labor question through the discovery of the fact that large numbers of
orphan children, varying from eleven to fourteen years of age, were
being exported from St. John’s Asylum, Brooklyn, N. Y., to the glass
factories of Fostoria and Findlay, O. Other asylums, including the
organization known as the Children’s Aid Society, were said to be
equally guilty with St. John’s Home in carrying on the business of
child trading for a money consideration.
Footnote 187:
New York newspapers November 23–26, 1888; _Brooklyn Citizen_, November
23, 1888; Correspondence of Factory Inspectors, Harry Dorn, Ohio,
November, 1888; Correspondence of Factory Inspectors, John Franey,
Albany, N. Y., November, 1888.
Footnote 188:
New Jersey, 1883; Ohio, 1884; New York, 1886; Wisconsin, Rhode Island,
1887; Connecticut, 1888; Maine, 1888; State factory inspection in
Pennsylvania in 1889; municipal factory ordinance in Chicago, 1889.
Footnote 189:
Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1875, pp. 183–84.
Footnote 190:
Whenever “socialism” is referred to in this essay, by the term should
be simply understood the meaning given to the word in recent editions
of Webster’s “Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,” viz.: “A
theory of society which advocates a more precise, orderly, and
harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than that
which has hitherto prevailed.” This necessarily is the very opposite
of anarchy, described, in the same authority, as “The state of society
where there is no law or supreme power, or where the laws are not
efficient and individuals do what they please with impunity.”
Socialism is therefore the antithesis of anarchism. The former is
constructive and altruistic, the latter destructive, and the absolute
sovereignty of the individual, consequently, disregard of others. Nor
is by socialism meant communism. Socialism recognizes the right of the
individual to the product of his own labor and certainly not the
division thereof; whereas communism means that common ownership of
property which has only been successfully carried out in the
conventual orders of the Roman Catholic Church and in the Buddhistic
Lamaseries. This is the position taken in a recently published article
from the pen of the well-known social-economist Charles Sotheran,
formerly literary editor of the New York _Star_, but better known
under his _noms-de-plume_ of “Colmolyn” and “Southernwood.”
Footnote 191:
See chapter, Work for the Criminal Classes.—ED.
Footnote 192:
See chapter on Woman in Industry.—ED.
Footnote 193:
See chapter, Woman in Industry.—ED.
Footnote 194:
See chapter, Woman in Industry.—ED.
Footnote 195:
The Association of Working Girls’ Societies was formed February, 1884,
with the following objects:
1. To strengthen, to knit together, and to protect the interests of
the several societies.
2. To hold meetings, when reports of the societies shall be presented,
and to make more generally known their aims and advantages.
3. To promote the general adoption of the principles upon which the
societies have been formed.
4. To secure the services, by co-operation, of good teachers, lady
physicians, and lecturers.
5. To keep the several societies informed of such classes and schemes
as are proved valuable.
6. To encourage and assist in the establishment of new societies.
In April, 1890, a convention was held under the auspices of the New
York, Boston, and Brooklyn Associations of Working Girls’ Societies,
and the Philadelphia New Century Working Women’s Guild. Two hundred
and twenty-five delegates, representing ninety-six clubs, and from
thirty-eight different cities and towns, were present.—ED.
Footnote 196:
The effort above referred to has during the year taken shape as the
“College Settlement,” and on September 1, 1890, its first annual
report closes with the following words:
“What are the ‘results?’ Certainly the residents are recognized as the
friends of those about them. The children turn to them with the joy of
every acquisition and the grief of every loss. The club boys of
sixteen and seventeen years are proud of their connection with the
house and eager rivals in its good opinion. Even some of the older
women turn to the residents as friends upon whom they can rely. Those
who know the work best do not look for results other than this
friendly relation in any near future. The work, if it is anything, is
a process of education. Character is not formed in a year. In all the
club work the object constantly sought is helpful, personal contact.
All methods are simply a means to this end. For this reason the number
of members in each club is limited. If the higher is ever to give an
uplift to the lower, must it not be through this method of friendship?
Such a relation implies giving and taking on both sides, and the
workers at the Settlement find one of the strongest points gained by
residence to be, that their neighbors have a chance to do something
for them, a chance which is often improved. The Settlement is one of
the influences which go to form the lives of the people in Rivington
Street. If it shall create any higher ideals or quicken any
aspirations, if it shall awaken one soul to any sense of its own
nature, the object of the College Settlement will surely be attained.”
Footnote 197:
See chapter, Woman in Medicine.—ED.
Footnote 198:
The story of the founding of the New York Infirmary, and the New
England Hospital for Women and Children, is told in the chapter on
Woman in Medicine.—ED.
Footnote 199:
NOTE.—I do not mean to claim that this result, which is very evident
in the community, is entirely due to the establishment of women’s
hospitals, for it is the consequence of a broader feeling for humanity
in all institutions; but it is certainly a marked feature of women’s
hospitals. This note will apply to all that I have said of hospitals.
My subject is women’s hospitals, but I would gladly do justice to the
good work done in all hospitals, if it were not too broad a field.
Footnote 200:
In New York city the Woman’s Branch of the New York City Mission sends
out five nurses among the poor. These nurses have all had a full
course of training at some hospital. This mission claims to be the
first society in America to have introduced trained nurses in its
work.
The Department of United Relief Works of the Society of Ethical
Culture, organized in 1879, furnishes nurses to Demilt and New York
Dispensaries. During the year 1888–1889 these nurses paid on an
average 2800 visits to about 700 patients, including all diseases,
even of the most infectious nature, and quite irrespective of creed
and nationality.
The Mt. Sinai Training School supplies, at its own expense (being at
present a separate organization from the hospital) from among its
nurses not yet graduated, but experienced in hospital training, a
nurse who administers to the sick irrespective of creed, nationality,
or disease, under the direction of physicians attached to what is
called “District Poor Service” of Mt. Sinai Hospital. Among the corps
of physicians, all of whom give their services free, is one woman, Dr.
Josephine Walter, who devotes on an average four mornings a week to
this work in some of the poorest and most miserable districts of the
city.
The order of Deaconesses, referred to in the chapter on Woman in
Ministry, also act in the capacity of nurse. Among them are many
regularly trained nurses who serve in the hospitals closely connected
with the church.—ED. note.
Footnote 201:
See chapter on Charity.—ED.
Footnote 202:
See the story of Mrs. McFarland’s work, in “Alaska,” by Rev. Sheldon
Jackson, D.D.
Footnote 203:
See “Mary and I,” by Rev. Dr. Stephen R. Riggs.
Footnote 204:
The latest and best edition is by Roberts Brothers, Boston, Mass.
Footnote 205:
This was Susan La Flesche, a sister of “Bright Eyes.”
Footnote 206:
This was The Women’s Home Mission Society of the First Baptist Church
of Philadelphia, that of the Rev. George Dana Boardman, D.D., a
society organized by the efforts of Mrs. Boardman, the gifted wife of
that distinguished preacher and author, and largely in the interests
of Indians.
Footnote 207:
See also the “Sketch and Plans” of The Indian Treaty-keeping and
Protective Association, July, 1881, and “The Official Record” of The
National Indian Association for 1882.
Footnote 208:
The petition was as follows:
_To the President of the United States, and to the Senate and House
of Representatives_:
We, the undersigned men and women of the United States, resident in or
near ——, do most respectfully but most earnestly request the President
and the Houses of Congress to take all needful steps to prevent the
encroachments of white settlers upon the Indian Territory, and to
guard the Indians in the enjoyment of all the rights which have been
guaranteed them on the faith of the nation.
Footnote 209:
This was as follows:
_To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress Assembled_:
We, the undersigned men and women of these United States, resident in
or near ——, do most respectfully, but most earnestly pray the Houses
of Congress to take all needful steps to prevent the encroachments of
white settlers upon the Indian Territory, and upon _all_ Indian
reservations; also to keep all treaties with the Indians until they
are changed by the mutual and free consent of both parties, and to
guard them in the enjoyment of _all_ the rights which have been
guaranteed them upon the faith of the nation.
Footnote 210:
MEMORIAL LETTER.[211]
ACCOMPANYING THE INDIAN PETITION OF 1881.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress Assembled_:
The men and women of this nation herewith present their second
petition to your Honorable Body for the faithful fulfillment of
treaties and other guarantees given by our government to the different
tribes of Indians within our borders. Your petitioners do not suggest
any political policy to be pursued, leaving such matters to wise
statesmanship. They come with but one thought, conviction, prayer. The
thought recognizes the _moral obligation_ of nations, as of
individuals, to keep compacts. The conviction is that recognized moral
obligation should result in the _fulfillment_ of such obligation. The
prayer is for such fulfillment as being ever, we believe, the _highest
political wisdom_, the truest national safety.
An objection has been made by some to treaty-keeping with Indians, on
the ground that the Indian tribes among us were never “nations,” and
that, therefore, so-called “treaties” with them were never _real_
treaties. Your petitioners, with deep feeling recall the fact that
_our government_ has for a hundred years recognized these tribes as
“nations,” in its hundreds of compacts with them calling the latter
“treaties,” and has, by Acts of Congress, bound itself faithfully to
observe all such made in the past, though deciding to make no new
treaties with Indians. Your petitioners, therefore, pray, for the sake
of national honor, which demands honest dealing with all men, that the
terms “nation” and “treaty” may be kept to the heart as they have
hitherto been made and explained to the ear.
Again it has been urged that the law of _eminent domain_ nullifies
these treaties, and requires our government to take legal jurisdiction
of Indian lands, to divide the same in severalty, and to open the
remainder for white settlement. Your petitioners are deeply impressed
that for any government to apply the law of eminent domain to the
property of others than its own citizens, is to necessitate, if there
be resistance, a war of conquest,—a measure wholly opposed to the
fundamental principles of this government,—and that Indians, with few
exceptions, are not citizens of the United States, but are under their
own legislative and executive authority, as in the Indian Territory,
and this by the terms of our sales of territory to them, and their
titles to the same.
Your petitioners therefore present their memorial to your honorable
body, feeling that the plea for treaty-keeping is a protest against
any enactment of Congress which would extend legal jurisdiction over
territory not under the control of this government, and which would do
this, as for example the Oklahoma Bill proposes, contrary to explicit
treaty stipulations.
Finally, your petitioners would express the earnest conviction that
the nation, which has spent five hundred millions of dollars on Indian
wars growing out of the _violation_ of treaties, can best afford to
make it to the interest of the Indian tribes among us _voluntarily_ to
become citizens of the United States, and not by the coercion of Acts
of our Congress.
Our petition of last year was from fifteen States; that of the present
year represents every State of the Union and several of the
Territories; and has many more than double the number of last year’s
signatures. The work of circulating the petition, and accompanying
pamphlets, has been done by few persons, and chiefly by Christian
women already busy in benevolent work; yet the roll contains the names
of people of all occupations and in all ranks of society; of great
business firms and manufacturers; of distinguished men and officials;
of judges, governors, and ambassadors to foreign courts; of authors
and editors; of the faculties and students of not a few of our most
noted collegiate and theological institutions, and of literary and art
associations. Besides all these, the roll includes the signatures of
women’s mission boards, Christian associations, and other benevolent
societies; the names of pastors and bishops of the churches; also the
records of the indorsement of a rising vote from various
church-meetings of different denominations; of meetings held specially
to consider the Indian question; of minister’s unions in different
towns and cities, and of various other bodies. All these and many
other evidences reveal the fact that the _moral sentiment_ of those
classes who largely make and control public opinion already requires
governmental faithfulness to our Indian treaties. For this your
petitioners most earnestly and respectfully pray.
AMELIA S. QUINTON.
_Secretary of Indian Treaty-Keeping Committee._
Footnote 211:
This said:
_To the President of the United States, and to the Senate and House of
Representatives in Congress Assembled_:
We, the undersigned men and women of these United States, do most
respectfully but most earnestly pray our President and your honorable
body:
1. To maintain all treaties with Indians with scrupulous fidelity
until these compacts are modified or abrogated by the free and
well-considered consent of the Indian tribes who were also parties to
these treaties.
2. That since the number of Indian children within the limits of the
United States does not probably exceed sixty thousand, or one-third
the number of children in the public schools of some of our larger
cities; and since treaties with many tribes already bind our
government to provide a teacher for every thirty Indian children among
these tribes: therefore we pray that a number of common schools,
sufficient for the education of every child of every tribe, may be
provided upon their reservations, and that industrial schools also may
be established among them.
3. We pray that a title in fee-simple to at least one hundred and
sixty acres of land may be granted to any Indian within the
reservation occupied by his tribe, when he desires to hold land in
severalty, and that said land shall be inalienable for twenty years.
4. We also earnestly pray for the recognition of Indian personalty and
rights under the law, giving to Indians the protection of the law of
the United States for their persons and property, and holding them
strictly amenable to these laws; also giving them increased
encouragements to industry, and opportunity to trade, and securing to
them full religious liberty.
MEMORIAL LETTER OF THE INDIAN TREATY-KEEPING AND PROTECTIVE
ASSOCIATION, PRESENTED WITH THEIR PETITION FOR 1882.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress Assembled_:
Again the women of a national Indian association beg leave to present
to your honorable body the petition they have circulated and received
again from the people of the United States. Their roll represents, at
a low estimate, considerably more than a hundred thousand
citizens,—instead of thirteen thousand as did their first, three years
ago,—and is an earnest plea for a righteous, speedy, and permanent
settlement of the Indian question.
Among the petitioners are many hundreds of churches, which have
adopted the petition by a unanimous rising vote, this often having
been taken at a regular Sabbath service; various popular meetings have
also here presented their plea, similarly expressed; while the roll
contains names of members of legislative bodies, of governors, judges,
and lawyers; names of bishops and of many hundreds of the clergy—among
the latter the entire ministry of three denominations in the city of
Philadelphia and numbering nearly three hundred; names of the
professors and students of theological seminaries like those at
Hartford, Cambridge, Rochester, and Upland; colleges and universities
like Yale, Harvard, Brown, Cornell, Rochester, Washington, and Lee;
names of editors of leading periodicals; the boards of hundreds of
missionary and other benevolent societies, not a few of these being
national ones; with names of art, literary, and social clubs. Besides
all these, the roll contains the signatures of hundreds of business
and manufacturing firms, who control capital to the amount of many
millions of dollars, and who employ many thousand operatives—all
showing that not only has there been a rapid growth of sentiment among
the religious and intellectual leaders of the community, demanding
legislation which shall end oppression of Indians and secure to them
full opportunity for industrial, mental, and religious development,
but that the commercial interests of our land also are fast coming to
demand a just and speedy settlement of the Indian question.
Permit an expression from the association who to-day present to your
honorable body their third annual petition,—an association having
sixteen State committees and one in each of the larger cities, with
helpers in every State, all these committees being composed of
patriotic Christian women; permit these to say that into their ears
and hearts comes the cry of suffering, undefended, ever-endangered,
Indian women and children, and that this cry is our appeal to you to
secure for them legal protection; that the plea of Indian women for
the sacred shield of law is the plea of the sisters, wives, and
mothers of this nation for them, the plea of all womanhood, indeed, on
their behalf to you as legislators and as men. Permit us also to say,
that in laboring by every means in our power to fill our land with a
knowledge of the present condition of Indians, and of our national
obligations to them, we most deeply feel, that while justice demands
the recognition of Indian personalty before the law, thus most surely
and simply, it seems to us, securing to Indians protection and
fostering care, we yet feel that legislation securing this recognition
will be an honor to the present Congress and to our beloved country.
For this legislation we most earnestly and respectfully pray.
Footnote 212:
One paragraph will perhaps be an encouragement to those organizing
similar women’s movements hereafter: “Under the head of ‘Meetings
Held,’ the New Hampshire branch reports twelve ladies’ meetings and a
crowded mass-meeting; the Massachusetts Association reports eleven
ladies’ meetings and a very successful mass-meeting in Tremont Temple;
Connecticut reports fourteen ladies’ meetings and two mass-meetings;
New York City has had various ladies’ meetings and a mass-meeting in
Rev. Dr. Hall’s church; Brooklyn has had thirteen ladies’ meetings and
two mass-meetings; Philadelphia, including local auxiliaries and
meetings of the National Executive Board, has had about forty ladies’
meetings and five mass-meetings; Baltimore has had eight ladies’
meetings and two mass-meetings, and Washington sixteen ladies’
meetings and four mass-meetings. Regarding the distribution of
leaflets, New Hampshire reports 5500 sent out, with 401 petitions;
Connecticut 5000 leaflets, and petitions sent to all her towns;
Maryland has sent leaflets to fifty towns and secured petitions
representing 21,000 citizens. Of articles in the press, New Hampshire
has sent sixty, and Philadelphia over a hundred. Brooklyn has raised
$325; New York, $405; Boston, $724, and, naturally, being the home of
the movement, Philadelphia has raised more than these and all other
auxiliaries combined.”
Footnote 213:
See “Protection of Law for Indians,” by General J. B. Leake; “The
Indian before the Law,” by H. S. Pancoast, Esq.; “Our Indian Wards,”
by Col. George Manypenny, and “Our Wild Indians,” by Col. Richard J.
Dodge; “The Indian Question,” by G. W. Owen, pages 90–97 and 639–650.
Footnote 214:
That of January, 1883, said:
We, the undersigned citizens of the United States, resident in or near
——, viewing the results of our past national Indian policy; viewing
also the present positions and relations of the white and Indian races
within our borders, and being convinced by many considerations, both
moral and political, that only that Indian policy is just, and
therefore wise, which has for its ultimate aim citizenship for
Indians, through the abolition of the reservation system by granting
to all Indians, not now under the Indian Government of the Indian
Territory, lands in severalty, with the same titles, law protection,
property rights, common school education, and religious liberty
enjoyed by other races among us:
Now, therefore, we do respectfully but most earnestly pray that such a
policy as above suggested may be adopted and in future pursued, having
due regard to the principles of equity and justice involved in past
treaties with Indians, yet granting to them upon their present
reservations as fast as individuals so desire (and we pray that our
Government will generously allure them to this desire).
FIRST: Lands in severalty, with fee-simple titles, inalienable for
thirty years.
SECOND: The same law-protection, legal personalty and citizenship that
white men and black men enjoy.
THIRD: Adequate common-school and industrial education upon their
present reservations, and,
FOURTH: Full religious liberty.
Footnote 215:
See chapter Woman in the State.—ED.
Footnote 216:
See chapter Woman in Literature.—ED.
Footnote 217:
See chapter Woman in Literature.—ED.
Footnote 218:
Ohio.—ED.
Footnote 219:
I have steadily refrained from adding biographical notes on the
authors of the chapters of this book, notwithstanding the fact that
they themselves, in having accomplished so very much on the very lines
of progress which they have set about to describe, have deprived us of
much that could have been gracefully added, had they been less fully
identified with their subjects. Between the lines, however, much may
be gleaned; and to relate the lives of such women is to presume
ignorance on the part of the reader; a presumption of which a discreet
editor would never be guilty.
But when, through excess of modesty, the ignorance of the editor of
this book is delicately held up as a proof of the lamentably universal
ignorance on the subject of the Red Cross, the awful dignity of the
editor is aroused! Without the following explanation or extenuation,
moreover, I do not see how the chapter in question could have any
place in the book. “Woman’s Work in America” can hardly be made up of
histories of work which is emphasized as “_the work of men_,” no
matter how gracefully apologized for.