VIII
The physical effects of such underfeeding cannot be easily overestimated. No fact has been more thoroughly established than the physical superiority of the children of the well-to-do classes over their less fortunate fellows. In Moscow, N.V. Zark, a famous Russian authority, found that at all ages the boys attending the Real schools and the Classical Gymnasium are superior in height and weight to peasant boys.[[54]] In Leipzic, children paying 18 marks school fees are superior in height and weight to those paying only 9, and gymnasium boys are superior to those of the lower Real and Burger schools.[[55]] Studies in Stockholm and Turin show the same general results, the poorer children being invariably shorter, lighter, and smaller of chest. The British Anthropometric Committee found that English boys at ten in the Industrial Schools were 3.31 inches shorter and 10.64 pounds lighter than children of the well-to-do classes, while at fourteen years the differences in height and weight were 6.65 inches and 21.85 pounds, respectively.[[56]] Dr. Charles W. Roberts gives some striking results of the examination of 19,846 English boys and men.[[57]] Of these, 5915 belong to the non-laboring classes of the English population, namely, public school boys, naval and military cadets, medical and university students. The remaining 13,931 belong to the artisan class. The difference in height, weight, and chest girth, from thirteen to sixteen years of age, is as follows:—
| Average Height in Inches | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| Non-laboring class | 58.79 | 61.11 | 63.47 | 66.40 |
| Artisan class | 55.93 | 57.76 | 60.58 | 62.93 |
| Difference | 2.66 | 3.35 | 2.89 | 3.47 |
| Average Weight in Pounds | ||||
| Age | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| Non-laboring class | 88.60 | 99.21 | 110.42 | 128.34 |
| Artisan class | 78.27 | 84.61 | 96.79 | 108.70 |
| Difference | 10.33 | 14.60 | 13.63 | 19.64 |
| Average Chest Girth in Inches | ||||
| Age | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| Non-laboring class | 28.41 | 29.65 | 30.72 | 33.08 |
| Artisan class | 25.24 | 26.28 | 27.51 | 28.97 |
| Difference | 3.17 | 3.37 | 3.21 | 4.11 |
It will be seen, therefore, that the children of the non-laboring class at thirteen years of age exceed those of the artisan class in height almost three inches, in weight almost ten and a half pounds, and in chest girth almost three and a quarter inches. And these figures by no means represent fully the contrast in physique which exists between the very poorest and well-to-do children. The difference between the children of the best-paid artisans and the poorest-paid of the same class is nearly as great. Mr. Rowntree found that in York, England, the boys of the poorest section of the working-class were on an average three and one-half inches shorter than the boys of the better-paid section of the working-class. As regards weight Mr. Rowntree found the difference to be eleven pounds in favor of the child of the best-paid artisan.[[58]]
Dr. W.W. Keen quotes the figures of Roberts with approval as applying almost equally to this country,[[59]] and all the studies yet made by American investigators seem to justify that opinion. There exists a somewhat voluminous, but scattered, American literature tending to the same general conclusions as the European. The classic studies of Dr. Bowditch,[[60]] in Boston, and Dr. Porter,[[61]] in St. Louis, showed very distinctly that the children of the poorer classes in those cities were decidedly behind those of the well-to-do classes in both height and weight. The more recent investigations of Dr. Hrdlicka[[62]] fully bear out the results of these earlier studies.
The Report on Physical Training (Scotland) calls attention once more to the fact that children in the pauper, reformatory, and industrial schools are superior in physique to the children in the ordinary elementary schools. Says the report: “The contrast between the condition of such children as are seen in the poor day schools and the children of parents who have altogether failed in their duty is both marked and painful.”[[63]] Commenting upon which an English Socialist writer says: “The obvious deduction is that if you are doing your duty ... and your children are brought up in the way they should go, they will not be half as well off as if they were truants or thieves. Therefore, ... the best thing you can do for them ... is to turn your children into little criminals.”[[64]] Without accepting these cynical deductions, the fact remains that in a great many instances those children who, by reason of the criminality of their parents or their complete failure to provide for their offspring, find their way into such institutions, are far better off, physically, than their fellows in the ordinary schools whose parents are careful and industrious. But for the taint of institutional life, and the crushing out of individuality which almost invariably accompanies it, they would be far better equipped for the battle of life.
The real significance of this physical superiority is not so obvious as the writer quoted appears to assume. The fact is that these children are generally below the average even of their own class when they are admitted to these institutions. Their superior physique shows the regeneration which proper food and hygienic conditions produce in the worst cases.