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.

STATE LAWS

============+===========+==========+=======+=============+================= STATES | AGE LIMIT | LICENSES | HOURS | ENFORCEMENT | PENALTIES ------------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+----------------- Colorado, |Girls, 10; | | |Factory |$5-$100 fine for 1911 |any work | | |inspectors |first offense, |in streets | | | |$100-$200 fine or | | | | |imprisonment 90 | | | | |days for 2d | | | | |offense for | | | | |employers. $5-$25 | | | | |fine for parents ------------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+----------------- District of |Boys, 10; |Boys, |6 A.M. |Factory |Left to Columbia, |Girls, 16; |10-15 |10 P.M.|inspectors |discretion of 1908 |bootblack- | | | |juvenile court |ing, | | | | |selling | | | | |anything | | | | ------------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+----------------- Missouri, |Boys, 10; | | |Factory |Max. fine $100 or 1911 |girls, 16; | | |inspectors |max. imprisonment |selling | | | |one year, for |anything | | | |child ------------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+----------------- Nevada, 1911|Boys, 10; | | | |Child dealt with |girls, 10; | | | |as delinquent |selling | | | | |anything | | | | ------------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+----------------- New Hamp- |Boys, 10; | | |Factory |$5-$200 fine or shire, 1911 |girls, 16; | | |inspectors; |imprisonment |publica- | | |truant |10-30 days, for |tions or | | |officers |employers and |other mdse.| | | |parents |Boys, 10; | | | | |girls, 10; | | | | |bootblack- | | | | |ing | | | | ------------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+----------------- New York, |Boys, 10; |Boys, |6 A.M. |Police and |Dealt with accor- 1903 |girls, 16; |10-13 |10 P.M.|truant |ding to law |publica- | | |officers | |tions | | | | ------------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+----------------- Oklahoma, |Girls, 16; | | |Commissioner |$10-$50 fine or 1909 |publica- | | |of Labor |imprisonment |tions | | | |10-30 days for | | | | |child ------------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+----------------- Utah, 1911, |Boys, 12; |Boys, |Not | |$25-$200 fine or 1st& 2d |girls 16; |12-15 |after | |imprisonment class |publica- | |9 P.M. | |10-30 days, for cities |tions or | | | |employers and |other mdse.| | | |parents |Boys, 12; |Boys, | | | |girls, 12; |12-15 | | | |bootblack- |Girls, | | | |ing |12-15 | | | ------------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+----------------- Wisconsin, |Boys, 12; |Boys, |5 A.M. |Factory |$25-$100 fine or 1909, as |girls, 18; |12-15 |6.30 |inspectors |imprisonment 10- amended |publica- | | P.M., | |60 days for pa- 1911, 1st |tions. | |winter | |rents permitting, class |Boys, 14; | |7.30 | |and others em- cities |girls, 18, | | P.M., | |ploying, child |all others | |summer;| |under 16 to | | |publi- | |peddle without | | |cations| |permit. Same for | | | | |newspapers allow- | | | | |ing boys under | | | | |16 about office | | | | |between 9 A.M. | | | | |and 3 P.M. on | | | | |school days ------------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+----------------- Massachu- |Mayor and aldermen or selectmen may make re-|Max. fine $10 for setts, 1902 |gulations of bootblacking and sale of news- |child; max. fine as amended, |papers, merchandise, etc; may prohibit such |$200 or max. 1910 |sale or trades; or may require license to be|imprisonment 6 |obtained from them. School committees in |months for parent |cities have these powers as to children |allowing, person |under 14 years. |employing, or | |any one furnish- | |ing articles to, | |a child to sell ============+============================================+=================

CITY ORDINANCES

==========+===============+==========+=========+=============+============= CITIES | AGE LIMIT | LICENSES | HOURS | ENFORCEMENT | PENALTIES ----------+---------------+----------+---------+-------------+------------- Boston, | Boys, 11; | Boys, | 6 A.M. | Supervisor |Revocation 1902, by | girls, 14; | 11-13 | 8 P.M., | of licensed |of license school | bootblacking, | | winter | minors, |and fine as committee | selling | | 9 P.M., | police and |stated for | anything | | summer | truant |Massachusetts | | | | officers | ----------+---------------+----------+---------+-------------+------------- Cincin- | Boys, 10; | Boys, | 6 A.M. | Police, |Fine $1-$5 nati, 1909| girls, 16; | 10-13 | 8 P.M. | truant and |for child | bootblacking, | | | probation | | selling | | | officers | | anything | | | | ----------+---------------+----------+---------+-------------+------------- Hartford, | Boys, 10; | Boys, | Not | |Revocation 1910 | girls, 10; | 10-13 | during | |of license | selling | Girls, | school | |by school | anything | 10-13 | hours | |superinten- | | | or | |dent | | | after 8 | | | | | P.M. | | ----------+---------------+----------+---------+-------------+------------- Newark, | Boys, 10; | Boys, | Not | Police and |Child placed 1904 | girls, 16; | 10-13 | between | truant |on probation | newspapers | | 9 A.M. | officers |or committed | | | and 3 | |to Newark | | | P.M. | |City Home at | | | nor | |expense of | | | after | |parent | | | 10 P.M. | | ==========+===============+==========+=========+=============+=============

In an attempt to minimize the bad effects of street trading most of the communities which have enacted laws or ordinances on the subject provide for the issuance of licenses to boys, and in some cases also to girls, in the belief that in this way the work of the children can best be brought under some degree of control. However, this is merely temporizing, although it affords an opportunity to gather facts and undoubtedly marks a step toward a better solution of the problem. This is brought out clearly by a recent British report on street trading: "Our general impression, gathered in towns in which by-laws had been made, was that, though in exceptional cases much good had resulted from their adoption, on the whole this method of dealing with what we have come to consider an unquestionable evil, has not proved adequate or satisfactory. In many instances it has been pointed out to us that a system of licensing and badging is but a method of legalizing what is indisputably an evil, and that a set of by-laws, however rigorously enforced, can at best only modify the difficulties of the position."[141]

The social workers of Chicago, keenly alive to the menace of the situation, bewail the lack of protection for street workers in the following words: "The child labor law and the compulsory school law and the juvenile court law form the body of protective legislation which has been developing in behalf of the children of Illinois during the past twenty years. By none of the three, however, except in so far as street trading by a child under ten is counted an element in dependency, is the street-trading child safeguarded against parental neglect or greed, the vicious sights and sounds of the city street and the demoralizing habit of irregular employment."[142]

_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]

_Ways and Means of Regulating Street Work_

As to the control of street trading by children there are two methods by which the desired end may be approached. First, a mutual agreement as to self-imposed restrictions among the managers of all the business interests in connection with which children work on the streets. This method, however, can be dismissed from consideration at once on account of its impracticability. Street work embraces many different kinds of commercial activity, and as one manager is the competitor of all others in the same line of business and is free to adopt such lawful means of placing his wares on the market as he sees fit, it would be clearly impossible to force any one into such an agreement against his will. Moreover, new competitors may enter the field at any time who would not be bound by the agreement of the others, and consequently this would soon be broken by the force of competition following the intrusion of these new parties.

Second, regulation by constituted legislative authority. This is the more feasible method, and such regulation may be obtained from either of two sources--the municipality or the state. There is a question as to which of the two is the better for the purpose. Regulation by the state has the advantage of making the provisions apply uniformly to all cities within its borders and is obtained by no more effort than is required to get an ordinance through the Council of a single municipality. On the other hand, the municipal ordinance has the advantage of being secured by residents of the community who are intelligently concerned in the local problem and who will therefore take an active interest in having its provisions enforced. However, the good features of both these methods are united in the English plan, a modification of which has been adopted by Massachusetts. According to this plan the state fixes a minimum amount of restriction and authorizes local authorities, including boards of education, to increase the scope of restriction, and provides penalties for violation of the same.

As to the degree of regulation, an ultra-conservative measure would prohibit boys under ten and girls under sixteen years from selling anything at any time in the streets or public places of cities, while the age limit for boys is raised to fourteen years for night work. The issuance of licenses to boys ten to fourteen years of age who wish to engage in street trading is the usual accompaniment of such restriction, and while ordinarily of little avail, it could be made of some assistance to truant and probation officers in their efforts to enforce the compulsory education and delinquency laws. The age limit for boys has been advanced to eleven years by the School Committee of Boston, and to twelve years for newsboys and fourteen years for other street workers by the state of Wisconsin. But all efforts to secure such regulation should be based upon the principle that street trading is an undesirable form of labor for children, and consequently should be subject to at least the same restrictions as other forms of child labor.

_Probable Course of Regulation in Future_

American child labor laws usually contain a provision to the effect that no child under sixteen years shall engage in any employment that may be considered dangerous to its life or limb or where its health may be injured or morals depraved. This is sonorous, but ineffective,--the particular kinds of improper work should be specified. In this list of undesirable forms of labor, street work should be included. Great Britain has had far more experience in the matter of regulating the work of children than any state of this country, and, in the light of all this experience, her departmental committee of 1910 has emphatically declared that street trading by boys under seventeen and girls under eighteen years should be absolutely prohibited. This should be our ideal in America. Commenting on the banishment of young girls from the streets of New York City, Mrs. Florence Kelley says, "If the law against street selling and peddling by girls to the age of sixteen years can be thus effectively enforced in a city in which the depths of poverty among the immigrants are so frightful as they are in New York, there is no reason for assuming that it is impossible to prohibit efficiently street selling by boys."[146] Girls under eighteen years should never be allowed to go out in the streets for commercial purposes, no matter how innocent these purposes may be in themselves. One of the most important features of the movement in America should be the absolute prohibition of such work by minors under eighteen years at night; this is urged because it is in harmony with the provisions of our most advanced child labor laws and is fully justified because of the evil character of the influences rampant in cities after dark, and because such night work affords children a constant opportunity to cultivate their acquaintance with, if not to know for the first time, conditions from which every effort should be made to isolate them. For night messenger service the age limit should be twenty-one years.

The enforcement of such regulation as is now provided by the few states and cities which have given this subject any attention, is variously intrusted to factory inspectors, police, truant and probation officers, but in Boston the school committee has delivered this task into the hands of one man who is known as the supervisor of licensed minors. The Boston plan for enforcement seems to have given better results than the common system of intrusting the enforcement to officers already overburdened with other duties, but it is clearly impossible for one officer to handle the situation unaided in a large city--the plan would be considerably improved by the appointment of several assistants.

"The licensing by the Boston School Committee of minors of school age to trade in the streets of Boston came about through an act of legislature in 1902. The need of supervision of minors licensed under this act became very apparent, as their numbers increased and their street influences reacting on their school life became better understood. To meet this need a supervisor of licensed minors was appointed whose duties are to secure the strict enforcement of the law, regulations governing the various forms of street work of children of school age, also to have general supervision of the details of the licensing department."[147]

Human nature in children is not in the least unlike human nature in adults. Just as we need an interstate commerce commission backed by the federal government to supervise the large business affairs of men, so do we need a supervisor of children's commercial activities in city streets, clothed with authority by the municipal government.

The Boston plan is now being advocated for New York City: "In the street trades the Committee recommends that the principle of supervision of licensed minors, as practised for a number of years in Boston, be adopted, and that an office be created in the Department of Education that shall have supervisory control of all minors engaged in street trades. It recommends furthermore that the minimum age limit for licensing boys be raised from ten to fourteen years, and that the legal limit for selling at night be reduced from 10 to 8, to correspond more nearly with the provisions of labor legislation dealing with children in factories."[148]

The first attempt to control the situation in New York City was intrusted to the police, but the results were not satisfactory, as they looked upon the matter with indifference. Subsequently the truant officers also were charged with this duty, and in 1908 four men were assigned to give their entire attention to this work between 3 P.M. and 11 P.M., and at present eight men are so engaged, but no very marked improvement is noticeable. In Rochester the enforcement of the state law was brought about through the efforts of the women of that city; both business women and shoppers were asked to consider themselves members of a vigilance committee and to notify the board of education and the police department by telephone whenever any violations of the law were observed upon the streets. Within five days so many complaints had been received that both the superintendent of schools and the president of the board of education arranged a meeting at which their attention was invited to the widespread disregard of the law. As a result, steps were taken at once to insure enforcement, and finally the board of education appointed one truant officer, and the commissioner of police detailed a policeman especially for the work of reporting violations.

In addition to providing an improved method of enforcement, efforts have been made in Boston to deal more effectively with the difficult problem of keeping street traders out of saloons, the licensing board having issued an order to all holders of liquor licenses to prohibit minors from loitering upon the licensed premises, more especially newsboys and messenger boys.

The efforts of the school committee to regulate street trading in Boston have been further supplemented by organizing a Newsboys' Republic, which is described as follows: "Perhaps the most important result of supervision so far has been the gradual introduction of a plan for self government among the licensed newsboys through the so-called Boston School Newsboys' Association. This association is pledged to the enforcement of the license rules and the suppression of smoking, gambling and other street vices, more or less common among the street boys of certain neighborhoods. The association is run by the boys themselves, through officers of their own choosing, consisting of one newsboy captain and two lieutenants for each school district; also a chief captain and general secretary and an executive board of seven elected from the ranks of the captains. The general duties of the captains and lieutenants are, first, to see that all licensed newsboys of their respective school districts live up to their license rules, and the principles of the association. Secondly, to see that all boys not licensed shall not interfere with or in any way hurt the business of the licensed newsboys. These duties are performed through weekly inspections on the street, supplemented by monthly inspection at schools, at which time branch meetings of all the boys in each district are frequently held."[149]