sublet to them by sweatshop contractors, was the process by which thousands of garments were made.

About 1890, strongly directed attempts began to be made to regulate the work of tenements through a licensing system. At that time the New York Tribune1 wrote of Helen Campbell's work as an able reformer and lecturer on the Chautauqua circuit, in making the public aware of the menace of the tenement house evil. Mrs. Campbell met the charge of "paternalism" by rejoining that such had been the objection to "all the excellent labor legislation " that had been passed in New York State, but that it was no more paternalistic than to regulate powder-house construction against explosions, or to quarantine against plagues.

Discussion of this kind induced the licensing system of 1892 which was made more inclusive in 1899 upon the recommendation of Governor Roosevelt. The further requirement in 1904 that licenses must be procured by owners of tenement buildings instead of by the separate tenants, had been urged by Commissioner of Labor John McMackin to reduce the municipal proportions of this branch of work for the Department of Labor. And Governor Roosevelt urged it. He had more than once gone through the tenement districts and had learned something of the conditions there. His theory was that owners of congested, unsanitary, and ill-kept tenement houses should be placed at a disadvantage as compared with those where "law and decency prevailed;" that requiring owners to ask for a license would accomplish this point.

In 1906, Commissioner Sherman held that all homework in tenements was not to be condemned, for some of the work was skilled and done under good conditions. He expressed a growing conviction, furthermore, that conditions of the 1 New York Tribune, August 25, 1890.

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, 1906, p. 43.

poorer workers would not be improved by absolute prohibition of homework in tenements. Nevertheless, only in the following year he reported that a "group of sociology students are strongly advocating absolute prohibition of homework," all except domestic dress-making. Their principal reasons were those of congestion, lack of sanitation, lack of regulation of child labor, and low wages and long hours that made effective regulation of women's work in factories impossible.

This conflict of opinions among some of those best qualified to judge as to advisable methods of relief, more or less typifies this knottiest problem of protective labor legislation. Since entire prohibition was declared unconstitutional, there has never developed a way to legislate directly for this class of toilers. Abolition has continued to be advocated not always for the relief of the women themselves, for Commissioner Sherman's theory is supported by some othersthat the women would be the greater sufferers by being thus deprived of employment-but abolition has frequently been advocated as the only device by which laws restricting women's work in factories could be enforced. As will be considered more fully in pages to come, the possibility of getting their work done for a pittance outside of the factories makes it impossible to force employers to observe limitations of hours of women employed at similar work in factories. And again, this unregulated work at low pay stands as a formidable deterrent to an effective attempt to provide minimum wages.

However, it is not on these grounds that homework has been free from attack by the legislature. Largely for reasons of public health, to protect the consumers from unsanitary goods that may carry disease, and to prohibit the work of young children, this is the cautious ground, safe from the 1 Ibid., p. 57.

courts, upon which legislation has been built thus far. The findings of the Factory Investigating Commission in 1913 prompted that body to introduce an amendment to the tenement house law that contained prohibitory measures which the legislature adopted. The protection of the public health is a legitimate exercise of the police power, and abolition of the manufacture of foodstuffs and of articles of children's and infants' wearing apparel was advocated on these grounds. This was the first step to recover the ground lost in the Jacobs case.

Florence Kelley, as a witness before the commission, advocated the sweeping abolition of tenement house work,' and supported her view by prophesying that such a step would send the children to school, the sick to hospitals and the able-bodied to work in lofts under better conditions. She thought the change would not affect the status of widows and children under charity, they would remain under charity as before. Mothers could better care for their children and no longer would there be an invasion of the kitchen and bedroom by the factory.

Dr. Annie S. Daniels declared she had approved of abolition of homework since 1888. She saw no reason why it would be any great hardship for women and children. "I am sure it would not," she continued, “because these women are strong, able and capable of working in factories, and their children would be taken care of in kindergartens, and day nurseries. They always have room for children whenever they ask to go in. And the women would work in factories and get better pay. I am pretty sure it would result in making the husbands work in some cases.' Rose Schneiderman, speaking for the Women's Trade Union

1

" 2

1 Preliminary Report of the Factory Investigating Commission, 1912, vol. iii, pp. 1592-3.

League, said, "If we can prohibit homework entirely, it would force employers to engage the amount of people that they need in their factories and not avoid the responsibilities of having employees . . . . and it would also perhaps give the employees a chance to get a living wage for the work that they do." 1

Lillian D. Wald of the Henry Street Settlement, Pauline Goldmark, and Maud E. Miner were also prominent witnesses who advocated complete abolition of this kind of work.

Two manufacturers of neckwear maintained that abolition would harm two classes of workers, namely, married women who have children to care for and husbands to cook for, and those living at a distance (as Hoboken) who would lose two hours in transit if they had to commute to the factory each day.

It was pretty conclusively stated by the factory commission that tenement workers were in the main driven to their employment by economic pressure-because of the low earnings, sickness or unemployment of the father. This was particularly true of the Irish and Americans who did homework only as a last resort. 78 per cent of the homeworkers were discovered to be Italians, who usually came from rural districts and knew little of factory work and organized industry. The men were unskilled workers who often fell into seasonal trades "where wages are small and irregular and must be supplemented." The condition was intensified because Italians cling to their family customs; they expect their daughters to marry young and object to their going out into factory life. The commission discovered that homeworkers are much younger women than many had thought, and that "almost 63 per cent of the fathers of the families doing homework are between the

1 Op. cit., p. 115.

ages of twenty and forty-five, an age that represents the best years of a man's life and a time when his economic value to the community should be greatest."

Thus the efforts of social workers have been continued towards further prohibition of work in tenements, toward the inclusion of more prohibited articles within the ambit of the law. At the present time many more articles are permitted to be made than prohibited, but many hope that a more enlightened judiciary will allow at least the reversal of this condition. Some yet more optimistic groups hope to effect complete abolition. For instance, the Women's City Club and the City Club of New York are reported to have united in 1920 to further a bill to prohibit in tenement living rooms all work let out by factories." 1

In view of a recent investigation of homework by the New York Child Welfare Commission, in which overwork of children was discovered to be widespread, State Industrial Commissioner Shientag advocated further extension of the law by the 1924 legislature. This would be a more practicable next step than an attempt for total elimination of manufacturing in tenements, he thought, because the system has become so deeply intrenched. A bill was introduced late in the legislative session, therefore, adding toilet articles, artificial flowers, feathers, hat ornaments, and portions of pajamas to the list of articles that may not be manufactured in tenements. But the act was not passed.

Finally, recommendations are unceasingly made that all homework on goods for sale should be regulated with no

1 Commons and Andrews, Principles of Labor Legislation, p. 368, footnote. On the other hand, a bill was introduced by Senator Meyer in 1922 advocating that a tenement family be permitted to employ a tailor, seamstress, or milliner, and that a person may be employed in a tenement house who is physically handicapped "to the extent of disqualifying him from employment in the normal channels of endeavor, and whose product is sold through a benevolent or charitable society, association, or corporation approved by the state board of charities."