorities have always maintained, and are able to
prove by statistics, that when the bakers raise the price of bread only
one-half a cent, it means an increase of crime to the extent of ten per
cent. And for the reason that so many of the poorer classes are so
pinched by poverty, that when the price of food is raised it means to
many of them starve or steal.
It is foolish any longer to stultify our minds and argue against
believing that poverty and crime are vitally related. This is especially
true in our large cities, rather than in the country. Not only do they
belong to each other like cause and effect,—but poverty in many
instances fosters crime.
It is a well known fact that when thousands of our laboring classes are
out of employment only one week, they are, to use the language of the
street, “dead broke.” In a few days the whole family become so affected
for want of food that unless the father gets work at once whatever is of
value in the house is either put in pawn or sold for what it can bring
anywhere. When the house ceases to have anything more to sell, the
children are sent out to steal. A large number of those who are arrested
by the Children’s Society for various crimes and taken to their rooms
before going to Court, eat ravenously of whatever food is set before
them. When they are questioned as to why they stole, they usually say
they were hungry.
Diminutive boys and even men with sunken cheeks and pale faces are taken
to the Tombs almost daily charged with the crime. When you speak to them
they freely admit that they lived for months by stealing. And in a great
many cases they stole to get food for the family. The same is also true
of boys and girls who work in stores and factories. When sorely tempted
to steal they do so but only when hunger stares them in the face! In
nearly all the places where young people work they pay such small
salaries, that they are unable to save anything. After they pay their
board what is left goes for clothing and carfare. But there is nothing
for the proverbial rainy day.
But self preservation is said to be the first law of nature. “All that a
man hath will he give for his life,” is as true to-day as it ever was.
When men steal to preserve life they simply trample under foot a lower
law to maintain a higher one. And it is the most natural thing in the
world to fall back on the law of self-preservation when driven to the
wall by hunger or other adverse circumstances.
The annals of crime in this city will show that the children of the poor
at an early age are turned on the street, where they are left to steal
or starve. I have found by careful observation that twenty-five per
cent. of the boy criminals of New York started on their wayward careers
when they were hungry. It was the old story, “Steal or starve.” And they
stole and became criminals.
As long as you keep men and women busily employed crime is out of the
question, but when they lose their job and feel the pangs of hunger, the
criminal instinct comes to them with such force that they cannot resist
it.
An ex-convict whom I have known for a number of years wrote me a letter
of explanation after going back to the Penitentiary some months ago.
“Sir,” said he, “there is no employment for an ex-convict. * * * * I was
homeless and friendless * * * * * with me it was steal, starve or beg? I
was too proud to beg. And I refused to starve in this land of plenty.
When I could do nothing else I stole—when I suffered the pangs of
hunger. What else could I do? And when placed in the same circumstances
I will do it again.”
Not long since John Williams, sixty years of age, was arraigned in
Centre Street Court, charged with larceny. He confessed his guilt. “I do
not care what you do with me, Judge,” he said. “I was starving and it
was either steal or die.” “Why don’t I work?” “Well, Judge, if you will
get me a job, you’ll see how hard I’ll work. But nobody wants an old man
like me.”
I knew a respectable man who resided in the vicinity of Tenth Avenue and
Fifty-sixth Street; he was out of employment for about three weeks. By
this time his family, which consisted of wife and five children, were in
dire poverty. The fourth week he found employment at twelve dollars a
week driving a truck. On Saturday the boss paid the man six dollars out
of which he was to pay rent and feed his family for a whole week. The
employer retained six dollars of his wages as security against loss
while in his employ. In the middle of the week his funds were exhausted.
When he came home Wednesday night his children were crying for food and
he had none to give them. Then he remembered that he left a box of goods
on the truck when he put his team in the barn. That night he broke the
box open, took some of the goods out and pawned them and with the money
bought food and fuel to make his family comfortable for several days. It
is needless to say that before the week was out he was arrested charged
with grand larceny.
A good Samaritan made an investigation of this man’s case the following
week, found his family in great poverty and supplied their wants. Not
only was it found that the man was no thief, but everything he said was
true. He was driven to steal by his hard hearted employer who held back
half his week’s pay when his family was in great need.
When all the facts became fully known the Court suspended sentence and
sent him back to his family. The Monday following he went to work for an
old employer who had always known him as an honest man.
When I spoke to this man about what he had done, he said, “I could not
help it. My boss, who retained in his possession six dollars of my hard
earned money, made me a thief. I did not want to steal but when I heard
my children cry for bread it almost crazed me and I stole to satisfy
their hunger.”
An old German, over fifty years of age, who some years ago was in
business in Philadelphia, failed and lost all his property. He came to
New York where he lived from hand to mouth for a month or two. He was
often in the bread line on the Bowery to get enough to keep him from
starvation. During that winter he went four days without eating
anything. Then in his desperation he broke a window and stole an opera
glass. For this he was arrested and sent to the Penitentiary for one
year.
When he came out of prison he was determined not to commit another
crime. He walked the streets for five days looking for employment, but
nobody wanted him, he was too old. Walking along Second Avenue one
evening he became exhausted, then desperate and broke a plate glass
window that he might be sent to prison where he would get enough to eat.
When he was discharged I met him at the prison door. I tried to get him
employment but nobody wanted him, then I sent him to Newark on his way
to Philadelphia among his friends who would save him from further
imprisonment. In both cases poverty drove him to crime to get food. He
was not a criminal from choice but only from circumstances.
This last case which I am about to relate was the most pitiful of all.
The man lived with his wife and four children in the neighborhood of
East Fortieth Street near First Avenue. He was a painter by trade and
had been out of employment four weeks. On the first of March his wife
gave birth to a child. On the third day afterwards his home was fireless
and foodless. On the morning of the fourth day his children cried for
food, then he became desperate. He tried to borrow money but nobody
would loan him anything, not even a quarter of a dollar. That morning he
stood at the Grand Central Depot ready to steal if he got the chance,
but there were too many policemen there watching his movements. Then he
walked down to Thirty-eighth Street and Park Avenue where he stood
watching the people. In a few minutes he saw a lady come along dressed
in furs. In her hand was a small wallet. He followed her down the steps
into the tunnel, snatched the wallet and ran. But he could not run fast
enough as he was weakened from lack of food and was soon captured. It
was proved in Court that the man was not a thief; that he was driven to
do the crime because of the dire poverty in his home. It was a social
rather than a criminal question, but the judge thought he would make an
example of this unfortunate and gave him ten years’ imprisonment. I
asked him in prison why he had taken such chances; he replied, “I was
cold and hungry and my family were in such desperate circumstances when
the temptation appealed to me, I could not resist it. That’s all.”
In a large number of cases I have found that men and women were not
thieves by choice. They were before the law guilty only technically for
some crime, but were driven to it by social conditions and man’s
inhumanity to man! When you come to judge all such “criminals” be
charitable, and put yourself in their place and ask, What would you do
under the same circumstances?
There is an organization in this city called the Charity Society. They
receive a good deal of money during the year for charity! Mr. John S.
Kennedy gives them free rent in his building. What charitable work they
have ever done to aid the worthy poor we have never been able to learn.
But some people have not a very high opinion of them. When I have urged
people to seek relief from them (before I made an investigation for
myself and learned what they are) they replied that they would prefer to
jump into the river. Others in speaking of the society use red profanity
which would not look well in print. Ask a policeman, priest, rabbi,
minister of the gospel, mission worker. They may be able to tell what
charity is given by this society to the poor of New York. I know the
society for improving the conditions of the poor, the Children’s Aid
Society and others that do a good work. Heaven bless them and fill their
treasuries!
[Illustration:
_Copyright Pack Bros., New York._
Ex-police Commissioner Bingham, of New York. General
Theo. Alfred Bingham, born at Andover, Tolland Co.,
Conn., May 14, 1858. Graduated at West Point Military
Academy 1879 and Vale University 1896. For several
years he has been in charge of Public Buildings and
grounds in Washington, D. C. Was appointed Police
Commissioner, by Mayor McClellan, January, 1906. He
brought the Police up to a higher perfection than ever
before.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------