White Slaves | Page 8

Boston, Mass._
Dear Sir:--In the sermon which you preached yesterday, the title, as
given in the newspapers, is "The White Slaves of Boston Sweaters."
Under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United
States there can be no such thing as "_slave_" in this country. Under
the decision of Judge Parsons there has not been a slave in
Massachusetts since the adoption of the Constitution. I therefore
venture to ask you some questions.
1. How do you justify the term "_white slave_" when applied to the
persons whose condition you describe?
2. "Climb three flights to an attic suite of two rooms, and there one
would find a mother and five children" doubtless in very bad condition;
the mother trying to support them; the tenement doubtless very bad.
Suppose we condemn the tenement,--pull it down,--then these people
would have no roof over their heads. Is no roof better than some kind of
a roof? Suppose we refuse to trust her to make pants? Is no work better
than some work?
3. The mother earns her living, or part of it, by making "pants." Pants

made in this way are sold at a very low price at retail, after being
subjected to the cost of distribution in the customary way. There is
great competition in this business. That competition leads every
employer to pay the highest wages that can be recovered from the sale
of the pants, also allowing the sweater's charge. If the cost of making is
advanced on this class of pants, they cannot be sold at all; then there
would be no sweater, and the woman would get no work. Is no work
better than some work?
4. The sweater deals as a middleman with the manufacturer and the
worker. If he did not deal with this kind of work, it would cost the
manufacturer more to reach the worker than it does now; no sweater
would be employed if he did not earn what he makes; then the
manufacturer, or clothier, could pay less for making the pants, because
he now pays all that the trade will bear. If it cost him more to reach the
worker, he must pay less. Suppose we abolish the sweater, or
middleman, then he would not distribute the work, and there would be
no work. Is that better than some work?
5. Suppose this woman had not come here with her children and had
stayed, perhaps, in Italy or in Russia, instead of coming here. Is some
work here better than no work in _Italy_?
6. If the mother cannot support the children,--being now in this country
without having been sent back,--she is entitled to go with her children
to the almshouse, where suitable shelter, clean rooms, and good food
would be provided. Is it better for her to try to support her children
under existing conditions _than to go to the almshouse_?
7. There is an ample supply of money available for purposes of true
charity. Does not true charity consist in refusing to give alms to those
who can or may support themselves? Is it better to give alms to those
people in their attic, or to give alms to them under the conditions of the
almshouse? Which course would be most sure to pauperize them
utterly?
8. The use of the term "slave" implies a slave-owner and a slave-driver.
In this series of (1) the manufacturer, (2) the sweater or middleman,
and (3) _the working-woman with her children_, which is the
slave-owner and which is the slave-driver? Under what authority does
the slave-master force this woman to render her labor for all that it is
worth?

9. If her work is worth more than she gets, can she not get it?
A little inquiry into the condition of the clothing trade, and some
examination of the fact, might disclose to you that the poor
sewing-woman is poor because she sews poorly, and that there is
always a scarcity of skilful and intelligent sewing-women, at full
wages.
My final question is, how do you propose to help those who are
incapable of helping themselves, without pauperizing them yet more
than they are pauperized under their present conditions? What will you
do when you have destroyed the house and done away with the
sweater?
Are you justified, as a Christian minister, in creating a prejudice and
arousing malignant passion by the use of the term "_slave_?" Can you
defend or justify this term, under the conditions that are reported, as
they are stated in the printed report of your sermon?
I venture to put these questions to you because I think that the
dangerous class in this community is to be found among persons who,
without intelligence, create animosity, and by their method of
preaching tend to retard rather than to