Street Workers in Indiana Boys' School, 1910

[Table A. ]Distribution among Street Occupations
Committed for MessengersNewsboys BootblacksPeddlers Delivery Boys Cab DriverTotal
DayNight
Larceny 3 22 88 3 6 3 125
Incorrigibility 5 30 1 3 1 40
Truancy 2 27 3 32
Assault and battery 2 5 1 8
Burglary 1 2 3
Forgery 2 2
Manslaughter 1 1
Other charges 1 2 5 8
Totals 4 36 156 5 12 5 1 219
Under 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Totals
Day messengers 1 1 2 4
Night messengers 1 2 2 5 12 11 3 36
Newsboys 29 29 28 36 19 14 1 156
Bootblacks 3 1 1 5
Peddlers 1 4 2 3 1 1 12
Delivery boys 2 1 1 1 5
Cab drivers 1 1
Totals 34 37 31 45 38 28 4 2 219
Committed for Under 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total
Larceny 1 2 8 16 16 24 28 19 10 1 125
Incorrigibility 1 4 4 2 7 7 7 8 40
Truancy 2 3 6 4 7 6 3 1 32
Assault and battery 1 1 5 1 8
Burglary 2 1 3
Forgery 1 1 2
Manslaughter 1 1
Other charges 3 1 2 2 8
Totals 1 5 15 26 26 40 52 33 19 2 219
[Table D.] Nationality and Orphanage of Street Workers
Occupations American Negro German Irish Polish French Scotch Italian Jewish Father Living Mother Living
Yes No Yes No
Day messengers 3 1 4 3 1
Night messengers 25 5 3 1 1 1 30 6 30 6
Newsboys 69 59 13 8 3 2 1 1 107 49 119 37
Bootblacks 4 1 5 5
Peddlers 6 2 1 1 1 1 7 5 11 1
Delivery boys 2 3 4 1 5
Cab driver 1 1 1
Totals 110 70 17 10 6 3 1 1 1 157 62 174 45
[Table E.] Hours and Earnings of Street Workers
(In only 91 cases were the hours given, and earnings in only 116 cases.)
Occupations Hours Daily Earnings
Day Night
All Morning Afternoon All Before midnight After midnight Totals Under 50 cents 50-75 cents 75 cents-$1.00 $1.25-$1.50 Totals
Day messengers 3 3 1 1 1 3
Night messengers 6 2 1 9 8 4 1 13
Newsboys 29 10 11 1 4 1 56 47 23 5 3 78
Bootblacks 5 5 1 3 4
Peddlers 11 1 12 6 3 3 12
Delivery boys 5 5 3 2 5
Cab driver 1 1 1 1
Totals 53 10 11 7 8 2 91 55 41 16 4 116
[Table F.] Non-Street Workers in Indiana Boys' School, 1910
Committed for American Negro German Irish Polish English Jewish Swedish French Mexican Italian Hungarian Totals Father Living Mother Living
Yes No Yes No
Larceny156 40 12 7 10 3 1 2 1 1 1234 168 66 182 52
Truancy 66 10 4 3 3 86 62 24 62 24
Incorrigibility 53 7 4 5 3 1 1 1 75 44 31 50 25
Burglary 5 1 1 1 8 6 2 7 1
Assault and battery 2 2 1 1 6 3 3 5 1
Other charges 11 5 2 1 19 15 4 17 2
Totals293 65 23 17 16 5 2 1 2 1 2 1428 298 130 323 105
[Table G.] Non-Street Workers in Indiana Boys' School, 1910
Committed for Ages at Commitment Totals
Under 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Over 17
Larceny 9 7 10 20 25 33 46 47 28 9 234
Truancy 7 10 10 10 17 14 10 5 3 86
Incorrigibility 1 7 4 9 8 10 14 8 12 2 75
Burglary 1 2 2 1 1 1 8
Assault and battery 1 1 2 1 1 6
Other charges 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 19
Totals 19 27 27 44 51 61 73 66 44 14 2 428
[Table H.] Behavior in Institution
Street Workers Non-Street Workers
Good 39or 18% 95 or 22%
Average 175 or80% 321 or 75%
Bad 5 or 2% 12 or 3%
Totals 219 428

By far the largest number of street-working delinquents had been newsboys, these being followed by messengers, peddlers, bootblacks and delivery boys in the order given. From a hasty glance at these tables one might conclude that street workers are not so liable to become delinquent as those who never follow street occupations, because of the smaller number of the former; but it should be remembered that the ratio of street-working inmates to the entire number of street-working boys in Indiana is much greater than the ratio of the other inmates to the whole body of non-street-working children in the state.

In comparing Tables [C] and [G] it is seen that the street workers and the non-street workers were committed for practically the same offenses, and that their distribution according to offense does not vary widely. It is significant that a much smaller proportion of the street workers were committed to the institution under the age of ten years, than of the non-street workers, indicating that street occupations (which are not usually entered upon before the age of ten years), if followed for a year or two, contribute largely to the promotion of delinquency.

From a comparison of Tables [D] and [F] it will be observed that the prevalence of delinquency among the street workers cannot be explained on the ground of orphanage, as only 28 per cent were fatherless and 21 per cent motherless, while of the non-street workers 30 per cent were fatherless and 25 per cent were motherless. This indicates (1) that street work in the great majority of cases is not made necessary by orphanage, and (2) that street work causes delinquency in spite of good home conditions so far as the presence of both parents contributes to the making of a good home. Furthermore, it will be noted in Table [E] that nearly half of the children for whom figures on income could be obtained earned less than fifty cents per day—a small return on the heavy investment in the risk of health and character.

The difference in behavior at the institution between the street workers and the others is shown in Table [H] to be almost negligible, the latter making a slightly better showing.

An English writer says: "There is no difficulty in understanding how street trading and newspaper selling lead to gambling. We are told by those who are best able to judge, that of the young thieves and prostitutes in the city of Manchester, 47 per cent had begun as street hawkers. For the younger boys and girls such an occupation, especially at night, turns the streets into nurseries of crime. The newspaper sellers are not exposed to quite the same dangers, but they are nearly all gamblers. They gamble on anything and everything, from the horse races reported hour by hour in the papers they sell, to the numbers on the passing cabs, and they end by gambling with their lives."[139]

[CHAPTER VIII]
THE STRUGGLE FOR REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES

The economic activities of children in city streets, commonly called street trades, are not specifically covered by the provisions of child labor laws except in the District of Columbia and the states of Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. The laws of many other states as well as of those mentioned, however, prohibit children under fourteen years of age from being employed or permitted to work in the distribution or transmission of merchandise or messages. If newspapers are merchandise, then children under fourteen years would not be allowed to deliver newspapers under the provision just stated. This raises a nice question as to what is included in the term "merchandise." That there is any distinction between newspapers and merchandise is practically denied by the street-trades laws of Utah and New Hampshire which provide that children under certain ages shall not sell "newspapers, magazines, periodicals or other merchandise in any street or public place"; the question of delivery, however, is left open by these laws. The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, in the case of District of Columbia vs. Reider, sustained the juvenile court of the District in its decision that newspapers are not merchandise and consequently that children under fourteen years of age engaged in delivering newspapers are not affected by the law.[140] The judge of the trial court stated in his opinion, "No one will seriously contend that the nature of the employment in the case at bar is at all harmful to the child." The case at bar was the prosecution of a route agent for a morning newspaper on account of having employed a minor under fourteen years of age to deliver newspapers. This opinion is typical of the misplaced sympathy so commonly bestowed upon these young "merchants" of the street. In the case cited, the court permitted itself to be drawn aside into an interpretation of the letter of the law instead of viewing the matter in the light of its spirit. The purpose of such a law is to prevent the labor of children, not to distinguish between closely related forms of labor. Its object is to afford protection, not to provoke discussion of purely technical points. The labor of delivering merchandise does not differ in any respect from the labor of delivering newspapers (the possibly greater weight of merchandise does not alter the case, inasmuch as it is usually carried about in wagons); and as the child labor law of the District of Columbia forbids the delivery of merchandise by children under fourteen years at any time, it follows that the delivery of newspapers by such children should not be allowed, because the intent of the law is to protect them from the probable consequences of such work. Moreover, the District of Columbia law prohibits children under sixteen years from delivering merchandise before six o'clock in the morning; yet, under the interpretation given by the juvenile court, it is perfectly proper for a child even under the age of fourteen years to perform the labor of delivery before that hour, provided he handles newspapers instead of packages. The inconsistency of this is only too apparent. The spirit of the law is lost sight of in the close interpretation of its wording. This is one of the obstacles always encountered in the movement for child labor reform after prohibitory legislation has been enacted.

American legislation on street trading still clings persistently and pathetically to the theory that uncontrolled labor is much better for children than labor under the supervision of adults, and consequently authorizes very young children to do certain kinds of work in the streets on their own responsibility, while forbidding them to work at other street occupations even under the control of older and more experienced persons. This official incongruity must ultimately be rescinded and replaced by more rational and comprehensive legislation. The fallacy of permitting such a distinction on the ground that the child is an independent "merchant" in the one case and an employee in the other, must also be abandoned in favor of a more enlightened policy.