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.
Present Laws and Ordinances
The following table shows all the laws and ordinances governing street trading by children in existence in the United States in 1911.
The city council of Detroit passed an ordinance in 1877 which forbids newsboys and bootblacks to ply their trades in the streets without a permit from the mayor. No age limit is fixed, no distinction is made between the sexes and no hours are specified. Applicants for the permit are customarily referred to the chief truant officer for approval, and as a rule permits are not issued to boys under ten years of age or to girls. An annual license fee of ten cents is charged, and the license holder is supplied with a numbered badge which must be worn conspicuously. Owing to its manifest weakness, this ordinance is of little avail.
It will be observed from the following table that the common age limit for boys in street trading is ten years. When we pause to reflect on the import of this, it is hard to realize that intelligent American communities actually tolerate such an absurdly meager restriction; yet the movement for reform has progressed even this far in only a very small part of the country—in most places there is no restriction whatever! Some day, and that not in the very remote future, we shall look back upon the authorized exploitation of the present period with the same degree of incredulity with which we now regard the horrors of child labor in England during the early part of the nineteenth century.
| States | Age Limit | Licenses | Hours | Enforcement | Penalties |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado, 1911 | Girls, 10; any work in streets | Factory inspectors | $5-$100 fine for first offense, $100-$200 fine or imprisonment 90 days for 2d offense for employers. $5-$25 fine for parents | ||
| District of Columbia, 1908 | Boys, 10; Girls, 16; bootblacking, selling anything | Boys, 10-15 | 6 A.M. 10 P.M. | Factory inspectors | Left to discretion of juvenile court |
| Missouri, 1911 | Boys, 10; girls, 16; selling anything | Factory inspectors | Max. fine $100 or max. imprisonment one year, for child | ||
| Nevada, 1911 | Boys, 10; girls, 10; selling anything | Child dealt with as delinquent | |||
| New Hampshire, 1911 | Boys, 10; girls, 16; publications or other mdse. Boys, 10; girls, 10; bootblacking | Factory inspectors; truant officers | $5-$200 fine or imprisonment 10-30 days, for employers and parents | ||
| New York, 1903 | Boys, 10; girls, 16; publications | Boys, 10-13 | 6 A.M. 10 P.M. | Police and truant officers | Dealt with according to law |
| Oklahoma, 1909 | Girls, 16; publications | Commissioner of Labor | $10-$50 fine or imprisonment 10-30 days for child | ||
| Utah, 1911, 1st & 2d class cities | Boys, 12; girls 16; publications or other mdse. | Boys, 12-15 | Not after 9 P.M. | $25-$200 fine or imprisonment 10-30 days, for employers and parents | |
| Boys, 12; girls, 12; bootblacking | Boys, 12-15 Girls 12-15 | ||||
| Wisconsin, 1909, as amended 1911, 1st class cities | Boys, 12; girls, 18; publications. Boys, 14; girls, 18, all others | Boys, 12-15 | 5 A.M. 6.30 P.M., winter 7.30 P.M., summer; publications | Factory inspectors | $25-$100 fine or imprisonment 10-60 days for parents permitting, and others employing, child under 16 to peddle without permit. Same for newspapers allowing boys under 16 about office between 9 A.M. and 3 P.M. on school days |
| Massachusetts, 1902 as amended, 1910 | Mayor and aldermen or selectmen may make regulations of bootblacking and sale of newspapers, merchandise, etc; may prohibit such sale or trades; or may require license to be obtained from them. School committees in cities have these powers as to children under 14 years. | Max. fine $10 for child; max. fine $200 or max. imprisonment 6 months for parent allowing, person employing, or any one furnishing articles to, a child to sell | |||
| Cities | Age Limit | Licenses | Hours | Enforcement | Penalties |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boston, 1902, by school committee | Boys, 11; girls, 14; bootblacking, selling anything | Boys, 11-13 | 6 A.M. 8 P.M., winter 9 P.M., summer | Supervisor of licensed minors, police and truant officers | Revocation of license and fine as stated for Massachusetts |
| Cincinnati, 1909 | Boys, 10; girls, 16; bootblacking, selling anything | Boys, 10-13 | 6 A.M. 8 P.M. | Police, truant and probation officers | Fine $1-$5 for child |
| Hartford, 1910 | Boys, 10; girls, 10; selling anything | Boys, 10-13 Girls, 10-13 | Not during school hours or after 8 P.M. | Revocation of license by school superintendent | |
| Newark, 1904 | Boys, 10; girls, 16; newspapers | Boys, 10-13 | Not between 9 A.M. and 3 P.M. nor after 10 P.M. | Police and truant officers | Child placed on probation or committed to Newark City Home at expense of parent |