Child Labor in City Streets

by Edward Nicholas Clopper

Opposition to Regulation

The opposition to bringing the street trades under some degree of restriction has come, as might be expected, from very interested sources. In Illinois the newspaper publishers figured prominently in the movement to prevent the passage of the street-trades measure introduced in the legislature of that state at its session of 1911. This has not always been the case, however, as the circulation managers of the five leading daily newspapers of St. Louis wrote letters to the legislature of Missouri favoring the passage of that section of the child labor bill of 1911, which provided that boys under ten years and girls under sixteen years should not sell anything in any street or public place within the state. This provision was enacted into law, but it is safe to say that if the rational age limit of sixteen years for boys had been advocated instead of ten years, the newspapers would have been most active in opposing this section. In Cincinnati the circulation managers of the newspapers most affected by the street-trades ordinance passed by the City Council in 1909 agreed to its provisions before the measure was submitted to the Council, and consequently it passed without opposition.

In New Haven and Hartford repeated attempts have been made to secure regulation of street trading by means of city ordinances, and at two sessions of the state legislature bills have been introduced which provided for such restriction, but all these efforts have been persistently fought by a leading newspaper of Hartford in which city it has always been customary to have girls as well as boys selling newspapers on the street. In 1910, a city ordinance was passed in Hartford providing that boys and girls under ten years should be prohibited from trading in the streets and that between the ages of ten and fourteen years they should be licensed and not allowed to sell after 8 P.M. The newsgirls were not banished from the street because it was held that they were "a pretty good sort of girl after all," and that so long as it could not be proved that they were demoralized by the work, they should be permitted to go on with it. In other words, the city clings to the fine old American policy of delaying action until some calamity makes it necessary.

The objections offered by interested parties to the by-laws drafted by the London County Council at a hearing held in 1906, show that the law of self preservation operates in England as in other quarters of the Earth. News agents, employing little boys to deliver newspapers, declared that conditions were not bad; that the work was healthful; that the wages were a great help to poor parents; that they could not afford to employ older boys; that the lads should be allowed to begin at 6 A.M. and work not more than ten hours a day outside of school with a maximum weekly limit of twenty-five hours; that to prohibit the delivery of newspapers before 7 A.M. and after 7 P.M. would be a great injustice to the trade; that boys wouldn't stay in bed even if 7 A.M. were fixed as the hour for beginning work; that such work does not interfere with schooling; that the boys are well looked after; in short, that the by-laws would ruin them and bring starvation to the children. One news agent in declaiming against the hours fixed for the delivery of newspapers, insisted that the restriction would throw boys out of employment and send them to trade in the streets with their undesirable associations, apparently unmindful of the fact that delivery boys themselves worked in that environment. The dairymen were horrified at the limit placed on hours, urging that the little boys in their employ should begin to deliver milk at 5 A.M., as early work was beneficial and the wages useful to poor parents. Shopkeepers denounced the by-laws as too drastic, because they would prevent such light work as errand running at noon and casual employment in the evening after 7, resulting in hardship to both parents and children; one acknowledged that if he were prevented from employing cheap labor his business would suffer; another said that he employed a boy at noon and also from 5.30 to 9 P.M., the work being light and the parents satisfied, and that the training was good for boys. A fruiterer actually declared that the limit of eight hours on Saturday would make a boy valueless to him; another said he employed a boy for one hour in the morning, from 6 to 9 in the evening, and also on Saturday morning and evening, in running errands, and that the work was not heavy; another employed boys after school from 6 to 9.30 P.M., insisting that the work was good for them, as it kept them from the street and gave them an insight into business habits.[143] It should be remembered that all this work was performed by the children in addition to attending school both morning and afternoon.

The testimony given before the British Interdepartmental Committee of 1901 by the secretary of an association representing many thousand retail shopkeepers, would be amusing if it were not so sinister. He presented the subject of child labor in a most favorable aspect, declaring that the wages were needed on account of poverty in the families; that the work was light and had a very beneficial effect on health because it was done in the open air; that good meals were given in addition to cash wages and were very beneficial; that the effect on the boys' character was very beneficial, as the work cultivated businesslike habits and kept the boys from running the streets, frequently affording promotion to the higher grades of shopkeeping.[144] Another British Committee, investigating conditions in Ireland, reported, "We found but one witness (a newspaper manager of Belfast) to testify that the present conditions of selling papers in the street were satisfactory and cannot be improved; and that instead of tending to demoralize, they have the opposite effect."[145]