|
It is well recognized that housing conditions in Phila delphia
are different from those in other large cities, and that whatever the
evils, we do not have to contend with the evils of the tenement. However,
it will not do for Philadelphians to gloat over the fortunate situation
which has enabled so many working-men of the city to live it their own
little homes, sometimes under their own "vine and fig-tree," for we, too,
have evils which call for remedy; we have allowed congestion among our
foreign populations; we have permitted bad housing to grow up; we have
failed to make and to enforce regulations which prevent sickness and
disease and contagion; and, through negligence, the City of Philadelphia
bas problems which it should have coped with ere they role to large
dimensions.
A little study of housing conditions in the southeastern section of the
city was made in the spring of 1902 under the auspices of the Octavia Hill
Association. The writer had the pleasure of taking part in the
investigation, the entire results of which were placed at his disposal.
The five wards of the district to which
attention was given, the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Seventh,
contain about one-eighth of the population of the city and cover about
one-fiftieth of the area. The average density, of the most thickly
populated ward, the Third, is 209 persons per acre.1
The average density for the entire city is 14 persons to the acre. It is
therefore evident that we are dealing with a congested portion of the
city.
I shall take up the figures of
the Jewish block, among the three examined in the investigation referred
to, the other two being Italian and negro blocks respectively,-- so
denominated because the greater part of the inhabitants are of the
particular class. In the Jewish block, Third to Fourth Street, South to
Bainbridge Street, I have note 75 houses occupied by Jews; 9 on Third
Street, 13 on Fourth Street, 13 on South Street, 23 on Kater Street, 3 on
Orianna Street, and 14 on Bainbridge Street. This is, in many respects, a
good illustrative block for our purpose, representing as it does several
elements, from the economic standpoint. On South Street, there are stores
where all sorts of goods may be purchased; it is a regular retail street.
Third and Fourth Streets are likewise occupied by shop-keepers. Bainbridge
Street contains old clothes and second-hand shops. In the upper stories of
these buildings, those portions not occupied by the store-keeper are
rented to tenants, whose occupations are tailoring, peddling and the like.
The residents of the smaller streets, Orianna and Kater, and the upper
floors of the buildings of the main streets are a poorer class than the
merchants of South Street and the shop-keepers of Third and Fourth
Streets.
Let us take up for examination
one of the small streets of the block and ascertain the condition with
reference to housing. On Kater Street we have a record of 23 houses with
Jewish families. There were among them 9 tailors, 3 peddlers, 1 huckster,
1 shirtmaker, 1 paper-hanger. This is sufficient to give some idea of the
economic position of the inhabitants. The average rental per house was
$15.04 per month. This is equal to $8.06 for each family, as there were 40
families in the 23houses. There are thus an average of 1½ families to the
house. The total number of persons in these houses was 299--197 adults and
102 children (under 14 years of age). This is an average of about 5 to a
family, and 8.65 persons to a house. The houses average three stories
each, or 5.83 rooms each, there being altogether 134 rooms. The result is
that there were 1.48 persons to each room, a condition of crowding not
only from a Philadelphia point of view, but from that of congestion
generally. It is a larger number than was found in an investigation in
three similar districts in Chicago, where the average was 1.28. It must be
admitted, however, that a comparison baaed on the number of persons to a
dwelling does not show a bad state of affairs for this population
contrasted with the average of the population in some of the large cities.
In Philadelphia the number of persons in 1900, according to the Twelfth
United States Census, was 5.4. In Baltimore the average number was 5.7, in
St. Louis 7, in Boston 8.4, in Chicago 8.8, in Brooklyn 10.2, in the
boroughs of Manhattan and Bronx {of Greater New York) 20.4. But we are
justi1led in making comparison with congested sections, for our purpose.2
Of course, to make the comparison absolutely accurate
as a basis for sanitary and
health conditions we should have to take into consideration the number of
cubic feet in the rooms, the surrounding of each, and the like, but it is
sufficient here to bring out the fact that a state of crowding exists.
Belonging to the 23 houses on Kater Street there were 22 water closets and
5 privies. This is an average of 1.17 to a house, or .67 to a family, or,
to put the fact in another way, 7 adults and children had the use of one
water-closet or privy.
The total number of bath-tubs in these 23 houses
was 2, of which one is used
only in the summer time.
Twelve of the 23 houses had as their sole water accommodation one hydrant
each, in the yard. Three additional houses had a total of one hydrant for
common use. Two others had one hydrant in common. Thus there is a total of
14 hydrants for 17 houses occupied by 20 families composed of 102 persona,
an average of more than 7 persons (adults and children) to one hydrant for
washing clothes and persons. The other 20 families had altogether 20
faucets.
These statements show housing conditions in a poor street, merely from the
standpoint of the barest and most ordinary health and sanitary
accommodation.
When one considers that comfortable houses with good accommodations can be
found in other sections of the city at $15 per month, it is a fair
inference that the landlord profits by a condition of affairs which
permits bad hous ing;
that, in any event, the tenant does not obtain a good return for his
rental as compared with other sections.
Now, taking in the entire
block, as regards the 75 houses containing Jewish residents, we find that
the total number of persons was 688--372 adults and 316 children. These
represent 142 families. As there were 496 rooms in these houses, the
average number of rooms per house was 6.6. The average number of persons
to the room was 1.39, a condition of crowding above that quoted for
Chicago.3 As the total number of families in these 75 houses
was 142,
the average of
families to the house was 1.9, and as the total nnmber of persons was 688,
the average was 9.17
persons
to the house. This is considerably more than the average for the city at
large (which is but 5.4 persons to the house). It is also more than the
average in the three districts in Philadelphia which were studied. Their
average was 7.55. The average for
the Italian block was 9.88 and for the negro 5.73.
It will be seen that the crowding in the Italian block is the greatest.
In this block
in the 75 houses there were
86
water closets
and 22 privies, making a total of 108, an average of 1.46 to a house, or
1.31 to a family, that is, 6.4 had the use of one water closet or privy.
As to quality, some of these closets and privies are reported as being in
bad condition, which may mean not kept ,cleanly,
insufficient flush of water, so arranged as not to allow of the exhalation
of gaseous odors, and the like. Though something may in instances be due
to the carelessness of tenants, many faults which affect the permanent
health of the community are due to the landlords in not providing adequate
and approved appliances.
There were in the 75 houses altogether 8 bath tubs, of which 3 were used
only in the summer. This is an average of about
86
persons to a
tub.
Such a condition, on its face,
bespeaks a failure to appreciate the value of the bath. It should be
understood, however, that the public bath is often patronized in the
absence of a home bath. There are five private bathing establishments
down-town conducted by Jews and patronized almost entirely by the Jewish
population of this section. They have the ordinary bath and the Russian or
sweat-bath--somewhat
similar in principle to the Turkish bath. The superintendent of the Public
Baths Association at Gaskill Street above Fourth, informs me
that about 40 per cent of the
establishment
there are Jews. Then, too, the public baths of the city are patronized to
a
considerable extent.
It appears, therefore, that there is
more use of bathing facilities than the absence of bath tubs in the houses
indicates. At the same time, it seems that the population needs
considerable education in the use of water for the body. The habits of
Russia and cold climates, where
there was less need for the bath, must be adapted to the at times heated
atmosphere of America and to the modern notions of frequent bathing of the
body as a measure of health. A similar absence of baths is found in the
houses of other foreign born and of the negroea
in this section of the city, but it is regretable to have to institute the
comparison because along other lines the Jew's education and point of view
are
so far advanced over those of
other nationalities.4
Somewhat
similar
results to those above narrated were obtained with reference
to a block further south. The study referred to
was made by a resident of the College Settlement, Miss Edith Jones. The
study embraced Carpenter, Christian, Fourth and Fifth Streets, and the
north side of Christian Street between Fourth and
Fifth. The investigator noted the following: "One observation as regards
nationality needs to be recorded. An Irish family, unless
hopelessly untidy, is thoroughly clean, not only inside
but outside the house and all its surroundings. On
the other hand, the majority of the Jewish homes are clean inside, but
stairways, closets, yards, etc., which must be used in common by several
families, are scarcely cared for at all. They seem
unable to act together or to form any agreement for division of common
duties."
In an uptown
district an investigation into housing conditions was made in 1904 by Mias
Emily W. Dinwiddie for the Octavia Hill Association.5
I visited a number of the houses with her. The district contained 35
houaes on North American Street, 30 on New Market Street, and 8 on Wood
Street, making 73 in which the inhabitants were predominantly Jews out of
a total of 179 houses investigated. The number of Jewish families in these
73 houses was 100, an average of 1.45 families to a house. The total
number of Jewish persona was found to be 606, of which 341 were over
fourteen years of age and 265 under that age. The number of rooms occupied
by the Jewish families was 3.72, making an average of 1.66 persona to a
room. The number per house was 8.36.
The number of
water-closets
was 32 and of privies 42, making a total of 74 toilets, an average of one
to a house, or of one to 8.19 persona each. There
were 122 faucets (usually the only one for a house
being connected with a hydrant in the yard) an average of 1.67 per house,
or 1.22 per family. The number of baths (whose faucets were included in
the total) was 5. That is, there was an average of 121 persons to a tub.
The rentals of
the Jewish families may be judged by those for the district generally.
Families occupying one house paid $8.78 monthly, or $2.32 per room. In
houses for more than one family the average was $5.18 per apartment and
$2.40 per room.
The occupations
of the heads of the 100 Jewish families were as follows: Baker 4,
blacksmith and iron worker 3, button-maker 1,
buttonhole-maker 1, carpenter and cabinetmaker 4, cigar-maker
4, cobbler and shoemaker 4, cooper 1, driver and
expressman 4, fruit-huckster
and fruit-stand dealer 9, glazier 1, hatmaker 3, horse dealer 1, Jewish
teacher 2, junk dealer 1, laborer 1, laundryman 2, leather worker 3,
masseur 1, nurse 1, operator on clothing 5, optician 1, picture
framer 1, polisher 1, presser 3, safemaker 1, salemasn
1, shirtmaker 4, shopkeeper 10, tailor 10, ticket collector 1, tinsmith 3,
trunkmaker 1,
unskilled employee in factory 7.
In the houses
referred to we have illustrations largely of poor conditions and ill-kept
surroundings. It is doubtless true that in the matter of housing, so far
as ean be presented by average statisties, no highly flattering results
are to be adduced with reference to a number of sections in the down-town
portion of the city. The results, to be sure, show standards on the whole
not deficient
as
compared with surrounding populations of foreign immigrants and would in
many respects be on a par with American families of the same economic
status.
If we now
proceed more generally we shall find that among the immigrant Jewish
population, with economic strides there have been
made vast social strides. A number have moved into what are regarded as
more respectable streets, where the surrounding conditions
are more attractive, the houses
better built and modernized, with advantages of good plumbing, ample water
accommodation, well ventilated rooms and the like; and they have been
furnished in a becoming manner. So that when one steps into one of these
homes of the Russian, Roumanian or Hungarian Jew of
better grade and should have any preconceived notions as to dirty,
ill-smelling apartments in the "slums," he will be quickly disillusioned,
and will find a superior state of aflairs. He will see in the family a
social attractiveness, an intellectual interest, and an enthusiastic
whole-souledness that may at times take him aback, and he may be compelled
to admit that the family has even some points of
superiority over many of his acquaintances who do
not live in the "slums" and who pretend to be in an "advanced"
state of mind. And the description does not necessarily
apply to families which have progressed to a fair
state of comfort. It has equal application to large numbers of persons of
modest income who keep their homes tidily, who live in small
streets in small houses, but who nevertheless maintain an appearance
superior to that of their neighbors. I know a number of such, but cannot
bring out their existence in a statistical statement covering any
particular block, for they are in scattered groups.
When, therefore, we
cast up the acoount of the immigrant Jew on the score of
cleanliness we must take into consideration these families, for they give
tone, dignity and worth to the population, and nowhere can be found an
immigrant
class which shows the advanced state which these show.
In all my wanderings in
the southern section of the city I have rarely seen a drunken Jewish man.
My experiences with reference to other nationalities of all sorts,
including native Americans, would place the immigrant Jewish
population
at the head of the list of the non-drunken
portion of the community. The temperateness of the Jewish population and
of the
Russian
Jewish population in particular is
so patent a fact, even to the
ordinary observer, that there is hardly any necessity for dwelling on the
subject. But it must be taken into consideration to the credit of this
element whenever detractors may bring charges against it, for a people
that will preserve itself against the evils of drink is entitled to be
regarded as
in a most progressive state of
civilization
and to be counted
as
in
so
far a
desirable factor in the community. Those who see the evil moral and
economic consequences of drunkenness among other
portions of the community cannot gainsay this.
Russian tea
may be said to be a national beverage. It is quite common to observe this
drunk in the homes, the societies, and the cafes of the Russian Jewish
population.
There is a
very prevalent habit of cigarette smoking. With the college young man the
cigarette habit sometimes gives way to that of the pipe. With the
prosperous
business
man the
cigarette is likewise replaced by the cigar. But, as a rule, the cigarette
may be said to be the prevailing means of inhaling tobacco among the
Russian
Jewish population. In his hours of relaxation, therefore, we
may think of the Russian Jew with his Russian tea and his
cigarette.
Let us
now take up the subject of health and disease among this population.
"Slums
Free of Disease" was the heading of an account in one of the Philadelphia
newspapers in the summer of 1903. The article stated: "The fact that not a
single
case of
smallpox has existed in that section of the city known
as.
the 'slums'
during the present spread of the disease and the consequent absence of the
vaccinating corps in that locality was thus
explained by an official of the Bureau of Health today: 'In every foreign
country, with the exception of England, compulsory vaccination is in
force,' he said.
Those who
might have escaped the vigilance of the physicians or who hail from
England are inspected before they are permitted to land in this country,
and if they have not been successfully vaccinated they must submit to the
operation, or go back.
"Then,
again, their children are not allowed to enter the public
schools
until they have been vaccinated, so you can readily see that the people in
the slum district are the best vaccinated in this city."
Whether this is the whole explanation or not, I do not know, so far as
concerns the various elements of the population, but it will be noted
further on that in regard to the Jewish element, there is a special reason
in the widespread belief in, and practice of vaccination.
Not only was there comparatively less spread of smallpox
in the lower wards of the city, but also diphtheria, scarlet fever and
typhoid, of which diseases epidemics raged in portions of the other parts
of the city. No deduction can be made in
regard to this in behalf of the Jews in the down-town wards of the city,
except that they shared with their neighbors the absence of epidemic in
these diseases.
I have availed myself
of some observations in
regard
to phases of the subject under discussion, which
have been made by two Philadelphia physicians.
The following in regard to diseases among the immigrant Jewish population,
with special reference to conditions in Philadelphia, is by Dr. David
Riesman, and was presented as a discussion
on a
paper on "Health
Problems
of the Jewish Poor," read by Dr. Maurice Fishberg, of New York, at the
Jewish Chautauqua Summer
Assembly
in Atlantic City, N. J.,
July, 1903:
The problems
that present themselves to those engaged in an
effort to ameliorate the condition of the Jewish poor may,
from the medical standpoint, be stated
as
follows:
(1)
What
diseases afflict the Jewish
poor?
(2)
Why do
these diseases afflict them?
(3) How can these diseases be prevented?
The Jewish
poor are, of course, subject to the same maladies
as is the general community in which they live. Scarlet fever, diphtheria,
measles, influenza, whooping cough, pneumonia and typhoid fever prevail
among them, according to
season and epidemic in1luences. With regard to the first two, scarlet
fever and diphtheria, the records of the Municipal Hospital
of Philadelphia, as my friend, Dr. Jay F. Schamberg, informs me, show the
admission of a far larger number of Jewish ahildren than is warranted by
the ratio of these to the general population. I was indeed startled to
learn that not less than 25 per cent of the cases
of scarlet fever had oecurred in children of RussianJewish parentage. In
the case of diphtheria the figures are lower, but none the less striking.
It is highly improbable, however, that the terrible frequency of these two
affections in the children
of the Jewish poor indicates any racial tendency; it is much more
likely to be due to living in crowded quarters, several families
usually being huddled together in one house.
Smallpox, it seems, does not so often attack the Jews as it does their
Gentile neighbors. Among 2,700 cases of that
dieease received into the Municipal Hospital within the last two years,
there was only one Jewish patient. This remarkable immunity is
unquestionably due to the fact that the Jews have an abiding and most
laudable faith in the efficacy of vaccination as a preventive of smallpox.
An unvaccinated Jewish adult is a great rarity.
The multitude of diseases
due to alcoholic excess, aIso,
are rarely met
with among the Jewish poor; for intemperance in drink is not common with
them. If, however, I might judge from my own
limited experience, I should say
that there is a growing fondness for alcohol in the
Jewish population; and that this may in time need to be
combatted.
In addition to
scarlet fever and diphtheria, there are yet other
diseases to which the Jewish poor seem more prone
than their fellow
races. With regard to
some of these it is not possible to give figures; and the belief in a
racial predisposition rests upon impressions
rather than upon statistics. Thus, disorders
of the blood--anemia and purpuric (hemorrhagic)
conditions--appear to be more prevalent among the
Jews. The reason for this is, primarily, the deleterious effects of
poverty and overcrowding; and also the insuftlcient use of green
vegetables and wholesome food in general, and probably the early maturing
of the sexes.
Diseases of the stomach are extremely common among the Jews, particularly
among the Jewish poor--more common than they are in
other races of this dyspeptic country. The cause of
this is not intemperance in eating, which plays such an important part in
producing stomach trouble among the general American population; for the
Russian Jews are quantitatively frugal. Hasty eating, however, poor food--or,
rather food unsuited to this climate, tea drinking, and perhaps undue
indulgence in soda water and kindred beverages,--all
these serve to produce gastic disorders. The
confinement occasioned by the chief occupations of the Jewish poor is also
a factor, as it is a factor in the majority of diseases afflicting
them.
Morbid conditions of the blood vessels are likewise more common among them
than they should be and than they need be. Arterial diseases, such as
hardening of the arteries, occur especially in the men, and are in large
measure due to the abuse of tobacco begun early in life. This and other
excesses that I need not specify are also responsible for the frequency of
palpitation of the heart.
Erysipelas is, I believe, a trifle more
common among the Jewish poor than among the Gentiles (though I have no
extensive data with which to substantiate the
correctness
of this view). At the Philadelphia Hospital, among sixty Russian Jews
admitted during the two years from July, 1901, to July, 1903, there were
six eases of erysipelas, or 10 per cent, a percentage far larger than that
in non-Jews, which was only 4.2. (There were, for instance, twice as many
cases of erysipelas as of rheumatism among the Jews admitted.)
Dr. Fishberg has most admirably discussed the prevalence
of tuberculosis among the Jewish poor; an my friend, Dr. S. Solis-Cohen,
did much on a former occasion to bring this important matter before the
public. They have covered the subject
so fully that I can add
nothing what they said.
Of the frequency of diabetes,
to which the poor Jews are
probably not quite so prone as their wealthy
co-religionists, I need not speak. We know, at present,
too little about the causes of the disease
to make preventive measures possible.
The exceeding prevalence of nervous affection
among the
Jews is recognized as
an axiom in medicine. Nearly
all writers upon nervous
diseases,
including
insanity and idiocy, refer to the fact and try to
ftnd reasons for it. The chief cause, it seems to
me, is heredity in the larger
sense--a racial predisposition
transmitted through
generations. For this hereditary taint, the
grinding intensity of the struggle for existence to
which the Jews of Central
and Eastern Europe have for ages been subjected is
responsible. I need not describe the deplorable and
pitiable
conditions in
Russia, whence the majority of our poor Jews
come.
"In all Europe," says Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu,
"there
is no people poorer, none that is compelled
to
earn ita bread
under greater diftlculties than are nine-tenths of the
Russian
Jews;"and the noted Zionist, Dr. Mandelstamm,
says, with grim humor, that there is no people on which
experiments in starvation and in the results of insufficient
light and air may be made with more ease than on the
Ghetto Jews.
These down-trodden Jews come, therefore, to this country
with a high-strung, unstable, nervous system, which
the
conditions of American life are not likely to improve the first, or
even in the second, generation. Our mode of
living is in itself productive of various nervous disorders.
Nervous prostration (or, as it is called, neurasthenia) has
been discovered in this country by the famous New York
physician, Beard, and Dr. S. Weir Mitchell had devised
his renowned rest-cure treatment for nervous
disease, long
before the Russian hegira had begun.
Some authorities, such as ProfeBsors Erb and Kraepeli of Heidelberg, and
the late Krafft-Ebing, have maintain that in-breeding is, among the Jews,
a factor in producing
hereditary weakness of the nervous system; but Dr. Martin
Engländer, of Vienna, denies this, holding that
from
eight to ten millions of people are sufficient
to preserve a
healthy race. He points to the Americans--a race
produced
by the very opposite of in-breeding, and yet among which neurasthenia is widely prevalent.
Among
the older
stocks of Jews in this country, the Portuguese and the Germans
there has
necessarily
been some in-breeding, but apparently without
harmful effect. The contrary, rather, is the case; the race bas been
improved physically. This improvement is noticeable in greater stature and
in the development of a generally finer type of men and women.
Neurasthenia is most common among the Jews, but hysteria and
insanity and idiocy are likewise
frequent. The neurasthenic Russian Hebrew is an interesting type, and was
aptly compared by Charcot to the Wandering Jew. In an entertaining
monograph, Henry Meige, one of Charcot's pupils, traces the legend of the
Juif-Errant, and compares it with the actual conditions seen in the
migratory, restless Jews of Eastern origin. From the farthest corners of
Europe, undismayed by the bitterest hardships
imposed by poverty, they find their begging way to La Salpêtrière
at Paris. After a few visits to the famous clinic, they vanish
as noiselessly as they come,
wander back to their far-off home and by singing the praises of the great
French specialists, induce others to undertake the wearisome journey.
How can we prevent the spread of nervous affections among
the Jews? How can we eradicate the sinister taint?
Dr. Fiahberg has indicated the direction in which the answer lies. We must
improve economic conditions.
There must be less overcrowding,
shorter hours of work, and rational recreation. If we cannot keep the
Jewish immigrants from settling in the large cities, we
must disperse them there. There is a tendency to spontaneous dispersion in
Philadelphia. Gradually the Russian Jews are migrating northward and
southward from the central Ghetto, but it will take decades before they
are sufficiently scattered to make the hygienic and moral surroundings
what they should be.
The Jewish poor must be taught that the new climate conditions
require the adopting of another
sort of food. They must be instructed in the
harmfulness of the abuse of tobacco.
I should
also like to see them cultivate the manly sports--baseball,
football, rowing, swimming--which do much to
develop the body and to imbue the mind with a spirit of self-respecting,
fearless manhood.
Tuberculosis,
that other great scourge, can best be combatted by education, under the
aegis, as Dr. Fishberg has properly said, of
charitable organizations assisted by medical
advisers. Outdoor life and participation in the national sports will help
to develop the chest, which is decidedly smaller in proportion to height
than that of non-Jews. The dissemination
of knowledge regarding the communicability and the prevention of
tuberculosis that has been un dertaken with such good results, first by
Dr. Biggs, of thl New York Board of Health, and now by the authorities
in Philadelphia, Cleveland, and other cities, will do much
to lessen the frequency of the dreaded disease.
Establishing sanatoria near large cities will also prove
of great benefit as it will render possible an
earlier treatment of the disease; and this is
essential if a cure is to be effected.
With all his proverbial tenacity of character, the Jew
especially the Eastern Jew, is physically and psychically
extremely plastic, and only needs a reasonably favorable
environment to develop into a noble specimen of man. His
energy, intelligence and integrity will solve many of th perplexing
economic problems, and in that way the sanitary and
hygienic questions will in part, at least, be
answered.
On the subject of consumption, the following is
taken from the discussion of Dr. Solomon Solis-Cohen on
Dr.
Fishberg's paper upon the same
oceasion as.Dr.
Riesman's
discussion:
The knowledge of how to prevent consumption is neither
absent nor new. It is old and thoroughly recognized, but
it is not acted upon. Liability to the infection of consumption
comes from lack of food, from overwork, from
over-anxiety, from lack of fresh air, from lack of sunshine,
from lack of cleanliness. The infective agent thrives in
dampness, darkness and filth--dies in
cleanliness, sunshine and fresh
air. Yon cannot shut people up, six, nine in a room
hardly big enough for one, and too damp, dark and
dirty for any,--you cannot have them work indoors
under factory, tenement and sweatshop conditions,
sixteen hours
a day for starvation wages, and expect racial
resistance to tuberculosis or religious dietary laws to save
them. It is an utter impossibility. Some years ago
Dr. Riesman and I went over the records of our
dispensary service at the Philadelphia Polyclinic to see
approximately how large a proportion the number of
consumptive Jews bore to the number of
consumptives of other social groups
who came to the same clinic. We found that a very
large proportion--I think
something like 12 per cent of the poor
Russian
Jews of Philadelphia who applied to that dispensary,
were consumptive; but we also found that the
proportion of the consumptives among these poor Jews
was less by one-third or more than that among the poor
people of other races who came to the same dispensary. In
other words, the racial immunity apparently saved some
poor
Jews, but evidently did not save all. Sweeping conclusions
cannot be drawn from the experience of one physician,
no matter how great that experience may be; for after
all, any one person has but a very limited
experience compared with that of the profession at
large. Yet in so far as I may draw guarded
conclusions from
my
own
experience, it would appear that consumption is largely on
the increase among
the poor Russian Jews of Philadelphia;
that the relative immunity today is less than it was at
the
time Dr. Riesman and I made the investigations referred
to, for my Gratz College lecture. I see proportionally
more
Jewish consumptives than I used to see, and after making
all necessary corrections for personal
factors, that means that the stress and storm of
the struggle for existence are bearing more hardly
upon them, that they are more narrowly crowded, more poorly fed, more
excessively overworked, in a more deplorable economic condition.
This is so, notwithstanding the obvious fact that
many among those who have come to Philadelphia from
Russia, during the past twenty years, have left the ranks of the poor and
comparatively poor, and entered into those of the
well-to-do and the comparatively wealthy. The large increase in
immigration and the natural increase among those who remain
very poor, continue to keep up this disproportion.
1 Annals of
the Academy of Political and Social Science, July, 1902, p. 111.
2
Tenement
Conditions in Chicago, p. 64. Of the three Chicago districts one is
composed of Italian and Jewish residents and the average in this was
1.26 persons per room.
3
Tenement
Conditions in Chicago, p. 64.
4
See
Tenement Conditions in Chicago, p. 108.
5
Housing
Conditions in Philadelphia.
|