THE SALVATION ARMY HOTELS AND LODGING HOUSES.
In a study of environment and its effects on the lowest classes of our
great cities, the cheap lodging house affords a favorable field. Here we
have crowding, unsanitary conditions, immoral atmosphere, and all the
attendant evils. A good description of such lodging houses in New York
City has been given by Jacob Riis, in the following words:
"In the caravansaries that line Chatham Street and the Bowery,
harboring nightly a population as large as that of many a thriving
town, a home-made article of tramp and thief is turned out that is
attracting the increasing attention of the police, and offers a
field for the missionary's labors, besides which most others seem of
slight consequence"[38].
The cheap lodging houses of London and other great cities are similar in
their environment and effects. This field was early entered by the Army.
It was necessary that a very low rate of cost for the individual
concerned be maintained because of competition with the lodging houses
already existing, and because of the size of the prospective lodger's
purse. The first experiments were tried in London. There, at first, the
primary aim was to aid the needy and destitute, but later the Army
entered into a competition with the existing lodging houses and paid
more attention to the element of environment. It was soon definitely
proved that such a work could be carried on to advantage, that shelter
amid beneficial surroundings, could be provided to those almost
destitute, and that the work could be self-supporting. Since then this
work has extended to nearly all the larger cities of Europe and America,
but it is of greatest extent in England and the United States. Along
with this growth there has been differentiation. The hotels have been
graded to suit the requirements of the different classes to which they
appeal: the almost destitute class, and those who have steady
employment. Hence, besides treating of conditions common to both, we
shall describe special features of two grades of both men's and women's
hotels.[39]
The location for a men's hotel must be determined partly by its
propinquity to the class of men which it is seeking to attract and
partly for facilities for ventilation, cleanliness and general sanitary
conditions. These last features are of the greatest importance in this
work. Led by the real need of the case, and working with regard to its
reputation, the Army has, in this respect, shown a great advance over
the general cheap lodging houses. Still, there is room for improvement
in the Army hotels.[40] One great difficulty lies in the lodgers, many
of whom are so habituated to uncleanliness in general, that it is with
great reluctance on their part that they are induced to cleanliness.
Especially in the lower class hotels is this true where the rough,
brutal element finds its way. Another difficulty lies in the fact that
the Army frequently takes old buildings and turns them into hotels, when
they are not suitable for the purpose. A favorable tendency to overcome
this, however, lies in the Army's desire to put up new buildings fitted
for hotels, and this is being done in many cities.
In both the higher and the lower class men's hotels, the general plan is
to have two or three grades of sleeping apartments. The first grade is
in the form of dormitories, where each dormitory will contain from ten
to fifty beds in the smaller hotels, and from fifty to one hundred and
even two hundred beds in the larger.[41] For a bed in one of these
dormitories, 10c and 15c per night is charged in the United States, and
in England 2d up. This includes the use of a locker beside the bed, with
sometimes a nightgown, and sometimes a bath. The second grade of lodging
is in individual rooms, partitioned off, but inside rooms, for which the
charge is 15c in the United States, and 4d to 6d in England. Then
finally we have the third grade of lodging, which consists of individual
rooms which have outside windows, and for which the price varies from
20c to 50c per night according to situation and furnishing.[42]
Sometimes the three grades of lodging are found on the same floor, a
part of the floor being dormitory, and a part partitioned off into
rooms, the partitions running up to a height of eight or nine feet. This
method of partitioning off the rooms is almost universal. It is cheap
and to some extent sanitary, since by means of windows at either end of
the building a continual current of air can be maintained all over the
floor. In most of the higher class hotels one floor is given up to
dormitories and another to individual rooms, while the majority of lower
class hotels consist entirely of dormitories. Hotels are of all sizes,
and run from one floor up to eight or ten.
The beds found in the Army hotels are iron, with mattresses usually
covered with American cloth or some form of leather, but sometimes with
strong canvas.[43] Each bed is provided with pillow, sheets, a coverlid,
and sometimes an additional counterpane. The individual rooms, in
addition to having better beds, contain a looking glass, a chair, a
small table, and other furnishings according to the price of the room.
In most cases washing facilities are only found in the lavatory, common
to the whole floor.
Comparative cleanliness is enforced at all grades of hotels. Baths are
sometimes made compulsory, though often this rule cannot be rigidly
enforced. Usually each floor is provided with bath tubs and shower
baths. Nearly every hotel has a fumigating room, an air tight apartment
filled with racks, upon which clothing is hung. If a man's appearance or
clothing looks suspicious in any way, his clothes are placed in a sack
with a number corresponding to the number of his bed or room, and hung
in the fumigating room over night. Early the next morning his clothes
will be returned to him. The dormitories and rooms themselves, every few
days, receive a fumigating and cleaning. Thus, except in very rare
cases, no fault can be found with the cleanliness of the Army hotels. We
hardly ever visited any of them without coming into contact with the
scent of fumigation, or finding some individual working with mop and
broom.
The above description, except where stated differently, fits both
classes of men's hotels. The higher class, intended for transients of
the better class of poor and for workmen with steady employment, has
some distinctive features. In addition to better equipment along the
line of furnishings, lavatories, etc., this class of hotels necessarily
has a better social environment than the other. For instance, there are
many lower class hotels where the reading room is dark, poorly
furnished, without attractive reading matter, and where it serves as
smoking room as well as reading room. While this might be improved, yet
so low are the occupants that such improvement would not be appreciated.
But when we come to the higher grade hotels, we find a difference. Take,
for example, the Army Hotel in the city of Cleveland, O., on the corner
of Eagle and Erie Streets. This corner building was built by the Army to
answer its purpose, at a cost of $100,000.00. There are no dormitories
in the building. The three upper floors are given over to the hotel,
which comprises 130 rooms, each room being steam heated and electric
lighted, and each floor being reached by elevators. Bathing facilities
and sanitary arrangements are first class. A comfortable reading room
and lounging room is provided for general use, where there are popular
magazines, daily papers and writing conveniences. As another example,
about the highest grade Army institution of this class is found in
Boston, and is called "The People's Palace." It is a large, five-story,
corner building, built by the Army for the purpose. In this institution
the social environment is especially emphasized. There is a reading
room, a smoking room, one or more social parlors, a gymnasium with a
swimming tank, and an auditorium with a seating capacity of 600. The
whole building, with its 287 single rooms, besides the above advantages,
is equipped with steam heat, electric service and other modern
conveniences. A special fee of 25c is charged for the use of the
gymnasium and swimming tank, but the other advantages are free to
lodgers. In this way, it is seen that the higher class hotels have more
opportunity for a good social environment and for social work. We think
that the addition of certain features, such as men's clubs, smokers,
popular lectures, etc., would be of great advantage to this class of
institutions. To overcome the difficulty of a transient population,
however, would require considerable ingenuity.[44]
Along the line of religious environment we find the hotels differ a
great deal. In London there seems to be a strong influence of this kind,
most of the hotels of both classes holding gospel meetings frequently.
For instance, at the Quaker Street Elevator Home, which is partly a
hotel and partly an industrial home, meetings are held nearly every
night with good attendance, and at the Burne Street Hotel well attended
meetings are held every night except Wednesdays and Saturdays, these
nights being given over to the men for washing their clothes. But in the
United States we find, as a rule, that the Salvation Army hotels are run
with very little religious influence. In a few cases, meetings are held
regularly, but more often no provision is made for them. Meetings are
generally in progress somewhere in the neighborhood at the regular Army
corps, and the men are left to attend these meetings if they wish.
Generally they are willing to take advantage of the hotel, but do not
care for the sentimental form of religion preached by the Army. Hence,
in most of the hotels, we find the religious influence limited to the
texts on the walls, and to the attitude of the employees, who are not
always Salvationists or converted men.
Some hotels of both classes are fitted with a kitchen and lunch counter.
This is nearly always the case in London, where the hotels have a
counter, over which the food is sold, and then taken to a seat by the
purchaser. In several cases the counter is divided so that it opens into
different rooms, and there are two grades of prices, the lower price
being paid for food somewhat damaged and stale.[45]
We need not dwell long on the subject of the women's hotels, as that
does not form an important part of the Army's work. The women's hotels,
even more than the men's, have tended to fall into two classes. There is
a great difference between the hotel for women who are almost destitute,
and the hotel for respectable working girls, who have positions as
clerks and stenographers, and who happen to have no home of their own. A
typical hotel of the former class is situated near the Dearborn Street
Railway Depot in Chicago. It consists of three floors, and has
accommodation for fifty girls or women. The woman officer in charge
lives here herself, and seeks to have an environment as homelike as
possible. She states, however, that occasionally the women come in
noisily and are troublesome. There is a great difference between one
woman and another, and she wishes she had one floor with better
accommodation than the rest for the better element among them. The price
paid per bed at this hotel is 10 cents. A good example of this class of
hotel in England, is the one situated on Hanbury Street, Whitechapel,
London, where there are three floors, two upper floors given over to
dormitories containing 276 beds in all, and the ground floor containing
a dining room, kitchen, small hall, and office. Here, women are turned
away quite often because of lack of room. 2d. is charged for a bed, and
for food a scale of prices, such as tea, 1/2d.--soup, 1/2d.--bread,
1/2d.--etc. There are nine officers working here, and nine other
workers, six of the latter receiving 3s. per week, and three receiving
1s. per week.
With the higher class hotels for women, the Army has not had much
success. This is easily understood, as the respectable girl does not
like to be connected with a hotel run by an organization which is
prominent for its slum and rescue work. These hotels charge a higher
rate for rooms and are situated in a good quarter of the city.[46] They
are frequented by shop girls, bookkeepers, clerks and stenographers.
Apparently, no great religious pressure is brought to bear on the girls
and women, but this would probably depend on the officer in charge.
The growth of the Hotel Department of the Army's work, like that of the
Industrial Department, has, of recent years, been great. Soon after the
publication in 1890 of General Booth's book, "Darkest England," the
hotel work was started in England, and its progress has been rapid. In
the United States at first the work did not make much headway. When
Commander Booth-Tucker came to take charge in 1896, there were three
small men's hotels situated in the cities of Buffalo, San Francisco,
and Seattle. At the present time, nearly every large city in England
and the United States has one or more of these hotels, the latter
country having 71 men's hotels and 4 women's hotels, with a total
accommodation of 8,688. The tendency now is toward fewer of the lower
class hotels, and more of the higher class; in other words, toward fewer
hotels where beds can be had for 10c and 15c, and more where they will
cost 20c and 25c. The Army gives as its reason for this the fact that
the cheaper hotel cannot be maintained in a wholesome manner and be
self-supporting.[47] Similar to the Industrial Department in its
management, the Hotel Department has its divisions, its graded officers
with their various responsibilities, and its head officer in charge at
the national headquarters. In the United States, however, unlike the
Industrial Department, the Hotel Department has no separate financial
company, in the form of a corporation, behind it. In some instances,
deserving men are given bed tickets and meal tickets free, by officers
detailed for the purpose, and, to that extent the hotels are a charity.
This is done with due discretion and does not make an appreciable
difference. The amount of charity indulged in by the Army in this way
is, however, probably responsible for the fact that in 1907, there was a
loss to the Army in this department of $4,500.00, not a very large
amount, considering the number of hotels concerned.
Coming to the value of the Army hotels from the point of view of the
social economist, care must be taken to discriminate between their
commercial and their philanthropic aspects. The public has a mistaken
idea of the work carried on by this branch of the Army. Many people have
an idea that thousands of homeless, starving men and women are nightly
taken care of in these Army hotels. Putting aside the question whether
such would be good relief policy or not, the statement itself is not
true. In a majority of cases the man or woman in order to gain
admittance must have the price, and in many instances, that price will
also admit them to the regular cheap lodging house outside of the Army.
We are not finding fault with the system of charging, since from the
point of view of true relief, provided that bona-fide, destitute cases
are not left without help, the price should be required, as it would be
a great evil to throw open the hotels to the crowds of regular beggars
and social parasites who constantly throng any institution supposed to
be charitable; but since the Army hotel movement claims to be a
self-supporting business, it is not to be regarded as different from any
other lodging business, except in those points in which it excels the
other. With this caution we believe that we still can distinguish two
lines along which credit is to be given the Army. The first is the
environment which the Army has created for its guests. It is not
necessary here to show what a great factor environment is in this case,
but simply to emphasize its importance. From our description of the Army
hotel, it is seen that, with certain exceptions, the Army maintains
cleanliness, cheerfulness, and a homelike atmosphere around its lodging
houses.[48] In this important respect then, the Army hotel is to be
commended. Secondly, the Army has indirectly, by its competition with
the ordinary cheap lodging houses, led them to adopt improvement for
purely commercial reasons. If a man has only ten cents, he is going to
invest that ten cents to the best advantage, and the old time lodging
houses have found it necessary to improve their conditions in order to
meet the competition of the Army. For this too, credit is to be given
the latter. In addition the competition reacts on the Army and tends to
make it keep up its own standard.
In order more clearly to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of
cheap lodging houses, whether Army hotels or not, it would be well here
to consider objections to their existence. Three objections have been
raised to all cheap lodging houses in general.
1. That they herd together a low class of vagrants and vicious
characters.
2. That their cheapness lowers the standard of living.
3. That they encourage the youth of the country to come to the city and
live in comparative idleness.[49]
No one who has looked into the matter has any doubt about the accuracy
of the first objection. One glance at the faces of a group of men in the
smoking room of any such hotel reveals many of the low, bestial,
criminal type; many victims of dissipation and many who have acquired a
dislike for work of any sort. This harboring of the vicious element is
also true of the Army hotels of the lower class, but it is in company
with this element that we find the men for whom more or less can be
done.[50]
The second objection must be considered more carefully. To repeat the
definition of the standard of living which was discussed in connection
with the Industrial Department, it is the scale or measure of comfort
and satisfaction, which a person or community of persons, regards as
indispensable to happiness. Now the question is whether these cheap
lodging houses lower this standard; whether their existence results in a
tendency to live with less effort and less ambition, and thus renders
men and women less productive and less proficient. This question must be
separated into a question regarding the community as a whole, and a
question regarding the individual. As regards the standard of living of
any single community, the answer would be that the standard is not
appreciably lowered by this hotel system, since the occupants are mostly
single men wandering around, and the standard of living of the community
is more concerned with the maintenance of homes in its midst, than of
transients. This, however, brings in the further question as to whether
the cheap living made possible by the lodging houses leads to the
breaking up of homes, since if it does so, it would bear decidedly on
the standard of living. We would answer this second question in the
negative, because life in the cheap hotel is not such a desirable thing
as to lead to the breaking up of homes. A man has already left home and
is already reduced in circumstances, before the fact of such cheap
living as the hotels and cheap restaurants of the Bowery in New York, or
of Whitechapel in London, ever comes to him as an advantage. But, on the
other hand, when it comes to the individual concerned, we think that the
standard is lowered and that in many cases the objection holds good. For
instance, take a man with a regular trade, say bricklaying or
carpentering. He is thrown out of work and gradually drifts down to the
cheap hotel. For months, possibly, he strives in vain to get work at his
trade. He exists, however, by means of odd jobs picked up at random; he
becomes shiftless; the life which consists of so much "hanging around"
and loafing, decreases his efficiency, and, in this way, his standard is
lowered. At the same time his character is affected, and even if no
worse development takes place, he loses ambition, and that lowers his
standard. Hence, in conclusion, we would say that the objection that the
hotel movement of the Army leads to a lowering of a standard of living
has no place as regards the community, but is sustained as regards
individuals.
The third objection that the country youth are induced by this cheap
living to leave for the city is not a strong one and needs but short
notice. Some of the most successful men of our cities come from the
country, but very few of the lower and pauper classes. This has been
shown by the investigations of Mr. Fox in England, and by our own
investigations in the United States.[51]
The consideration of these objections leads us to a closer examination
of the class of men frequenting the hotels of the Army. The men's work
being so much larger, let us look at the occupants of the men's hotels.
Here we must separate the comparatively few hotels of the higher class,
which, charging higher prices and harboring the working man, have a
different environment from the others. In these, the higher class, we
see a competition with the ordinary boarding and lodging houses which
single men frequent, a competition which, owing to the more healthful
social environment of the Army hotel, is to be welcomed and approved of
as a preventive of vice and degradation. The latter is often the result
of crowded, uncleanly, workingmen's lodgings, which drive their
occupants to the saloon. But the majority of the Army hotels are filled
with the lowest class of men, out of any steady employment. This class
is composed for the most part and under present conditions, of men who
are almost helpless cases.[52] Conditions can be conceived which would
result in the betterment of a certain percentage of these, but a large
number would always be hopeless. Many have been given their chances and
have thrown them away; some have had no chances, and some could not use
them if they had. Many are physical and moral wrecks. In their faces you
see no ambition. They simply exist as do animals. For such, except in
unusual cases, there is no remedy. Do all you can for them, and they
will slide back again; give them work, and if they are willing to take
it at all, they soon lose their positions. Some belong to the
pseudo-social class and are mere parasites feeding on society. Others
are anti-social, bitter and criminal.[53]
These men are not those with which the Army is successful, in its
industrial institutions, although many of them have been tried. They
secure their ten cents or fifteen cents for a bed in a cheap hotel by
any means which comes along. They form a class, which especially in the
older countries of Europe and increasingly in the new world, presents a
problem that is the great puzzle of the statesman and the social
economist alike.
The present tendency of the Army already mentioned to have fewer of the
lower class, cheap hotels and more of the higher class brings up some
important considerations. There are three points which come up for
particular notice here. First, as has already been stated, the present
tendency of the Army is to have fewer of the lower class or cheap hotels
and more of the higher class. One reason for this is that, although the
Army's competition has in many instances forced the ordinary cheap
hotels to better their equipment, still, in the long run, the Army
cannot successfully compete with the ordinary low class hotel and
maintain an equally good or better environment, without having its hotel
work subsidized by the public. The men whom we have just described do
not appreciate better surroundings sufficiently to pay fifteen cents for
a bed at the Army hotel, when they can get one for ten cents at another
place around the corner. Secondly, as the Army extends its work, there
is the ever present tendency of any organization to become an end in
itself. Hence the Army tends to forsake its field of the lower class for
the field of the working class for financial reasons. If it can carry on
a hotel which appeals to a higher class of working men who are willing
to pay $1.50 upwards per week for a separated room such as has been
described, they may do better financially than with a dormitory whose
beds are held at ten cents. This second point of consideration leads us
to a third, and that is, what is to become of this lower class of
vagrants and unemployables. This discussion hardly comes in the scope of
this book, but we might suggest in passing that the cheap, lower class
of hotels with which the Army has entered into competition should not be
allowed to continue as at present. In case of the failure to provide
competition, the city itself should provide a successful competition
under good environment, or should take measures for the segregation of
the vicious elements of the population from the merely weak, aged and
unfortunate.[54]
On the other hand, among the occupants of these hotels a certain number
are men for whom there is hope; some victims of misfortune; others
degraded by dissipation and recklessness, but not entirely demoralized.
With these the Army can deal successfully in its industrial homes, and
some of them can regain a foothold without aid. For these men the Army
hotel is certainly a boon.[55] A man who has not lost ambition and who
can gather a few cents a day to sustain him, until some temporary
difficulty is past is glad to take advantage of such an institution.
Finally, regarding this class as a whole, something must be done with
them, and it is necessary for those who find fault with their
congregation in the Army hotels, to point out a better way of caring for
them. As long as they exist, they will tend to congregate somewhere, and
until some better solution is offered, we might as well take what is at
hand, and if it is the Army hotel, hold that institution to its best
efforts and its best environment.
To sum up, then, our conclusions of this part of the Army's work, we
find that the hotels are commercial enterprises, with, as a rule, an
environment superior to the regular cheap hotels of the same price, and
that although there is an objection to the congregation of the vicious
and vagrant along with the unfortunate, and although there may be a
tendency to lower the standard of living of these people, individually
considered, yet there is a justification for the existence of these
hotels, as something must be done with this class of people, and this is
the best solution offered, inasmuch as a certain percentage of this
class is really aided and tided over temporary difficulty. At the same
time, there remains the need of the segregation of the class concerned,
with a more scientific, practical, individual treatment. Better work can
be done along this line.
EXAMPLES OF SALVATION ARMY HOTEL LODGERS.
A collection of 76 cases made on seventeen different evenings during the
months of March and April, 1908, at two of the Salvation Army hotels,
both situated on the Bowery in New York City, one being a lower class
hotel and the other a combination of lower and higher class. These cases
were collected at first hand by the author and a friend of the author,
Mr. James Ward, both of whom mingled among the men in the disguise of
working men. In this way the facts were gained without much difficulty,
with the exception of information regarding the family of the man
concerned. Sometimes, therefore, this latter information is lacking.
No. 1.
Born in New York City of Irish parentage. Twenty-five years old. Single.
Had no home and did not know whether or not his people were living. Only
trade was that of hotel porter but had done other things. Had worked a
little in the country. Had had no steady work for three months. Walked
the streets the previous night and had had coffee and rolls on the
"bread line." Received a bed that night through charity. Did not appear
dissipated but showed lack of ambition.
No. 2.
Born in Ireland. About thirty years old. Single. Did not know about his
people as he did not write home. Had been in New York seven years.
Worked as stableman most of the time but had been out of steady work for
six weeks. Never worked in the country. Appeared dissipated and
inefficient.
No. 3.
Born in Pittsburg of American parents. About forty years old. Single.
Had a brother, he thought, in Pittsburg but no other relatives alive.
Had no regular trade. Had travelled a good deal in the United States but
never west of Chicago. Had done odd jobs in the country. Evidently a
tramp. Looked stupid and incapable.
No. 4.
Born in Germany. About twenty-three years old. Single. Wrote to his
people sometimes, but they were poor. Trade, a waiter. Had worked in New
York for five years. Had had no steady work for over two months. Had a
little money saved but that was nearly gone. Expected to go to Albany
the next day to work. Never worked in the country. Appeared to be a
capable, steady man.
No. 5.
Born in Scotland. Fifty-three years old. Single. People all dead except
a married sister. Regular trade, a boiler-maker. In this country most of
the time for thirty-five years. Had travelled all around the world.
Never worked in the country. Had no steady work all winter, but obtained
work for one or two days every week and thus paid his way at the hotel.
Said he lived up to his salary when working steadily. Is growing old.
Sometimes went on a "spree" when he had money. Looked like a
hard-working, efficient man.
No. 6.
Born in Ireland. About forty years old. Had married and separated from
his wife. Trade was brick-laying, but he was not a union man. Never
worked in the country. Came to New York at eighteen and had been there
most of the time since. Claimed to be a Mason, and said that he expected
help from a friend. Had been out of work all winter but worked
occasionally around saloons and nearly always had the price of a bed.
Admitted drinking heavily. Looked dissipated.
No. 7.
Born in Buffalo of American parents. Twenty-eight years old. Single.
Waiter by trade. Parents were dead. Had two brothers but did not know
where. Had worked a little in the country but knew nothing of farming.
Had worked as waiter in New York for three years. Got into a fight three
weeks before and had his face disfigured. As a result lost his job.
Walked the streets two nights last week. Got coffee and rolls on the
"bread line." Worked in a stable yesterday and made $1.00. Appeared
somewhat dissipated but intelligent.
No. 8.
Born in New York City. Father German. Mother Scotch. Thirty-two years
old. Single. His father lived somewhere in New York, and he expected to
get work shortly and live with him. Trade was a machinist. Had mostly
worked at bicycle repairing. Had travelled a good deal but never worked
on a farm. Went to Philadelphia this Winter and lost position. Worked
three days in a woodyard for board and lodging. Later had himself
committed to jail for one month. Came back to New York last week. Did
not appear dissipated, but looked bright and efficient.
No. 9.
Born in Lawrence, Mass., of American parents. About twenty-two years
old. Single. Worked since a boy in Lawrence in the woolen mills until he
lost position six weeks previously. Always lived with his people. Had
never been hungry or without a bed. Came to New York two weeks
previously but had done nothing since. Had just money enough left to go
home, where he expected to obtain work again shortly. Looked thoroughly
capable and reliable.
Nos. 10 and 11.
Two brothers born in New York of Irish parentage. Aged twenty-eight and
thirty-one respectively. Both single. Parents dead. Had trade of awning
makers, with plenty of work in summer but none in winter. Had never
worked in the country. Had been living by means of odd jobs and charity
all winter. Had received help from a mission and the Salvation Army.
Quite often walked the streets all night and got coffee and rolls on the
"bread line." Appeared shiftless and showed lack of initiative and
intelligence.
No. 12.
Born in New York City of Irish parents. Twenty-six years old. Single.
Did not know where his folks were. His mother was dead. Worked sometimes
as a truck driver. Had worked at farm work in New Jersey. Had travelled
a good deal. Had received help from charities in different cities. Got
caught once riding a freight train through Philadelphia and spent ten
days in jail for the offense. Said he drank when he got the chance. Now
worked around the Army Hotel and received in return his bed and one meal
ticket a day. Expected to leave the city as soon as the weather got
warmer. Evidently a kind of tramp with a tendency to become worse.
Looked wild and unreliable.
No. 13.
Born in Watertown, N. Y., of American parents. About thirty years old.
Single. Had lost track of his people. Worked as steward on ship running
to New Orleans. Was laid off three months ago. Expected to get position
as steward again in the spring. Had walked the streets quite often, not
being able to secure a bed. Had received help from several charities,
including the Army. Looked dissipated and unreliable. Had never worked
in the country.
No. 14.
Born in England. Came to this country when sixteen. People all dead.
Thirty-two years old. Single. Never worked in the country. Regular trade
was that of a painter but was not a Union man. Got odd jobs from time to
time in paint shops. Made fifty cents the previous day. Had had no
steady work for three months. Had forty dollars saved when he left his
last steady job. Spent twenty dollars on a "drunk," and the rest had
gone since. Appeared capable and fairly intelligent.
No. 15.
Born in Germany. Had come to this country with his people when young.
His people all dead except a sister who was married and lived in
Chicago. Single. About thirty-five years of age. Had no regular trade.
Had worked as laborer in both country and city. Said that the city was
best in Winter and the country in Summer. Expected to leave for the
country as soon as the weather grew warm. Appeared lazy and inefficient.
Had been aided by the Army. Evidently a tramp.
No. 16.
Born in Pittsfield, Mass., of American parents. Twenty-four years of
age. Single. Ran away from home at seventeen. Did not know where his
people were. Had no trade. Had worked at everything. Was in the navy for
four years and afterward followed the water for several years working
mostly as fireman. Never worked in the country. Had been out of steady
work for six months. Secured lodging through charity but often spent the
night on the streets. Said he drank when he could get it. Looked
dissipated and demoralized.
No. 17.
Born in New York City of German parents. About thirty years old. Married
but had left his wife. Had no regular trade. Had worked as waiter,
porter and liveryman. Made fifty cents yesterday but spent forty for
whiskey. Secured coffee and rolls on the "bread line." Had worked a
little in the country. Appeared shiftless.
No. 18.
Born in Germany. Twenty-two years of age. Single. Wrote to his people
sometimes. Always followed the water. Had sailed from different points
to China and the Philippines. Drank and lost his boat. Made his way to
New York where he had been out of work for two months. Wrote home for
money which he expected shortly. Sold some of his clothing to get a bed.
Was trying to get work on a boat. Never worked in the country. Looked
wild and dissipated.
No. 19.
Born in Boston, Mass., of Irish parents. Twenty-five years of age.
Single. Worked in machine shop when a boy and then joined the navy.
After the navy experience he had worked both on water and on land. Had
beaten his way on freight trains to different parts of the United
States. Said he often got help from missions. Often slept in the parks
in summer. Had been in jail several times. The last time for four months
for stealing. Got out in August and had done odd jobs since. Had been
several times in the Army hotel and several times in the City Lodging
House. Had worked for a day or so in the country but did not know
farming. Looked shiftless and demoralized.
No. 20.
Born in Binghamton, N. Y., of American parents. About thirty-five years
of age. Single. Trade was lasting shoes in a shoe factory. Had worked in
different cities but never in the country. Came to New York three months
ago, as his factory had laid off a large number of hands. Had done odd
jobs since. Walked the streets three nights the previous week and got
coffee and rolls on the "bread line." Got a bed for the night this time
through charity. Expected to get work in a factory when the weather
became warmer. Drank occasionally but not often. Looked competent and of
average intelligence.
No. 21.
Born in Ireland. Twenty-four years old. Single. Left home and had been
in America one year. Worked in New York as waiter and lost his position
three weeks previous to interview. Had some money saved but drank and
lost it all on the Bowery. Walked the streets for one week and
frequented the "bread line." Had a position, now, waiting on table
during the dinner hour. Used to work on a farm in Ireland, and said that
as soon as the weather got warm he would go to the country and look for
work. Looked somewhat dissipated but hopeful.
No. 22.
Born in Brooklyn, N. Y. Twenty-six years old. Single. Had no trade. Had
lost track of his people. Had travelled a good deal by means of freight
trains and had been in several jails for vagrancy. Had never worked in
the country. Said when he could get money, he spent it in drink. Secured
a bed that night through an acquaintance. Looked like a confirmed tramp
and vagrant.
No. 23.
Born in Hartford, Conn., of American parents. Twenty-one years old.
Single. Parents dead. Had a married sister living in New Jersey, but he
did not wish her to know that he was out of work. Had been working for
years as a carpenter's assistant and hoped to become a full-fledged
carpenter shortly. Had never worked in the country. Had been out of work
for three months. Spent his money in a vain trip to Philadelphia and
back looking for work. Had been doing odd jobs but had often gone
hungry. Did not like to ask for charity. Expected to work as soon as the
contractors began the spring building. Did not drink. Looked
intelligent, bright, and was a very hopeful case. Went through the
grammar school.
No. 24.
Born in Boston of Irish parents. Fifty years old. Single. Had no people
living. Trade was a hardwood finisher. Never worked in the country. Got
out of work two months ago. Left Boston then and came to New York. Had a
little money, but it was almost gone. Was crippled but could still work.
Drank some. He was gray-haired and looked older than he was.
No. 25.
Born in Ireland. About sixty years old. Had been married, but his wife
was dead, and he had no known relatives. Had been a seaman a good deal
but had no regular trade. He worked on a farm two months in the West.
Had travelled a good deal. He worked occasionally around the docks and
made just enough to maintain himself. When he had money, he spent it
rashly. Looked like a hard drinker.
No. 26.
Born in Boston of American parents. Fifty-seven years old. Single. Had
no people. His trade was ship's cook. He had never worked in the
country. Said that he was too old to get a position. He secured a bed
that night through the kindness of a friend, also out of work. Had
wandered around a great deal. He did not look dissipated but he was
gray-haired and very feeble.
No. 27.
Born in Philadelphia of German parents. About forty years old. Single.
Trade was that of a sign-painter. Said he had worked mostly in
Philadelphia and New York, and that he could get plenty of work, but
kept losing his positions through drink. Had never worked in the
country. Said he had people in Philadelphia but he did not write to
them. Looked dissipated.
No. 28.
Born near Lynn, Mass., of American parents. Twenty years old. Single.
Had no trade, but worked as dish-washer or at anything he could get.
Said that he could run an engine and had been working on a boat in New
York harbor but had to leave three weeks ago, on account of sickness.
Was trying to get into a hospital. Money nearly gone. Was born and
brought up on a farm but ran away nearly three years ago and did not
want to go back, though his father and mother were living. Said he spent
his money freely when he had it. He did not look dissipated but appeared
to be a consumptive.
No. 29.
Born in New York City of Irish parents. About thirty-five years old.
Single. Had no trade but had worked for years as driver on a horse-car.
Got out of work four months ago and had no prospect of any. Got a small
job cleaning out a saloon the previous day. Often walked the streets all
night and went to the "bread line." Did not look very dissipated but
evidently had no ambition. Did not know where his people were. Never
worked in the country.
No. 30.
Born in Ireland. Sixteen years old. Single. Did not write home. Had
trade of a cook and had been out of work for two weeks. Then had $100.00
and lost it all "on a drunk." Never worked in the country. Had walked
the streets three nights the past week. Was going to New Jersey to look
for work. Looked dissipated but otherwise capable.
No. 31.
Born in Scotland. Fifty-five years old. Married in Scotland and came
with family to this country twenty-five years ago. Had no trade. Worked
at anything he could get. Wife dead. Two children living, unable to help
him. Had travelled widely. Obtained a steady job the previous month.
Held it two weeks, then went "on a drunk." Still had enough money saved
to keep him two weeks. Said that if he did not get work before then, he
would leave New York. He knew a little about farm work in Scotland.
Looked like a hard drinker.
No. 32.
Born in New York City of Irish parents. Sixty years old. Single. People
all dead. Had no regular trade but had followed the water. Never worked
in the country. Had some cousins in New York who helped him out a
little. He looked dissipated and feeble.
No. 33.
Born in Philadelphia. American parents. Forty-three years old. Single.
Salesman. Had been out of work all winter after losing a position
through drink. Had received help from several aid societies and missions
this winter. Had walked the streets a good many nights. Said he never
worked in the country. Looked dissipated and unreliable.
No. 34.
Born in South Carolina. American parents. Twenty years old. Single. Did
not write home. Said he ran away and his people were angry. Had no
trade. Never worked in the country. Had walked the streets two nights
this week. Looked intelligent but wild.
No. 35.
Born in Newark, N. J., English parents. Twenty-six years old. Single.
Had no trade but worked as a janitor. Was in the navy for three years
and had travelled widely. Had been out of work one month. Never worked
in the country. Said he worked for a while and then "went off on a
drunk." His people in Newark sent him money once in a while. Looked
dissipated.
No. 36.
Born in Ireland. Thirty-eight years old. Single. When seven years old
came to America with his people. Had two brothers and one sister in
Schenectady, N. Y. Parents dead. His people did not aid him as he drank
so much. Never worked in the country. Got an odd job now and then.
Looked like a hard drinker.
No. 37.
Born in England. Thirty-six years old. Single. Came to America with his
people when twelve years old. Went to Fall River, Mass., where his
people lived. Ran away from home at eighteen and had followed the water
since. Never worked in the country. Was paid off last Saturday. Went on
a drunk on the Bowery and lost his money and his job. Walked the streets
two nights, but received help from his people. Looked a little
dissipated but capable.
No. 39.
Born in Yonkers, N. Y. American parents. Forty years old. Single. Father
lived in Yonkers but was unable to help him. Plumber by trade. Did not
belong to the Union. Was out of work for one month the past winter, but
now had a job and was renting a room in the Army hotel. Never worked in
the country. Looked like a hard drinker, but otherwise capable.
No. 40.
Born in New Haven, Conn. American parents. Twenty-five years old.
Single. Relatives in New Haven poor. Was a telegraph operator and worked
at that trade for two years, but lost position on account of bad health.
Had worked on a farm quite a little, and said as soon as the weather got
warmer he was going to the country. He now had a room at the Army hotel
but his money was nearly gone. Looked intelligent and capable.
No. 41.
Born in New York City. American parents. Twenty-four years old. Single.
Did not know where his relatives were. Had trade as truck driver, and
since losing a steady job two months previously had worked at odd jobs
about the docks. Spent two days at an Army Industrial Home and was now
at the Army Hotel. He looked like a hard drinker. Never worked in the
country.
No. 42.
Born in Scotland. Twenty-three years old. Single. Relatives lived in
Scotland and sent him a little money sometimes. Had no regular trade.
Had worked on the water a good deal. Came to New York two years
previously, and had no steady work since. Had been nine months in the
hospital from which he had been discharged two weeks. Expected to return
to the hospital. Looked like a very sick man, but not dissipated.
No. 43.
Born in New York City. American parents. Twenty-eight years old. Single.
No people alive. Had no trade. Had travelled around the world and never
worked when he could help it. Never worked in the country. Looked like a
regular tramp and hard drinker.
No. 44.
Born in Newark, N. J. French parents. Twenty-four years old. Single. Had
two sisters in Brooklyn. Had no regular trade but had been working for
three weeks in a grocery store and thus had a room in the Army Hotel.
Never worked in the country. Looked capable and intelligent.
No. 45.
Born in Brooklyn. American parents. Twenty-four years old. Single. Had
people in Brooklyn who were helping him. Had no trade but had worked all
his life at odd jobs. Could not work steadily because of bad habits.
Never worked in the country. Looked like a hard drinker.
No. 46.
Born in Jersey City. Irish parents. Thirty-five years old. Single. Was a
painter by trade but did not belong to the Union. Had been out of work
three months. Some friends gave him clothes and a little money. Looked
intelligent but dissipated.
No. 47.
Born in Brooklyn. Irish parents. Thirty years old. Single. Had no trade.
Worked on a farm in Long Island and hoped to go to the country shortly.
Had had no steady work the past Winter. Had been in the Army Industrial
Home six times during the Winter. Looked shiftless and dissipated.
No. 48.
Born in Lowell, Mass. Italian parents. Twenty years old. Single. People
lived in Lowell. Had no trade. Never worked in the country. Came to New
York two weeks previously with a little money, but this was soon spent
and he had walked the streets two nights. Entered the Army Hotel through
charity. Had written home for money and expected to return there. His
appearance was very good.
No. 49.
Born in New York. American parents. Forty years old. Married. Separated
from his wife three months ago because of his drinking. Had no trade.
Never worked in the country. Had been out of work three months. Picked
up odd jobs now and then, and thus secured a bed. Looked like a hard
drinker.
No. 50.
Born in Germany. Seventeen years old. Single. Had people in Germany who
were unable to help him. Had been in this country nine months. Said he
was on a farm in New York State but ran away. The Salvation Army was
keeping him, and he worked a little around the Hotel. Looked like a
promising boy but rather wild.
No. 51.
Born in Denver, Col. American parents. Twenty-three years old. Single.
Had people at home who sent him money now and then. Was an iron-worker.
Belonged to the Union, but said the Union had not helped him any. Had
been out of work some time. Never worked in the country. Had travelled a
good deal in the United States. Looked bright and promising.
No. 52.
Born in Davenport, Washington. Twenty-four years old. Single. Had people
at home where he had sent for money. Had travelled widely. Came to New
York five weeks ago from Panama where he had been working for eight
months. Had to leave on account of sickness. Had $100.00 when he came to
New York but spent nearly all on doctors bills. Still had a little left.
Said he had worked a good deal on a farm. Looked capable and
intelligent.
No. 53.
American, born in New York. Thirty years old. Single. People dead.
Bartender. Did not belong to the Union. Was out of work for one month
until two weeks previous to interview, when he got a job as bartender.
Was still working and had a room at the Army Hotel. Said he would be all
right it he could leave drink alone. He never worked in the country.
No. 54.
Born in New York. Irish parents. Twenty-eight years old. Single. Had
quarrelled with his people who lived in New York. Painter by trade. Lost
his membership in the Union because he did not pay his dues. Had had no
steady work for a year, but had wandered all over the country doing very
little work, but receiving aid from charitable societies. Said he liked
the warm weather, so that he could sleep in the parks. Looked shiftless
and a typical tramp.
No. 55.
Born in Norway. About thirty years old. Single. Had people in Norway who
did not help him. Came to New York from his native land two months
previously. A carpenter by trade. Was working in Jersey and lost
position two weeks previously. Had money in his pocket and was evidently
wise enough to keep it. Conversed in broken English. Said he worked in
the country in Norway. Looked like a capable man.
No. 56.
Born in Scotland. Forty-five years old. Single. Came to this country
with his people when he was nine years old. People had since died.
Bookkeeper by trade. Had been out of work all Winter. The Scotch Aid
Society was keeping him, giving him bed and meal tickets. Said he had
received help from four different missions in New York. Looked incapable
and shiftless. Never worked in the country.
No. 57.
Born in Jersey City. American parents. Twenty-eight years old. Single.
Had no trade. Did not work if he could help it. Came here from the West
by means of freight trains. Never worked in the country. Looked like a
regular tramp.
No. 58.
Born in Chicago. Single. Thirty-years old. Had friends in Chicago who
sent him a little money. Had no trade. Never did hard work. Got odd jobs
and received aid from missions. Said he was a Christian and liked to
attend meetings. Had a room in the Army Hotel. Said he had been staying
there off and on for two years. Looked stupid and incapable.
No. 59.
Born in Denver, Col. Fifty years old. Single. Plumber by trade. Belonged
to the Union but left eight months previously and had not paid his dues
since. Was in business for himself at one time, but lost it through
drink. Said he got help from the missions whenever he could. Never
worked in the country. Hoped to go West again shortly. Looked feeble and
dissipated.
No. 60.
American. Born in Springfield, Mass. Fifty-five years old. Single. Said
his people in Springfield were wealthy but would have nothing to do with
him. Had no trade. In New York all Winter. Had walked the streets a good
many nights. Never worked in the country. Charity Organization Society
had helped him, besides other organizations. Said he had consumption.
Looked very weak and dissipated.
No. 61.
Born in America. Jewish parents. Twenty-six years old. Single.
Stone-cutter by trade. Said he worked at the Insurance business at
times. Had been out of work nearly two months. Never worked in the
country. Looked bright and capable.
No. 62.
Born in Cleveland, Ohio. American parents. Twenty-six years old. Single.
People lived in Cleveland, but did not help him. Had worked on a farm
nearly all his life. Left the farm two years previously and had wandered
most of the time since. He expected to be sent to the country by the
Bowery Mission shortly. Looked shiftless but not dissipated.
No. 63.
Born in New York. American parents. About fifty years old. Married. Said
his people were dead. Had no regular trade. Did office work, but was
nearly always out of work. Said he was a Christian. He evidently
followed the missions and "got saved" every time he needed help. Never
worked in the country. Looked shiftless and inefficient.
No. 64.
Born in Brooklyn. English parents. Thirty years old. Married. Quarrelled
with his wife five years previously and left her. Painter by trade. Did
not belong to the Union. Had not worked all Winter. Said he had been all
around the world and had beaten his way wherever he went. Had been in
jail several times, for vagrancy and drunkness. Never worked in the
country. Looked like a tramp.
No. 65.
Born in Maine. American parents. Twenty-four years old. Single. Had
people in Maine from whom he expected help. Barber by trade. Came to New
York three weeks previously. Met some friends on the Bowery and lost all
his money. The Army was helping him. He had worked somewhat in the
country. Looked very stupid.
No. 66.
Born in Scotland. About sixty years old. Single. Had no people. Had no
trade. In this country for forty years. Out of work all Winter. The
Scotch Aid Society had been keeping him now for three weeks. He never
worked in the country. He looked like a regular vagrant.
No. 67.
Born in Boston. American parents. Twenty-four years old. Single. A
waiter. Had wandered a good deal, and beaten his way by freight trains.
Came to New York from the West one month previously. Had not worked
since, but had been aided by the missions and the Army. Evidently did
not like to work.
No. 68.
Born in Poughkeepsie, N. Y. Irish parents. About thirty-two years old.
Single. Had no trade. Came to New York two weeks previously with some
money which he got from his people. He had sent home for more. Worked
somewhere in the country. Said he drank periodically and did not like to
work steadily. Looked very shiftless.
No. 69.
Born in Ireland. Twenty-eight years old. Single. Had lost track of his
people. Had been in this country eight years. Had no trade. Had had no
steady work all Winter. Drank a good deal. Never worked in the country.
Looked very wild.
No. 70.
Born in New Orleans. Spanish parents. About twenty years old. Single.
Left home two years ago and took to life on the water. Left the boat in
New York one month previously and had not worked since. Said he liked to
sail and see the world. His people lived in New Orleans, and he expected
help from them. Never worked in the country. Looked capable.
No. 71.
Born in New York. American parents. About thirty years old. Single. Had
trade as a bartender. Belonged to the Union. Lost a steady job through
drink three weeks ago. Was now working four hours a day. Had a room in
the Army Hotel. Said he was going to change his line of business because
he drank too much. His appearance was good. Never worked in the country.
No. 72.
Born in Germany. Looked like a Jew. About twenty-five years old. Single.
Had no trade. Had been out of work three months. Was now selling old
clothing and other things around the Army Hotel. Never worked in the
country. Evidently lazy and incapable.
No. 73.
Born in Illinois. American parents. About twenty-eight years old.
Single. Ran away from home and was ashamed to go back. Had no trade but
had worked a good deal as cook on board ship. Had been out of work six
weeks. Said he was sick and had about $200.00, but it did not last long.
He was working round the Army Hotel a little every day, for which he
got his bed and one meal ticket. Never worked in the country. Said he
was going to join the navy. Looked bright and capable.
No. 74.
Born in Lithuania. Twenty-three years old. Single. People at home were
poor. Had no trade. In New York three years. Out of work two months.
Obtained clothes in various ways and sold them. Was not dissipated, but
looked lazy. Never worked in the country.
No. 75.
Born in Yonkers, N. Y. American parents. About sixty-five years old.
Single. Was an old sailor but had not been to sea for over a year. Was
working two days a week as janitor. Said he had been a hard drinker in
the past, but he did not drink much now. He looked aged, but still
capable. Never worked in the country.
No. 76.
Born in Boston. Irish parents. About twenty-five years old. Single. Had
no trade. People did not recognize him. Had travelled all over the
country. Had been in jail twice. Never worked in the country. Looked
like a tramp.
SOME FACTS BROUGHT OUT IN THE 76 HOTEL EXAMPLES.
Nationality. No. Percentage.
American parentage 35 .461
Irish parentage 20 .263
English and Scotch parentage 9 .119
German parentage 8 .105
Other countries 4 .052
Married men 7 .095
Single men 69 .905
Worked a little in country 13 .169
Worked considerably in country 5 .065
Men with regular trades 26 .342[56]
Union men 4 .052
Men who looked efficient 15 .197
Men who looked semi-efficient 14 .184
Men who looked inefficient 47 .619
Ages.
15-20 4 .052
20-30 42 .553
30-40 16 .211
40-50 6 .079
50-60 7 .092
60-70 1 .013
Length of time out of work.
Less than 1 mo. 12 .157
More than 1 mo. 13 .171
More than 2 mos. 11 .145
More than 3 mos. 40 .527
FACTS BROUGHT OUT IN THE 109 INDUSTRIAL EXAMPLES AND THE 76 HOTEL
EXAMPLES COMBINED.
Nationality. No. Percentage.
American parentage 76 .411
Irish parentage 50 .270
German parentage 26 .141
English and Scotch parentage 18 .098
Italian parentage 4 .022
Swedish parentage 4 .038
Other countries, parentage 7 .20
Married men 24 .149
Single men 161 .851
Worked a little in country 29 .156
Worked considerably in country 12 .016
Men with regular trades 57 .309
Union men 10 .054
Men who looked efficient 53 .287
Men who looked semi-efficient 35 .189
Men who looked inefficient 97 .524
Ages.
15-20 6 .032
20-30 97 .525
30-40 39 .210
40-50 26 .140
50-60 50 .082
60-70 2 .011
Length of time out of work.
Less than 1 mo. 20 .108
More than 1 mo. 30 .163
More than 2 mos. 27 .145
More than 3 mos. 108 .584
FOOTNOTES:
[38] "How the Other Half Lives," p. 38.
[39] This differentiation is more pronounced in the United States, since
the work has been extended here more than in other countries.
[40] For adverse criticism see "The Social Relief Work of the S. A.," p.
9.
[41] At the Burne St. Shelter, the largest in London, one large
dormitory has 288 beds and another 265.
[42] For rooms, special rates are given by the week; from some of the
examples given at the end of this chapter, it will be seen that these
are occupied by men with partial or poorly paid employment.
[43] In London, the Army has a mattress factory which supplies its
institutions.
[44] More headway is being made in this direction in the Industrial
Homes where the population is more permanent. We found in one home in
Chicago that the men were organized in the form of a club, and enjoyed
social meetings together. Also, at the largest Industrial Home in
London, called "The Spa Road Elevator," we found a regular cricket club
organized which played cricket games with other clubs.
[45] Good examples of this are to be found in the Middlesex Street Hotel
and the Burne Street Hotel, London. The former hotel is regularly
provided, by a large baker firm, with food, which is one day stale, for
a very low figure.
[46] The higher class hotel for women is to be found in Los Angeles and
Boston.
[47] From an interview with a leading officer.
[48] These exceptions are certain of the lower class hotels where
attempts along this line seem to fail.
[49] See "How the Other Half Lives," Ch. VIII. See also "Social Relief
Work of the S. A.," p. 10.
[50] See examples given at the end of this chapter, p. 77.
[51] See the tables, pp. 97 and 98, showing percentages of these men who
had come from the country. For the work of Mr. Fox see p. 113.
[52] See examples of these men, p. 77 fl.
[53] See Giddings' "Principles of Sociology," p. 127.
[54] Some light may be thrown on this subject by a perusal of Mr. W. H.
Dawson's book entitled "The German Workman," although conditions are
evidently vastly different in this country and England from what they
are in Germany.
[55] See examples numbered 4. 5. 9. 23 and others, on p. 78 and fl.
[56] While this percentage is larger than that in the Industrial Homes
(see p. 62), 62 per cent. of the examples in the Hotels having regular
trades were dissipated, mostly victims of drink, as against 19 per cent.
in the Industrial examples.