4. FAMILIES AND LODGERS
An illuminating sidelight is thrown upon the general condition of wage-earners by a study of the sizes of families and the relation of lodgers to those families. The figures used are those of the State Census of 1905 only, as the number of complete families secured in the personal canva.s.s was too small. The points of importance are the size of the economic family, which includes lodgers and all others living under one head, and size of the natural family when lodgers are excluded. The census returns of 1905 showed relationship of each dweller in the household to the head of the family. It was thus easy to separate lodgers, except in some cases when relatives may have been lodgers but were not so designated. Taking the 2,500 families as a whole, with 9,788 individuals, the average size of the family was three and nine-tenths persons. Of these, 2,631 individuals, 26.9 per cent were lodgers, and 7,157, or 73.1 per cent, were natural members.
But these aggregates do not portray actual conditions. A true picture may be obtained from a more detailed study of the figures which show that 119, or 4.8 per cent, of the economic families (which includes all persons living under one head) consisted of an individual living alone; 576, 23 per cent, of two persons; 531, 21.2 per cent, of the families had three members, while 478, 19.1 per cent, were composed of four members. Above four, the percentages of families rapidly declined; 13.4 per cent of economic families had five members; 8.3 per cent, six members; 5 per cent, seven members, down to 2.2 per cent, eight members; 1.4 per cent, nine members, and 1.6 per cent, ten or more members. But the composition of these economic families is even more striking. To ill.u.s.trate, of a total of 576 economic families with two members, 488 had no lodgers, and this was 36.1 per cent of all the families without lodgers; out of 531 families of three members each, 173 had one lodger, or 37.7 per cent of all families having one lodger, and 67 families had two lodgers each, or 20.6 per cent of all the families having two lodgers. Further, 478 families of four members each contained 133 families with two lodgers, 40.9 per cent of all families having two lodgers, and 48 families had three lodgers, 27 per cent of all families having three lodgers, while only 84 families had one lodger, and 213 families, less than one-half, 44.6 per cent of all families of four members each, had no lodgers. Taking the entire 2,500 families, only 1,353 families, or 54.1 per cent, had no lodgers; 459, or 18.4 per cent of the total families, had one lodger only; 325 families, or 13 per cent of the total, had two lodgers only, while 320 families, or 12.8 per cent of the total, had from 3 to 5 lodgers. This left 45, or 1.7 per cent, with 6 to 9 lodgers. In a phrase, the increase in the size of the family means, as a rule, an increase in the number of lodgers, and the relative proportion of natural members probably decreases as the size of the family increases, the proportion of lodgers increasing with the size of the economic family.
Now this showing is not the effect of lodging-houses run as business enterprises, except probably in the families ten members or more, which const.i.tute only 1.6 per cent of the total 2,500 families. This condition is most probably due in part to the fact--which both Census returns and personal observation indicated but could not fully determine--that many of the lodgers consisted of married couples, sometimes with one or two children, and of parts of broken families.
Furthermore, the high rents[48] which Negroes have to pay, the limited area in which the opposition of whites allows them to live, together with the small income power due to the occupational field being largely restricted to domestic and personal service, play a large part in forcing families and parts of families to live thus crowded together. This last point about income will be referred to again in Chapter IV on Occupations and in Chapter V on Wages. It is a cause for serious concern that only 54.1 per cent of the families had no lodgers, and this percentage here will probably hold for the entire Negro population of the City. If we exclude the 119 individuals living alone, the families having no lodgers fall to 51.8 per cent.
This last phase of the lodger condition is emphasized if presented in another way which shows the number of families having a specified number of members, exclusive of lodgers. For the same 2,500 families, it brings out from another point of view the relation of the family to the lodgers. There is presented both the number and percent of families that had a specified number of lodgers, and also, the number and percent of families that had a specified number of members exclusive of lodgers. For example, 178 families had three lodgers each, which was 7.1 per cent of the total 2,500 families. And of these 48 families had only one other member; 57 had two other members; 36 had three other; 23 four other; 9 five other; 3 six other, and 1 seven other. Out of 1,353 families that did not accommodate lodgers, 898 families, 67.8 per cent, had three members or less. Of 1,147 families that did accommodate lodgers, 606, 52.8 per cent, had more lodgers than natural members. And if we take the totals, 392, 15.7 per cent, of the families had besides lodgers only one natural member; 909, 36.4 per cent, of the families had in addition to lodgers two members only, and 508, 20.3 per cent, had besides lodgers three members only; 329 families, 13.2 per cent of the total, had four natural members; 325, 12.9 per cent, had five to seven natural members, and 38, 1.5 per cent, had eight or more natural members. This makes it clear that 1,809 of the 2,500 families had three natural members or less, if lodgers are not counted. To take a statement in a percentage that probably will be applicable to the whole City, one may say that, even including relatives who may have been lodgers, 72.6 per cent of Negro families had three members or less, if the lodgers are excluded--a fact of almost startling social significance. All this is a cause for serious concern, and any constructive steps for social betterment should give attention to the causes and remedies for this condition as one of the first and most urgent problems.
To sum up the general condition of wage-earners: The Negro population has increased decade by decade, except from 1840 to 1850 and from 1850 to 1860, preceding and during the Abolition and Civil War crisis. It is made up of young persons and adults in the vigorous working period, and has a small number of children under fifteen years of age. The population is recruited largely by immigrants from the South and the West Indies, who do not survive or remain in the City to a very old age. Among the wage-earners probably single people predominate.
Largely because of high rents and low incomes, lodgers made up of married couples, parts of broken families and of individuals seriously interfere with normal family life. The families are usually very small in size, from two to four persons, and an increase in the size of the family generally means an increase in the number of lodgers.
FOOTNOTES:
[43] The term "wage-earner", for want of a better, is used to designate the group of persons belonging to families whose heads are actual wage-workers. This includes children and some other family members not in gainful occupations.
[44] _Cf._ Bailey, _Modern Social Conditions_, (New York, 1906), pp.
67-89.
[45] _Cf._ Twelfth Census, _Bulletin 8, Negroes in the United States_, Table 31.
[46] DuBois, _Notes_, _etc._, p. 2.
[47] In a study of _Negro Craftsmen in New York City_ made by Miss Helen A. Tucker in 1907 (_Vide_, _Southern Workman_, 1907, 36: 9, p.
550), she reported the most reliable estimate of the proportion of West Indians in New York City as about one-tenth of the total Negro population. The figures above substantiate such an estimate. Of the 385 men in Miss Tucker"s study, 29.09 per cent were born in the West Indies. Among the 94 who claimed to know a trade, 57 or 60.64 per cent were born in the West Indies. _Cf. ibid._, 37: I, p. 45. This wide variation of percentage from that given for 9,788 individuals in 1905, probably arises because (1) of the larger number of cases in the latter instance, (2) the returns are from two other districts of Manhattan besides "the Sixties" of Miss Tucker"s canva.s.s, (3) Miss Tucker canva.s.sed male craftsmen only; the figures of this text cover the whole population.
[48] Real estate agents, who have handled properties during the change from white to Negro tenants, testified that Negro families upon moving in pay from $2.00 to $5.00 more per apartment. Others corroborated their statements. _Vide_ also, Chapin, _Standard of Living in New York City_, pp. 76-77.
CHAPTER IV
OCCUPATIONS OF WAGE-EARNERS
I. AN HISTORICAL VIEW OF OCCUPATIONS
In the New Amsterdam Colony as early as 1628, slaves were sought as a source of labor. These slaves were employed mainly in farm labor. In that year the Dutch West India Company agreed to furnish slaves to the colonists and the Company"s largest farm was "cultivated by the blacks."[49] Individuals were at liberty to import slaves for the same purpose.[50] Both slaves and freedmen were used as stevedores and deckhands for the Company"s vessels. The slaves were also used in building and repairing the public highways and in the repairing of Fort Amsterdam.[51] In 1680, mention is made of Negroes being used in housebuilding.[52] About the same time Negro slaves were carrying hod for wages, and in 1699 it was said that about the only servants (probably meaning domestic servants) in the Province of New York were Negroes. Freed Negroes were indentured or hired for similar service.[53]
Negroes were mustered into the Colonial army as early as 1698, and in the battle of Lake George in 1755, the "blacks behaved better than the whites."[54]
Under the Dutch government enfranchised and slave Negroes were allowed to acquire and hold land. Some took advantage of this privilege. But with English possession of the colony it was expressly prohibited.[55]
Some few Negroes were seamen as shown by the records of the so-called Negro plot of 1741, and one Negro doctor, Harry by name, was among those executed during the time of that insane public excitement.[56]
From about 1835 until 1841 a weekly newspaper, _The Colored American_, owned and published by Charles B. Ray, Philip A. Bell and others, was published in New York. It had an extensive circulation from Boston to Cincinnati. From this source a number of employments and business enterprises of Negroes in the New York of that period were ascertained. The occupations included three carpenters and joiners, five boot and shoe-makers, five tailors, two music teachers, four teachers of private and evening schools, one newspaper agent, one engraver, one watch and clock-maker, one sign-painter, two dress and cloak makers.[57]
In this period between 1830 and 1860, there were many engaged in domestic and personal service. Most of the smaller hotels of the times had colored waiters. The Metropolitan had about 60 or 70; other hostelries like the Stuyvesant House, the Earls, the Clifford, and a number of restaurants employed colored waiters. Some cooks and barbers, who also applied leeches, treated corns, and did other minor surgical services, were among this cla.s.s of wage-earners.
Three dentists, P.H. White, John Burdell, and Joshua Bishop, two physicians, James McCune Smith and W.M. Lively, and three ministers, H.W. Garnet, Chas. B. Ray, and Peter Williams, were prominent persons of the period.
But these facts should not give the impression of unalloyed opportunity in the trades and professions, for the columns of this same Negro newspaper were filled with articles, editorials and appeals which indicate the difficulties in that direction. This is further borne out by the testimony of Charles S. Andrews, the white princ.i.p.al of the Manumission Society School for Negroes. He said his graduates left with every avenue closed against them and spoke of difficulties those who had trades encountered, many being forced to become waiters, barbers, servants, and laborers.[58] That domestic and personal service furnished employment for a large number of Negroes is further shown by the organization of the United Public Waiters" Mutual Beneficial a.s.sociation. This effort was first started by twelve Negro caterers as a corporation to control and keep up the quality of service both by looking after the efficiency of the many waiters they employed and by preventing "irresponsible men attempting to cater at weddings, b.a.l.l.s, parties, and some hotels on special occasions."
Originally their const.i.tution, framed in 1869, stated the objects of the organization to be "to consolidate the business interests of its members; to encourage and promote industrial pursuits followed by them; to give preference in patronage to its members."[59]
Five of the original corporators, among whom were George Morris, George E. Green, and Charles W. Hopewell, owned imported silver, china, and other caterers" "service" ranging in valuation from about $1,000 to $4,000, and all of them had ability to manage large banquets and other social functions, supplying waiters, cooks, _etc._ First smaller caterers, then waiters, were taken into the organization until the membership increased to more than a hundred. And in 1872 they added the mutual benefit features, "to insure both medical and brotherly aid when sick and to a.s.sist respectably interring its deceased members." One of the caterers of the early corporation, W.E.
Gross, is yet in the business at the Bowery Savings Bank and still serves for special occasions, now mainly among Colored people. The organization as a benefit a.s.sociation continued with varying fortunes down to 1905, when it was dissolved by its remaining 33 members.
That there were many other waiters and servants of the time is certain. A head-waiter of that day estimated the number of colored hotel and restaurant waiters at between 400 and 500 in 1870.
2. OCCUPATIONS IN 1890 AND 1900
By the time of the Federal censuses of 1890 and 1900 the Negro population in New York had grown to considerable proportions, and for this increased population we are fortunate in having full occupational returns. Although these figures included all persons ten years of age and over, those under fourteen years probably formed a negligible part of the totals because the Child Labor Laws of the State of New York prohibited the employment of children under fourteen years of age.
It appears, as was expected, that the large majority of Negro wage-earners were engaged in domestic and personal service. But it is significant that in 1890 there were among the male population 236 bookkeepers, accountants, _etc._, 476 draymen, hackmen, and teamsters, and 427 were engaged in manufacturing and mechanical pursuits. Among the females, there were 418 dressmakers, 103 seamstresses, and 67 nurses and midwives.
The figures for 1900 show a large percentage of increase in domestic and personal service. In occupations cla.s.sed under trade and transportation, Negro wage-earners increased 450.3 per cent compared with an increase of 177.2 per cent among native whites. Nor is this increase due entirely to semi-personal service occupations for the cla.s.s of clerks, bookkeepers, _etc._, had increased from 236 in 1890 to 456 in 1900; draymen, hackmen, and teamsters numbered 1,439 in 1900 as compared with 476 in 1890, an increase of 202.3 per cent. In manufacturing and mechanical pursuits the percentage of increase during the ten years, 1890 to 1900, was 140.3 per cent, larger than that of the native whites, 137.3 per cent. Only one occupation in this cla.s.s had a smaller increase of Negro workers than 75 per cent.
Machinists increased from 7 to 47; brick and stone masons from 20 to 94, or 370 per cent; stationary engineers and firemen from 61 to 227, or 271.1 per cent. Other comparisons indicate clearly a similarly favorable advance in many occupations other than domestic and personal service. Large allowances, of course, must be made for the errors in gathering the figures of the two censuses; yet this does not account for all of the decided increases shown. It must be accounted for on the ground that slowly the walls of inefficiency on one side and of prejudice on the other which have confined Negroes to the more menial and lower-paid employments are being broken down. This progress has come in the face of the fact that the more ambitious and efficient individual is "tied to his group."[60]
In 1890 and 1900 a large number of occupations could not be included in the table because the figures for 1890 were not available. The comparison of the two censuses shows clearly that there is for Negro wage-earners a probable enlargement of the scope of occupations outside of domestic and personal service.
OCCUPATIONS IN 1905
In the 2,500 families, composed of 9,788 persons, 1,859 were excluded because of their being under fifteen years of age and 82 were excluded because, although members of wage-earning families, they themselves were either in a professional occupation, or were engaged in a business enterprise on their own account. This left 7,847 individual wage-earners, 3,802 of whom were male and 4,045 were female. Both the male and the female wage-earners show a very large percentage employed in domestic and personal service, 40.2 per cent male and 89.3 per cent female, a large percentage of whom doubtless were married women and widows with children.[61] But it is to be noted as important that among the males, 20.6 per cent were engaged in some occupation cla.s.sified under Trade and 9.4 per cent under Transportation. While some of these occupations may differ little in character from domestic and personal service, yet the occupations that are entirely removed from that cla.s.sification are sufficient in number to show, as did the figures for 1890 and 1900, the possibility of Negroes in considerable numbers securing a scope of employment which includes other occupations than those of domestic and personal service.
The State Census figures are more detailed than those of the Federal Census. For example, under domestic and personal service, the Federal Census has grouped together male waiters and servants, while the State Census figures have been tabulated separately. It is also probable that the cla.s.sification in 1890 and 1900 included wage-earners who were cla.s.sified differently in 1905 and _vice versa_. And in 1905 professional occupations as well as all persons doing business on their own account were excluded. Differences in the figures may, therefore, be allowed.
Before leaving the subject of the restricted scope of occupations among Negroes, something should be said of the far-reaching effects this restriction has upon the life of the wage-earners. Negroes are crowded into these poorer-paid occupations because many of them are inefficient and because of the color prejudice on the part of white workmen and employers.[62] Both of these influences are severe handicaps in the face of the compet.i.tion in this advanced industrial community.
Restricted thus to a few occupations, there is a larger number of compet.i.tors within a limited field with a consequent tendency to lower an already low wage scale. In this way the limitations of occupational mobility react upon income, producing a low standard of living, the lodger evil, and social consequences pointed out below (pp. 80, 89, 144 ff).
To sum up the occupational condition of Negro wage-earners: The large majority of Negroes are employed to-day in occupations of domestic and personal service. This is partly the result of the historical conditions of servitude, of a prejudice on the part of white workmen and employers, which restricts them to this lower field, and of the inefficiency of Negro wage-earners for compet.i.tion in occupations requiring a higher order of training and skill. The steady increase in 1890, 1900 and 1905 of numbers employed in occupations other than personal and domestic service is prophetic of a probable widening scope of the field of employment open to them.
FOOTNOTES:
[49] Williams, _History of the Negro Race in America_, vol. i, p. 135.
[50] _Colonial Doc._, i, 364.
[51] _Laws of New York_, 1691-1773, pp. 83, 156; _Doc. relating to Colonial History of New York_, vol. i, 499; ii, 474.
[52] _Doc. relating to Colonial History of New York_, iii, 307.
[53] _Ibid._, ix, 875; iv, 511; Burghermen and Freemen, _collection of New York Historical Society_, 1885, p. 569.
[54] _Ibid._, 377 (London Doc. xi); _ibid._, vi, 1005 (London Doc.
x.x.xii.) "Letter from a gunner to his cousin."