Why Not In The United States?

Mrs. Chant, when in Ann Arbor, told of the " sweaters" in London who, although well-to-do, many of them, grind the seamstresses down to the last farthing and often practice great barbarities apon the poor women, calling it " discipline." Mrs. Chant is prominent in London charitable work. She has personally investigated these abuses ; one London preacher, Stopford Brooke, has thundered against the "sweater" system. There can be no doubt of the aceuracy of her description. These "sweaters," or middlemen, often compel the women to stand motionless one whole day waiting for their pay. Mrs. Chant, at one time, stood motionless as long as she could without fainting, and it was three and one-half hours,- a fact which calis to mind the great tbxopist, Jolin íiowara, wno onen would voluntarily undergo the miseries imposed upon prisoners, so that he could describe them as accurately as possible. These poor women often, under the fear of not getting their wretchedly email earnings, stand hours in one position, and after weary, anxious toil. African slavery is pleasant and cheerful contrasted with the life of the average sewing-women in London. Olí, well, that may be true, but we don't have anything so bad in the United States, says some self-satisfled person. The "sweater" system, however, is said to be well established in New York city. In Minneapolis women are making shirts at 0 cents each ; taloons at 12 cents a pair and overalls at 5 cents. The girls recently asked for 9 cents a piece for shirts, and a large public meeting was held in their interests. At ihis meeting, a Mrs. C. O. Van Cleve, a lady who has engaged in philanthropic work in Minneapolis, said: " I have worked a great deal among eirls who are known as outcasts and 1 have found they became such because they could not earn decent wages. It was ruin or starve. ... I v'8lt.ecJ one woman that I found in a dead faint overa sewing machine, and all tb at 1 found in the house to eat was a little m,n mpal that she made into gruel ior her sick husband and two little children. She was starving herself for them; she was making shirts for six cents apiece and of course could not earn enough to live on. . , " Let me teil you that girls who work out are frequently tempted to do wrong. They generally have to live in small, diney rooms, and have but few comforts with poor food, with ten hours of hard work every day. It becomes like a tread mili. I know of six girls that live in one room, living on bread, cheese and crackers, and hardly enough ot that Such a way of living cannot help but become demoralizing. They lose their self-respect ; then come tions, and they frequently yieia ana go down to ruin." Why should not the deep poverty of London settle down in the cities of this country? Can any one give a good reason ? As a matter of fact, it is coming fast. This is a newer country, but as the country becomes older, we may expect that the same degree of poverty will be seen in our large cities that is geen in London. Why not? Let us not evade this question. Protection cannot prevent this poverty. Free trade cannot. It is stupidity or something worse which claims that either one can.