Wages (16¹¹⁄₂₀%) 3,434,734
Salaries (4¹¹⁄₂₀%) 940,900
Cost of Material (58¹⁴⁄₂₀%) 12,194,019
Miscellaneous expenses (9⁸⁄₂₀%) 1,955,773
—————————— 18,525,426
——————————
Balance for manufacturers 2,242,120
This balance is 10¹⁶⁄₂₀ per cent of the value of the product. Out of
this interest on capital and wear and tear have to be met. The
employees, in wages and salaries, get 21²⁄₂₀ per cent—just about twice
what the manufacturers get. If 13 per cent were to be added to wages, as
Mr. Deegan proposes, there would be a loss and business would not be
done.
He may say charge more for the goods. But he complains of the high cost
of living now. To increase it would be an injury—not a benefit.
My advice to all my labor friends would be to reduce the cost of
production by making labor more efficient. Avoid strikes, settle
differences by arbitration. If existing arbitration tribunals are
inadequate, provide better, and remember that the real interests of
labor and capital are identical. Labor would be fruitless, without
factories and machinery. The men who invent or provide these are
entitled to their share.
EVERETT P. WHEELER.
New York.
PLAY CENTERS FOR THE POOR
TO THE EDITOR:
Henry De Peyster’s article on Play Centers for the Poor in THE SURVEY
for March 22 is interesting and illuminating. Evidently he has made a
profound study of the question. But with regard to France I should like
to add a few words to correct a false impression which Mr. De Peyster
surely had no intention of giving.
As he says, the problem is different in France and Germany from that in
other countries; but he does not mention (except tacitly by the picture
on page 856) the admirable provision made by the _Mission Populaire_
(the McAll Mission) to meet the actual condition.
In all the larger stations of that mission both in Paris and in the
provinces (Rouen, Nantes, Lille, etc.) the daily _Ecole de Garde_
(supervised study and play hours) is an important feature. The children
leave school at four—their parents reach home from work not much before
half past six. Therefore the boys and girls within walking distance
hasten to the McAll station. After a light lunch they are turned into
the play-ground for an hour on the parallel bars and the other
apparatus. At five they are collected in the mission rooms, where their
preparation for the next day is supervised by volunteer teachers.
Mr. De Peyster evidently uses the word “religious proselytism” in the
French, not the English, sense. The French word “proselyte” is nearly
equivalent to the English “convert.” That the _Ecoles de Garde_ of the
McAll Mission do have a religious motive goes without saying. About ten
minutes of religious instruction are given daily, but absolutely without
proselyting intent. Most of the parents of these children are free
thinkers or violently opposed to religion, a few are Roman Catholics,
but never a word is said which could mar the influence of any
religiously disposed parent. As for the others, the widely established
fact that more children from the McAll _Ecoles de Garde_ pass their
examinations than any others makes even anti-religious parents eager to
have their children attend them. For in France the whole future of every
child depends upon his school examinations.
LOUISE SEYMOUR HOUGHTON.
Washington, D. C.
THE NEW PUBLICITY
TO THE EDITOR:
In a recent book review of a modern novel, the writer speaks of
“episodes which violate the reserve that is bred in the bone of the
English-speaking peoples.”
It is a serious matter, to my mind, that that reserve is being
deliberately violated by a number of well-meaning people at this time in
the campaign that is being carried on against certain diseases.
“It is necessary,” these people say, “to speak plainly. Great harm has
been wrought by ignorance. The innocence of the child has been its
weakness. Under plea of modesty fathers and mothers have been foolish
and cowardly,” and so on. You hear and see it everywhere, and lectures
are being delivered, to mixed audiences, on things which, the apostle
said, it was a shame even to speak of.
Now I believe that the necessary information can, and should be, given
to children from twelve to fifteen; but it is my positive belief that it
should be done by the parents, or else by the use of carefully prepared
printed matter. A short, modestly written pamphlet can tell all that is
necessary. It can be placed in the hands of the child with instruction
that it should be _read and destroyed_; also that the parent will give
any further information required. I believe that oral instruction on
these matters, _to more than one child present at a time_, is bad and
harmful.
I feel deeply in the matter, for I feel that harm is being done when a
strong, fine, racial trait is being violated, in attempting a good work
that can be _better_ done, in my opinion, when it is done in harmony
with our best traditions.
Attempts at allegory, comparisons with plant life, and so on, are all
best left aside. The child should be told what is right and what is
wrong, and why. But it should not be told in company with others, and
especially not in mixed audiences. The inbred reserve spoken of is too
precious a possession to be thrown away, even in a good cause.
Something of the same purport may be said of the social evil now so
freely discussed in the press and forming so large a part of the
subjects written about in your issue of March 8. “Frankness” and
“freedom” are excellent, but some things are too fine to be tarnished by
careless use, and modesty is one of them.
Where we are getting to in this new movement to tear away the veil that
has screened the family life of America can be seen in some of the new
fiction. For instance, in Arnold Bennett’s Carlotta the hectic heroine
thinks that truth demands that one should follow the dictates of animal
instinct!
The logical result will be that morality, either ethical or religious,
will be sent to the waste basket.
JOSEPH D. HOLMES.
New York.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
TO THE EDITOR:
In the March 8 issue of THE SURVEY there appeared an article by Paul
Kennaday, entitled Big Business and Workmen’s Compensation. This article
is full of inaccurate statements and should never, in justice to your
readers, have been printed.
On page 809, in the first column, it is stated: “Seized upon with
alacrity by reformers, fought at first at every step by the casualty
insurance companies and employers, ‘elective’ acts are now cherished
like a prodigal son,” etc. This statement is unqualifiedly untrue.
Employers generally have been notoriously in favor of elective
compensation laws. Of course, they have been far from unanimous, and
their expert advisers have generally been in favor of compulsory laws,
but anyone familiar with the attitude of employers in the movement for
compensation can bear witness to the fact that the majority of employers
have throughout entertained a preference for elective laws. On the other
hand, the casualty insurance companies have not fought such laws, nor
have they generally specifically favored them. There has been as much
difference of opinion among the insurance men on this question as there
has been among all other classes of people. But in general the
representatives of the casualty insurance companies have favored any
kind of a law which would substitute the liability for compensation in
place of the liability for negligence.
Of course, the casualty insurance companies have objected to such
elective compensation laws as the Ohio Act of 1911, for the reason that
that act gave the state insurance office a monopoly of the compensation
insurance. That left the casualty companies to deal with the old
negligence liability with all its abuses and consequent unpopularity,
while it gave them no opportunity to demonstrate their ability to
administer compensation insurance better than the State Office and
without the abuses incident to negligence insurance.
The statement on page 809 at the bottom of the first column and the top
of the second, that the “club” features of the elective compensation law
has a peculiar advantage from the casualty companies’ standpoint is also
diametrically the opposite of the truth. What the casualty insurance
companies most desire is that the compensation law shall be so framed as
to induce all employers, or all large employers, pretty unanimously to
adopt one course or the other; that is, en masse to elect the
compensation features of the law, or, en masse to reject them. Otherwise
the casualty companies have to do business under two different laws,
providing for two different kinds of insurance, the consequent of which
is to duplicate the work and a large part of the expenses of the
insurance companies. They naturally do not want a law which will cause
employers to jump back and forth from the compensation features to the
negligence features and vice versa, and experiment, but rather one which
will induce all to come permanently under the compensation features or
to stay out permanently.
On page 809, in the second column, it is stated, referring to casualty
companies: “With equal determination they stop, where they can, laws
which give the employer no election, but compel him to insure.” That is
a purely gratuitous misstatement of the facts. The casualty companies
have not—whatever some few exceptional representatives of some companies
may have done—tried to stop the enactment of compulsory compensation
laws. They have, on the other hand, opposed the enactment of so-called
compensation laws which would give a monopoly of the insurance business
to political boards. In so doing they have adopted the natural attitude
of protecting their own business; and have done no more than would the
persons engaged in any other business if it were proposed to transfer
their business to politicians.
On page 809 in the same column, it is stated: “Prospective annual
profits in enormous amounts are at stake for the casualty insurance
companies in this fight.” That statement is a pure figment of the
imagination. The writer cannot point out anywhere on this earth where
casualty insurance companies have made profits in enormous amounts. What
is at stake for the casualty insurance companies is the total value of
the machinery and good will of their business, which ill-advised
enthusiasts, under the secret guidance of Socialist agitators, are
trying to destroy. But more important, the employes of such companies
have their bread and butter at stake; it being proposed to transfer
their jobs to political appointees and to leave them out in the cold.
Lower down in the column it is stated that “casualty insurance companies
are to be found advising, wherever workmen’s compensation is under
discussion.” As a matter of fact, the casualty insurance companies have
been very reluctant about advising except when called upon; but their
actuaries have been in constant demand, and naturally should be, since
they are about the only persons except the officials of the state
insurance departments, who know anything about the business and the
subject matter involved. The further statement that “At meetings of bar
associations their attorneys have resolutions passed deprecating state
insurance” is a gratuitous insult. No attorney for an insurance company
would offer a resolution at a meeting of any bar association affecting
the interests of his clients without stating that fact; and thereupon
the resolution would be considered on its merits and would express the
opinions of the members of the bar unaffected by the interests of the
casualty insurance companies.
On page 810, in the first column, it is argued that no doubt big
business and the insurance companies would be glad to see the pending
constitutional amendment defeated. That is a pure assumption. Inasmuch
as said amendment goes infinitely farther than authorizing a
compensation law, and generally repeals the Bill of Rights in
application to the relation of employer and employe, there may be many
conservative opinions opposed to its enactment. But big business, the
casualty insurance companies and a host of conservative people have been
most active in the movement for an amendment permitting the enactment of
a compensation law in this state in such form as the judgment of the
legislature might decide, without any restrictions in the interests of
any party.
On the same page, near the top of the second column, it is objected to
the insurance committee’s compensation bill now pending in the
Legislature that it leaves the function of fixing rates in the State
Insurance Department. Why not! Is the objection to that provision that
the Insurance Department, being already constituted and being composed
of officials expert in the subject of insurance, will fix rates properly
and not use state-administered insurance as a political weapon? Why
create a new body to deal with the technical subjects with which the
Insurance Department is qualified to deal?
Further down it is stated, sneeringly, that “three constitutional
objections to one bill is good measure.” The objections are then stated.
Now as a matter of fact three constitutional objections to one bill
don’t amount to much unless these objections are valid. All the
objections recited in this paragraph have been carefully considered and
the overwhelming weight of opinion is that they are not valid.
It is then stated that a certain change in this bill from its earlier
form has “in effect, turned the whole rich New York field over to the
casualty companies.” And the reason for that conclusion is stated to be
that the employers will do nothing until the casualty companies’ agents
come to them, and will then do what the casualty insurance agents
advise. That is nonsense. When the casualty insurance agents go to the
employers under a law such as is proposed in this bill, they will go
with a proposition involving an extremely large increase in rates.
Employers throughout this state have been aroused over the subject of
compensation and have studied the question of insurance sufficiently to
turn out en masse against a proposition to give a state office the
monopoly of insurance. Does it seem probable that when they are
approached by the casualty insurance companies’ agents they will
suddenly turn into fools and in effect submit to a monopoly by those
companies? On the contrary, they will study the problem of mutual
insurance very hard, and there will undoubtedly result many experiments
in that line. Large establishments also will study out the problem of
carrying their own insurance. It is also probable that a few employers
may venture to experiment with state insurance. But the fact is, as the
writer of this article knows, that no well informed and substantial
employer will have anything to do with state insurance except as a last
resource, or unless he is compelled.
Finally it is stated that no spokesman for the casualty insurance
companies appears upon the field in New York. That is rather ridiculous.
Officially, the two best informed persons upon casualty insurance in
this state should be Mr. Hotchkiss, the former, and Mr. Emmet, the
present, state insurance commissioner; and they both have spoken for,
although not as the representatives of, the casualty companies of New
York. At the same time, Frank E. Law, of the Fidelity and Casualty
Company, and Edson S. Lott, of the United States Casualty Company, have
made many addresses and published a considerable amount of literature on
this subject. Naturally, the insurance companies have sought to avoid
anything that would cause the false impression that any bill was in
their particular interest. They have therefore rather confined
themselves to opposing thoroughly bad measures than to advocating
anything that they particularly desire or recommend.
The whole animus of this article is clearly betrayed in the opening
words of the last paragraph, where the writer says, “while men are
deliberately and openly planning the utter rout of the casualty
companies....” Who are these men that are deliberately and openly
planning the utter rout of the casualty companies? The writer is among
them. They are those who seek to destroy private business in all its
forms and to substitute state management and control in its place. Their
activities in the present campaign have nothing to do with the
particular merits or demerits of the compensation measures in question.
Their whole attitude is false, in that they do not admit their motives,
and besides wantonly misstate facts as to their adversaries.
F. ROBERTSON JONES.
[Secretary-Treasurer Workmen’s Compensation Publicity Bureau.]
New York.
MOTHERHOOD AND PENSIONS
TO THE EDITOR:
After all, the discussion of State Funds to Mothers has not left us
breathless. Even after the clear statements of two opposing social
points of view in THE SURVEY of March 1, and the summing up by Dr.
Devine it seems to me that there still remains another point of
view—that of the mother.
Speeches in a Mother’s Congress do not always give the right idea of the
mother’s point of view. One must make allowance for fervour. A speaker
of charm and imagination will be quoted, but the great body of mothers
are as calm and collected in thinking on this subject as on any other
domestic problem which comes to them for solution. For there is no doubt
that the women, and above all, the mothers, will have something to do
and say about the solution of this problem.
I belong to the class of mothers who would not usually speak in public
except for an accident. The accident was that I discovered a woman
trying to do the impossible and found that society seemed organized to
ignore her. She was not very good, but she was not bad. No one tried to
help her to be better. They said they had been observing her, and that
they were not satisfied. She was a widow of thirty-five with eight
children under the working age. The conditions under which that woman
was struggling were absolutely impossible and I broke the boycott. Since
then I have been interested in mothers with minor dependent children.
It seems to me that taking away the children from a mother, is like
taking away her life, for the connection is so close and subtle. Many a
mother would prefer a quick and sudden death to that slow and living
one. It is like giving capital punishment for a trivial offense.
Sometimes the offense is unintentional. It may be poverty.
There is a certain temporary relief gained, when children have been
entirely dependent on the mother, and she has had no bread to give them.
At first, when the relieving officer takes the children and she knows
that at night they will be snug and warm and in the morning dressed and
fed, there is a great wave of thankfulness and relief. But soon the
mother asks herself, “why could not I have warmed and fed and dressed
them, since I could have done it for less?” Even the simplest mothers
have heard the whisper now. In their desperate loneliness they are
gathering, by tens and by thousands, to ask for the custody of their own
children.
This social revolution may be like the French revolution, but it is
surely not like the burning of witches, unless the witches are the ones
that stand by the cradles of neglected childhood.
How carefully Miss Richmond, appealing to our judgment and sound sense,
figures out the seemingly fabulous sums that might have been saved to
fight tuberculosis and feeble-mindedness, from the sums wasted in
soldiers pensions. But why, I ask, is the whole country spell-bound,
helpless and hopeless at the prospect of the mounting pension ladder? If
we admit that the granting of pensions to disabled soldiers was right,
why attack the principle instead of the abuse of the practise? Surely
that could be helped. If a thing can be proven to be wrong and illogical
by mathematics, as Miss Richmond has proved it to be, then it can be
solved by mathematics. There is a leak somewhere.
In the same way, if there are more children with their mothers, after a
certain law has been passed, and at the same time more in the
institutions, it shows, surely, that the attention of the community has
been called to a lot of children unknown before or that someone has
blundered in counting them. A new law does not produce a spontaneous
crop of children, under the Juvenile Court limit. Where were those
children? These are the things that a mother naturally asks. They say
that the soldiers are dying out. But unless the risks and dangers and
lack of independence of the life deter women in the future, there will
always be mothers.
But will there always be poor mothers? Have we not begun a war on
poverty?
Why is not the prevention and cure of poverty as wide and noble a field
as the cure of tuberculosis? Are we not studying to eliminate it in the
same way by destroying its breeding places, by rescuing the child, by no
longer considering poverty as “the curse of God?” Poverty and
tuberculosis and other dark shapes go hand in hand. Why is not the
prevention of needless poverty also a constructive health measure?
And why, if we are to be so very careful and scientific about it, is the
question of non-support always confused with that of the death of the
wage-earner? The man cannot take his responsibilities with him into the
next life, whatever we say, and the poor cannot carry adequate insurance
till we copy England or Germany.
Let us have “more individualized, more skillful, more thorough treatment
of the widely diversified causes of dependence” by all means. But let us
not forget that the fact of bearing and rearing a child in itself
creates a certain, if variable, state of dependence for a woman. No
amount of learned reasoning can change the fundamental fact that while
the child is coming into the world and is young the mother must forfeit
a certain amount of her independence to care for the child. What I do
not have patience with is the preaching of that good old-fashioned dogma
“the mother’s best place is in the home.” Nothing can be more valuable
to the state than the mother’s contribution, but the home has no
safeguards other than those which the man, with his willing or unwilling
hands can give her.
It is the preachers and the social workers, I have thought to myself
many times who have waked our sleeping “social conscience.” It may be a
good genie that is waked but it wants something to do, and will not be
put off with promises.
CLARA CAHILL PARK.
[Secretary of the Commission to Study the Question of Support of
Dependent Minor Children of Widowed Mothers.]
Wollaston, Mass.
PERSONALS
Wilfred S. Reynolds, executive secretary of the Cook County Board of
Visitors during its first year has succeeded Prof. Henry W. Thurston and
Dr. Hastings H. Hart as secretary and superintendent of the Illinois
Children’s Home and Aid Society. A graduate of Earlham College, Indiana,
Mr. Reynolds was for six years superintendent of schools and assistant
superintendent of the School for Delinquent Boys at Plainfield, Ind.
Under Amos W. Butler, he was for four years in charge of the department
of the Indiana Board of State Charities for the supervision of dependent
and neglected children.
The Illinois Children’s Home and Aid Society is devoted to home-finding
and the supervision of children in foster homes, the aid and helpful
oversight of dependent parents with children, and to the administration
of the four institutions conducted by the society in different parts of
the state of Illinois. A careful survey of Chicago and of the state at
large will soon be undertaken by Mr. Reynolds and his staff to determine
anew the specific demands for the society’s work and the scale upon
which it can now be undertaken. Its expenditures last year, as reported
by the subscriptions investigating committee of the Chicago Association
of Commerce, were $62,616.
* * * * *