unmwmm1...”.111111....111 I 1.31293 1081654926“ F '___ .1"... _ g...) 21;: L13. -. .. . -31; This is to certify that the dissertation entitled "FACTORIES AND WORKERS IN THREE MICHIGAN TOWNS: 1880-1920” presented by Barbara S. Havira has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein History 12a flaw Major professor Date July 29, I986 MS U it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 042771 MSU LIBRARIES M RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. l‘i\f * ’.-« '-'."" “V"- N T" bfi.‘£ T‘s} JL‘N UJJL'WE} 3'55: 1 m 2 0 2002 BE}: {3 6 21103 FACTORIES AND WORKERS IN THREE MICHIGAN TOWNS: 1880-1920 BY Barbara Speas Havira A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1986 4/ ’9‘ - are"; x Copyright by BARBARA SPEAS HAVIRA 1986 ABSTRACT FACTDRIES AND WORKERS IN THREE MICHIGAN Tosz: 1880-1920 BY Barbara Speas Havira This study focuses on the role played by small commun- ities in U. S. industrial expansion and on the character of labor relations in small-town factories, as evidenced by the experiences of three villages in Southwestern Michigan be- tween 1880 and 1920. Technology, legal requirements, unique historical factors, and workers’ social characteristics provide the framework for analysis. Warren Featherbone (Three Oaks), Cooper-wells Hosiery (St. Joseph), and Belding Brothers (Belding), produced tex- tiles and sewing notions. The majority of their workers were white women, both American-born and immigrants, who had neither a pre-industrial artisan heritage nor previous in- dustrial experience. They found steady work, relatively safe workplaces, and modest wages in towns where there was little alternative employment. Interviews and behavior suggest that for them, employment was necessary for family and individual survival, rather than a means of individual mobility or social reform. Paralleling the findings of Walkowitz and Bodnar, the family and local concerns, not the workplace or the economic system, were at the center of their consciousness. There was no evidence of high rates of labor turnover or absenteeism, no unions and only a few recorded incidents of conflict between workers and managers. The few brief strikes were conservative efforts to forestall disadvanta- geous changes in working conditions rather than theoretical- ly inspired working-class challenges to capitalist authority as such. For the most part, the managers prevailed. The small-town settings appear to have had an ambi- valent effect on corporate power. These firms were very powerful because they were the chief employers in their communities; yet their exercise of power was restrained by face-to—face contacts and by their desire to retain the good will and good opinion of the community. To my father, Junius Edwin Speas (1908-1956), my mother, Florence Broeker Speas, and my husband, Robert Donald Havira, with love and gratitude. LIST OF LIST OF CHAPTER I. II. III. Iv. VII ENDNOTES APPENDIX LIST OF TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Vi i FIGURES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Vii-i VILLAGE MANUFACTURING: AN AMERICAN TRADITION . . 1 Small Communities and Industrial Expansion Industrial Villages in Michigan THE FACTORY COMES TO TOWN . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Belding Brothers and Company and Belding Village Cooper-Wells Hosiery Company and St. Joseph Warren Featherbone Company and Three Oaks Village Conclusion MATERIAL WORKING CONDITIONS: MAKING SILK, STOCKINGS, AND STAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Michigan Law and Factory Inspection Production Processes: Belding Brothers and Company Production Processes: Cooper-Wells and Company Production Processes: Warren Featherbone Company Wages and the Division of Labor Conclusion HELP WANTED: WOMEN AND GIRLS PREFERRED . . . . 103 Belding Brothers and Company Cooper-Wells and Company Warren Featherbone Company Conclusion INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Philosophy and Practice at Belding Brothers Philosophy and Practice at Cooper-Wells Philosophy and Practice at Warren Featherbone Conclusion CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 199 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 228 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 vi 11-3. III-1. III-2. III-3. III-4. III-5. IV-l. A-l. A-2. LIST OF TABLES Value Added by Manufacture in States I I I I I I I I I I I United States Population . . Value Added by Manufacture in Michigan Population . . . . . Number of Factories Employing Factories and Workforce Size: Michigan, 1919 . . . . . . . the United 100 or More Albion, Standard Industrial Classification Categories Ionia County Population . . . Berrien County Population . . Featherbone Sales . . . . . . Employees Under Sixteen . . . Violations of Child Labor Laws Average Daily Wage . . . . . Canvass of Women Workers: Average Daily Wage Average Wages of Michigan Factory Employees . Workforce Characteristics, 1900 . List of Factories Employing 100 or More (1919). Employment at Belding Brothers and Company, 1893-1919 s s s s s s s s s 0 Employment at Cooper-Wells and Company, 1893-1919 . . . . . . . . . . Employment at Warren Featherbone Company, 1893-1919 e s s s s s s s s s vii Page 129 228 233 235 236 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page I-1. Thirteen County Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11—1. Major Rivers and Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . 25 viii CHAPTER I VILLAGE MANUFACTURING: AN AMERICAN TRADITION "It is commonly said nowadays that the big manufacturing plants are leaving the cities and locating in the smaller towns." The Acorn, 31 July 1903, Three Oaks, Michigan. This opening quotation from the local newspaper in a small town in southwestern Michigan expresses some wishful thinking on the part of the editor, but also reveals more than a grain of truth about the industrial importance of small towns in the United States. It is well understood that between 1880 and 1920, the United States became a major industrial power, but the substantial contributions made by small communities to America's industrial growth have often been overlooked. This neglect of small town industry applies to the study of labor history as well as to general discussions of economic development. Scholars have paid little attention to the nature and scope of industrialization in small mid- western communities, focusing almost exclusively on large eastern urban centers. The urban immigrant experience and the struggle between workers and managers to control the production process and the distribution of economic and political power have dominated our image of the industrial experience in America. These studies show that millions of immigrants endured crowded and unhealthy living and working conditions as they began new lives in an alien and often hostile society. Frequent unemployment alternating with grueling labor were their common lot. Violent confronta- tions brought some communities to the breaking point. More 2 recently, researchers have paid greater attention to the values and life style of workers themselves, in the work- place, at home and in voluntary activities, but have contin- ued to concentrate on the experience of immigrants in large urban centers, especially those in the northeastern United States.‘ Such approaches overlook the substantial industrial development that occurred in small communities outside the northeast, and the distinctive experiences of their indus- trial workers, many of whom were native born. Since the first textile mills were established in Massachusetts in the early nineteenth century, many thousands of industrial work- ers have lived and worked in small communities throughout the United States. These towns have played a continuous and important role in U.S. manufacturing and have provided rev- enue essential to regional prosperity. By comparison, indus- trial labor in rural villages often brought fewer confronta- tions and less personal distress than occurred in rapidly expanding cities.a Ignoring such workers implies that they are only a mirror of the urban immigrant experience, or are unimportant or vestigial, with little influence on contemporary or future labor relations. On the contrary, these industrial settings were not only significant to the persons who exper- ienced them, but relevant to understanding industrial rela- tions during this period and in later years. In many cases, both manufacturers and workers made deliberate choices to 3 establish themselves in these smaller settlements. Their general knowledge of living and working conditions in urban areas consciously and unconsciously affected their behavior and decisions regarding their respective roles in the indus- trial process. Although machine production imposed substan- tial uniformities on factory work, specific industrial ex- periences varied greatly. Among the factors which condi- tioned those experiences were the technology of production, the idiosyncratic history of and interaction between company and community, current legal requirements and the social characteristics of the workforce. A thorough understanding of industrialization on the national level requires atten- tion to village settings as well as to urban ones, and to the material, ideological and social factors which condi- tioned small-town industrialization. This study will begin to fill in the gaps in our know- ledge about industrial labor by examining the chief industry in each of three villages in Michigan between 1880 and 1920. These are the Warren Featherbone Company of Three Oaks, Berrien county: Cooper-Wells Hosiery Company in St. Joseph, also in Berrien county: and Belding Brothers and Company silk mills in Ionia county.s A number of criteria led to the selection of these three village manufacturers. First, size was a limiting factor. This study of small town or village industry in- cludes only places whose populations were smaller than 10,000 during the entire period under study, 1880-1920. 4 This choice eliminates places which, like Lowell, Massachu- setts, became large cities because of their manufacturing. The number 10,000 is somewhat arbitrary, selected partially because since 1900, the U.S. Census has used it to catego- rize data on manufacturing and population, thus providing a standard scale to measure proportional changes in these factors. These three villages were all smaller than 10,000. Their 1920 populations were: Three Oaks, 1362: Belding, 39113 St. Joseph, 7251. In addition to their industrial roles, these villages continued to provide traditional services to local farmers, retaining some of the flavor and appearance of farming villages. Second, each village had a single major manufacturer which began operations around 1880 and remained in existence for at least forty years. Each employed from 300 to 1000 workers, in settings where there was little alternative manufacturing employment. All three companies were also involved in similar kinds of manufactur- ing, the production of textiles and textile-related items, and employed a high percentage of single women in semi- skilled labor. The recruitment and response of these women and girls to factory employment is an important feature of this study. And finally, each owner-founder had extensive financial interests and family connections in the area. Managers, workers and other villagers were likely to be personally acquainted and to share many values and experiences.“ Despite some differences in size and location, these 5 three villages, St. Joseph, Belding and Three Oaks exper- ienced a similar kind of industrial expansion between 1880 and 1920. For each of them, the lumber boom and the migra- tion of farmers from the East had stimulated earlier periods of economic growth. As the lumber era ended, industry provided a new base for prosperity. During this forty-year period each acquired at least one large industry, more than doubled in population, and installed urban amenities such as paved streets, electricity and piped water. In each commun- ity, local entrepreneurs, not outsiders, established and managed its major industry--in each case one which manufac— tured textiles or sewing notions. Together, these three companies and communities provide valuable data on industrial experience in midwestern towns between 1880 and 1920. Chapter I discusses the contribu- tions of small communities to the growth of manufacturing in the U.S. in general and in Michigan. Later chapters de- scribe the development of each company and its relationship with its town (Chapter II)! the technology and processes essential to their industry (Chapter III): contemporary legal requirements (Chapter III): the social characteristics of their workforces (Chapter IV): and the nature of manage- ment and worker power (Chapter V). The challenges posed by the introduction of factories, such as defining the rela- tionship between workers and management, and establishing the social status of the workers were resolved in ways appropriate to their respective small town settings. 6 Small Communities and Industrial Expansion The triumph of industrialism in the U.S. had modest beginnings when factories and machine production began to replace hand production in homes and small shops in the early nineteenth century. These changes laid the basis for the industrial transformation of America well before the Civil War. The peak volume of home production in the United States probably occurred around 1820 and even though home and hand production continues today, its contribution to total output is negligible. For almost one hundred years nearly all manufacturing in the U.S. has occurred in factory settings. But not all of these factories have been in cities.9 Although often assumed to be inseparable, urban devel- opment and large-scale manufacturing are two distinct phe- nomena. Even the ancient world supported great cities. As late as the eighteenth century, commerce and transportation were more important than manufacturing to the development and prosperity of the two most important cities in the United States, Boston and New York. In the nineteenth century, many of the earliest factories located in rural areas in New England, rather than in established cities. Falling water to power their machines and a river to provide inexpensive transportation for finished goods were more cri- tical than an urban location. Thus the earliest industrial setting in the United States was often a rural village. Sometimes entrepreneurs even constructed entirely new towns 7 such as Lowell, Massachusetts.‘ A few of these sites later developed into large manu- facturing centers but many others remained small towns, or were even abandoned when steam power freed industry from its dependence on falling water. Under the influence of steam engines and railroads in the late nineteenth century, manu- facturing came to be more and more an urban phenomenon, where producers benefitted from greater access to markets, to a large labor supply and to transportation networks. Nevertheless, many factories continued to Operate in older, small communities and as the frontier moved west, pioneering communities established factories in remote areas, both to process raw materials and to manufacture consumer goods for local use. Even though lumbering, agri- culture and mining were the dominant economic activities in frontier areas in the midwest, manufacturing for local and regional markets became a significant part of the economy.’ Many of these local manufacturers in the midwest em- ployed only a few workers and were unable to compete with larger producers once the railroad opened the region to national markets. However, others clearly intended to meet more than local needs. For example, Alice E. Smith’s Mill; stone and Saw: The Origins of Neenah-flenasha, and Charles N. Glaab and Lawrence H. Larsen's Eactories in thg Valley; Neenah-negashg, 1870-1910 provide a detailed history of the development of the paper industry in several small towns along the Fox River in Wisconsin. Leaders in these settle- 8 ments actively sought to become major urban centers and hoped to avoid being just another small Midwestern manufac- turing community.‘ Boosterism inspired dreams of greatness in settlements throughout the Midwest, affecting real estate speculators, entrepreneurs and the populace in general.’ Although agriculture continued to provide most people's livelihood in the old Northwest, it is clear that by the late nineteenth century manufacturing also played an impor- tant role. Local industry not only met local needs but stimulated the commercial production of primary products and helped integrate these newly settled areas into the regional and national economies. The railroad which threatened the survival of some local industries by exposing them to na- tional competition also provided opportunities for manufac- turers in small towns to adopt large scale production meth— ods and enter the wider competitive economy themselves. In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, hundreds of manufacturers did just that, thereby creating widespread industrialization outside an urban setting. It is the nature of the industrial experience in small towns between 1880 and 1920 that is the focus of this study. In 1890, the Superintendent of the U.S. Census an- nounced that the department would no longer report on the extent of the frontier and on its westward movement because "at the present the unsettled area has been so broken into ...that there can hardly be said to be a frontier line."*° This announcement startled and disturbed many who were con- 9 vinced that the existence of a nearly unlimited supply of free land was essential to U.S. social and economic prog- ress. Yet even as the land frontier was declared "closed," the nation was rapidly developing new frontiers, as an industrial power. Despite the panic of 1893 and the 1907 recession, the decades that followed resulted in remarkable changes in the U.S. economic system, in living styles and in population. By 1920 manufacturing employment had rivalled and surpassed employment in agriculture; more than one-half of the population lived in "urban places": and waves of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe had crowded into central cities in the East and Midwest. The railroad had opened the West and the automobile was about to begin its transformation of American life.“ Data on the volume of manufactures provide a glimpse of the scale of this industrial expansion. As shown in Table I-1, value added by manufacture in the U. S. increased more than 500 per cent between 1899 and 1919, from $4.8 billion to more than :25 billion (See Table I-1 for defini- tion of value added). The greatest percentage of increase in population and manufacturing occurred in cities, espcial- ly in those larger than 10,000. But many smaller communi- ties also experienced changes in the same direction, in- creasing population and increasing manufacturing employment. Individual small towns may have suffered decline, but as a group, places smaller than 10,000 continued to contribute substantially to American industrialization (Table I-2). 10 Table I-1 Value Added’ by Manufacture in the United States In Incorporated In Places Less Year Total Places over 10,000 than 10,000 Number (per cent) Number (per cent) 1899 $4,831,075,210 $3,377,477,927 $1,453,597,283 (69.6 per cent) (30.1 per cent) 1904 t6,293,694,753 1909 $8,529,260,992 05,999,237,370 $2,530,023,622 (70.3 per cent) (29.7 per cent) 1914 $9,878,345,893 $7,058,885,577 $2,819,460,316 (71.5 per cent) (28.5 per cent) 1919 $25,041,698,490 $18,543,530,808 $6,498,167,682 (74.1 per cent) (25.9 per cent) 'Value added equals the dollar value of manufactured pro- ducts minus the cost of raw materials. Many economists consider this to be a better measure of the contribution of manufacturing to the economy than the gross dollar value of products because it controls for the relative cost of raw materials. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Thirteenth Census of the United States, 1910, Vol. VIII, hgnufacthres: Senegal Report, p. 1188 EQurtggpth Census of the Uhited States, 1220, Vol. VIII, hgnufggtucgg: General Report, pp. 14, 106. Although this study covers years before 1899, in some cases the earliest data cited will be for 1899. U.S. manufactur- ing census data before 1899 are not strictly comparable with later data. Before 1899, census data on "manufacturing" included hand work and neighborhood producers, such as mil- liners, carpenters, dressmakers, and blacksmiths, whereas later censuses excluded such occupations. Explanation from Thirteenth Census, 1910, Vol. VIII, p. 18. 11 Between 1899 and 1919, from 25.9 to 30.1 per cent of total value added by manufacturing was produced in places smaller than 10,000 in population (Table I-1). Although there was a huge increase in the absolute value of manufacturing output in large cities (from nearly $3.4 to $18.5 billion, a 550 per cent increase), the volume produced in places smaller than 10,000 also increased 470 per cent, from $1.4 billion to nearly $6.5 billion. Despite an huge increase in popula- tion, the per cent of manufacturing produced in places of more than 10,000 grew very gradually during most of the years between 1899 and 1919. In 1910 the census noted the continuing importance of manufacturing in smaller communi- ties in the following observation: It is noteworthy, however, that whereas places of 10,000 or more inhabitants contained a materially larger proportion of the population of the country in 1910 than they did in 1900--37 per cent as against 31.7 Per cent--there was only a very slight increase in their proportions of the total number of manufacturing establishments, the wage earners in manufacturing industries, and the total value added by manufactures, and practically no change in their proportion of the total value of products. In other words, while these communi- ties, considered as a group, have perhaps a little more than held their own in relative importance in manufacturing, they have not gained in this re- spect commensurate with their population.‘2 In other words, until World War I, the populations of places of 10,000 or more grew more rapidly than their manufacturing output. Only the years 1914-1919 witnessed a sharp increase in the percentage of manufacturing which occurred in cities greater than 10,000 in population. The industrial expansion associated with World War I established the industrial domi- 12 Table I-2 United States Population Per cent in cities Per cent in places Year Total over 10,000 under 10,000 1890 62,622,250 29.2“ 1900 75,994,575 32 68 1910 91,972,266 37 63 1915 98,781,324 39.1 60.9 1920 105,710,620 42.3 57.7 Source: Eleventh Census, 1890, Vol. I, Part I, p. xi! Four- gnentn Qensus, 1920, Vol. VIII, p. 106. ‘Per cent in cities of 8000 or more. Table I-3 Value Added by Manufacture in Michigan In Incorporated In Places Less Year Total Places over 10,000 Than 10,000 Number (per cent) Number (per cent) 1899 $143,725,728 $85,008,397 $58,717,331 (59.1 per cent) (40.9 per cent) 1909 $316,497,147 $225,647,464 $90,849,683 (71.3 per cent) (28.7 per cent) 1914 $493,361,368 $313,194,451 $180,166,917 (63.5 per cent) (36.5 per cent) 1919 $1,546,945,240 $1,288,383,086 $258,562,154 (83.3 per cent) (16.7 per cent) Source: Inirteentn Census, 1910, Vol. IX, pp. 547-548, 556) Egurtngnth Census, 1920, Vol. IX, p. 685. Table I-4 Michigan Population Per cent in Cities Per cent in Places Year Total over 10,000 under 10,000 1890 2,093,890 23.9 76.1 1900 2,420,982 28.1 71.9 1910 2,810.173 37.1 62.9 1915 2,976,030 40.1 59.9 1920 3,668,412 51.6 48.4 Source: Iningnentn ansus, 1210, Vol. IX, pp. 447, 5568 Eounteenth ansus, 1220, Vol. I, Ponnlation, p. 54! Vol. IX, p. 685. 13 nance of larger cities. By 1919, these larger urban areas had increased their share of manufacturing output from 69.9% in 1899 to 74.1% (Table I-1). The data for Michigan offer some interesting variations on this national pattern (Tables I-3, I-4). These differen- ces reflect both its relatively recent settlement and the disproportionate growth of cities in the southeastern part of the state. In particular, Detroit, Flint and Lansing grew very rapidly in the early twentieth century because of the growth of the automobile industry and the general expan- sion in heavy industry related to World War I." From 1899 to 1919, the value of Michigan production rose from $143.7 million to $1,500 million, more than a 1000 per cent increase, double the national average. The ratio between the value of goods produced in areas in Michigan that were greater and smaller than 10,000 also differed from the national ratio. In 1899, the proportion of manufactur- ing outside cities of 10,000 population in Michigan was greater than the national average--40.9 per cent compared to 30.1 per cent. By 1909, the Michigan and U.S. ratios were more similar, 28.1 per cent for Michigan and 29.6 per cent for the U.S. as a whole. Between 1909 and 1914 there was a dramatic increase both in the absolute volume of manufactures in Michigan and in the percentage of production which occurred in places less than 10,000 in population in Michigan. By 1914, the large cities in Michigan had actually lost ground relative 14 to the smaller communities, whose share of manufacturing in- creased from 28.7 per cent in 1909 to 36.5 per cent. How- ever, between 1914 and 1919, the booming automobile industry and the demands of World War I production resulted in an astonishing 400 per cent increase in manufacturing output in large Michigan cities, thus raising their proportion from 63.5 per cent to 83.3 per cent of the total value added by manufacturing in the state. During these same five years, smaller communities in Michigan also increased manufacturing output, but by less than 50 per cent, only half of their growth rate in the previous five years. By 1919, these smaller places provided only 16.7 per cent of the total value added, compared to 36.5 per cent in 1914 (Table I-3). By 1919, manufacturing was much more concentrated geo- graphically in Michigan large cities (83.3%) than in large cities in the United States as a whole (74.1%), but it was still true that large numbers of people in Michigan and throughout the country experienced industrial labor outside an urban setting (Tables I-1, I-3). Large factories re- quired substantial capital, combined several processes under unified management in hierarchically organized work environ- ments, and used semi-skilled labor and large-scale machine production to make standardized items. Firms in small com- munities addressed many of the same issues as did those in large metropolitan areas, including technological develop- nvent, marketing, and labor and community relations. Although after 1920, large cities played a relatively greater role in 15 manufacturing, factories continued to operated in small towns in Michigan and throughout the country.“ In order to better understand their contributions to general industrial development and to the prosperity of specific communities, this study will examine selected industries in small towns in southwestern Michigan. Industrial Villages in Michigan In the popular mind, Michigan’s importance in manufac- turing is limited to its role in the automobile and related industries. These are concentrated in the southeastern part of the state, especially in Detroit, Flint, Lansing and Jackson. However, in the late nineteenth century, Michigan had a diversified manufacturing base that included the southwestern counties. In 1920, these counties contained only five cities larger than 10,000 and no one industry dominated the region.*' These counties will provide the sample for this study of industry in small towns. A survey of the Benonts of the Michigan Bureau of Labor at ten year intervals (1900, 1910, 1920) for thirteen coun- ties in southwestern Michigan, documents the extent of the phenomenon of industrial villages in Michigan. (See map, Figure I-1.) This survey reveals dozens of manufacturing establishments which employed at least 100 persons and which were located in cities that contained fewer than 10,000 people (Table I-5). In this thirteeen county area, there (were thirty-seven such establishments in twenty-two towns in 16 /” ‘~ I” ,0" ~\, / *“ '\ o’ P‘- ~\ ,/ IA“ ”’0 5‘ o . \. I", .-:” '\.. \ m“ ..\,. CANADA «no -=-=-:-=-=3=' -232:2:33§3§?§§§' =2. .N- 3':':':‘:':': W ate-w- nem- "' e e n u as 3:399:52: 42:33:}: :§:3:§:§:::; . . ' ! ..:.:.:.:. W “*1; “*5 min-nu a“ )1. A K! — - 4w {“3 ......... .. INDIANA "— bfié. ERIE (Map: Department of Natutal Ruimuces.) Figure I-1 Thirteen County Area 17 1899. In 1909, there were forty-four in twenty-four towns: and by 1919, there were seventy-four establishments located in thirty-nine different towns. Table A-1 in the Appendix provides a complete list of the seventy-four village facto- ries, their products, locations, town populations, and num- bers of employees, as recorded in the 1920 Bgnnn_. These figures exclude all factories in cities larger than 10,000 which were located in this thirteen county region, cities such as Grand Rapids, Battle Creek and Kalamazoo. This tally makes no distinctions among establishments which were in operation during one, two or all three of the selected years. Even companies which continued in operation during all three sample years were not counted during a year in which they employed fewer than 100, nor when/if their cities grew larger than 10,000. Table I-5 Number of Factories Employing 100 or More Year Number of Factories Number of Sites 1899 37 22 1909 44 24 1919 74 39 Source: Michigan Bureau of Labor. Bnnorts. 1900, 1910, 1920. The Benorts contained data for previous year. This emphasis on companies which employed 100 or more is Justified for two reasons. First, a minimum workforce of 100 is large enough to be fairly certain that the establish- ment will fit the definition of a factory outlined above - one characterized by hierarchically organized large-scale machine production. It is also appropriate because such a 18 category includes most manufacturing employees during these years. Both nationally and in these Michigan counties, most manufacturers employed only a few people each, however a small number of relatively large factories produced most of the output and employed most of the workers. Analysis of the 1919 U.S. Census of Manufactures shows that over 90 per cent of manufacturers employed 100 or fewer employees each, and together these employed only 30 per cent of the wage earners in manufacturing. The relative impor— tance of large establishments increased dramatically for establishments larger than 101. Those employing 101-500 persons made up 4.7 per cent of the total but employed 31.2 per cent of the wage earners. In 1919 nearly 40 per cent of the wage earners were in plants which employed over 500, which represented less than 1 per cent of the total number of establishments. This pattern is particularly marked for factories larger than 1000, which represented less than one- third of 1 per cent of the total number, but employed over 26 per cent of the wage earners.“. The small towns in the thirteen county sample from southwestern Michigan reveal a similar pattern] namely, that the few largest plants employed nearly all of the industrial workers. For example, the 1920 Michigan Bureau of Labor 82295;, listed 56 manufacturers in Albion, Michigan (eastern Calhoun County) which employed a total of 2652 persons. Of these 56 manufacturing establishments, twenty employed fewer than five persons each, a total of 59 workers. Only five 19 Table I-6 Factories and Workforce Size: Albion, Michigan, 1919 Employees per Establishments Total Employed Establishment Number Per cent Number Per cent 1-4 20 35.7% 59 2.2% 5-10 18 32.1% 113 4.6% 11-20 10 17.9% 151 5.7% 21-50 2 3.6% 72 2.7% 51-100 1 1.8% 90 3.4% over 100 5 8.9% 2157 81.3% Total 56 100.0% 2652 100.0% Source: Michigan. Bureau of Labor. Bgnnn_. 1920. establishments employed more than 100, but these five ac- counted for 2157, or 81.3 per cent of all the manufacturing workers in Albion (Table I-6). This data is slightly distorted by the fact that the Michigan Bureau included as manufacturing certain kinds of hand and neighborhood production that were excluded in the U.S. manufacturing census. However, even if one excludes the establishments with under five employees, such as the bakery, millinery, laundry, and auto repair, the relative importance of the large employers is clear. Most of the industrial laborers in small communities worked in large, not small establishments, therefore it is reasonable to concentrate on these few large employers when analyzing industrial labor conditions in these small communities. Aided by improved rail transportation and stimulated by Inarkets in nearby Chicago, many small communities in south 20 Table I-7 Standard Industrial Classification Categories *20 Food and Kindred Products 21 Tobacco and Tobacco Products *22 Textile Mill Products *23 Apparel and Related Products *24 Lumber and Wood Products *25 Furniture and Fixtures *26 Paper and Allied Products *27 Printing and Publishing 28 Chemicals and Allied Products 29 Petroleum and Coal Products 30 Rubber and Plastics Products *31 Leather and Leather Products *32 Stone, Clay, and Glass Products *33 Primary Metals Products *34 Fabricated Metals Products *35 Non-electrical Machinery *36 Electrical Machinery *37 Transportation Equipment 38 Instruments and Related Products *39 Miscellaneous Manufacturing (includes Ordnance) Source: Albert W. Niemi, St e and io a Pa terns in nuf ctu in 1860- 900 (Westport, Conn.: Green- wood Press, 1974), pp. 105-111. Niemi converted manufactur- ing census data for the years 1860 to 1900, which was di- vided into nearly 600 different categories, and which varied from one census to another, into one of the twenty major manufacturing industry groupings in the Standard Industrial Classification System. Such a reorganization permitted him to compare structural changes between censuses and between different regions and states (pp. ix-x). I used Niemi's system to categorize the factories in Appen- dix, Table A-1 into appropriate classications. * Marks the categories represented in Table A-1, which lists factories employing 100 or more, in towns under 10,000, in thirteen southwestern Michigan counties in 1919 (from Michigan Bureau of Labor 32295;, 1920). 21 western Michigan expanded their production and processing of primary products on a commercial scale and manufactured, sophisticated consumer and capital goods in the late nine- teenth and early twentieth century. Table I-5 indicates the number of such producers in this sample, and Table A-1 and Table I-7 reveal wide diversity among these manufacturers. For example, Table A-1 lists nine paper mills and twelve manufacturers of furniture and wood products. This is not surprising since these thirteen counties had been heavily forested, mostly with hardwoods. But factories in small towns in southwestern Michigan also made pianos (2), fur- naces (3), automobile parts (7), wool, cotton and silk yarn, notions, clothing and textiles (8), and specialty products such as power presses and store fixtures. These towns also made refrigerators (2), tanned leather (2), operated canner- ies (3), and built and repaired railway cars (2). (Numbers in parentheses refer to numbers of establishments listed in Table A-1.)~ Table I-7 provides a more formal measure of this diversity, since the seventy-four companies in the 1920 Benort represent fifteen of the twenty categories in the Standard Industrial Classification system. These small communities attracted many types of indus- try. The materials, technology, land, know-how, capital and labor necessary for these and other types of production were readily available. Steam power for production and water and rail transportation created great flexibility in choosing production sites. Both raw materials and coal for power 22 could easily be imported. Local business leaders commonly welcomed new industry and even solicited new factories by offering sites, tax breaks, loans and/or new buildings. They often formed organizations called "improvement associa- tions,“ or "commercial clubs" to advertise their towns and negotiate with prospective industrialists. According to one historian, ”Everywhere, associations of businessmen crusaded in behalf of local progress.”" In addition to these pri- vately funded efforts, village councils offered attractive packages to new employers. In general, business leaders in small communities were enthusiastic about expanding local industry and concerned with making their towns attractive to industry by improving transportation facilities and provid- ing water, electricity and fire protection. At a minimum, manufacturers, including the three in this study, must have thought that they had a good chance to establish successful enterprises. They did not appear to regard the small town location as an insurmountable obstacle. Each company expec- ted to find the labor and materials, the transportation and marketing facilities they needed. In general, they were not disappointed. CHAPTER II THE FACTORY COMES TO TOWN This chapter discusses three specific examples of manu- facturing companies that thrived in small towns in Michigan between the 1880's and 1920's. None of them used local raw materials, and all of them produced textile or apparel items for regional or national markets. Why and how did each firm choose to establish its factory in this site? How did each use advertising and marketing to create a niche for its products? What kind of relationship did each company have with its host city? What impact did these companies have on the economics and politics of their communities? What are some of the major changes that occurred in each settlement during these forty years? The answers to these questions help us understand the character of small-town industry in America. Belding Brothers and Company and Belding Village Belding village is located on the Flat River, in Ionia county about thirty-five miles northeast of Grand Rapids (See map, Figure II-1).‘ Between 1885 and 1832, it was the site of four Belding Brothers and Company silk mills. The surrounding area was and is heavily agricultural, not indus- trial. As late as 1910, 94.9 per cent of the land in Ionia County was in farms.” Nor did the silk mills cause drama- tic change in county population. Its population changed little between 1890 and 1920 (Table II-l). During this period, approximately ninety per cent of Ionia County resi- 24 dents were born in the United States. Many were migrants, or the children of migrants, from New York and New England. In the nineteenth century, New Englanders made up a large percentage of Michigan's population and played major roles in Michigan politics, reform movements and education.3 Ac- cording to Michigan historians, Dunbar and May, "Nowhere in the West did the Yankee stock predominate to the degree that it did in Michigan."‘ The Belding family made up part of that New England migration to Michigan. Table II-1 Ionia County Population 1890 1900 1910 1920 Total 32,801 34,329 33,550 33,087 Native white, *29,140 23,577 23,405 23,513 native parents 88.7% 68.7% 69.8% 71.1% Native white, 7,348 7,116 6,938 foreign or mixed 21.4% 21.2% 21.0% parents Foreign born, 3,661 3,308 2,935 2,506 white 11.0% 9.6% 8.7% 7.6% Negro 92 95 90 99 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Eleventh Censns of the United States, 1890, Com e diu of the Part I. 829442: tion, p. 491: Ihirteenth Census of thgfiUnitgd_States, 1910, Vol. II, Eonulation, p. 9386 States, 1220, Vol. III, Eonulatgon, 6; 1900, "Asians and other": 1890, *Parentage not specified. 490. 1; 1910, 4: pe Eourteenth Census of the United Table omits 31. Although they were most intimately associated after the silk mills opened, the village and the Belding family were connected even before 1885. Belding Brothers and Company also maintained business activities elsewhere before and 25 LAKE MICHIGAN KALAMAZOO r———— We“ am W Figure II-i Major Rivers and Railroads 26 during the period of manufacturing silk in Belding, Michi- gan.‘ The Belding connection began in the 1850’s when Hiram and Mary Wilson Belding came to the Flat River area from their farm in Massachusetts.‘ Three of their four sons, Milo M., Hiram H., and Alvah N., helped clear some of the fifty acres their parents had purchased from an earlier settler.’ At this time, the settlement was known as Patter- son’s Mill, after Lucius Patterson, who owned a dam and saw mill there.’ Pioneer farming did not appeal to Milo, who soon re- turned east where he peddled various articles to village merchants. Back in Michigan, Hiram and Alvah also tired of farming. After Milo sent them some silk thread on credit, they began a little peddling themselves, visiting the scat- tered homes and villages in central Michigan.’ In a letter to his brother, one of them humorously remarked that "there wouldn’t be any need for stores up here for a thousand years."‘° Since the region was so thinly settled, their father drove them in the wagon several miles from their farm and then dropped them off to begin walking. They spent each day travelling separate routes, met each evening at a pre- arranged spot, and returned home only several days later. Sales at individual farms were light, but sales to merchants in small settlements made their trips worth while.“ Although at times they carried a variety of goods, they gradually concentrated on silk thread and fabric because 27 they could obtain more credit for these items through their brother.‘3 There was little money or occasion for fancy clothes and decorations in frontier areas, but a small amount of silk was always in demand. It was common for adults to have one good silk dress, or a suit or coat with a silk lining. New pieces of fabric were needed to mend and alter older garments. Silk thread was strong enough to make it a practical as well as a luxury choice at a time when high quality cotton thread was not yet available. As business improved, they first hired assistants, then gave up walking, bought horses and wagons and carried their goods in trunks instead of knapsacks. They were making money, but there were still relatively few customers in the limited area around Patterson's Mill. They were encouraged by the success of these local trips to try an eight-month sales expedition to stores in Indiana, Illinois, and Wis- consin. Since they came home with money in their pockets, they decided to expand their business.*' Belding Brothers and Company officially came into exis- tence in 1863 when their brother Milo joined Alvah and Hiram. Milo came to Chicago to manage the new sales office there. At first, Hiram and Alvah stayed on the road, as they had since their first small sales trips around Patter- son's Mills. The fourth brother, David, joined the part- nership soon after this and took charge of a second distri- bution center in Cincinnati. By the end of the century they had opened additional offices in New York, St. Paul, St. 28 Louis, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, and Montreal.‘4 In order to improve the company’s control over the quality of their goods and to insure prompt delivery, they decided to manufacture their own silk thread. Since none of them had any experience in a silk mill, they formed a part- nership with one of their suppliers, E. R. Rose, in 1864. This partnership soon failed and Belding Brothers and Compa- ny began manufacturing silk thread on its own in 1866. Alvah was given the job of managing their first mill in Rockville, Connecticut.‘° While Belding Brothers and Company was getting estab- lished as a manufacturer as well as merchant of silk thread, the village on the Flat River in Otisco Township had changed little since their parents had arrived ten years earlier. Agriculture and lumbering were the chief economic activi- ties, and the population remained small. The 1870 census for Otisco Township listed only 1570 persons, 342 fami- lies.“ According to an early twentieth-century county history, the settlement itself had only thirteen families in 1871." Nevetheless, the Belding brothers (Hiram, Milo, Alvah) saw business opportunities in the little community. In 1868, they began buying land to divide into town lots. According to the local newspaper, Hiram H. Belding was also instrumental in bringing a furniture factory and a new saw mill to the village. In 1871, Hiram organized the construc- tion of a one and one-half mile railroad to link the village with the main line. Since the railroad provided freight 29 service only, he and a partner, George W. Ellis, formed the Belding Horse Car Company to provide passenger service to the main railroad line." According to the newspaper in a nearby town, it was at this time in 1871 that the village adopted the name “Belding," in honor of the Belding Broth— ers, "silk merchants of New York, Chicago and Cincinnati, who are largely interested in the place."*’ The Belding brothers no longer lived there, yet they retained an "inter- est" in and even invested (or speculated) in village devel- opment. Hiram, who had taken over the Chicago office when the company sent Milo to New York, spent several months in the summer supervising these investments.'° Belding village was located on the southern edge of one of Michigan’s great pine forests. The Flat River, a tribu- tary of the Grand River, drained one of the regions that was logged in the 1870’s and 1880's. Each spring the river was jammed with logs being floated down to sawmills.3* The Bel— ding newspaper estimated that 400 men worked driving logs on the Flat River in 1880.33 The railroad and the large new saw mill built by the New York firm of Wilson, Luther and Wilson gave a boost to Belding. The Wilson, Luther and Wilson mill could cut over fifty thousand board feet of lumber a day, and shipped approximately 600,000 feet per year. By 1879, they employed fifty to one hundred men year around, in lumber camps and in the mill.'° Lumbering and farming were mutually supporting at this time. Prospective farmers were eager to purchase cut-over 30 lands and avoid the trouble of clearing the trees them- selves. Some farmers worked as lumberjacks during the win- ter, glad of the opportunity to earn cash. Farmers also earned cash by selling food to the logging camps and wheat to grain dealers.3‘ In 1879 Belding had three grain dealers." The largest of these, Leonard and Divine, shipped 100,000 bushels of wheat in 1878 and 126,000 bushels in 1879." Despite the volume of grain and lumber that moved through it, the village was still primarily a small service center for farmers and lumbermen. In 1879, the eldin o e ews' Business Directory listed typical village businesses and no manufacturing. There was a banker, a general store and a livery stable. One could buy hats, boots, harnesses and the services of a doctor, blacksmith, painter and barber." According to the 1880 census, there were 562 people in Belding." The 1879 school district census counted 650, including 188 school-age children." Meanwhile, Belding Brothers and Company established a second mill in Northampton, Massachusetts in 1872.°° The late nineteenth century proved to be a good time to enter silk manufacturing in the United States. Improved technolo- gy had lowered production costs while home decorating and dress fashions encouraged increased consumption. Domestic producers benefitted from a tariff of fifty per cent on imported silk. The value of domestic silk products in- creased more than twenty-fold between 1870 and 1914.3‘ Bel- ding Brothers and Company soon became well known for its 31 high quality thread and fabrics, and won prizes at state, national and international exhibits.'3 Until 1885, the Belding brothers' investments in the village and their silk business had been separate opera- tions. These two actitivies became linked in 1885 when the company announced its plan to build both a thread mill and a hotel in Belding. Speaking to a reporter in 1901, Alvah Belding described how Belding became Michigan's "Silk City.“ One day my brother and I came back here to Belding, just to see the town. That was about sixteen years ago--oh, yes, we’re old men now, but there was something that drew us back, remem- brances of our boyhood, I suppose. Anyway we looked over what had once been the homestead farm. It had grown into quite a village of market gar- deners and small farmers. Said I to my brother: "What say you to building a mill here, just to help the old town along?" He thought it a good idea. There’s where the sentiment came in. Of course a business can’t be conducted along senti- mental lines alone. A little hard-headed commer- cial sense must come in somewhere so we began to figure. We learned that we could take care of our help more cheaply here than in the east. We didn't need to think much more about it. Within three months ground was broken for the mill. We told the people here we had come back to the old boyhood home to help the town along: told them we’d employ about 400 hands and build a hotel and do a few more things, to show the Belding folks we’d not deserted them for good. We’ve done it sir.°' Indeed there were several ”hard-headed commercial" reasons why Belding would make a good manufacturing site. There was plenty of land available, as well as water, water power and railroad service." The Belding brothers already owned about one-quarter of the land in the village, includ- ing lots on Main Street and fronting property on both sides of the river." The village was relatively close to Chica- 32 go, a distribution center for Belding Brothers and Company. It was apparent that the population of the midwest region would continue to increase, promising even better markets. And last, there was no concern over labor. The company expected that people from the surrounding area would seek out jobs, and they were not mistaken. Surrounding farms supplied unskilled labor and the brothers were quite frank about the fact that they could "take care of (their) help more cheaply [in Belding) than in the east." In 1885, Frederick A. Washburn came from the Belding company’s New England mills to supervise the construction of the new mill in Michigan. Inexplicably this first mill was immediately sold to George Richardson of Chicago, a former manager of Belding Brothers and Company's Cincinnati office. Washburn became Richardson’s employee and the chief superin- tendent of the mill until he retired in 1920. Belding Brothers and Company constructed their own thread mill in 1890, a weaving mill in 1901 and converted an existing building for use as a second weaving mill in 1909. In the twentieth century, Belding Brothers and Company reacquired the Richardson mill and renamed it Mill #4. During the twenty years when the companies were legally separate, their directors and superintendents were close associates. Writ- ten records and interviews with villagers confirm that the Richardson Mill was equipped and managed much like those of Belding Brothers and Company." Given these similarities, this study discusses all the silk mills in Belding as if _._.—'___.— _. - 33 they had been continuously managed by Belding Brothers and Company. The Belding brothers also continued real estate devel- opment and other investments in the village. In 1884, Hiram Hurlbert Belding was a part owner and President of the Belding Manufacturing Company, which was later absorbed by the Belding-Hall Manufacturing Company. After the Hotel Belding was completed in 1888, it was turned over to the newly formed Belding Land and Improvement Company, formed by Hiram, Alvah, Milo (senior), and Milo (junior). Besides operating the Hotel, the Belding Land and Improvement Compa- ny sold village lots and constructed downtown business buildings. Alvah Belding and Milo Belding, Jr. served on the Board of Directors of the Belding Savings Bank. The company also built dormitories and single family homes for their employees." There is no evidence that the family or Belding Broth- ers and Company directly participated in village politics, but its interests must always have been a consideration. The Belding brothers were probably temperance men, since their hotel never served liquor, but they did not campaign for prohibition in the village." Publicly, the company supported village improvements, even those that cost it money, such as street paving and sewers." The 1901 weav- ing mill was built in Belding on the condition that it would be exempt from taxes for ten years. In exchange, the compa- ny gave the city ten acres of land for a city park.‘° The 34 company also received some tax relief (about $900) for the second weaving mill, ten years later.“ Such tax breaks were common practice in Belding and in other cities. In 1897, the village had offered new industries a free building and power plant for five years, plus moving expenses and $1000.“:I Private subscibers had paid the taxes for another village factory for ten years." In 1920, Belding was a pleasant village with paved streets, electricity and plenty of open space. A city park bordered the lovely Flat River which winds through the town.“ Belding offered services to nearby farmers, but was also a factory village that manufactured silk, refrig- erators, baskets and shoes (Appendix, Table A-1). With the construction of new factories, Belding’s population expanded rapidly in the late nineteenth century, then stabilized. From 562 in 1880, it grew to 1,730 in 1890, 3,283 in 1900, 4,119 in 1910, and 3911 in 1920.4. The four silk mills were by far the most important industry. In 1910, they employed approximately 1200 persons, a number equal to more than a quarter of the village’s population. For at least ten years (1907-1916), the silk mills employed more people than all other factories combined (See Appendix, Tables A-1 and A-2). After the establishment of the Richardson Silk Company in 1886, the demand for silk and the supply of labor supported the expansion of silk manufacture in Belding for more than thirty years. Early in its history, Belding Brothers and Company 35 decided to limit itself to making and selling only high quality staple silk products, thus avoiding the severe mar- ket fluctuations that affected specialty and fad items.“ Eventually it sold only its own branded products so it could guarantee both their quality and availability. At first its mills produced only hand-sewing silk for embroidery, cro- cheting and darning, and machine-sewing thread.‘7 Later it added weaving mills which produced plain and striped silks for linings, dresses, petticoats and veils. Belding Broth- ers and Company advertising stressed the durability of its silk. The Company used only pure dyes, and refused to add the metallic salts used by some manufacturers, because al- though these salts added lustre and weight to the fabric, they also made it susceptible to fading and wear. The Belding name was woven into the selvage of all its fabric and the company promised to replace any that split, ripped or tore." In addition to its mills in Michigan, Belding Brothers and Company also operated mills in Massachusetts, Connec- ticut, California and Canada." In 1925, eleven branch offices sold its nationally advertised products to distribu- tors in every state. With estimated annual sales of $15,000,000 it claimed to be the largest manufacturer of silk sewing thread in the United States.'° In 1925, when the surviving family members sold their controlling interest in the company for $10,000,000, the company had made a profit every year except one since it had 36 been established in 1863.'* The group of bankers who pur- chased the company in 1925 and the villagers who depended on the mills were not so fortunate. Competition from synthetic fibers and the declining demand brought on by the depression led the new owners, who had no personal ties to Belding, to close the company mills there in 1932.93 But in the opti- mism that colored hopes in the nineteenth century, Belding Brothers and Company seemed to be a rising and sure star, as indeed it was for many years. Cooper-Wells Hosiery Company and St. Joseph Both St. Joseph, the site of the Cooper-Wells Company, and Three Oaks, the site of the Warren Featherbone Company, are in Berrien County, an agricultural region in the extreme southwestern corner of Michigan. As late as 1910, 91.5 per cent of the land was in farms." In the nineteenth century it was attractive to settlers because of its good farm land, abundant timber and streams. After 1852 it also had rail- road connections to Chicago and Detroit, a condition that aided farms, commerce and industry (See map, Figure II-I). Berrien County more than doubled in population between 1890 and 1920. Over 97 per cent of its residents were white and 85 per cent were native born (Table II-2). Germans made up the largest single group of foreign born." Native born Berrien County residents were likely to have been Yankees from New York or New England, or migrants from Indiana or Ohio." - Ce.E-t_VU—°1 C: CD the Gui Table II-2 Berrien County Population 1890 1900 1910 1920 Total 41,285 49,165 53,622 62,653 Native white, *37,470 29,162 30,886 36,190 native parents 90.7% 59.3% 57.6% 57.7% Native white, 12,229 14,038 16,857 foreign or mixed 24.9% 26.2% 26.9% parents Foreign born, 5,815 7,111 7,955 8,769 white 14.0% 14.5% 14.8% 13.9% Negro 625 647 713 815 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% Sourcg: U.S. Burggu of the Census. E1eventh ansus of the Qnited States, 1890, Part I, Eonula- tion, p. 4913 Tnirteenth Census of the United States, 1910, Vol. II, Ponulation, p. 934: U ited States 1920, Vol. omits "Asians and others": 1890, Comnendium of tne ourteent Ce sus of e Esaulatien. p- 480- 33; 1900, 1920, 22. *Parentage not specified. Table 168 1910, 303 St. Joseph, Michigan sits on a high bluff overlooking Lake Michigan, south of the mouth of the St. (See map, Figure II-1). Joseph River In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was an important transportation center, fruit market and resort as well as Cooper-Wells Hosiery Company, companies in the state." the home of the one of the largest knitting During the period of heavy migration into Michigan in the 1830’s and 1840’s, St. Joseph had served as the only port of entry for settlements up to fifty miles inland. Supplies came over the Erie Canal to Buffalo, then by sailing vessel to St. Joseph. built, all freight coming to or from Kalamazoo, New York, and Until railroads were Schoolcraft, 38 Niles and Paw Paw in Michigan and South Bend, Indiana, passed through St. Joseph and up the St. Joseph or Paw Paw Rivers in flat-bottomed boats that were poled or rowed upstream. These boats brought in supplies for farmers, and carried out substantial quantities of agricultural products.67 St. Joseph lost its transportation monopoly over inland locations in the 1850’s when the Michigan Central Railroad reached Chicago, bypassing St. Joseph. The beginning of a commercial fruit industry revived river traffic to some degree in the 1860’s and 1870’s, but the railroad had taken over much of the workaday transportation needs of the area. After the Civil War, the growth of Chicago and the develop- ment of passenger steamships stimulated a new expansion of lake traffic at the port of St. Joseph.°' By 1880, the village of St. Joseph in Berrien County had a population of 2603.9’ It had become primarily a Lake Michigan resort and a marketing center for the expanding west Michigan fruit belt. Visitors to its beaches and mineral springs supported several hotels and an opera house. Peaches, fruit packages, wooden tubs, lumber and fish were its main exports. The Chicago and West Michigan Railroad and twice-daily steamer service to Chicago were essential to its economy. A second village, Benton Harbor, had developed across the St. Joseph River (on the north side), adding more population, produc- tion and commerce and challenging St. Joseph’s leadership in the area.‘° 39 Local businessmen were aware that they needed addi- tional bases for growth to supplement the small shops, hotels, saloons, services, and export houses that formed the core of the village economy. Their own self-interest en- couraged them to try to attract new industry and employment to the area. One of these local boosters was the newspaper— man, Leonard J. Merchant.‘* In 1877, Merchant published a notice in his paper in which he proposed the formation of a Village Improvement Association. Abel W. Wells, a manufacturer of baskets and wooden boxes, who had emigrated from Canada about twelve years earlier, called the meeting which led to the creation of the St. Joseph Improvement and Benefit Association. The first officers included Abel W. Wells (president) and Samuel Thrall Cooper (vice-president), who would later be partners in the Cooper-Wells Hosiery Company. One of the Associa- tion's first projects was to distribute 3000 circulars which outlined St. Joseph’s advantages as an industrial site and which Merchant had written, printed and donated."8 This was the first of a series of civic improvement clubs which over the next forty years, encouraged investment in St. Joseph, advertised it in other communities, and supported city im- provements such as paved streets, electricity, water works, and garbage collection.‘° Early in 1878, the Association persuaded two manufac- turers whose buildings had recently burned down to relocate in St. Joseph. One of these, A. H. Morrison’s Wooden Ware ”E de kn 24 Th. Ch. the 40 Works, which had previously been in Alma, Michigan, thrived only briefly in St. Joseph until it burned down again and was not rebuilt. However, for several years, it manufac- tured pails, tubs, handles and clothes pins, and employed over 100 people. Later an even more prosperous company, Truscott Boat Manufacturing, built on the abandoned site."4 The Association’s greatest success was the establish— ment in 1878 of the Cooper-Wells Hosiery Company, which became the largest single employer in the city and operated in St. Joseph until the 1950’s. Again, the Association took advantage of an opportunity created by a fire, and persuaded those associated with a woolen and knitting mill which had burned down in a nearby town (Niles) to move to new quarters in St. Joseph. Samuel Thrall Cooper, vice-president of the Association, and his sons Willis and Henry, were the origi- nal owners of this operation, capitalized at only $15,000. At first the new firm was known by several names, among them, S. T. Cooper & Sons, and The St. Joseph Knitting and Spinning Works. The next year, when Abel W. Wells, presi- dent of the Association, invested in the mill, it became known as Cooper-Wells and Company. By 1883, approximately 240 people were employed making cotton and woolen hosiery. The company’s success attracted other investors, who pur- chased $150,000 worth of stock when the firm incorporated in 1889.‘° Although the Cooper name remained for over sixty years, the Cooper family involvement in the company lasted less 41 than twenty years. Samuel Thrall Cooper (1824-1892) retired from over twenty-five years service as a Methodist minister in Indiana and moved with his family to St. Joseph about 1871. This hosiery mill appears to have been Cooper’s first business venture and he withdrew from the firm when it was incorporated in 1889. After his father left the business in 1889, Willis served as secretary and treasurer in the new company. Five years later, he too resigned from Cooper- Wells and Company, and sold his interest in the firm to Wells, and to another partner, George D. Mayo. Although no longer owners of a knitting mill, the Coopers apparently liked the knitting industry, because Willis immediately became the manager of the Chicago-Rockford Hosiery Company in Kenosha, Wisconsin. In the last decade of the nineteenth century, his brothers, Henry C. and Charles F., also moved there, and Charles became the superintendent of the Chicago- Rockford Hosiery Company.“ Abel W. Wells’ involvement in the hosiery mill may have been facilitated by Cooper’s eldest son, Willis W., who had previously established a business partnership with Wells and others to manufacture fruit packages. Willis continued in this partnership for about ten years, from 1872 to 1882. During this time, he also joined his father and brother Henry in establishing the St. Joseph Knitting and Spinning Works..’ After 1894, Abel Wells was the dominant force in the Cooper-Wells Company, serving both as President and General Hanagi the Ur he ma: entre; Althoz Iill n ty-fi\ (capi1 He ua! which sales ry. l iruit and T Iated term itles 0H1: help the t Dledg LEigL ‘Ure Qfit ' and , 42 Manager. Wells had been born in Canada in 1840, and came to the United States when he was twenty-six. Two years later, he made his home in St. Joseph and began a career as an entrepreneur, banker, industrialist and community booster. Although it was a large part of his estate, the knitting mill was not Wells’ only business interest. For over twen- ty-five years, he was President of the Union Banking Company (capitalized at $50,000), one of two banks in St. Joseph. He was also one of the owners of Wells, Higman and Company, which manufactured fruit packages, and which had annual sales of approximately $25,000 in the early twentieth centu- ry. Wells had also invested in companies which manufactured fruit packages in Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, and Texas. When he died in 1912, he left an estate esti— mated at over $1,000,000. A. W. Wells served at least one term as Township Supervisor (1883). He supported the activ- ities of the St. Joseph Board of Trade both by holding office and by contributing money. In 1887, he gave $500 to help bring a railroad to St. Joseph. He was also active in the temperance movement. In 1884 he signed an abstinence pledge and later served as Secretary of the Law and Order League of St. Joseph and Vicinity, an organization to pres- sure local prosecutors and police to enforce liquor laws." His son, James Ogden Wells, a 1901 Harvard graduate, continued this tradition of business and community involve- ment. Like his father, he was a temperance advocate. He and the two younger Cooper boys and the son of his father’s bus Pr: as he re: am he? fir m of de' day she an at Ora Dr: in: was The bil m 43 business partner Higman were members of the Young Men’s Prohibition Club. Later, he served on the city council and as Mayor. In 1915, when St. Joseph built a new city hall, he personally supplied the funds to furnish the new council room and the police headquarters. In 1919, he donated $1500 and five acres of land for an athletic field for the new public high school. James O. Wells was also a major force behind the financing and construction of the newest and finest hotel in St. Joseph, the Whitcomb. He held a succes- sion of posts at Cooper—Wells, including member of the board of directors, assistant plant superintendent, vice-presi- dent, and assistant manager. He gradually took over the day-to-day management of the company and inherited a large share of its stock when his father died in 1912. He was actively running the company until his sudden death in 1928, at age fifty-two. The estimated value of his estate was $2,000,000." The success of Cooper-Wells depended on manufacturing good-quality, low-cost basic knit goods, steady production, gradual diversification and active marketing. Its staple product was an extensive line of stockings for men, women, and children. One of its earliest and best-selling products was a brand of boys’ black stockings called "Iron-clad." The battleship trademark emphasized these stockings’ dura- bility and long wear. In the 1880's, the company responded to seasonal demand by knitting cotton (purchased in Nash- ville) from January to July, and knitting wool (bought in 44 Chicago), during the rest of the year. Cooper-Wells made stockings in many different weights, lengths, and patterns in addition to the “Ironclad". A 1907 state Renort said the company made 280 different styles of stockings. And a sales brochure from 1909 lists several hundred items, including mufflers, leggings, mittens and knit hats. Later Cooper- Wells added a line of sheer womens’ stockings called "Admi- ration hose," and was one of the first companies to make nylon stockings.7° Output at Cooper-Wells increased from 200 dozen pair per day in 1879 to 400 dozen per day in 1889. In 1899, when semi-automatic knitting machines replaced the original hand-operated units, capacity increased again, to 600 dozen pair per day. These new machines had been developed by George Mayo, one of the owners of Cooper-Wells and Company. Mayo continued to improve his machine until he had perfected a fully automatic one in 1903. The introduction of 200 of these fully automatic knitting machines increased output to 1100 dozen pair per day in 1903, and 1500 dozen pair per day in 1906. By the early twentieth century, Cooper-Wells was distributing its products throughout the midwest and the west, and later expanded into the national market. In 1917 the company made before-tax profits of $388,323 on net sales of $1,756,928. It continued to do well under its new own- ers, Gustave and Louis Frankel, who purchased it after the death of James O. Wells. Into the 1940’s and 1950’s, Admi- ration brand hosiery was recognized as one of the oldest and 45 best quality national brands.’* The Cooper-Wells Hosiery mill seems to have fully sat- isfied the hopes of the St. Joseph Improvement and Benefit Association. Employment at Cooper-Wells rose from 293 in 1899, to 441 in 1909, and to 517 in 1919 (Appendix, Table A- 3). During the same period, the number of manufacturing establishments in St. Joseph increased from 10 in 1899, to 26 in 1909, and 50 in 1919, and the number of manufacturing jobs increased from 566 in 1899 to 1508 in 1919 (Appendix, Table A-1). Cooper-Wells and Company remained the largest single employer, whose 500 employees worked in a complex of buildings which included a power plant, dye house, storage, and shipping departments, as well as the knitting mill proper. Nevertheless, St. Joseph did develop a diverse industrial sector which produced machinery, novelties, boxes, printed matter, boats, and auto parts." Other changes between 1880 and 1920 included an in- crease in population, new construction, improved transporta- tion, recreation and city services. St. Joseph seemed to have fulfilled the predictions of its local commercial boosters. In 1883, the St, Josenh Trgxelen-Herald antici- pated a prosperous future for the village, based on "in- creased population and extended industries."" St. Joseph's population grew from 2,603 in 1880 to 3,733 in 1890, 5,155 in 1900, 5,936 in 1910, and 7,251 in 1920, making it the largest of the three sites in this study." Reflecting the general economic expansion, the village built new churches, it! re prl ap: 93' 101 to: Sui C0: C0! Her an: ”E“ 9" “i5. the '05 mm 46 schools, banks, a new city hall, and new commercial and retail buildings. Railroads and dock facilities were im- proved. Paved streets, an opera house, bandstand, and park appealed to resort visitors. Water, sewer, firefighting and garbage collection were provided as well. During this per- iod, a local newspaper said that St. Joseph was "not a slow town" and "not a boom town," but experienced ”sure and substantial growth."" The steady employment provided by Cooper-Wells and Company was a major contributor to this condition. Warren Featherbone Company and Three Oaks Village Three Oaks is a small village in the extreme southwest- ern corner of Michigan, about five miles from Lake Michigan and from the Indiana border (See map, Figure II-1). It never became a boom town, or even a city: its population grew from 474 in 1880 to only 1362 in 1920." However, it was well known around the turn of the century as the home of the Warren Featherbone Company. Featherbone is unknown to most people today, but this stiffening made from turkey feathers was a nearly indispensable aid to making fashion- able women’s garments for forty years. It was the chance occurrence that Featherbone’s inventor, Edward Kirk Warren, lived in Three Oaks, rather than any overwhelming material or economic advantage which made Three Oaks the site of the Warren Featherbone Company." Three Oaks developed in the middle of one of the finest hardwood forests in Michigan. The Michigan Central Railroad 47 had opened the area to settlement and to large-scale lumber- ing in the 1850’s. Within thirty years, most of the forest had been cut down, and the wood sold for housing, furniture or fuel. Some timber was used locally, but most was ex- ported to Chicago or used to provide steam power. The Michigan Central itself purchased tremendous quantities of cordwood, using some in its own steam engines, and reselling the rest to Lake Michigan steam boat operators." One of the men who organized the cutting and sale of timber in this area was Henry Chamberlain, future father-in- law of Edward Kirk Warren. While still in his twenties, Chamberlain held a number of official positions: township supervisor, representative to the state legislature, justice of the peace, and mail agent for the Michigan Central Rail- road. He also owned hundreds of heavily forested acres along the railroad right-of—way in Berrien county and con- tracted to sell cordwood to the railroad in 1850. He built a home and a store at his delivery site. Originally known as Chamberlain’s Side Track, this clearing developed into the village of Three Oaks, which was incorporated in 1867. In addition to the railroad, north-south and east-west roads linked the new village to nearby farms and settlements. There were also a few stores, a warehouse, a post office, several churches, and a school.” Edward Kirk Warren literally grew up with Three Oaks. His parents brought him to Michigan from their home in Vermont in 1858 when he was eleven years old. His father 48 was a Congregational minister who had been sent to Three Oaks as a Home Missionary. The family lived for many years in a log cabin in the wilderness, with few neighbors or social contacts. In later years, Warren remarked humorously that there were so few people in the region that the Young Men’s Sunday School Class consisted of four young ladies and himself. When he was seventeen, Warren became a full-time clerk and apprentice at Henry Chamberlain's store in Three Oaks. For the next nineteen years, until he began Warren Featherbone and Company in 1883, he worked in, or was a partner in, or owner of, one of the general stores in Three Oaks.'° Edward K. Warren reported that it was his experience as a dry goods merchant that made him aware of the potential market for a product like featherbone. Before the develop- ment of featherbone, dressmakers had used whalebone and other kinds of bone, as well as horn, rubber, steel and rattan to provide stiffness and shaping. These materials had to be inserted into separate casings by hand and removed for each washing. The most widely used substance, whale- bone, was made from a horny, comblike structure found in the jaws of baleen whales. The declining number of these whales, and the substitution of kerosene for whale oil in lamps, reduced the supply and increased the price of whale- bone. In addition to being expensive, whalebone gradually became dry and brittle, annoying retailers, who could not sell it in that condition, and dressmakers and clients, 49 because it was no longer serviceable. Warren had noticed this himself and began looking for a substitute that was inexpensive, easy to use and durable. The need for stays and stiffening in so many portions of women’s attire in the late nineteenth century promised a large market and corres- pondingly large profits to the manufacturer of an appro- priate product.‘n Warren reported that he had also observed that feather duster factories and poultry houses threw away tons of feathers that were too stiff to be used in dusters. He proposed to use the feathers discarded by these factories to make "an elastic substance to take the place of whale- bone.""a His original process involved removing the feath- ers from the quills, cutting the quills into strips, and binding these together with thread into a continuous long strip. Company advertising featured turkeys as the raw material for featherbone, but goose feathers were also suit- able." When production began in 1883, there were probably quite a few jokes about Warren’s plan to process turkey quills into a stiffening for women’s apparel. The editor of the Innee Oaks Sun remarked, "No doubt quills will befed in at one end and ready-made corsets be discharged from the other.“" To the surprise of many, the company expanded production throughout the first year of operation. The number of employees increased from eight to seventy-five, and orders came in steadily. The factory even had to shut 50 down for a while when it had used up its supply of quills. The local labor force was soon absorbed and Warren recruited twenty-five young women from neighboring towns. As the company added new equipment and storage facilities, Three Oaks anticipated a new kind of prosperity from this industry that processed turkey feathers..- The town offered its enthusiastic support in 1885, when Warren formed a partnership with a whip maker from New York to produce a buggy whip made of featherbone. The newspaper editor, William K. Sawyer, led a committee of Three Oaks citizens to urge Warren to locate this new enterprise in Three Oaks also. Similar requests were made from committees from Michigan City, Indiana, and from many Michigan communi- ties, including St. Joseph, Grand Rapids, Saginaw and Niles. These visitors offered a variety of inducements, ranging from free factory sites and buildings, to promises to pur- chase stock in the whip company. For their part, Three Oaks villagers and farmers subscribed $10,000 for stock in the new company. The Three Oaks newspaper argued that if the whip factory were established elsewhere, the existing fea- therbone plant would move. Three Oaks need not have wor- ried, the new whip factory was indeed built there near the other featherbone building." Unfortunately, the great expectations that accompanied these events were not immediately satisfied. By 1887, the whip company was making thirty different styles of whips and reported increasing demand, but still found 1887 a "terrible 51 hard year for the whip business.“" A brief business status report for 1892 indicated that their three-story frame building could accommodate one hundred, but currently em- ployed only forty... In 1892, the stockholders accepted an offer to buy the whip company, but the sale did not go through." Apparently business did not improve significantly in the following years. By 1897, the Warren Featherbone Whip Company had ceased manufacturing whips in Three Oaks. Instead, the Warren Featherbone Company sold featherbone material to a succession of whip companies and licensed these firms to use the Warren Featherbone trademark. This practice continued for a decade or more and brought some profit to the company, but was a far cry from fulfilling the original hopes for the Featherbone Whip Company in Three Oaks.’° Despite initial successes in 1884, the Warren Feather— bone Company also faced substantial production, marketing and financial difficulties. Years of effort, experimenta- tion, invention and testing were necessary to develop the machinery and processes to make featherbone. E.K. Warren and his partner, George Holden invented, built and tested these machines in their own machine shop in Three Oaks." They launched a widespread advertising campaign in hundreds of magazines and newspapers to introduce featherbone as a substitute for whalebone."a In 1887, a group of Chicago investors loaned the company $100,000 to finance these early development costs. Despite their efforts, until 1893 they 52 were unable to match the quality of whalebone, or even of the recently introduced and less expensive steel stays.”I By 1891, the company was in deep financial trouble. Despite substantial advertising efforts and the expense of providing free demonstrations in major cities, featherbone sales had declined and merchants returned quantities of unsold materials. Technical difficulties continued to resist solution. The split turkey quills were of uneven thickness, and it was difficult to bind them into a smooth, even, flexible strand. During a 1906 patent infringement trial, Edward K. Warren described pre-1893 featherbone as "crude, thick, uneven, without uniform edges or smoothness." (Advertising at the time was less frank about featherbone’s drawbacks). The plain featherbone was unsightly, and in the finer grades, limp as well. When treated with glue, it became stiff, smelly and sticky. Covering it with ribbon or fabric improved its appearance but not its serviceability. So many merchants, dressmakers, and customers had had un- satisfactory experiences with featherbone that when Warren opened new demonstration centers in 1892, he called them "Queen Isabella Dress Boning Parlors," and deliberately omitted the word “featherbone." He explained, "The word featherbone had even become a word of reproach rather than one of favor and satisfaction which I had so fondly dreamed that it would carry with it.“" In 1893, George Frost and Company, which had been the major buyer of featherbone corset bone, cancelled their account. Total sales in 1893 53 were only $76,000, down from $125,000 in 1892. The company was in a serious financial condition, facing debts of nearly $90,000 and having few assets to cover them. E. K. Warren had to use his personal credit to refinance the company's debts." At this critical point in late 1893, the company final- ly developed a product that was smooth, uniform, flexible and durable enough to make excellent corset and dress stays. After ten years of experimentation, frustration and market failure a new production process made featherbone a success. In this process, the original featherbone was sized with glue, dried, heated until it was soft and then molded into a uniform and permanent shape." As Warren had hoped, it proved to be lightweight, flexible, washable and relatively inexpensive. It could be cut with scissors and sewn direct- ly into the seams of garments by hand or machine. As fash- ions changed, the company devised new product lines that complemented current styles. Dozens of widths, different coverings and various degrees of stiffness recommended its use in bonnets, collars, bustles, corsets, sleeves, bras- sieres, hoops, fancy trims, belts, and in the seams of tight fitting gowns.” The company used every medium available to it to adver- tise this new, improved featherbone. It supplied free print-ready advertisements to retailers to encourage them to take out ads in their local newspapers. It supplemented early publications such as, at er ne' Nov 1 oduct 54 nnd How It is Used, with seasonal editions of Eeathernone ungnginnggn (first published in 1893) and flarnnn’n News." Table II-3 Featherbone Sales 1891 $ 83,972 1892 $125,936 1893 $ 76,729 1894 $134,250 1895 $275,585 1896 $256,545 1897 $295,244 1898 $378,190 1899 $502,873 1900 $721,526 1901 $844,174 1902 $873,540 Source: U.S. Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois, In Equity, Warren Featherbone Company v. Herbert DeCamp and James Anderson. Edward Kirk Warren Deposition, June 1906, p. 703. Warren Featherbone Collection, Regional History Collections, Western Michigan University. This table of total sales for the years 1891-1902 shows the company’s improved market success (Table II-3). In 1899, Warren’s sold 142 miles of featherbone covered with grosgrain ribbon, only one of forty styles then available. So much featherbone required huge quantities of quills. In 1901, the company purchased 260,000 pounds of them.” The success of the new featherbone also increased employment at the Three Oaks factory, from 182 in 1894, to 310 in 1896, to 392 in 1901 (See Table A-4). In 1899, the Warren company advertised for twenty-five to fifty additional workers. It built additions to the factory in 1898 and 1901, and rented the local opera house for use as a shipping room because the one in the factory was too small to handle current out- put.‘°° Still the Three Oaks plant alone could not produce 55 enough, and the company temporarily opened three branch plants from thirty to one hundred miles from Three Oaks. These satellite factories were in Porter, Indiana (1899); Middleville, Michigan (1901)! and Chicago (1902).“” Ac- cording to testimony given at a patent infringement trial in 1906, most of the 200 workers at each of these branches operated winding machines and made what was known as ”prima- ry cord,“ an early stage in featherbone manufacture. In the 1890’s this was slow hand work, and there were not enough people nor sufficient space in Three Oaks to produce as much primary cord as was needed. By 1906, when automatic winding machines became available, these three branch factories had closed and all production occurred in Three Oaks.‘°a By 1900, Warren’s Featherbone was both profitable and popular. Company advertisements included an endorsement by the famous Sarah Bernhardt: “I have always had Warren’s Featherbone used in my costumes, for I believe it to be the best dress boning material in existence." Queen Isabella Boning Parlors no longer disguised the fact that they used Warren’s Featherbone. In addition to maintaining these permanent parlors in Chicago and New York City, Warren's travelling dressmakers offered free demonstrations and in- structions in department stores and dressmakers’ shops. Free sewing machine attachments and instruction booklets were made available both in stores and through the mail.‘°' The word ”featherbone" was added to the language and in- cluded in dictionaries.‘°‘ Standard dressmakers’ manuals 56 included references to and directions for using feather- bone.‘°' In contrast to their criticisms regarding the ori-_ ginal featherbone, dressmakers and tailors at the finest New York stores recommended Warren’s Featherbone in an eight page article in Ine finerignn nagnz1ne in 1901.‘°‘ The Warren Company continuously modified its product line in response to changing demand, both civilian and military. Advertising brochures from the early twentieth century show that Warren’s produced a wide variety of sewing notions, trims, bindings, elastic and tapes. Special looms wove sixty or more strips of seam binding at a time. The company also produced non-featherbone stiffeners made of celluloid, rattan, wire and crinoline for use in bustles, bodices, collars, belts and hats. During the World Wars, Warren’s produced ammunition belts, parts for parachutes, and raingear. After World War II, changing fashions and the increased use of plastic led the company into many other types of production, such as plastic raincoats and chil- dren’s wear. In 1957, the company, no longer owned by the Warren family, closed its plant in Three Oaks and moved to Gainesville, Georgia, where it celebrated its centennial in 1983.*°’ From the 1880’s to the 1950’s, and especially in the pre-automobile era, the Warren Featherbone Company was a major economic force in Three Oaks. Between 1890 and 1920, its regular workforce was equal to at least twenty-five per cent of the village’s population. The Warrens also owned 57 substantial property in the village and had other economic interests. The family’s Oak Meadow Farm of 2000 acres sold meat and dairy products to Chicago, and peas to a local cannery.‘°' In 1898, the Warren Featherbone Company bought the local newspaper, the Three Oaks Press, later renamed IE2 egnnn.‘°’ The establishment of the E. K. Warren and Company bank in 1902, and the C. K. Warren and Company department store in 1909 completed their major local investments.‘*° But Warren’s experiences selling cattle to Chicago markets had interested him in raising cattle on the open range. E. K. Warren and his son Charles, gradually acquired a half million acres of grazing land in Texas and Mexico.‘*‘ More than the owners of the other two companies in this study, the Warren family played an active role in village politics and campaigned for village improvements and social reforms. The post of President of the Village Council was held by E. K. Warren or one of his sons in twelve of the seventeen years between 1895 and 1911. He himself served six terms (1895-1900); his son Charles K. served five (1904- 1907, 1911)! his son Paul C. served one (1910).*" They supported efforts to install public waterworks and electri- city, and opposed the sale of liquor in the village.f" To encourage the Michigan Central Railroad to go ahead with its plans for a new depot in Three Oaks, Warren family members donated the necessary land for the depot and for a new street.“‘ In 1907, voters approved an addition to the school only after E. K. Warren offered to pay up to $4500 of 58 the cost.“9 Family members later gave more money to the school for vocational classes and playground equipment, and seven acres of land for a new building.‘*‘ E. K. Warren was even more active in the field of religious education. He had been involved in Sunday School since childhood and taught in the Three Oaks’ school. He held office at the township, county, state and international level.“’ Warren also used his energies for patriotic purposes. Inspired by the motto, “Three Oaks Against the World,” Warren led the village to win a national competition to acquire a cannon captured during the Spanish-American War. This was a fund-raising event for a national monument to the war dead, in which the prize cannon would go to the communi- ty which gave the largest per capita contribution. Three Oaks (1890 population, 885) won when 312 persons paid $1,132.80, an average of $1.28 per village resident. Presi— dent McKinley dedicated the site in 1899.*" E. K. Warren also campaigned vigorously for liberty bonds during World War I, and reportedly purchased over $50,000 himself.*” Edward Kirk Warren and his wife, Mary Chamberlain War— ren also left several gifts to the people of Michigan. They established and endowed a non-profit organization, the Ed- ward Kirk Warren Foundation, whose purposes were "the pre- servation of forests: the establishment and maintenance of a park or parks: the collection and preservation of historical documents, data and publications.""° They deeded to this Foundation, the Chamberlain Historical Museum in Three Oaks, 59 300 acres of virgin beech-maple forest (Warren Woods), and 289 acres of dunelands with more than one mile of Lake Michigan frontage (Warren Dunes). By 1939, the Chamberlain Historical Museum had 70,000 exhibits and drew more than 10,000 visitors annually."‘ The collection was later given to the state and forms part of the State Historical Museum collection."2 The Warren Foundation gave Warren Dunes to the state in 1939, and later leased Warren Woods to the Michigan Department of Conservation for ninety-nine years.*" This rather lengthy (but far from complete) survey of the various activities of the Warrens is important to understanding the nature of their economic and social position in the village, and therefore to understanding the character of industrial relations in that setting. Many of the improvements in public facilities and services that the Warrens supported furthered their own business interests as well as improving the quality of life for all. The new municipal waterworks provided not only a better water sup- ply, but lower fire insurance rates for the company."‘ A new railroad depot was of great value to the Featherbone Company, which accounted for approximately two-thirds of the receipts at the Three Oaks station."' An attractive modern village with good roads brought patrons to the family bank and department store. A quality water supply, electricity, and good schools helped the village grow and added to the Labor supply. Winning the cannon from the Spanish-American 60 War boosted village spirits, and the Featherbone Company benefitted from the national publicity. These examples illustrate Atherton’s observation in Main Street on tne Middle Border, “Every country town had an inner circle whose own personal interests were so tightly interwoven with those of the community at large that one cannot determine where self-interest ended and public spirit began.“"‘ Warren was interested in making money, but that was not all he cared about. He was a classic Yankee--an entrepreneur, a reformer, a patriot, a supporter of public education and of Sunday school. And he was committed to doing all of those things in Three Oaks. When the Featherbone Company began with eight employees in 1883, Three Oaks was only a small community of fewer than 500. It had good train service, a general store, some repair services, a post office, a school and a few churches. The tree cutters had done such a thorough job that in photo- graphs from this time, the village looks as if it were in a treeless prairie. Forty years later, the Featherbone Compa- ny was nationally recognized and employed hundreds of work- ers. In 1920 the village’s 1362 residents enjoyed the amenities of twentieth century life--running water, elec- tricity, paved streets, telephones--and many trees had grown again. A large number of the villagers were employed in the Featherbone factory, and many agreed with the local historian who wrote: "The steady year-round employment offered by the Warren Featherbone factory...meant the dif- 61 ference betweeen [Three Oaks being] a small rural trading center and a self-supporting and industrially busy town.“*=’ Conclusion Each of these three villages--Belding, St. Joseph, and Three Oaks--entered a new phase when its major industry was established between 1878 and 1885. These factories were part of a transition from an economy based almost exclusive- ly on selling timber and agricultural products to one in which manufacturing for regional and national markets became increasingly important. Improved transportation was essen- tial to acquiring necessary raw materials and distributing finished products. The movement away from a local, extrac- tive, and subsistence economy to a national, commercial one was a major aspect of nineteenth century United States history."‘ According to the modernization model of American his- tory, these three companies, their founders, and owners were classic examples of the modernization process. Richard Jensen described the role of such modernizers, many of whom were New Englanders, in Illinois history: The newcomers transformed the economy by combining advanced technology, sophisticated organizational skills, a devotion to the importance of hard work, and genius in analysis of opportunities and devis- ing complex visions of the future. They set up banks, corporations, investment houses and insur- ance companies that permitted society to shift its resources into the most productive sectors.*" Similarly, these three Michigan companies and their owners 62 carried out the organizational goals and fulfilled the values typical of modernization. They were actively commit- ted to change, to making the future different from the past. They participated in and created institutions to bring about these changes. Their factories were only part of this process. In addition, they were major stockholders in local banks, and partners or sole owners of other local invest- ments. Real estate development, retail sales, commercial farming, hotels, newspaper ownership and secondary manufac- turing interests represented the bulk of their local econom- ic interests. Their "complex visions of the future" led them to participate directly and indirectly in village poli- tics, to support improvements in public services and trans- portation, and to bring other industry to the area. Another commentator on this process, Richard D. Brown, observed: For nineteenth century people the drama of modernization, of thrift, self-discipline, and improvement for the sake of future rewards, was underwritten by religious faith for Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. Modernization was endowed with moral purpose, as mankind would be raised from ignorance, supersititon, filth, and degrada- tion so as to become enlightened, cosmopolitan, rational, and productive. Experience merged with secular and religious aspirations to legitimate modernization."° To help achieve these moral purposes and overcome ignorance, these companies and families supported public education, libraries and museums. The Coopers and the Warrens were from clergy families; the Beldings and the Warrens were migrants from New England; all three favored temperance, Be th in to he in ev St 51' fa: ii: in Ext r01 63 with varying degrees of activism. Hard work, efficiency, discipline, orientation toward the future, commitment to economic expansion and progress--these were values they upheld in public statments and in public action. They were active, not passive or fatalistic in their lives. They invented, moved, experimented, started new operations, built where no one had before, deliberately and confidently created new institutions. In general, the changes that occurred during this pe- riod were welcome ones which fulfilled the towns’ ambitions for progress, prosperity and increasing population. These were not really company towns. Although the Warrens and the Beldings owned substantial real estate in their villages, the settlements were not their private property. And in St. Joseph, the Wells’ family owned little real estate. These companies and their owners paid taxes to the elected govern- ment. They paid their workers in cash, not scrip. Their influence was economic and social, not feudal. There is no evidence that the arrival of factories destroyed valued life styles or social relationships. Substantial but not explo- sive population growth followed, but the towns remained fairly small, and most town residents could still recognize each other by name and/or face throughout this period. Despite some differences, these three examples had much in common. In each case, village residents or persons with extensive previous contacts in the area played leading roles in the new enterprise. All three companies started 64 new textile-related factories where none had existed before, and recruited and trained workers who had no previous exper- ience in manufacturing. They were the largest single em- ployers in their respective communities, and provided steady employment for a substantial percentage of the village popu- lation for over thirty years. They created and managed large-scale factories, and determined wages, hours, and working conditions for an entire generation of workers. CHAPTER III MATERIAL WORKING CONDITIONS: MAKING SILK, STOCKINGS AND STAYS Preceding chapters have documented the variety and ex- tent of factory production in villages in southwestern Mich- igan between 1880 and 1920, and have also traced the evolu- tion of three specific textile related companies in this region. By the late nineteenth century, powered machinery had transformed most textile production from a "home" indus- try into one characterized by large-scale factory produc- tion, as illustrated by the three companies in this study. All factories have some features in common, and yet indus- trial workers have had widely different experiences. The nature of a specific industrial experience is affected by a variety of factors, for example, by government requirements and prohibitions, by economic conditions and wages, by em- ployers’ idiosyncracies and the social and economic status of the workforce. Finally, the technology of production itself plays a major role in defining the physical setting and nature of a job, and in determining its inherent plea- santness or unpleasantness, safety, danger or comfort of a job. The organization of production also offers greater or lesser opportunities for social contacts with other workers, providing conditions which isolate people or which facili- tate camaraderie during a large percentage of one’s waking hours, thus potentially affecting the degree to which work- ers will identify themselves as members of a common unit. This chapter examines several aspects of factory work-- 66 government regulation, the technology of production, hours and wages--to see how each contributed to shaping the char- acter of the industrial experience in the three settings in this study. Michigan Law and Factory Inspection In the late nineteenth century, progressive reformers urged state governments to monitor, and eventually to regu- late material working conditions in factories.‘ In 1893, Michigan followed the lead of Massachusetts and other states in passing a series of statutes which specified minimum standards in factories regarding fire safety, general sani- tation, ways to prevent injuries and other topics. The legislature provided for an annual inspection of every fac- tory in the state in order to publicize and enforce these standards. The inspectors ordered manufacturers to make the changes required by law within a specified time and revisited sites to confirm that the changes were made. Michigan’s Bureau of Labor hoped to achieve voluntary com- pliance through education and persuasion, but also had the power to prosecute violators. Those convicted could be punished by fines of from $5.00 to $100.00, and/or up to 90 days in prison.2 The annual Ennnngn of these inspections provide an important source of data on working conditions at the three factories in this study and throughout the state, as well as judgements about the relative quality of condi- tions at the Belding silk mills, at Cooper-Wells hosiery 67 mill, and at Warren Featherbone. Inspectors had authority to order changes in a wide range of factory conditions. Some were defined very speci- fically, others allowed room for interpretation. Fire safe- ty laws illustrate this pattern. Factory doors should open out, not inward, and it was illegal to lock or bolt factory doors during working hours. All factories of three stories or more were required to have outside fire escapes, and the inspector had the power to specify their number, location and design, "as may be deemed sufficient.“’ The factory inspectors also checked to see that boilers had low water alarms, in order to prevent the all-too-frequent phenomenon of the exploding boiler, and examined the condition of elevator cables.‘ Ordering rubber treads on stairways and guards on elevator shafts were also within their powers. Among the most hazardous features in the nineteenth century factory were the moving parts of power transmitters. The law required that these gears, set screws and belts be ”properly guarded," leaving this up to the discretion of the inspector. The inspectors could also order that belt shif- ters be installed on individual machines so workers could stop and start their own machines, and not have to adjust them while they were still running. Too many workers had been injured when they tried to adjust a machine while it was working, since foremen didn’t like to stop a dozen ma- chines when only one needed attention. Also up to the inspector’s discretion was the judgement that the factory 68 was "in a cleanly state" and supplied with a “sufficient number" of water closets and wash rooms.‘ The detailed results of these annual inspections indi— cate that material working conditions in these three factor- ies conformed very closely to minimum state safety stan- dards. In twenty of the twenty-eight years covered by the ngorts, inspectors mentioned no violations of fire or fac- tory safety laws in the Belding silk mills and ordered no changes. In the other eight years, fewer than fifteen violations were listed. These included orders to change doors to open out (1894, 1895, 1905): to provide fire es- capes in boarding houses (1903, 1915): to cover exposed cog gears, belts and set screws (1894, 1903, 1911, 1914), and to repair low water alarms on boilers (1911, 1914). Similarly, state inspectors ordered changes in nine of the twenty-eight years at Cooper-Wells and Company. These included orders to install new stairs (1894); doors that open out, guards on rip saw and handrails on stairs (1895): guards on elevators and stairs, and doors that open out (1897)! handrails on stairs (1898): low water alarm on boiler (1901): guards on set screws, and proper fire escapes (1903): guards on eleva- tor shafts (1909) and on overhead belts (1918). The inspec- tors found even fewer deficiencies at Warren Featherbone Company, where they ordered changes in only six years out of twenty-eight. These included orders to install guards on gears and belts, and doors that open out (1895)! handrails on stairs (1897 and 1899): a low water alarm on a boiler 69 (1909): guards on belting (1907): guards on shafting, motor and flywheel (1918).‘ Since the purpose of the state's attention to factory conditions was to protect worker health, it is appropriate that the inspectors’ annual Benorts included data on indus- trial accidents. In this effort, they were totally dependent on each company’s records and it is difficult to determine how complete their reports were. Injuries that were the result of a major fire or explosion which caused extensive damage and/or killed or seriously injured someone would certainly have been recorded. But less spectacular events were probably often overlooked. Some volumes identified the injured by name, age, sex, marital status and occupation as well as by employer. Other volumes were less informative. Some Benorts listed actual injuries, eg. cut off two fingers from the right hand. Others used only vague categories, eg. “serious," “severe,“ and "slight.“ As was to be expected, a large number of accidents were reported in lumbering, metal- working, mining and automobile manufacture. Laundries also accounted for many injuries.’ Even though these lists must be regarded as incomplete, it is clear that textile work was much safer than many other manufacturing occupations. In the thirty-seven volumes of 322252;, only twenty-four on-the-job injuries were listed for these three companies. All of the reported injuries oc- curred between 1905 and 1914, and none were fatal. The Bel- ding mills listed only nine injuries, all in 1914, probably 70 reflecting temporarily zealous record-keeping rather than an increased injury rate. One of these injuries was labelled "serious”, and caused the worker to miss thirty-seven days of work. The others were considered "slight“, and the injured missed between one and thirty days of work. No other information was given, but one wonders about a "slight" injury that caused a thirty days absence from work. During the same time period, Cooper-Wells reported only six on-the-job injuries. All of the injured were males who subsequently missed from two to sixty days of work. Warren Featherbone reported only nine industrial accidents between 1907 and 1914. All of the injured were males who missed from one to 30 days work.’ Although not listed in the state Re ort, one former Warren employee remembers being hurt herself at work, when her hair was caught in a machine and part of her scalp torn out.’ She said it happened so quickly that she didn’t feel it at the time. She doctored herself and missed no work. No other interviewees recalled any accidents, nor were any reported in the village news- papers, which routinely reported injuries in other factories in town, as well as traffic and gunshot accidents. The relatively low injury rate at these mills is attri- butable to a combination of factors, including the use of modern equipment and factory design, as well as the careful enforcement of the law. The following discussion of produc- tion processes examines the effect of production technology on the health and safety of workers in these three mills. 71 Production Processes: Belding Brothers and Company According to contemporary observers, large factories built after 1880 were in general cleaner, safer and health- ier places than were the earlier smaller factories. They also judged that plants in the Midwest and South were physi- cally superior to those in the East, and that managers of large factories made substantial efforts to provide clean, well-ventilated and sanitary working conditions.‘° The four Belding Brothers and Company mills seem to fit this model of new large Midwestern mills in which the management provided state-of-the-art lighting, ventilation and sanitation. The employees of Belding Brothers and Company worked in four main buildings, two thread mills and two weaving mills, which had been constructed between 1885 and 1909. They were typical nineteenth century rectangular factory buildings, with brick load-bearing exterior walls, flat roofs, and interior columns which supported wooden floors. They were each about fifty feet wide but varied from 200 to 400 feet in length, and from two to four stories high. The largest one employed 500, and the smallest, 250 workers. Each mill had at least one exterior tower which contained a stairway and a water tank for the sprinkler system. The mill com- plexes included power plant, dye house and shipping facili- ties as well as the main production buildings.“ The Belding mills were equipped with the Sturtevant system of heating, ventilation and humidity control, which was widely used in factories and in large public buildings 72 at the turn of the century. With this system, a fan blew fresh outside air over steam pipes, and distributed the heated air through the building in ducts. To increase the humidity in the plant, pans of water were placed in the ducts or water was sprayed into them. Textile mills had to maintain relatively high humidity in the spinning and weav- ing rooms in order to prevent threads from breaking. Until the 1880’s, most mills accomplished this by keeping the windows closed and forcing steam into the rooms, creating stuffy and damp environments. This method caused substan- tial discomfort and even health problems for many textile workers earlier in the nineteenth century. In the 1880’s, most mills installed mechanical systems which both con- trolled humidity and provided fresh air for workers. In the early twentieth century, the Belding mills installed an improved method developed by the Johnson Service Company.‘2 One of the advantages to a manufacturer of locating in a small town was that land was relatively cheap. This factor also benefitted workers who were spared the discom- fort of working in crowded conditions. The four silk mills were located on both sides of the Flat River in Belding, about one-quarter mile apart. Since there were no other large buildings nearby and they were only fifty feet wide, all the mills had cross ventilation and natural light. Workers could regulate the windows according to their own comfort, but had to avoid direct breezes which tangled their work. Former Belding silk workers remember no particular 73 discomfort, except on very hot summer days. The mill’s power plant provided electric lighting to supplement natural light, and to keep the mill running during the dark winter hours." Many different processes were required to turn skeins of raw silk into finished products. The Belding mills purchased raw silk in 125 to 225 pound bales from Italy, Japan and China, using from 5000 to 10,000 pounds of raw silk a week in the early twentieth century. The raw silk skeins were weighed, sorted, and washed, then wound onto bobbins. The silk threads were doubled, twisted and spun to the proper thickness and tension for each use--hand sewing, machine sewing, embroidery, crochet, warp and woof in weav- ing. The average machine sewing thread contained 360 strands of cocoon silk. Sewing, embroidery, and crochet thread was then dyed and finished, wound onto spools and packaged. Yarn for weaving was reeled onto bobbins (woof) or beams (warp), then woven, dyed and finished as fabric. The adaptation of powered machines to these various process- es in the last quarter of the nineteenth century permitted a tremendous increase in the output of silk and greatly re- duced its cost.“ Because of these new machines, many jobs could be performed by unskilled or semiskilled workers. In the words of one visitor to the Belding mills: The various steps of manufacture into thread, fabrics, and embroidery silks, are accomplished by machines with almost human intelligence.... The machines are well nigh automatic, but not 74 quite, and it is in watching them to see that they do their work right, to look out for broken threads, empty shuttles and such things that the thousands of girls are needed." Inexperienced people could learn to weave plain fabrics in a few weeks and eventually learned to operate four looms simultaneously. Some tasks, such as sorting raw silk skeins, and labelling the skeins of finished embroidery silk, were still performed by hand. But most of the occupa- tions in thread and weaving mills--winding, spinning, doub- ling, reeling, spooling--involved monitoring machines, re- placing bobbins, and tying broken threads. Spoolers, label- lers, and enterers (people who tied the threads of a new warp to the loom) sat at their work. Spinners, winders, and weavers monitored several machines and were on their feet most of the day. They could sit only when no adjustments were needed.“ The use of powered machinery in textile manufacture not only increased production and reduced necessary skill lev- els, but also added noise and danger to textile work. There was a constant whizzing, whirring, and buzzing in the wind- ing and spinning rooms. Weaving rooms were particularly loud. For example, one researcher reported that weavers in New Jersey’s jacquard silk weaving mills frequently suffered from deafness caused by the loom thunder." Other studies report that cotton and wool weavers often described a deaf- ening pounding that made the walls and floors shake, and a thunder so great that “you couldn’t hear someone speak, unless they shouted in your ear."" There were no such de- 75 scriptions of the Belding mills. Former Belding silk work- ers described the noise in various ways. According to one, the “click-click" of the shuttles was noisy, but ”no awful roar” and “you could hear yourself talk." Another said that the looms ”thumped pretty loud" and one "had to shout quite a lot" to be heard." The two mills in Belding contained only about 800 looms, far fewer than the thousands which were common in huge mills in the East. Perhaps the rela- tively small size of these mills accounts for the absence of the din so often reported in other places. Before electric motors powered each machine, the power transfer system in mills was noisy and hazardous. Under this older system, a central boiler in the basement supplied power to each machine by a network of shafts, belts, and gears which passed through holes in the floors. This system created a constant roar, absorbed a lot of floor space, and presented great risks that clothing or hair would be caught on some moving part. To start or stop a machine, one shift- ed a moving belt from one position to another. Three of the four Belding mills used this method for part of the time they were in operation, then changed to electric power. The fourth mill always used electric motors instead of the old belt drive method.'° The Belding mills had some features which tended to re- duce the dangers inherent in working with powered machines. For example, these mills used machines which stopped automa- tically when threads broke or ran out, thus reducing the 76 risk of injury. Previously, workers had to change bobbins and spools while they were still spinning. These village mills were also less hazardous because the machinery was not crowded together. In urban areas, where factory space was at a premium, narrow aisles often increased the risk of being caught in a machine. Photos show that machines in the Belding mills were widely spaced. Even under the best cir- cumstances however, powered machines were dangerous. Power looms could "throw a shuttle" and send a bobbin flying across the room, instead of through the loom. Belding wea- vers were concerned with being hit, but the shuttles usually fell harmlessly on the floor.'* Hazards existed in these mills, but textile production was one of the cleaner and less dangerous forms of factory work." Furthermore, in 1909, a U. 8. Senate 8329;; judged silk manufacturing to be the safest kind of textile produc- tion. Insurance companies acknowledged the relative safety of silk manufacture by charging lower rates for it than for other kinds of textile manufacturing. Unlike cotton and wool manufacture, silk processing involved no lint or dust to damage lungs. Because silk fiber was so expensive and delicate, it was in the manufacturers’ self-interest to keep their mills clean, their machinery in good repair, and to provide good ventilation and lighting. In 1901, Alvah N. Belding stated proudly, "We have built such perfect mills that our insurance rate is the lowest obtainable.”" State factory inspectors, Detroit reporters, visiting 77 doctors and lecturers on working conditions were unanimous in their assessment of the Belding mills as clean, spacious, well-lighted and superior to the majority of the mills in the East and the South. In 1902, the State Commissioner of Labor praised the silk factories of the Belding Brothers and Co. at Belding...as regards cleanliness, ventila- tion, general sanitary conditions, safeguards and practical consideration...for the personal well being of its employees." In 1909, a lecturer "in the interests of female and child labor,” A. G. Gates of Canterbury, New Hampshire, was im- pressed with the neatness and "perfect sanitary conditions" in the Belding mills. If all the institutions where women and girls are employed were anywhere near the high standard of the Belding silk mills,...the question of woman labor in our Great Nation would be a far different problem." Evidence indicates that as regards material working condi- tions, the Belding mills were at a level with the best in their era." Production Processes: Cooper-Wells and Company The Cooper-Wells hosiery mill in St. Joseph carried out many of the same processes as the Belding silk mills, even though it worked with cotton and wool rather than silk, and produced knitted rather than woven fabric. The 100 by 40 feet frame mill which was built in 1879, burned and was replaced in 1903 by a three-story brick structure, 227 by 67 feet. In this new building, electric motors on each floor 78 or department drove the shafts and pulleys which powered the various machines. Machines for carding, spinning, and wind- ing yarn were on the third floor! the knitting machines were on the second floor: the first floor housed offices and the finishing rooms. By the early twentieth century, the Cooper-Wells complex took up an entire city block, and included three three-story buildings. One housed the mill itself: a second, 50 by 155 feet, was a warehouse for raw stocks the third, 42 by 200 feet, stored finished goods. Three more buildings, each about 50 by 100 feet, contained the engine room, the dying operations, and the oxidizing room. As many as 600 people were employed in this mill." When they planned their new building in 1903, the owners of Cooper-Wells were apparently eager to take advan- tage of technology which would reduce the risk of fire. Brick construction and a solid four inch floor (without passages for power belts) reduced the risk of spreading fire--a threat in any factory, but especially in one which contained so much flammable material. The new building also contained an automatic fire alarm and sprinkler system, and a fire door on the elevator. Insurance was seldom adequate to cover losses. For example, the 1903 fire caused damages estimated at $125,000, including the loss of raw materials and finished goods, but insurance covered only $42,000. The new mill cost between $130,000 and $140,000. Even if insur- ance equalled the cost of construction and lost materials, it could not make up for the loss of business during recon- 79 struction. It was obviously in the owners’ interest to prevent fire." Cooper-Wells bought some finished yarn, but also had a spinning department that was capable of producing between 1600 and 2000 pounds of yarn a day, on four 300-spindle mules." The company bought bales of unprocessed cotton and wool fibers which had to be cleaned and carded before being spun. Carding separated and fluffed the fibers on spiked tools which lined the fibers in the same direction. After carding, the fibers were drawn into a "sliver” and prepared for spinning by being stretched and partially twisted into "roving". The spinning mules spun, twisted, and stretched the fibers into yarn, which was then wound onto bobbins or cones for knitting. The operators monitored these machines, replacing bobbins of roving and yarn as needed, and piecing fiber ends to make a continuous thread.'° During the time period of this study, the technology of commercial knitting changed a great deal. These changes increased output per machine, produced better fitting gar- ments, and reduced the skill level needed for some opera- tions. Until 1889, Cooper-Wells and Company used only hand- operated hosiery knitting machines. The operators both drove the machine and made all the adjustments needed to alter the knit for leg, heel, foot and toe. It required some skill to operate these machines smoothly. Semi-automa- tic hosiery machines were introduced in 1889. These were powered by a drive belt, but still required the operator to 80 stop the machine at both the heel and toe, to engage the extra reinforcing thread needed for these parts, and to change the action from round work (used for the leg and foot) to back and forth (used for heel and toe). Operators had to be alert to make these adjustments at the proper time, as well as to replace broken needles and bobbins as needed. One operator could manage eight semi-automatic knitters, producing a total of twenty dozen pair a day." Fully automatic knitting machines were introduced grad- ually, beginning in 1893. By 1903, Cooper-Wells had 200 fully automatic machines, capable of producing a total of 1100 dozen pair of stockings a day. These machines stopped themselves at the heel and toe, engaged and disengaged the reinforcing thread used on those parts, and changed their own motion from a circular stitch to back and forth. Making plain below-the-knee hose, these machines could run contin- uously and knit a string of hose which were later cut apart. One operator could monitor fourteen such knitters, producing a total of forty-two dozen pair of hose a day. Doing plain knitting, operators had only to watch for broken needles and empty bobbins. However, even with the fully automatic ma- chines, the operators had to intervene if they were knitting fancy patterns or stockings with ribbed tops. In addition to performing these basic tasks of spinning and knitting, workers in the mill mended damaged goods, looped or seamed toes, and performed a range of finishing tasks, such as cleaning, bleaching, dying, pressing and 81 folding. They worked in a new, clean, spacious well-lighted mill but also encountered a variety of undesirable working conditions. The increased use of machines produced high noise levels in some departments and added risk of injury. The dying and bleaching rooms, where only males were em- ployed, were notoriously unpleasant." In cotton and wool processing, dust and lint posed additional and chronic problems, especially in the carding room. A 1915 investigation of Michigan knitting mills re- ported the following complaint from workers: "Sometimes I feel kind of sore on my chest, but I do not know as it is from the lint or not....Lint down your throat is just hor- rid." In some mills, suction fans drew off some particles, thus insuring "the most favorable conditions possible," but even these left annoying and potentially dangerous dust in the air.“' It is not known whether the Cooper-Wells’ mill contained such fans. But excessive dust and lint did some— times cause problems at Cooper-Wells’. In 1905, workers staged a brief strike, and demanded improved ventilation "to stir the cloud of lint that hangs around the machines.“" Eye strain was also a common problem in hosiery and knitting mills, particularly for loopers, whose job was to connect the edges (loops) of two pieces of knitted material to create the effect of continuous knitting. Black thread and fabric are particularly hard to see. Since Cooper-Wells specialized in black stockings for boys, advertised under the ”Iron Clad“ slogan, many of their employees must have 82 worked with black thread. Remarks by Michigan hosiery work- ers to a state investigator in 1915 included: "The work is terribly hard on the eyes. I guess almost everyone in this work has to wear glasses)" "Hard on eyes; hard on backl hard on me all over!" "Arms ache.“" It is difficult to generalize about the amount of physi- cal stress experienced at Cooper-Wells because their em- ployees performed so many different tasks, and little de- tailed information has been preserved. There is no doubt that many jobs, such as looping, required constant close attention. Those who monitored machines had some time be- tween tasks, and when the machines were stopped for repairs. Opportunities for conversation varied, depending on whether they were working with noisy machines or not. Some workers could sit, while others stood most of the time. Some worked in relatively comfortable settings, while others were in hot, linty or steamy rooms. Some had easy "light" work, others did a lot of lifting. The mill did have the latest in fire safety equipment, and in a 1907 Benort, the state factory inspector described this mill as "one of the most up-to-date hosiery mills in the United States." According to this Benont, Cooper-Wells gave great care and attention to the questions of light, heating, ventilation, and fine drinking water, as well as other small matters that pertain to the comfort and health of their employees." From the perspective of these inspectors, some noise, dust and unpleasantness were unavoidable in factory work. They praised employers who attempted to ameliorate the worst of 83 these conditions by providing modern, well-maintained ma- chines, fresh drinking water, clean rest rooms, and well- 1ighted work rooms. Production Processes: Warren Featherbone Company Work at the Warren Featherbone Company included three broad categories: those associated with making standard sewing notions, such as ribbon, twill tape and seam binding: those involved in making its unique patented product, Fea- therbone; and a number of general support operations. Their 400 workers were employed in a complex of seven buildings, including a three-story, 600 feet long main factory. Sepa- rate buildings housed the machine shop, power plant, dye house, print shop, and box making and shipping departments. Again, this included a wide variety of specific tasks, under widely varying working conditions, involving both hand and machine work, different opportunities for relief from mono- tonous tasks and for conversation with co-workers.’7 The Warren Featherbone Company designed and built some of the machines used to process featherbone, modifying and improving its original production methods. First the fea- thers were sorted by color and turned the same direction. They were then hand-fed into a series of machines that in turn, cut the plumage from the spine, split the quill and removed the pith. Next the quills were cut lengthwise into strips about eight inches long, and wound with thread to form a continuous round cable "not larger than the stem of a 84 rose." Machines called double or single winders were used for this purpose. The cord was packaged in twelve-yard reels, and sold to retailers who re-sold it by the yard. The factory also sewed four cables together, side by side, to form a wider product that could be used as dress stays.3' In 1888, the company began to cover the cord with cloth or ribbon, introducing an additional occupation into the plant, operating sewing machines. Starting in 1894, the cords were also treated with glue, dried, heated and shaped before they were covered, requiring the development and operation of several unique machines and techniques for working with sticky, hot featherbone.“? In 1899 the company made forty different styles of featherbone of various widths and with different kinds of coverings, to meet dozens of specific needs for shaping and stiffening clothing. In 1901, they sold 1200 miles of only one particular style, Gros Grain Ribbon Featherbone Tape.‘° The Warren Company wove much of the ribbon, twill tape and seam binding used on featherbone and also sold such notions separately. Therefore some of their workers engaged in tasks similar to those in any textile operation: prepar- ing raw materials for processing! monitoring spinning, wind- ing and weaving machines; and dying and packaging finished products.“ As in the other mills, physical working condi- tions varied with the particular job, but in general, Warren Featherbone was a new, clean plant, which provided the basic amenities expected from "enlightened" manufacturers. State 85 factory inspectors “found conditions unusually satisfactory“ and praised management for sparing "no pains to insure the health and comfort of their employees."" We have seen how legal pressures, insurance companies, and these employers’ general concerns for their own reputa- tions and for their employees’ well-being combined to create conditions in their mills that ranked among the best in their era. They were also subject to extra legal and public pressure because they employed large numbers of women and some minors (See Chapter IV). Beginning in the late nine- teenth century, Michigan limited the hours and occupations of women and minors and required their employers to provide them with special facilities, such as seats and clean sepa- rate washrooms. These "restricted" hours were still long, since the law permitted a twelve-hour work day and sixty hour week until 1909. In that year, the state limited the employment of women and minors in stores, factories, mills and workshops to an average of nine hours per day, or fifty- four hours per week, with a maximum of ten hours in any one day. The 1909 law also prohibited the employment of anyone under sixteen and of any female under eighteen between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. The legislature appointed special women inspectors to interview female workers at places which em- ployed a high percentage of women. Their visits brought additional pressure for compliance and their interviews with workers supplemented the data that the regular inspectors had collected from employers." 86 Their combined reports indicate that the companies in this study complied with minimum state standards regarding the employment of women and minors. In twenty-eight years, the state inspectors had relatively few criticisms. Each com- pany received a few orders to provide additional washrooms for their women employees, and to keep the wash rooms clean.“ And one woman inspector told Belding Brothers and Company to prohibit men from using profane language in the presence of girls." The companies in this study did not require overtime, and thus did not break the law. However, the workday at each of them equalled the legal maximum hours for women under eighteen during the period 1880-1920.“ In the earlier period, they worked 60 hours from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., five days a week, with an hour for lunch, and then another five hours on Saturdays, from 7 to 12. When they worked 54 hours a week, they worked an hour less each day. This meant that they worked twelve hour days in the 1880’s, when many industries were seeking a ten, or even an eight hour day." Although state regulation of the employment of women was so minimal that employers could easily comply, these companies stand out among other employers as being unusually cooperative. Belding Brothers and Company re- ceived especially high praise from Inspector Luella M. Burton: "Nowhere I have visited in the state have I found better conditions existing than in these silk mills.“" Conditions at Cooper-Wells and Warren Featherbone were also deemed “unusually satisfactory."4’ 87 The employment of children as well as of women was a social and political issue at the turn of the century. Child labor was widespread in many sectors of textile work between 1880 and 1920. Persons under the age of sixteen made up 20.8% of silk workers in 1870 and 25% of southern cotton mill workers in 1890 and 1900. In 1905, 9.2% of silk workers nationwide were under sixteen. In 1907-08, 6% of the silk workers in Patterson and 23.2% of Pennsylvania’s silk workers were under sixteen. In response to these pat- terns, states and the federal government enacted legislation to reduce and control the employment of children.'° In 1893, Michigan raised the legal minimum age for children to work in factories from ten to fourteen. Even then, it was legal to employ children between fourteen and sixteen years of age only if they or their parents had filed sworn state- ments with their employers, certifying their date and place of birth and their ability to read and write. Each employer was supposed to keep this information on file for the fac- tory inspector, and to post the legal hours of labor for minors in each room where young people worked. The factory inspector also had the power to require a physical exam for children under sixteen to certify that they were capable of their assigned tasks. The county physician would do this at no charge to employer or employee.'* Compared to many other textile factories, these three companies employed relatively few minors, and obeyed state law rather closely. The factory inspectors’ Bgnorgs show 88 Table III-1 Employees Under Sixteen Company Total 14-16 Percent of Year Olds Workforce Belding Brothers 193 = 1.59 Richardson Silk 67 1.1 Cooper-Wells 551 5.5 Warren Featherbone 356 5.0 Source: Michigan. Reports. 1894-1920. See Appendix, Tables A-2, A—3, A-4. Table III-2 Violations of Child Labor Laws YEAR NUMBER OF MISSING NUMBER OF WORKERS STATEMENTS UNDER 14 1894 x BB 1895 x BB, cw, WF 2 cw, 2 WF 1896 x cw, WF 2 WF 1900 x 88, WF 1902 1 88 1903 6 88 2 88, 2 cw 1906 7 88 1907 2 88 1908 2 88 1912 2 88 1913 x cw x - no exact number reported, BB - Belding Brothers and Company, CW 8 Cooper-Wells and Company, WF I Warren Featherbone and Company. Source: Benorts. 1894-1920. 89 that over a twenty-five year period, only 1.1% to 5.5% of their workers were between 14 and 16 years of age (Table III-1). Cooper-Wells, which had the largest number and percent of 14 to 16 year olds, also had the highest percent of immigrants (See Chapter IV). Warren Featherbone, located in a very small rural community and chronically short of labor, also depended on a few young workers. Belding Bro- thers and Company employed hardly anyone under sixteen. These youngest workers were likely to begin by spooling, coiling and packaging thread and notions. Many of those under sixteen worked part-time during the school year, from seven to eight a.m., four to six p.m., and on Saturdays. Most worked full time only during school vacations.‘2 At each company, the inspectors found only a few viola- tions (Table III-2). Cooper-Wells in 1894 and 1895, and Warren Featherbone in 1895 and 1896, were cited for failure to post notices listing the hours of labor for minors. Statements certifying the ages and education of minor em- ployees were also sometimes missing. However, in twenty— eight years, only eleven underage employees were discovered at the three firms. There were probably more, since several former employees remember that some people began working when they were eleven, twelve and thirteen at the Belding mills and at Warren Featherbone. And there was nothing to prevent the companies from immediately recalling those who had been sent home by the state inspector. But in spite of some deviations from the law, it is clear that none of these 90 firms employed large numbers of minors, and that they gen- erally complied with state law." Wages and the Division of Labor The final aspect of material working conditions to be examined in this chapter is compensation or wages. The only pay records available for Warren Featherbone Company cover the years 1890-1893, 1899-1900, and 1903-1914. None are available for the other two firms. Therefore this discus- sion depends primarily on average daily wages reported by employers to the state factory inspectors. The data is inadequate to address questions of economic mobility, or of workers’ standard of living in relation to changing wage and price levels.'4 However it does indicate whether the work- ers at Belding Brothers and Company, Cooper-Wells and Compa- ny and Warren Featherbone and Company were well or poorly paid in comparison to each other and to statewide averages. Table III-3 Average Daily Wage Company 1898 1899 1900 1901 Warren Featherboge .72 .89 .80 1.00 Belding Brothers .85 .80 .93 1.00 Richardson Silk .77 .81 .83 .85 Cooper-Wells Hosiery .95 1.00 1.12 1.01 Source: Michigan. Benorgs. 1899-1902. The most complete and comparable wage data available for the companies in this study are average daily wages for 91 the years 1898-1901 (Table III-3). For these years, the state factory inspectors reported the average daily wage paid by each employer, including men and women, both in the factory and the office, but excluding supervisory employees. Based on this table, the Warren Featherbone Company paid the lowest wages of the three companies in this study, reporting an average of only $.72 per day in 1898. Seven years earlier, a state inspector had observed that "the wages paid are apparently small“ at Featherbone. At that time, the average daily women’s wage at Featherbone was only $.60, while Belding Brothers and Company paid an average of $.75 a day.”" These low wages reflect this company’s business difficulties in the nineteenth century. However, by 1901, business had improved dramatically, and Featherbone had raised its wages to match those of the highest paying companies. Warren Featherbone’s 1900 payroll book confirms this wage increase, showing an average daily wage of $1.03, and an individual range from $.73 to $1.31." In this four year period, Belding Brothers and Company also raised its average wage significantly. It is reasonable that the Richardson Silk Company paid the lowest average wage because it operated only a thread mill, and used a higher percentage of less skilled workers than the other factories. In con- trast, two of the three Belding Brothers and Company mills were weaving mills, and weavers were among the most skilled and best paid textile workers. Wages at Cooper-Wells changed the least in these four years. According to a tex- 92 tile trade journal, $1.00 was the standard wage for knitters at the turn of the century." Table III-4 Canvass of Women Workers: Average Daily Wage Year State-wide Belding St. Joseph Three Oaks* 1898 - - - - 1899 .83 .74 - - 1900 - - .98 1.03 1901 - - - - 1902 .80 .90 — - 1903 — .90 1.01 .85 1904 .92 .99 .89 .95 1905 .97 .95 .91 1.15 1906 1.03 1.08 1.00 1.45 1907 1.07 1.13 1.04 1.45 1908 1.14 1.21 1.13 1.30 1909 1.05 1.23 1.11 1.38 1910 1.21 - - 1.53 1911 1.22 1.21 1.24 1.35 - Indicates no data for that year. Source: Michigan. Reports. 1899-1912. *Warren Featherbone Company Records, Regional History Collections, Western Michigan University. Except for the Warren Featherbone Company, only scat- tered wage data are available for these companies for years other than 1898-1901. Some is from newspaper accounts and interviews, but most result from the serendipitous inquiries of specially appointed women factory inspectors, who annual- ly "canvassed" a limited number of women workers in selected communities. In their reports, they lumped the answers from all women factory workers in each community into a single ”average," without distinguishing workers by company (Table III-4). However, since each of the three companies employed a majority of the women workers in their respective villages, it seems likely that the "average" would be at 93 least close to their wage. Unfortunately, these special inspectors canvassed Three Oaks’ workers only in 1911. For other years, the table uses average wages from the Warren Featherbone payroll records. These are not strictly com- parable to the other averages in Table III-4, because they include male as well as female wages." Based on these canvasses, it appears that wages paid by these three companies were very close to the state average wage for women. The wage data reported by these workers was also consistent with the data reported by the employers in Table III-3. In 1905, when the statewide average wage for women factory workers was $.92 per day, the average daily women’s wage was $.99 in Belding, and $.89 in St. Joseph. The statewide average wage of $1.03 per day in 1906 was close to the average wage of $1.08 in Belding and $1.00 in St. Joseph. The 1911 canvass found a statewide average for women workers of $1.22, while the average wage for women in Belding was $1.21, in St. Joseph $1.24, and a surprising $1.48 in Three Oaks. This was the only canvass made in Three Oaks, and it may have been subject to a sampling or clerical error, since it is so much higher than the wages recorded in other years." The scanty wage data found in interviews and newspaper accounts confirms the general conclusion that wages at Bel- ding Brothers and at Warren Featherbone were bracketed around the state average, with Belding Brothers paying some- what more and Warren Featherbone paying quite a bit less. 94 (No supplementary wage data was available for Cooper-Wells.) In 1901, an unskilled Belding silk worker told a reporter she earned $1 day, exactly what the inspector had indicated to be the average.‘° A pamphlet published in 1914 reported that workers at Belding Brothers earned from $8 to $16 a week, $1.34 to $2.68 a day.‘* Beginners and the unskilled were paid the smaller amount! weavers earned the maximum. These figures are close to the 1913 statewide average daily wage of $1.33 for women and $2.49 for men (Table III-5). By 1920, the most skilled weavers were paid $4.50 a clay."2 Wages at Warren Featherbone were more modest than this. A 1903 newspaper article indicated that Featherbone paid be- ginners $4.50 a week and that piece workers earned from $6 to $8 a week.“3 However, the 1903 payroll books show an average weekly wage of only $5.15, only $.65 above the beginner’s wage.“ Even assuming that the average was somewhat reduced by the number who worked less than full time, nevertheless, few earned $6 to $8 a week. Former Featherbone employees knew that their wages were slightly lower than average. They earned only $14 a week in 1919, when the average Belding worker was paid $18 or more..- The wages individual workers received depended on the specific jobs they held, and that in turn was affected by gender. In these three companies, as was common throughout industry, most jobs were segregated by sex. Although there is little statistical evidence of a substantial wage gap by sex in the companies in this study, Table III-5 summarizes Table III-5 Average Wages of Michigan Factory Employees All Workers Under 16 Office Foremen Year Only Boys Girls M F F-female M F 1897 1.29 1898 1.37 1899 1.39 1900 1.48 1.67 .87 1901 1.67 1.57% 2.32% 2.73 1902 1.68 1.60% 2.19% 2.75 1903 1.75 1.83 .95 .76 .65 2.61 1.33 2.86 1904 1.77 1.83 1.01 .79 .64 2.70 1.36 2.91 1905 1.82 1.91 1.01 .77 .64 2.74 1.43 3.02 1906 1.88 1.93 1.03 .87 .67 2.84 1.48 3.05 1907 1.93 2.02 1.06 .89 .74 2.94 1.53 3.18 1908 1.92 1.97 1.09 .84 .69 3.03 1.54 3.21 1909 1.98 2.06 1.14 .88 .71 3.10 1.57 3.31 1910 2.13 2.19 1.18 .93 .81 3.21 1.57 3.46 1911 2.23 2.32 1.24 .91 .88 3.32 1.71 3.56 1912 2.37 1.32 1.09 .88 3.24 1.76 1913 2.41 2.47 1.33 1.08 .91 3.44 1.81 3.77 1914 2.45 2.52 1.38 1.08 .89 3.32 1.89 3.84 (2.10)F 1915 2.54 2.61 1.39 1.08 .89 3.58 1.86 3.93 (2.10)F 1916 2.49 1.45 1.17 1.01 3.82 1.95 4.20 (2.12)F 1917 2.95 1.67 1.42 1.15 4.24 2.12 4.72 (2.27)F 1918 4.14 3.73 2.19 1.67 1.43 5.08 2.44 5.09 (2.67)F 1919 4.82 4.60 2.63 1.79 1.67 5.71 2.94 6.66 (3.44)F *Combined male and female wages Blanks indicate missing data. Source: Michigan. BEQOF‘ES. 1898-1920. 96 the wage differential on a statewide basis for factory, office and supervisory personnel. Census data, newspaper accounts, interviews and photographs confirm sex-segregated employment patterns at Belding Brothers, Cooper-Wells, and Warren Featherbone. Following the custom in textile mills, the plant superintendents, division heads, warpers, loom fixers and dyers were male. Only males were employed in the engine rooms and in the shipping, construction and mainte- nance departments. Females were usually winders, knitters, labellers, spoolers or weavers. Weaving was one "women’s occupation“ that was especially well paid. Women and girls also operated sewing machines, did mending and packaging, and worked in the office. Both men and women worked as lower level supervisors, as foremen and forewomen.“ The relatively low average wages paid by all three companies in this study reflect the fact that one-half to three-fourths of their employees were women." State in- spectors were conscious of the gap between women’s and men’s wages. For example, the author of the 1906 3229;; judged that wages in the knitting industry were "low", and attri- buted this to the fact that 70% percent of the workers in Michigan knitting mills were female." Men held nearly all of the best paying jobs, and even when women and men did the same work, they were not always paid at the same rate. In 1891, several women complained about this to the state inspector. One said, "I am working in a knitting factory. Men in the same work get $20.00 per month more than women. 97 I think there should be equal pay for the same work."" In spite of complaints, the wage gap continued. A survey of employees of twenty-one knitting mills in Michigan in 1905 found that the average daily wage for men ranged from a minimum of $1.10 to a maximum of $2.34; while women’s wages ranged from a low of $.66 to a high of only $1.50.’° For statistical purposes, the Michigan labor bureau multiplied the "daily wage“ by six to derive the "weekly wage", even though the standard work week was five full days and a half day on Saturday. Annual wages would be less than fifty-two times the weekly wage, because most workers lost wages when work was slow and when the factory closed for vacation, inventory or repairs. The companies in this study often closed for one or two weeks at Christmas and/or in the summer.” Although there was some seasonal variation in output, layoffs were rare in these firms: "steady" work was the pattern. The average wages reported in the tables in this chap- ter might have been further reduced by the "fining" system which was in effect in many turn of the century factories. It was traditional in many textile mills to fine workers for tardiness, for producing damaged goods and for breaking rules, for example, talking too much." Other mills charged workers for materials or supplies. In 1915, a Michigan Commission of Inquiry observed that such practices had the “tendency to clip the edge off the weekly wage."" In 1891, the custom seemed to be rare in Michigan, since the 98 Bureau of Labor reported fining in only two factories, both in Ypsilanti. Those factories imposed fines ranging from $.25 to $2.50 in a week." But a 1914 survey of 503 Michi- gan establishments, representing more than fifteen different industries, found that 663 of 8,358 women employees had been fined. Some of these fines were as much as $2.00, repre- senting a substantial cut in the average woman’s wage of $8.28 a week (Table III-5)." Neither interviews nor writ- ten records refer to fines at Belding Brothers or at Cooper- Wells. However, the Warren Featherbone company payroll books list weekly deductions for “poor" work for nearly every worker between December 1904 and December 1906. These deductions became less frequent during 1907 and ceased in 1908. Nearly every worker lost from five to ninety-five cents weekly, although everyone also received a weekly ten percent bonus during these years as well. It is likely that these deductions and across the board bonuses were temporary experiments to stimulate both greater output and more per- fect work. During these years, the company also imposed a small number of charges for scissors, pliers and shears, ranging from ten to sixty cents." Conclusion This survey of production processes and material work- ing conditions at Belding Brothers and Company, Cooper-Wells and Company and Warren Featherbone and Company reveals con- ditions that were among the best in U. S. textile manufac- 99 turing between 1880 and 1920. Rather than "dark, satanic mills," each operated modern, spacious, well-lighted facto- ries that were the objects of local pride. Although working conditions varied, most of their employees monitored or operated machines, and worked in large rooms filled with the whirr and clatter of spinning mules, winders, looms, knit- ting or sewing machines. Government regulation and private insurers enforced minimum efforts to prevent fire and avoid accidents. Factory safety was narrowly defined as having guards on machinery, low-water alarms on boilers, and rail- ings on stairways and elevator shafts. The Michigan inspec- tors seem to have been honest and conscientious in their inspections and in making follow-up visits to confirm that orders had been obeyed. They praised all three employers for their cooperation. It would be too strong to call textile work "healthy", but it was clearly much safer than mining, metal-working or lumbering. Accidents were rare at these three factories. As was common in the textile industry, a large percen- tage of their workers were women (See Chapter IV). However, contrary to the textile industry image, most laborers were over sixteen, not children. State records for the three companies in this study indicate that only 1.1% to 5.5% of their workforces were under 16. Only a very small number were illegally employed. Compared to current practice, the six-day factory work week was excessive, running sixty hours a week until 1909, 100 then only fifty-four hours. These were the maximum hours permitted for females under eighteen and for youth of both sexes. The factory whistle was a standard in each village and these hours laws were scrupulously observed. In spite of the long hours and monotonous, tedious labor involved in factory work, many villagers preferred it to the limited alternatives available. Some male workers valued its stead- iness, and female workers compared it favorably to domestic work, sewing, sales work and teaching. Factory workers had much more control over their private lives than domestic workers, and usually worked shorter hours. This desire to have time of one’s own, apart from working hours, became increasingly important in the twentieth century.’7 Not only the factory’s fixed workday, but factory wages were also considered a "plus." Existing wage data indicate that wages were about "average“, and included a sex differ- ential. A 1914 survey of 50,230 working women at 1,348 Michigan establishments found that 21.7% earned less than $6 a week: 51.4% earned under $8: and 48.6% earned $8 or more." These figures approximate the wages women received at the three companies in this study. Presumably, the average male earned more. However, even male wages were lower than those available from some other employers during this period. Iron works and boat manufacturing companies in St. Joseph paid higher wages than Cooper-Wells.” And in the early twentieth century, both Warren Featherbone and Belding Brothers and Company lost male employees when auto- 101 mobile manufacturers opened in nearby towns and offered substantially higher wages. Some who stayed with the tex- tile firms were unwilling to move or to commute. Others judged that although their current wages were lower, they were more likely to remain "steady," less subject to the fluctuating employment that characterized the automobile industry.'° Contemporary observers also noted that low wages went further in small towns where there were no trans- portation expenses and where housing and food cost less than in major urban areas." Factory work also had special appeal for females. In 1899, the average wage of women factory workers in Michigan, $.83, was much more than the $.49 paid to domestics, or the $.23 paid to lowly "cash girls," who were employed in de- partment stores to carry customer’s payments to a central cashier and return with their change.‘2 There were also opportunities to increase one’s earnings above the average by increasing output, learning a more highly rated job, or becoming a first level supervisor. Factory forewomen could earn about 50% more than an average factory worker. In 1891, the average Belding Brothers and Company worker earned $.75 a day, and foreladies earned $1.30: the average Fea- therbone employee earned $.60 and foreladies earned $1.25." Department store clerks had a certain middle-class prestige, yet a state inspector observed that "the great bulk [of lady clerks] are but poorly paid....Those who are obliged to entirely support themselves are far worse off than women and 102 girls who work in the shops and factories.“ In her judge- ment, it took almost everything they earned to pay for appropriate clothing." Belding Brothers and Company silk workers shared this view, when they told a reporter that they couldn’t earn enough to live on as clerks in a city shop." The mature, relatively prosperous status of textile manufacturing between 1880 and 1920 played a major role in determining material working conditions at these three firms. Their workers experienced none of the disruptions associated with a transition to a markedly different organi- zation of production or with changing skill levels. Living in an industrial age, they knew in advance roughly what their roles in the factory would be. Most worked in set— tings that were noisy, but posed little obvious danger. They worked fixed hours and could count on fairly steady year-round wages. Men and women could earn enough to sup- port themselves and their families without constant anxiety, though with little surplus. Materially, their work settings lacked the kind of extreme conditions that placed severe stress on workers and were likely to result in resentment and conflict. The next chapters will examine the social and power dimensions of industrial experience in these three settings. CHAPTER IV HELP WANTED: WOMEN AND GIRLS PREFERRED Unlike factories in large eastern cities which could recruit workers from large populations supplemented by a stream of immigrants, factories in small towns had only limited populations in the immediate vicinity. Nevertheless rural industries in America have traditionally been success- ful in their efforts to recruit workers. In the forty years before 1920, industries in small towns employed a large percentage of the U. 8. industrial workforce and produced more than 25% of the nation’s manufactures.‘ Job—related geographic mobility was widespread: many people were will- ing, even eager to move: travellers, newspapers, family and friends spread information about job opportunities. Even women and girls sought work away from their homes. Accord- ing to one historian, a nineteenth century “factory had only to open its doors in any part of the rural United States to find itself besieged by girls and young women from miles around, all eager for work."' Perhaps it is too strong to describe Belding Brothers, Cooper-Wells and Warren Featherbone as "besieged", but they too were successful in recruiting women and girls to do traditional “women’s work” in the textile industry, in spite of the fact that factory work contradicted widely held notions about women’s proper place. Although moderated in the years after the Civil War, to some degree the attitudes and behavior of "the lady" had become a general standard of femininity and respectability. 103 104 A "true" lady would avoid manual labor, contact with the public, casual or unstructured associations with men, and any appearance of sexual impropriety. Restrictive clothing and formal manners and speech, as well as remaining within the bounds of home and family were also elements of being a "lady.” Such genteel expectations contrasted with older American traditions, with frontier and farming conditions and with European patterns. Within those contexts, women’s work was essential to the household economy, and idleness was considered either unvirtuous or an unattractive aristo- cratic habit.s Even though popular literature, religious tracts and public debate were preoccupied with preserving female domes- ticity, sexual propriety and daintiness, the wages and jobs open to most working women precluded any pretense of achiev- ing such circumstances. Many women and their families, particularly farmers and immigrants, resisted the ”lady” ideal. Their working and living conditions prevented them from achieving the delicate appearance of ”ladies,“ and required them to engage in manual labor and associate with women and men outside the protected circle of family super- vision. In fact, their willingness and ability to do these things were important aspects of their contributions to maintaining their families. In order to survive, their families needed workers, not "ladies."‘ These attitudes towards work were consistent with those expressed by Lucy Larcom, an early mill operative in Lowell, Massachusetts, 105 who said of factory girls: "They were making their own traditions, to hand down to their Republican descendants - one of which is that honest work has no need to humble itself in a nation like ours."- However, according to the analyses of historian Sarah Eisenstein, few advice books for working girls emphasized the dignity of honest labor. Instead they stressed the importance of maintaining the appearance of a lady, and indicated that working for wages threatened that status. These books, written by journalists, reformers and educators in the 1890’s, depicted women workers to be in "exceptional" family circumstances that temporarily required their wage labor. They worked because their fathers were ill, not as a routine, life-long commitment to employment. The authors discouraged identification or involvement with other work- ers. Women who wished to be ladies were warned to avoid being friendly with other workers, talking about work in social settings, joining others for recreation, discussing private matters or wasting their money ”treating“ the group. Worker solidarity was clearly defined as a threat to the status of ”lady."‘ Particularly in urban settings, working in a factory lowered a girl’s social standing. In 1888, the U. 8. Com- missioner of Labor considered the low social standing of urban working women to be a major social problem. In 1915, a Michigan commission made a similar observation: It is unfortunate that the girls who works in a factory is placed by society on a lower plane than 106 the one who is "helping mother." There is no reason for this. While staying at home may, to some, imply the ability to live without work, yet that "working” should lower the girls’ social sta- tus is illogical and demoralizing. In fact, it is the industrious woman, rather than the idle one, who should be esteemed and placed on the higher plane. But so long as the ”habit of thought" is in the direciton of doing homage to idleness, indus- try, among women, will be at a social discount and idleness at a premium. A few Americans believed that women who "chose" to work no longer had a right to gentle treatment. In some places, working women lost even limited community protection, be- cause women wage earners were defined as “without virtue.“ Places where women and men worked "indiscriminately to- gether“ were especially suspect. Some believed that a few years of work in a store or factory made a woman "unfit“ for home duties.’ By the early twentieth century, however, popular advice books began to be more realistic about women workers. They acknowledged that most women workers could not achieve the protected social and material environment once expected of "ladies." These authors relaxed some of their strict stan- dards of propriety and womanliness so that fewer women were automatically excluded from acceptance. In the words of Sarah Eisenstein, "The image of the lady who worked blurred into one of working women who acted like ladies."' Accord- ing to this formulation, even factory girls could be ladies. In spite of the debate over the social acceptability of women working for wages outside the home, more and more women were seeking employment and more and more employers 107 were finding reasons to prefer women workers. Throughout the nineteenth century, the "de-skilling" process associated. with an increasing division of labor, and the introduction of specialized automatic machines had opened more and more manufacturing to the unskilled. Instead of years of appren- ticeships, a few hours to a few months training was all one needed. Employers considered women workers superior to men in "steadiness," "common sense, neatness, integrity," "easier to deal with" and "cheaper,“ too. According to some employers, men expected to be promoted and to get raises, women didn’t. Local custom and labor availability further defined ”women’s work."’ Despite its drawbacks and limitations, factory work offered rural women and girls an opportunity to earn cash with little investment in money or training. Between 1880 and 1920 there were relatively few jobs open to women and girls in mid-Michigan, and factory wages and hours compared favorably to those of teachers, domestics and farm laborers. In 1901, a female worker at the Belding Brothers mills made the following comparison between farm work and the ten-hour days at the mill: That makes 60 hours a week, a dollar a day for ten hours work. We pay two dollars for room and board. On the farm we received nothing for our work, save when father could give us a little, and we had much more fatiguing work to do.‘° For the most part, the companies in this study had little difficulty recruiting workers, because they offered a scarce product, a paying job, to a receptive audience. 108 Belding Brothers and Company The largest of the three firms in this study, Belding Brothers and Company, employed an average of 750 people between 1893 and 1919. The number increased as the company expanded. From 1893 to 1904 there were two silk mills in Belding with a combined average workforce of 410. From 1904 to 1908, the three mills employed an average of 940. Be- tween 1909 and 1919, the four Belding silk mills employed an average of 1000 (See Appendix, Table A-2). The 1910 silk mill workforce of 1198 was equal to more than a quarter of Belding’s 1910 population of 4119. When the first mill opened in 1886, only a few skilled workers came from Belding Brothers and Company mills in the east: the rest were re- cruited locally. New workers were paid a fixed amount for a few weeks: later they went on piece work and earned more. In addition to their regular full-time workers, Belding Brothers and Company hired school children to work part- time, from 7 to 8 a.m., 4 to 6 p.m. and 7 to 12 on Satur- days. The company lent machines to other employees who worked in their own homes doing spooling and other tasks at piece work rates.u According to state factory inspector’s Benorts, 75% of Belding’s silk workers were female. The 1900 Belding city census confirms this pattern, listing 554 silk workers, 424 females and 130 males. More than half of the total (294) boarded with non-relatives. This included the 100 women who lived at one of the three company boarding houses. Single 109 women living independently made up the largest category of Belding silk workers. Nearly all of the rest of the mill workers lived with parents or spouses: only a few lived in separate households. However, even those who boarded with non-relatives were not necessarily separated from family contact, since brothers and sisters sometimes boarded in the same homes. The 1900 census lists about 150 silk workers whose parent, child, spouse or sibling was also employed in the silk mills, showing that family ties continued into the mill itself. No doubt there were also other relatives employed, such as in-laws and cousins. Over 80 percent of the females were under twenty-five, and only 10 percent were married. The males were slightly older and more likely to be married: sixty percent of the males were under twenty-five, and forty percent were married.*' There were few immigrants and little ethnic diversity among the Belding silk workers. In 1900, almost 90 percent (489) had been born in Michigan or in neighboring states. Fewer than 10 percent (47) were foreign-born, the largest number (32) in Canada. About one-third (176) had at least one foreign-born parent, most often Canadian. These pat- terns reflect the composition of the communities from which Belding Brothers and Company recruited its workers, the central part of Michigan’s lower peninsula.u Since it depended heavily on single women who came to Belding specifically to work in the silk mills, the company often sent recruiting agents by train to towns and villages 110 in Michigan. Family members and word-of-mouth also brought prospective employees. Recruits who brought six others with them were reimbursed for their train fare. These agents and a series of "souvenir" booklets emphasized Belding’s steady employment, "easy" labor, clean work setting and low-cost, high quality company housing. Appealing to many young wo- men’s interest in their appearance, the company promised wages high enough for workers "to dress...on an equality with the best class of female wage-earners in any section of the country." These booklets were also frank about the fact that only serious workers who meant "business" need apply, those looking for a “good time" were not welcome. Hoping to attract conscientious and ambitious young women and to coun- teract the generally negative image of women factory work- ers, the company stressed that silk mill work was "healthy" and its women workers were "ladies" with the highest morals. Belding Brothers and Company seems to have had little diffi- culty in staffing its mills, even during the peak production years of World War I.*‘ The comfortable and economical housing available to company employees partially accounts for Belding Brothers and Company’s success in maintaining an adequate workforce. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the mill owners responded to a local housing shortage by building three dormitories for single women and approximately sixty private homes for married employees. Built on 60 x 130 foot lots near the mills, the homes had six large rooms, full 111 attics and basements, plumbing, electricity, and central heating. They were rented or sold to workers with families and were maintained by company personnel. The company claimed that the dormitories, which were also located close to the mills, operated at a slight loss. The price of room and board, deducted from each paycheck, was consistently less than one-third of the average woman’s wage at the mill. Former residents report that meals were generous and well- prepared. Non-resident silk workers could also purchase a hot noon meal at low cost. There was often a waiting list for the dormitories, since they had room for only about 300 residents, approximately one-third of the number of women employed in the busiest years.*' The facilities and regulations in the dormitories were comparable to those in many college dormitories at the time.“ Each building contained parlors, a piano, a large dining room, and bedrooms for about 100 residents (2 to a room). The buildings had central heating, hot and cold running water in bathrooms located on each floor and facili- ties for doing personal laundry. Clean bed linen was also provided. A matron managed each dormitory and generally supervised social activities. Male guests could visit in the parlors downstairs, while women friends were usually invited upstairs to the lounges on each floor or to an individual room. Female guests could also spend the weekend or come for Sunday dinner. Lights were out at 10:00 p.m. and all residents were required to be in the boarding house 112 by 9:30 unless they had permission from the matron to stay out later. Extensions were granted routinely, especially on Saturday night, but never past midnight. These special housing arrangements made it easier for the girls’ parents and the community to accept the idea of young women living apart from their families. At the time, a working class woman who lived alone may have risked loss of reputation, and a woman’s low wages made it hard to find safe and re- spectable housing. The dormitories provided a surrogate family environment for its residents--supervision, respect- able living arrangements, and companionship. They were important to fulfilling the company’s promise that: "Here the young women employed in the mills are required to be ladies in the fullest sense of the word, and they are re- ceived and treated by the people of the city as such."" Although there were undoubtedly some raised eye brows, there is substantial evidence that the Belding silk workers were accepted and respected in the community. The indepen- dently owned local newspaper, local ministers, visitors and former silk workers agreed. Unlike many other villages, Belding proudly called it- self a factory town, and the local newspaper defended its mill girls in articles such as "The American Factory Girl: She Surpasses Her European Sisters in Every Respect." This 1897 article expressed the ethnocentric theme, “America is Better," by contrasting the neat, efficient, well dressed, sober and cultured American girls with the disheveled and 113 impoverished English mill workers, brawling and frequenting alehouses and pawnshops." Over the years, the newspaper noted the marriages and deaths of the silk workers and praised them for their hard work, upward career mobility, cultural and educational accomplishments. Far from expressing values or behavior that challenged community standards, the mill girls fit right in. Both silk workers and others attended the same churches and public schools. Church youth programs and the Red Cross Society included many mill girls. Village mill workers welcomed dormitory girls into their homes and in turn visited the boarding houses. Rules in the company boarding houses were strictly enforced, and residents who refused to obey were asked to leave. Formal action was usually unnecessary because the dormitory residents themselves would refuse to associate with "tough" girls who drank or "didn’t care who they went out with," and the recipients of such disapproval would “voluntarily“ move out." Local clergy described the mill workers as "progres- sive,“ "intelligent," and "the cream of their communities" and noted that "scores" had gone on to college. The news- paper celebrated one such high achiever in the 1924 article ”Hard Work Brings a Plucky Girl Success." The subject of the story, Miss Alice Sonntag, played the piano, was queen of the high school carnival and class valedictorian. She was the third girl in her family to finish high school while working part-time at the mills. One of her sisters was a 114 teacher and she herself planned to attend normal school in the fall.'° Even outsiders remarked on the absence of snobbery toward the mill workers and the successful merger of "the lady and the mill girl.” In the words of a reporter for the Qgtroit JourngL, "Belding is a city of labor, a city in which labor is honored and respected, and where morality is not at a premium, as in so many mill towns.“n A decade later another vistor observed: The general status of wage earners in the Belding mills is far above that of the average factory community....There are no social bars up against the mill girl in Belding. No class lines are drawn. The silk mill girl is just as much of a lady as the bank president’s daughter or any other young lady in the village....The girl feels herself just as good as anybody else, which she is." Former silk workers were aware of these issues, as suggested in such remarks as: ”The bosses didn’t feel themselves above the girls," and “they were never looked down on for working in the factory because too many big shots in town used to work there themselves."” This last comment acknowledges the existence of a social hierarchy in Belding while explaining why "there were no social bars up against the mill girl.“ The "big shots,“ meaning the families of store owners and professionals, had worked in the mills themselves. Apparently Belding was not the only industrial town where such a pattern prevailed. For example, Herbert Gutman made a similar observation about the middle classes in industrial towns he studied and quoted a similar comment 115 from a local paper. “Many had risen from a lower station in life and intimately knew the meaning of hardship and toil....The Eortgnputh Ting; boasted, ’We have very little of the cod fish aristocracy, and industrious laborers are looked upon here with as much respect as any class of people.’"" As in Belding, the newspaper denied that differences in wealth and power were reflected in personal status. Like many other towns, Belding depended on factories (not just silk mills) for its very existence. It was an ethnically homogeneous community, settled by recent arrivals from Michigan and nearby states, all seeking to improve their lives and fortunes. There were few "old-time" residents to snub the mill workers. Individual mobility validated the existing socioeconomic system, and while Belding denied looking down on mill workers, it reserved its highest praise for the upwardly mobile. Social distinctions did exist and not all of the 1,000 workers could have been “the cream of their communities," but it is clear that Belding’s factory workers were full participants in village life." Although it was a factory village, Belding was also an attractive community, both esthetically and socially. It was a pleasant walking village, with a pretty river, city park, schools, shops and churches. In the early twentieth century, twelve passenger trains stopped at Belding every day, so it was easy for workers to take weekend visits home. 116 Young women who had their own money and were interested in their appearance were pleased to have shops nearby, and quickly replaced country clothes with fashionable new arti- cles. Town residents also noted that Belding was a good place for a young rural woman to meet a husband. Belding even had its version of a "promenade". On Saturday even- ings, young people dressed in their best and walked ”the Long Walk" on Main Street, to see and be seen. They could also participate in some of the many activities in the village: church socials, roller skating parties, canoe outings, singing groups, movies, sewing circles, dances and picnics. These hundreds of single young women living away from their parents’ homes made up a large percentage of the village’s population. Although some of them must have ex- perienced periods of fatigue, homesickness, and financial worry, the atmosphere in Belding was enlivened by the high spirits of healthy young women, excited about being on their own in town. In the words of one former silk worker, “There were worlds of girls here in those days."" Cooper-Wells and Company The Cooper-Wells hosiery mill and its workforce provide bases for both comparison and contrast with the Belding mills. Like Belding Brothers and Company, Cooper-Wells was the largest single employer in its community, St. Joseph, between 1880 and 1920. In 1879, the year after it opened, the mill employed only 80 workers, but its workforce in- 117 creased to an average of over 400 for the years 1893 to 1919, with a peak of 602 in 1918 (Appendix, Table A-3). Some of its first workers came from Niles, Michigan, 15 miles away, and had formerly been employed there in a mill that had recently burned down. The rest of the workers were recruited locally, including a number of first- and second- generation Germans from St. Joseph’s large German community. Beginners earned a fixed wage, then went on to piece work. In addition to those who worked full time in the factory, students worked before and after school, on Saturdays and during school holidays. A number of people also did "home- work." For example, in 1883, 126 females and 39 males worked in the mill and another 75 women finished goods at home..7 The company did not seem to have had a formal recruit- ing program, but did advertise periodically in the St. Joseph newspapers. These ads offered “permanent situations“ and “pay while learning" to “young ladies from 16 to 25 years of age."" Based on the 1900 manuscript population census of St. Joseph, Cooper-Wells seems to have gotten pretty much what it asked for. Out of a total of 226 ho- siery workers, the census lists 143 females and 83 males." Compared to the Belding workforce, Cooper-Wells’ em- ployees were slighty younger and more likely to be single. At Cooper-Wells, eighty-eight percent (126) of the females and eighty percent (67) of the males were twenty-five or younger, compared to eighty percent and sixty percent at 118 Belding Brothers. At Cooper-Wells, ninety-five percent of the females and seventy percent of the males were single, compared to ninety percent and sixty percent at Belding Brothers. The Cooper-Wells’ workforce also differed from that in Belding because of its strong family contacts. Unlike the Belding mills, which employed a large number of people who lived with non-relatives, most Cooper-Wells’ employees lived at home. All but twenty (18 females and 2 males) of the 226 hosiery workers listed in the 1900 census lived with family members, usually with parents or spouses. People not only lived with their families, but nearly half (106) of the hosiery workers had a parent, child, spouse or sibling also employed at Cooper-Wells. Many probably had other relatives employed there too. The Cooper-Wells workforce was not only younger and more likely to live with their families, it also included more immigrants than Belding’s. Of the 226 hosiery workers listed in the St. Joseph 1900 census, fifty-five percent (126) were foreign-born, 98 in Germany and 24 in Russia. Nearly ninety percent (198) had at least one foreign-born parent, ususally German. Only forty-two percent (95) were born in Michigan and neighboring states. In contrast, al- most ninety percent of Belding’s workers were born in Michi- gan and neighboring states: fewer than ten percent were foreign-born. The social characteristics of the Cooper-Wells’ work- 119 force are related to the distinctive history and economy of the St. Joseph area. Although Cooper-Wells was the largest single manufacturing employer in St. Joseph, it was not as important to the city’s identity and prosperity as the four silk mills were in Belding. Cooper-Wells’ largest work- force, 602 in 1918, was equal to only 8% of St. Joseph’s 1920 population (7250), whereas the Belding silk mills’ peak employment was equal to 25% of its population. St. Joseph’s more complex economy included other large factories. It was also an important lake and railroad shipping point and a mineral water and lakeside resort. These other economic actvities offered employment opportunities for men as well as women, so entire families, not just single women, came to St. Joseph seeking employment. There had been significant numbers of German immigrants in St. Joseph and surrounding farms since the 1860’s. Family members and German-speaking churches sponsored a continuing stream of immigration. Unlike Belding’s situation, it was not necessary for Cooper- Wells to actively recruit workers in the surrounding areas, nor to provide housing in order to acquire a needed workforce. St. Joseph’s role as a commercial lake port and the "seamier" social features associated with this role, also made it relatively unattractive to "respectable” single women. Alone of the three villages in this study, St. Joseph had residents who listed themselves on the 1900 Census as "keepers" and "inmates of houses of ill fame", gamblers and hoboes. In 1900 there were many "boarding 120 houses“ for St. Joseph’s transient population, but few were suitable for "respectable" single working women. It is not surprising that most Cooper-Wells factory workers lived with their families.’° The hosiery mill had little difficulty attracting sufficient workers, and until World War I, the local newspa- pers reported only one type of labor scarcity at Cooper- Wells. This was a summer shortage resulting from a "regular exodus of berry pickers.“ The company wanted “steady year- round“ labor. However some knitters apparently preferred to vary their work pattern in the summer by picking berries instead. As a result, the knitting mill was left short- handed. Clearly annoyed, the company announced that it would hire permanent replacements for the "berry pickers," and that those who left had “forfeited" their places and could not count on being re-hired in the fall.’* This situation implies that jobs were plentiful enough for workers to be confident of alternative winter employ- ment, and is consistent with the family residence pattern. Single workers who lived in homes where several were em- ployed were not as likely to fear brief periods of unem- ployment. Nevertheless, the company also seemed confident that an offer of steady work would attract replacements. Although there had been a general scarcity of labor in the textile industry since the early twentieth century, St. Joseph newspapers indicated no serious shortages until 1918. In that year, Cooper-Wells needed to increase its workforce 121 by 10% to meet production demands for a government contract for socks. It was probably competing for the same workers needed by Bradford and Company, another St. Joseph firm, that was making canvas bags for the army and also wanted to hire twenty-five additional women workers. Cooper-Wells tried to recruit women school teachers from Chicago to work in the knitting mill for the summer. This willingness to hire temporary workers is a measure of their desperation. It took three to six months to learn to operate a knitting machine, and Cooper-Wells had long had a policy of employing knitters on a steady year-round basis. The company also advertised for boys and girls to work before and after school, on Saturdays and in the summers, and for women to do mending in their homes. Based on the frequency of "help wanted" ads in St. Joseph newspapers, this labor shortage continued into 1920. For weeks, the ads appeared almost daily." Up to this time, most of the Cooper-Wells’ employees had been the sons and daughters of families living in St. Joseph, not single people, living away from their families. Immigrants, more than surplus labor from surrounding farms, had made up their workforce. The war cut off immigration, and it seems that the existing labor supply was not adequate to meet war-time demand. It had also always been difficult for workers to find economical housing in St. Joseph, and in 1919, Cooper-Wells responded to both the labor and housing shortage by building a dormitory with rooms for about fifty 122 women. Its announced intention was to ”attract young women from neighboring farms to work in the mill," in conscious imitation of the Belding Brothers and Company dormitories. The new Cooper-Wells building, constructed next to the fac- tory on the Lake Michigan beach, contained facilities for dining, laundry, sleeping and socializing. The company planned to operate the residence "at cost,” and provided a piano, a Victrola, electric washing machines and electric sewing machines for residents." Interviews provide scanty and contradictory views re- garding the status of immigrant employees of “the sock factory." The owners of the hosiery mill were certainly among the economic and social elite of the community (See Chapter II), and there would have been no objection to being associated with them. Presumably there was also no stigma attached to male employment, but the status of the female workers is less clear. One informant suggested that class prejudice contri- buted to both the labor and the housing patterns of Cooper- Wells’ workers. He indicated that some city residents sub- scribed to the most restrictive assumptions of appropriate female behavior and excluded all wage-earning women from polite society. The women in such families were not em- ployed, nor would the family rent rooms to working women. Such attitudes would account for the small number of hosiery workers who were neither immigrants nor the children of immigrants (28 out of 226, 10 males and 16 females). Local 123 women may have been unwilling to be employed and outsiders did not come, because they could not find suitable housing. In some communities, the homeowners’ need for cash might have overcome such scruples, but St. Joseph homeowners could supplement their incomes by renting to summer visitors in- stead. The community was so popular as a resort that it was common for families to move into their own basements and rent their upstairs rooms to visitors for the summer. Fac- tory workers did not earn enough to compete for rooms with summer visitors." Although there is no specific evidence of ethnic preju- dice in St. Joseph, it did occur elsewhere. Often, the status of an occupation was determined by the status of the people who were employed to perform such work. Work that was considered acceptable for "ladies" in some places was not acceptable in others. It often happened that native- born women refused to do the same work that immigrant and black women did." It may have been that ethnic prejudice played a role in reducing the number of native-born women who were willing to work at the Cooper-Wells mill, where so many immigrant Germans were employed. Persons who evaluated jobs for women in terms of ”status" and "gentility" may have paid more attention to the ethnicity of co-workers than to the work itself, to wage rates or to occupational opportunity. In contrast to the above implications of an ethnic and class hierarchy in St. Joseph, another informant provided a 124 picture of cooperation and respect between natives and immi- grants. She stressed that children attended the same public. schools, that German craftsmen and shop-keepers were well- regarded and active in community affairs, that her neighbors who worked at Cooper-Wells were considered respectable peo- ple. J. Ogden Wells, the last family member to own the mill, often walked through the mill and addressed workers by name. Immigrant women who did domestic work, such as her own mother, made friends among the long-time St. Joseph residents. Her mother’s former employer gave her a large plot of land on which to build a home when she married." Without more data, it is impossible to completely re- solve the question of the status of hosiery workers in St. Joseph. Employment patterns were more similar to the tradi— tional European family-labor system than to the Lowell and Belding boarding-house style. The women employed at Cooper- Wells also fit the national profile of the typical woman worker at the turn of the century--young, single and immi- grant.°’ The presence of German immigrants at Cooper-Wells probably attracted more to the mill. But whether this also made native workers avoid "the sock factory" is not clear. There might have been few native workers for a variety of other reasons. Native-born residents may have had greater occupational choices or less need for extra money: families might have preferred to keep unmarried daughters at home "helping mother": a shortage of affordable housing and the lack of aggressive recruiting by the company might have 125 discouraged many who wished to work. By constructing a dormitory in 1919, the company implied that it subscribed to this last theory. Like the Belding silk mills, the Cooper-Wells hosiery mill made it possible for young women and men to support themselves or to contribute to the family income. However, unlike Belding’s, few of the Cooper-Wells’ workers were ”on their own". Most lived at home, many in a geographically defined immigrant neighborhood on the Lake Michigan beach, close to the mill. Unlike Belding Brothers and Company, Cooper-Wells had no investment in and made no claims regard- ing the quality and integrity of its workers. There was no compelling economic reason for the company to be concerned with its workers’ status or living conditions, at least not until 1918. The St. Joseph newspapers paid little attention to the hosiery mill or to its workers. Only boosterism or extraor- dinary events, such as a fire, strike or new construction, received mention. Perhaps this is to be expected since the hosiery mill and its workers were less important to St. Joseph than the silk mills and silk workers were to Bel- ding’s identity and prosperity. St. Joseph had a more complex economy which included other large factories, owned by other interests. In addition, it was also an important lake port and a mineral water and lakeside resort. These other economic activities attracted a diverse and transient population. 126 Comparatively speaking, St. Joseph was a "wide open" town in the late nineteenth century. Unlike Belding and Three Oaks, which were dominated by temperance advocates and were “dry" during much of this period, St. Joseph was very ”wet.“ For many years, it had at least eleven saloons, and in 1916 voted to continue liquor sales, but was outvoted by the rest of the county. Street fights were common and parts of the town were decidedly ”ramshackle" in the late nine- teenth century. As lake and river shipping gave way to rail transportation, some of these seedy establishments closed. Others fell to business efforts to make the area more appea- ling as a summer resort, but the resort atmosphere included ”first-class" public houses, elegant private saloons, and pool and billiard parlors, as well as the beach, an amuse- ment park, and hotels for summer visitors." Based on its size, the complexity of its economy and its transient and diverse population, St. Joseph was the most "urban" of these three communities. By 1920, St. Joseph possessed a number of new commercial buildings, ho- tels, theaters, schools and churches. Paved streets and sidewalks, new water and sewer systems, electricity, tele- phone service and recreational facilities were among the amenities which created a more pleasant physical environment for all the city’s residents, including the mill workers.” Unlike Belding, which was dominated by its image as “Michi- gan’s Silk Mill City,” and by the "worlds of girls" who worked there, St. Joseph did not identify itself as a mill 127 town, and was also very different from Three Oaks, the small farming village that was home to the Warren Featherbone Company. Warren Featherbone Company In contrast to the bustle and comparative complexity of economic and social life in St. Joseph, life in Three Oaks, the farming village that was the home of the Warren Feather- bone Company, was quiet indeed. These population statistics reveal a gradual growth rate, except for the 1880-1890 decade: 1880, 474: 1890, 885: 1900, 994: 1910, 1175: 1920, 1362. By 1920, its population was only one-third the size of Belding’s and one-fifth as large as St. Joseph’s.‘° Nevertheless Warren Featherbone Company employed an average of 211 persons from 1893 to 1899, and 328 from 1900 to 1919, with a peak workforce of 527 in 1914 (See Appendix Table A- 4). Like the other two firms, this company paid beginners a fixed amount, then moved them to piece work. Besides their regular factory workers, Warren Featherbone employed young people before and after school, on Saturdays and during school holidays, and a small number of ”outside“ workers to do piece work in their homes.‘u The Warren company actively recruited female workers as sewers, winders and weavers. Between fifty and sixty percent of its workforce was female, less than in the other two companies, perhaps because of its more restricted labor pool or because the process of Fea- therbone manufacture provided fewer "women’s“ jobs.“a 128 The U. 8. Census provides the following profile of Featherbone employees in 1900. Table IV-1 contains compara- ble data for Belding Brothers’ and Cooper-Wells’ workers. In the 1900 census for Three Oaks township, 192 persons (111 females and 81 males) identified themselves as Featherbone employees. Seventy-five percent (85) of the females and fifty percent (43) of the males were twenty-five or younger, making these workers slightly older on the average than those in the other two companies. Warren Featherbone em- ployees were also more likely to be married. Only eighty percent (89) of the females and 50 percent (41) of the males were single." The residence and family employment patterns of Fea- therbone workers were similar to those observed at Cooper- Wells, and unlike those at Belding. Nearly eighty percent lived with their families, usually with parents or spouses. Only forty (32 females and 8 males) listed themselves as "boarders.” In 1892, a state factory inspector remarked that it was common for more than one family member to be employed at Featherbone. The 1900 census confirms this and lists 61 (of 192) who had a parent, child, spouse or sibling also employed at Featherbone. In addition, workers were probably related in ways not noted in the census.‘4 With regard to national origin, the typical Featherbone employee was similar to workers at both Cooper-Wells and Belding Brothers. Like the Belding workers, most Feather- bone employees were born in Michigan or in one of the neigh- Table IV-1 Workforce Characteristics, 1900 Belding Bros. Cooper-Wells Warren Co. No./Percent No./Percent No./Percent Total 554 226 192 male 130/23% 83/37% 81/42% female 424/76% 143/63% 111/58% Under 25 by sex male 81/62% 67/80% 43/53% female 348/82% 126/88% 85/76% Single by sex male 76/60% 59/70% 41/50% female 370/90% 136/95% 89/80% Lived with family 261/47% 206/91% 152/79% Boarders 294/53% 20/9% 40/20% male 24 2 8 female 270 18 32 Michigan born 432/78% 72/32% 109/55% Foreign born 47/.9% 126/55% 32/l7% Source: US. Bureau of the Census, United States, 1900. Joseph Township and Three Oaks Township, Ionia County, Otisco Township, Twelfth Census of the Manuscript Population Schedules, St. Michigan. Berrien County: 130 boring states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio or New York. Fifty-five percent (109) were born in Michigan and twenty-five percent (44) in one of its neighbors. Only seventeen percent (32) were born outside the United States. The Three Oaks’ workers shared a strong German heritage with those in St. Joseph. Nineteen were born in Germany, and eighty (forty-one percent) had at least one German-born parent. Bureau of Labor Benortn and company records suggest that it was no easy task to maintain such a large workforce in such a small village. In 1892, an inspector remarked, ”Much trouble was experienced in securing help here. . . [Girls] who leave home to work prefer the life and bustle of a town or city to the quiet of a hamlet.”" Warren’s was even willing to “borrow" workers. In 1903, when a fire destroyed the Cooper-Wells knitting mill, Warren’s invited the temporarily "unemployed working girls of St. Joseph“ to come to Three Oaks to work.“ In addition to this apparently chronic problem, the Warren Company experienced at least two specific periods of labor shortage. The first occurred between 1898 and 1904 during a rapid increase in demand for featherbone, and a second time during World War I. In order to increase pro- duction around the turn of the century, Warren Featherbone had to open branch plants in Chicago, in Porter (Indiana), and in Middleville (Michigan), because labor and housing were not available in Three Oaks. .The company later devel- 131 oped machinery that reduced the number of workers needed, closed those branch plants and consolidated all production at Three Oaks, but for at least five years, it struggled to keep up with orders.“’ In 1914 and in 1918, the company again had trouble meeting production demands. The minutes of a September 11, 1918 meeting of department heads reveal aspects of the labor supply situation in Three Oaks and of management and worker power. (The power dimensions of this incident will be explored in the next chapter.) The company was behind in several orders, especially on items made at home by "out- side" workers. Warren Featherbone had long employed outside workers to manufacture, finish, mend and package their pro- ducts. Representatives delivered the necessary machines and materials as needed. Despite the current pressing situa- tion, some of their most productive workers were not wor- king. As one of the department heads said, "They have all sorts of excuses lately, taking vacations, getting the chil- dren ready for school and canning.” The staff pointed out that some of these people had four different machines in their homes and that it cost the company when they were not used. It did no good to threaten to take the machines away, because they had no other workers to give them to. They had a list of people who did ”homework“, but many of them re- fused this particular job, preferring to do other kinds of work. The staff finally decided to rent a building in a neighboring town and hire new workers to make the 464 dozen 132 guimpes (stiff frames for combination high collars and dress yokes) and 2134 gross (144 yard coils) girdelin (stiffening for waist bands) they needed. The founder, E. K. Warren’s annoyed comment, "let them whistle up here," suggests that Three Oaks people who wouldn’t work then were risking future idleness." Like the Cooper-Wells hosiery workers who risked their factory jobs when they choose to pick berries in the summer, these village women were willing to take the chance. Impli- citly, their wages from Warren Featherbone were not their families’ only source of income, and their economic situa- tion was such that, at times at least, they could choose among wage labor, household tasks and leisure. As desirable as this ability to choose was for the workers, it was most inconvenient for the company. This incident underscores the truth of a state inspector’s ear- lier remark, "Much trouble was experienced in securing help here."" Three Oaks’ small labor pool was a distinct disad- vantage for the manufacturer. This was probably one of the reasons that, according to Edward Kirk Warren, the inventor and owner of the company, it was "contrary to best business interests and against the wishes of outside directors" to keep the Featherbone factory in Three Oaks.'° On the one hand, Warren Featherbone was in a good position to hire. It was in a seller’s market, no other organization in the village employed more than a few people. On the other hand, people were not waiting in line for jobs either. In econom- 133 ic terms, the labor supply was inelastic at the upper end: it had limits to expansion. Of the three villages, Three Oaks had the fewest facil- ities to attract outsiders. Comparatively speaking, its housing, employment, business and educational opportunities were rather limited. Neither was it exciting enough to attract people who were interested in a “good time.“ After 1899, there was not even one saloon. The school, various clubs and the churches organized most social events, such as picnics, skating parties, ”socials," and amateur theatri- cals. The Opera House opened in 1891 and was the site of many of these activities, as well as hosting dances and professional travelling entertainers. There were no regular movies in Three Oaks until 1909. Three Oaks was close to Lake Michigan and people could easily take the train to Chicago or to other places, but the village itself was small and quiet.'* Most of the men and women who worked for Warren’s were from the village itself, from nearby farms, or had moved there to join relatives. Proximity to home and family and neighborliness were valued aspects of employment at War- ren’s. The factory’s five-minute warning whistle gave time for many to leave home and still arrive at work on time. People could leave their work briefly to meet some domestic emergency. Singing on the job and sharing treats with co- workers were also routine. Even though wages were low, local people were ”willing to go to work.“ As one former 134 employee said, ”We needed the money. Featherbone was handy. There was not much else available." For most employees, Warren Featherbone was not a place to make one’s fortune, or even to learn a skill which could bring mobility. It was a place to earn a modest income in the company of one’s neigh- bors and relations." Conclusion Although they operated in relatively small communities, each of these three firms was successful in getting the numbers and quality of workers needed to maintain profitable manufacturing for at least thirty years. The state factory inspectors document consistently large workforces in each company. However, since the companies also supplemented factory production by employing "homeworkers" and school children on a part—time basis, it appears that the labor supply was not over-abundant in any of these towns. Un- like conditions in major urban centers, these village home- workers did not deprive factory workers of jobs, nor did they depress their wages. One historian observed that "the supply of homeworkers in industrial cities was virtually inexhaustible."" This was not the case in small cities, particularly in Three Oaks. Within the factory itself, part-time workers were generally considered less efficient than full-timers because the companies had to invest in machines which were used only part-time, and yet had to provide training and supervision for more workers.'“ On the 135 other hand, the school children and the homeworkers formed a ”reserve“ labor supply, that could be utilized during busy times and let go during slow times. Their skills and train- ing could be called upon again later, and some might even become full-time workers. Their part-time status was no disadvantage when doing hand-work which did not require the use of machines, such as making sample cards and mending. Despite contemporary concerns about the appropriateness of wage labor for women and the existence of widely held negative images of factory labor, fifty to eighty per cent of their total workforces were single women under twenty- five. All three of these companies specifically sought women workers. Their recruiting appeals had much in common. Cooper-Wells announced: "Twenty-five knitters wanted....On- ly young ladies from 16 to 25 years of age need apply." Warren Featherbone’s advertising read: "More Help Wanted- 25 to 50 persons to run single winders. Women and girls preferred.“ Only Belding Brothers and Company acknowledged the debate over the appropriateness of factory employment for women. This firm did more than advertise for workers, it published lengthy pamphlets designed to assure readers that its women employees were "happy and contented young ladies."" Even though most of the workers at each company were single young women, there were also differences among them with regard to sex, age, marital status, nativity and resi- dence. Belding Brothers employed the most, and Warren 136 Featherbone, the fewest women. Cooper-Wells was the only company near a large immigrant population. Its male and female employees were the youngest, the most likely to be single, the most likely to live with family and the most likely to be foreign born. In contrast, Belding Brothers and Company employed mostly native born women, over half of whom lived on their own, as boarders, or ”adrift" in period language. The Warren Featherbone Company workers were also mostly native born, but slightly older, more likely to be married, and more likely to live with their families. Per- haps it was appropriate, even necessary, for Belding Broth- ers and Company to assert that its mill girls were "ladies" and to provide housing for them, because it deviated from the acceptable social pattern by having so many young women living away from home. Whether the workers lived in a dormitory or with their families, there is only anecdotal information about the way their wages were spent. Having multiple wage earners was a common working class family survival strategy." Presumably the married workers spent their money on household needs, and the young people’s wages went in varying proportions to the family and to their own purposes--leisure, clothes, education and savings. All of those interviewed were matter-of-fact about their contributions to the family. "We were a poor family." "I quit school, got a [work] permit, and went to work the next day. I wanted to help Dad support the family (ten children)." Others used to money to "get 137 really dressed up" and to put themselves through business college. One woman’s parents let her keep her money "if she didn’t waste it."" Even those who kept all their wages and supported themselves contributed indirectly to the family economy by reducing pressure on family resources. At the turn of the century, rural and small town resi- dents welcomed wage labor. Especially for women and girls, there were relatively few employment opportunities in mid- Michigan. Compared to teaching, domestic work and farm labor, factory work was relatively easy to learn and easy to do, and at least as well paid. One of the employers, Bel- ding Brothers and Company, described the situation this way: "the girls in our employ here in Belding are the daughters of farmers, who have come to work in our mills preferring such work to the farm drudgery." Some of the mill workers echoed these sentiments: "On the farm we received nothing for our work, save when father could give us a little, and we had much more fatiguing work to do."" Later Belding Company publicity and recruiting brochures became quite extravagant in their claims: [Silk mill workl...is one of the most desirable fields of labor in the entire West and...when compared for hours of labor, remuneration, and the comforts of life...with the drudgery and privation experienced by the large majority of school teachers, stenographers, and music teachers, it must be admitted that the silk mill girls...have by far the best of it." Readers need not agree that silk mill work, or any kind of factory work was "desirable." The long hours put in at all three firms were clearly fatiguing. Wages at best were only 138 "average women’s wages", but the brochure accurately pointed out that most women had limited choices. Factory work was not genteel, but in these three set- tings, it was relatively clean and safe, provided a pre- dominantly female social environment and avoided the stigma of personal service. Under these conditions, rural and immigrant women and men who had no previous industrial experience willingly accepted factory jobs, and industrial labor became part of village life. The next chapter will examine management philosophy, social interaction on the job, and patterns of conflict and accomodation experienced in these three village industries. CHAPTER V: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Social systems, including those in industry, are com- posed of a variety of elements--ideological, structural and behavioral. The character of industrial relations is a product of the interaction of these elements: of the ideas or philosophy which guide managerial and employee actions: of the formal organization of work and discipline on the job: of the informal patterns which characterize interaction among managers, workers and the community at large. The distribution of social power, the emergence of conflict and the means of resolving it are conditioned by this complex of factors. Knowledge about the details of day-to-day interaction among workers, managers and the community in these three village factories is far from complete. In the absence of such detailed information, conclusions must necessarily be tentative. Nevertheless, general knowledge about organiza- tion in the textile industry, U. S. census data, state inspectors’ reports, interviews and company documents offer scattered insights. In addition, each of these three com- panies experienced specific episodes which attracted the attention of local newspapers and which provide a record of selected aspects of industrial relations. Together the evidence yields some understanding of the philosophy, struc- ture and exercise of power at these three locations. After providing a brief overview of those aspects of industrial relations that Belding Brothers, Cooper-Wells and Warren 139 140 Featherbone had in common, this chapter will examine each company in detail and discuss some of the factors which modified the formal distribution of power in these village industries. Each of these factories followed the standard hier- archical pattern common in the textile industry. Owners- lstockholders elected officers and directors, who in turn selected the general manager and plant superintendent. These officials jointly determined major policies, sometimes including department heads in decisions regarding production and personnel. Managers determined wages and hours unila- terally within the context of economics, local custom and law. According to one trade journal, ideally each level of employees should have only one boss--one person who gives orders or reprimands. "The manager should deal directly with the superintendent only: the superintendent directly with the foreman of each department: each foreman directly with the help under his charge.”‘ In these companies, there were no formal methods for workers to participate in deci- sion-making: no collective bargaining over wages, hours or working conditions: and no pre-existing artisan tradition to resist industrial discipline.a All three companies were primarily family businesses in which most if not all of the stock was owned by family members. The owners/founders or their sons usually served as president until their deaths or retirements. Direct personal contact and continuity of management personnel were 141 hallmarks in all these firms. Throughout the forty-year period of this study, the owners were well-known by sight, and themselves knew many employees by sight and name. Plant superintendents and department heads also tended to hold their jobs for a long time, and acquired informal reputa- tions among the workers, who characterized them variously as friendly, “good" bosses, sneaky, "no nonsense“ people. So- cial science research suggests that face-to-face association plays an important role in maintaining feelings of ”belong- ing“ in a large enterprise, decreasing alienation so that people are more likely to feel that those in authority understand and listen to their concerns. Such "personal" involvement in supervision and claims of “interest" in em- ployees’ well-being, while not necessarily hypocritical, serve to legitimize management authority.“ The workers developed their own informal social net- works, since they lived together in the same small communi- ty, and knew nearly everyone by name and face. Co-workers were likely to be neighbors, relatives, residents in the same boarding house or members of the same church. The workers also developed a “style" or "work culture," in response to the limitations and opportunities of their jobs. Although they adapted to the requirements of factory work, they considered some aspects of their jobs oppressive. They evolved their own definitions of justice and inequity, of fair treatment and rewards for labor, and a sense of pride in their skill and economic achievement.‘ 142 Philosophy and Practice at Belding Brothers Belding Brothers and Company was unusual in publicizing its philosophy regarding wages and industrial relations. It seemed to be very conscious of contemporary criticisms of capitalist industry and persistent in offering its own views on industrial relations in a series of brochures, in adver- tising copy and in interviews. According to this philoso- phy, treating workers "well" suited both justice and good business practices. From this point of view, fair manage- ment yielded a reward in loyal, active workers. A 1907 Belding Brothers and Company gonxenin booklet remarked: ...experience had taught them that highly intelli- gent, contented and well-paid employees will pro- duce goods of superior quality, and are in the long run the most economical, because such treat- ment inspires an active interest in the success of the establishment.9 The company made no claims to altruism, only to justice and good business. In 1917, Frederick Howard, mill superin- tendent said: We do not claim to be philanthropists. We are only doing what common sense and good business judgement dictates....Our idea is covered in the sentiment of seeing the other fellow’s side of the question, in other words, what would suit us if we were in their place.‘ Taking advantage of the current interest in corporate welfare, a 1918 advertising campaign addressed the fifteen million readers of leading women’s magazines in an effort to gain "friendship for Belding Silks among clubwomen.“ Using the slogan, "The Silks with Happiness Woven into Them," these presentations featured silk workers’ opportunities for 143 leisure and play, and "the very practical...welfare programs of the House of Belding." In order to show that "Belding girls live well-balanced lives,“ the advertisements included portraits of silk workers relaxing in the dormitory parlors, playing tennis and boating on the river. There were also photos of the new Alvah N. Belding Memorial Library, a recent corporate gift to the city.’ These advertisements referred to the Belding company’s "practical welfare programs," however, besides providing housing and a few recreation activities, the company did little that fits the definition of “welfare capitalism." There was no school, store, welfare worker, doctor, profit- sharing plan, newspaper or “Americanization” program. The company housing seems to have been a straightforward re- cruiting device, common in small communities where housing was limited. It was probably inspired by the Belding broth- ers’ observations of textile villages in their home state, Massachusetts. There is no evidence that their philosophy was a response to any particular labor problem of absen- teeism, high labor turnover or fear of unionization--which seemed to have inspired much of the welfare capitalism of the 1910-1930 period.“ Young women in small towns like Belding did not capriciously quit their jobs with the town’s major employer: labor organizers were unlikely to expend a lot of time and energy in Belding. It is best to take the Belding Brothers at their word, they were inspired by jus- tice and good business. 144 Company spokesmen made it clear that they wanted only workers who came for “business" and not for a “good time." That’s why the boarding houses had a ten p.m. lights out policy. The investment in housing would be repaid only by the effort and attention of well-rested workers. Healthy, contented, energetic and serious workers supported the com- pany’s view that employers and employees had common, not competing interests. The young ladies who earn the most money are the cheapest labor for the company to employ...the young lady who is doing the most for herself is at the same time doing the most to promote her em- ployer’s interests. It is nothing more or less than a partnership, in which both are interested in producing the best results.’ It was not of course an equal partnership, but one in which the owners and the superintendents unilaterally set stan- dards, wages and hours. Although the Belding brothers visited Belding frequent- ly, it had not been their home since about 1865. Daily operations and policies were determined by Frederick A. Washburn, who was the superintendent of the first mill from 1885 to 1920, and by Frederick W. Howard, superintendent of the other three mills from 1890 to 1928. In the early twentieth century, superintendent Howard was nicknamed “Pappy” or "Daddy" Howard, suggesting both affection and paternal authority. Both men walked through the mills every day, speaking to supervisors and workers, especially to those who had worked there a long time or who lived in company dormitories.‘° 145 Although these men adopted a friendly, non-punitive style, it was still their responsibilty to enforce indus- trial discipline. They required regular attendance, atten- tion to the job, and the achievement of a certain skill level. Workers were fired ("let go") if they didn’t show up for work regularly, if they couldn’t perform a job skillful- ly, or if they habitually neglected their machines and produced damaged goods. Lower level supervisors varied in reputation--some were considered forbidding and aloof, others inspired affection. Kinship ties between supervisors and workers sometimes caused charges of favoritism, but were not major problems. Untypically for their time and industry, the Belding mills did not levy fines for mistakes or tardi- ness. Formal mill hierarchy was modified by the need for weavers to exercise initiative in arranging their own work to best advantage. Within limits, weavers were encouraged to "be their own bosses,“ in order to achieve maximum quali- ty and output. Stupid or inattentive weavers were very costly. In general, former silk workers remember their bosses as kind people who ”didn’t feel themselves above the girls." None recalled incidents or fear of sexual harass- ment, and many recalled specific examples of kindness or solicitude. The company had no welfare workers nor did it monitor behavior outside working hours, except to enforce dormitory rules for the one-fourth to one-third of their employees who resided there.u Former silk workers felt that working at the Belding 146 mills offered them some flexibility in meeting their own needs. People often worked in the same room with friends or relatives, and enjoyed conversation while at work. They had opportunities to work in different departments, and most enjoyed the variety. The company routinely excused them for doctor’s appointments or if they were ill. High school girls and boys could work before and after school, on Satur- days and during summer vacations. Married women moved in and out of the mills, according to their family’s needs and the demand for labor. Some women earned extra money doing work at home, such as spooling. The company supplied the machine and paid piecework rates.‘“ In contrast to the frequent layoffs common in some branches of the textile industry, these silk mills provided steady work. By limiting themselves to staple items, the Belding mills maintained production throughout the year, although demand and output were the greatest in the spring and fall. Work interruptions were not seasonal, but were caused by repairs, vacations, and periods of general econom- ic disturbance, such as the 1894 depression and the disrup- tions caused by the First World War.‘“ Even when business was not going well, as in most of 1915, the company promised to try to maintain full operations at the Belding mills. We will cut our expenses at every other point before we cut labor hours, and we will cut hours at every other point before we cut them in Beld- ing. The Belding mills and Belding laborers will be looked after in preference to all others.“ 'The company seems to have kept this promise. Such reliable 147 employment was extremely attractive, and Belding’s workers were pleased to know that if they did good work, their jobs were guaranteed. However, generally good conditions in the industry and in the community did not prevent the emergence of labor- management tensions. Long hours, monotony, economic need and the chronic powerlessness of factory work were facts of life that placed even Belding’s ”happy and contented" work- ers under considerable stress. The company repeatedly as- serted that its unilaterally determined policies were mutu- ally beneficial to workers and the firm, but employees did not always agree. Suggesting this underlying tension are three incidents, in 1900, 1905, and again in 1920, when groups of silk workers walked out of the mills in protest over wage rates. Details are sketchy but these episodes underline aspects of workers’ consciousness and of the com- pany’s management style. In each incident, workers demanded a wage increase and the company refused. In the first instance, in 1900, all thirty one-ounce spoolers in Belding Brothers Mill #1 walked out, protesting that an announced change from hourly rates to piece work would reduce their pay. They demanded a return to hourly rates and a ten cents an hour raise with no production minimum. Superintendent Howard dismissed their grievance, calling it an overreaction and misunderstanding. According to Howard, only two of the thirty were changed to piece work, with the personal assurance that they would not re- 148 ceive less than they had previously earned at hourly rates. Howard defended the company’s policy and denied charges that the company was unfair. This company always has and does now pay good wages, treats every employee fairly and with consideration from every point of view. The statement that girls are employed at fifty or sixty cents per day, cannot earn enough to live on, etc., are wholly false.“I The State Factory Inspector’s Benort suggests that in 1900, the average daily wage in the Belding thread mill was about 83 cents, a modest sum, even at that time. Nevertheless, Howard refused to alter the posted rate change and within a few days all but three of the spoolers returned to work, presumably at the new rate of pay.“ Wages had probably risen slightly by 1905, to an aver- age of close to 90 cents a day, based on a sample taken by a factory inspector." However, a number of spoolers still felt this was inadequate. In 1905, sixteen spoolers at the other thread mill, the Richardson, staged a walkout to reinforce their demand for a wage increase. Responding in much the same way as Howard, Superintendent Washburn ex- pressed regret at their discontent and invited them to return to work. According to the newspaper, only one of the sixteen strikers returned. It’s hard to interpret the fif- teen refusals. Were they angry, embarrassed at losing a confrontation, ostracized by other workers? The Eglding Eanngn labelled this "A Foolish Strike," arguing that the strikers’ average wage was more than a dollar a day, and ten of them boarded at the company boarding house, paying only 149 $2.00 a week. The newspaper obviously considered a dollar a day to be enough, but it also overestimated the average wage, which was closer to 90 cents.‘“ The largest strike, in 1920, lasted nearly a week and involved the best paid and most highly skilled women work- ers, the weavers. The most skilled weaver ran four looms and could earn $58.00 in two weeks while room and board cost only $6.88. They petitioned for an increase in the piece rate from seven cents to nine cents a yard. This would have raised their wages approximately $1.00 a day. When the management refused, 120 weavers walked out, leaving only a few on the job. The few girls and older women who remained at work were labelled "slackers" when they came out of the mills at the end of the workday. In spite of their apparent unity of purpose, these strikers were also defeated. Super- intendent Howard invited them return to work at existing rates or "pick up their pay.“ He attributed the incident to a “misunderstanding...in regard to a new method of measuring the cloth" and said the company would consider the question of an advance ”later."" These events provide a number of insights into rela— tions between the Belding company and its employees. First, they indicate that some tensions did exist, that the workers were not completely convinced that that company saw ”the other fellow’s side of the question." On the other hand, there also seemed to be an expectation that if their wishes were known, they would be granted, or at least they did not 150 fear reprisals. Second, these events reveal some aspects of work culture. Workers defined their own interests, agreed among themselves on a "fair" wage, and achieved enough soli- darity to join together in common action, even briefly. In one instance, they even chided those who remained at work for undercutting this solidarity. However, in no case did workers from other departments or other mills join a walk- out, or even offer moral support. This lack of support implies a low level of class consciousness and solidarity among other Belding workers. Third, the company tried to discredit the walkouts and justify its policies. It did not "bad mouth" the workers, but suggested there was a "misun- derstanding." The company implicitly acknowledged a respon- sibility to pay decent wages and to respond to legitimate grievances by a majority of workers. As far as can be determined, there was no retaliation against the strikers, all of whom were invited back to work, and who continued to live in company boarding houses, even during the strikes. There were no lockouts and no blacklists. Finally, the superintendents’ responses demonstrate the company’s convic- tion that it was their prerogative to run the mills as they saw fit, and that they had the power to do so. Given that power, the company’s responses were quite restrained. Perhaps the company judged that there was little widespread dissatisfaction, and that strong measures were unnecessary. The workers had few options. The strikes were spontaneous attempts to exert some control over their 151 working conditions and were not aided by any labor organiza- tion. No other employees joined them. The spoolers were vulnerable to replacement, since there were relatively few of them and their jobs could be learned quickly. The soli- darity of the fifteen spoolers in 1905 did not earn them a wage increase. Whether in anger or embarrassment, they quit their jobs, rather than continue under the old rules. In theory, the weavers were in a much stronger bargaining position. It would take a lot longer to train 100 new weavers, but they also failed. The walkouts seem to have had no effect on working conditions and a negative impact on workers’ consciousness and power. They made so little impact on the community that they practically disappeared from the town’s memory. By 1920, the newspaper was unaware of th earlier strikes and erroneously labelled the weaver’s strike "the first walkout ever in the history of the local silk mills.”“° Even the silk workers themselves forgot them. None of the former silk workers interviewed remembered them, even though they were all in town (not necessarily working) during at least one of the strikes. These incidents are the only recorded evidence of concerted resistance to corporate authority. Except for these events, labor-management tensions in Belding were dealt with on an individual not a group basis. A combination of factors militated against the emer- gence of a strong adversarial relation between silk workers and their employers in Belding. Most obvious were the 152 community’s dependence on the mills, the workers’ vulnera- bility to replacement and the absence of comparable alterna- tive employment. These factors could have prevented even the weavers from pressing their advantage. Their mutual interdependence could also have inspired caution both in the company and the strikers. Furthermore, since the workers had no organizational support, perhaps the company felt so secure in its control that it Judged that threats and retal- iation were unnecessary to enforce its authority. The fact that all the strikes involved only women workers was also a consideration. As indicated in this passage from a re- cruitment brochure, the company repeatedly stressed that their workers were "ladies.” Here the young women employed in the mills are required to be ladies in the fullest sense of the word, and they are received and treated by the people of the city as such." The women welcomed such a characterization and the lady image discouraged activism. Society in general tended to regard women as secondary, temporary workers. Employers, the state and many workers expected women’s wages to be smaller than men’s, and insufficient to support a family. Even among reformers, there was often more emphasis on preserving women’s capacity to fulfill domestic roles, than in guaranteeing secure, well paid employment. There was little societal pressure to raise women's wages above, or even up to, the amount needed to support one person.'3 In addition, there was general acceptance of the idea that private enterprise and gain could coexist with humane 153 social relations between workers and employers. Communities accepted economic inequality, but also expected employers to demonstrate a paternalistic regard for their employees’ well-being. Belding Brothers and Company acknowledged a moral obligation to treat workers fairly. The Belding news- paper’s label for the 1905 walkout as ”A Foolish Strike“ apparently expressed the feelings of some in the village that the strike was inappropriate." Granted a measure of respect and consideration, steady work and moderate wages, many felt that the mills had indeed met their obligations. There was no public demand for economic democracy. In such a setting, the concept of worker power scarcely existed, much less its formal institutionalization. The kind of face-to-face knowledge typical of village life encouraged the perception that managers were primarily individuals and neighbors, not representatives of a hostile, abstract eco- nomic power. In such a setting, young female employees were especially unlikely to continue resistance. The Belding silk workers had no local tradition, ideology, labor organi- zation or previous experience to guide them in a confronta- tion with their employers. Philosophy and Practice at Cooper-Wells Compared to Belding Brothers and Company, Cooper—Wells made few public statements regarding its management philo- sophy.. There were no publicity or recruiting brochures, no casual interviews with visiting reporters. The character of 154 industrial relations at Cooper-Wells must be gleaned from general data regarding material working conditions, from state factory inspectors’ reports, from interviews with city residents and from newspaper accounts of a brief strike in 1905. This was the only recorded Job action at this mill, and it involved only women workers. Nevertheless, this incident reveals important details about conditions in the mill and provides insights into the values, expectations and distribution of social power in this industrializing mid- western community. The strike began on a warm Friday afternoon in April, when about 200 women, “some of them young and some of them older," refused to continue working. They walked out be- cause management would not let them open the windows from the bottom. At the time, the mill employed about 430 peo- ple, approximately 260 women and 170 men. According to local accounts, which dubbed the walkout a “Fresh Air Strike", the dispute was directly related to physical con- ditions in the current mill, which had been constructed in 1903, only two years earlier." Michigan Bureau of Labor inspectors who examined this new mill in 1904, judged it to be ”one of the most up-to- date hosiery mills in the United States.“ The 1905 Eggggt complimented Cooper-wells and Company: They employ only the highest grade of skilled workers and give great care and attention to the questions of light, heating, ventilation, and fine drinking water, as well as other small matters that pertain to the comfort and health of their employees...[AJ rest room is equipped with chairs 155 and couches and a medicine cabinet." } Despite this evaluation, the mill had some drawbacks. In this new building, only every other window could be opened; alternate windows lacked weights and pulleys and were nailed shut. Ventilation was further restricted because the compa- ny permitted the windows to be opened only from the top. Apparently in an effort to prevent workers from looking out the windows, all lower sashes had frosted glass. Therefore opening the lower sashes would defeat the purpose of the frosting. The workers were dissatisfied with this arrangement. They had probably opened all the windows in the old mill, which had been only forty feet wide. This new building was sixty-seven feet wide and had thirteen foot ceilings. Open- ing windows only from the top provided little air circula- tion at the level of the workers. They reported that they had survived the previous summer only because they had opened the bottom windows about six inches, in spite of company policy. They said they needed a draft at the level of the machines to stir the “cloud of lint that hangs about the cotton machines.“ On other warm days earlier in April 1905, they had raised the lower sashes as they had the year before. However, this option was no longer available be- cause a supervisor had recently had them nailed shut. He had done this because he said he had found one girl “flir- ting" from one of these windows. Deprived of their customa- ry air, 200 knitters, loopers, menders and transfer girls on 156 the second floor walked out. According to local accounts, Lena Herman, Lizzie Hielke and Frances Quardokus initiated the walkout. All but six women on the second floor joined them and left the factory cheering.3‘ That same afternoon, Cooper-wells tried to discredit the strikers’ claim that the open windows were needed. Management invited five citizens, including the mayor, two doctors and two clergymen, to inspect the mill and “look into the matter of proper ventilation." Only two were available, Dr. Edward Witt and Rev. Henry Roblee, and they expressed the opinion that "the place seemed thoroughly aired.”” The strikers were not surprised that they had found the room to be pleasant when no one was in it and the machines had not been running. However a spokeswoman in- sisted that it was a hardship to work in a room containing "some 300 people working side by side with a dust and lint producing material like cotton and no air circulating except at the top of the room." The strikers also rejected manage- ment claims that it was necessary to close the lower sashes because the workers spent a lot a time flirting from the windows. They said they had no objection to the company firing girls who flirted from the windows, because "they didn’t do that anyway.“" Company spokesmen took an immediate hard line in response to the walkout. That same Friday afternoon, mana- gers announced that they would shut down the mill “indef- initely" or until the strikers "agreed...to comply with the 157 rules." Furthermore, they stated that the ”ring leaders“ would not be taken back. On Saturday, the workers were locked out. Charles Bess, a foreman, told them that they could not return to work before Tuesday. Even then, only those who signed a contract promising to abide by company rules would be admitted, and the "ring leaders" would be excluded. Later statements continued this tone. Spokesmen noted that the warehouses were full and the mill could easily afford to remain closed for a while. They pointed out that although they preferred that ”home people have their old positions," they could easily replace the strik- ers. This was not an idle threat. Six weeks earlier, a knitting company in Elkhart, Indiana, only forty miles to the south, had gone out of business and laid off 200 employ- ees, many of whom were probably available.” The strikers did not seem to have been intimidated by the lockout or by the threat to replace them. Some had no qualms about maintaining a lady-like image and threatened “hair pulling and head breaking...if any strike breakers come in here." On Saturday, a hurriedly called meeting drew about ninety women who signed a promise that they would QQL sign the new rules, nor would they return to work unless the company took back all the strikers, even those the company wanted to blacklist. In Monday’s paper, Frank Crockett, a new reporter for Ihe Evening Ecess, who had helped the strikers compose their pledge, praised the "girls’" ”enthu- siastic organization" which permitted them to "present a 15B solid front in the fight for better ventilation.“ On Sun- day, nearly 200 workers had assembled at a local hall, where they listened to speakers and gathered more signatures to their document of resistance and solidarity. According to the newspaper in the neighboring town of Buchanan, they were united by the slogan "All the fresh air we can get or we don’t go back to work."'° Among the speakers at the Sunday meeting was John V. Starr, a former mayor of St. Joseph. He urged the women to practice moderation and justice. "If this is done, I believe the good citizens of St. Joseph will see that there is fair play and that the rights of the girls are safe guarded." The workers adopted his suggestion that they select a committee to arbitrate the conflict with Cooper- Wells and Company. The citizens who served in this capacity were Father Esper, pastor of St. Joseph’s Catholic Church, Dr. R. Clark Allen, physician, Dr. Charles E. Burchfield, dentist, and Fred A. Potter, City Supervisor and proprietor of a drug store." These individuals, as well as some others in the com- munity seemed to agree that the demand for ”the right to breathe" was not unreasonable. Employees of the Truscott Boat Company, a local manufacturer of pleasure boats, of- fered financial aid to the strikers. According to In; enin ss, "many assurances from businessmen and other citizens of sympathy for the girls in their fresh air fight has encouraged them to continue the struggle." However, the 159 paper offered no proof or further examples of such support. One group whose support was conspicuously absent was that of the men and women who worked in other departments at Cooper-Wells. On Monday, May 1, when the second floor knitters, loopers, transfer girls and menders were locked out, about 150 people, mostly men, went to work in the finishing, ribbing, dying, bordering and shipping depart- ments. By this time, about thirty of the strikers had themselves agreed to return to work on company terms."a Although the strike had begun only on Friday afternoon, it quickly escalated from a relatively minor dispute over open vs. closed windows to a classic management-labor power confrontation. Speaking for the company, J. Ogden Wells, son of the owner and founder, said: It’s simply a question of who will run the mill. Ne can’t afford to have our help dictate to us. All the girls want is to rubber out the window and that means a money loss to us in that they can’t run the machines and rubber at the same time.'° After initially denying that there was any problem, manage- ment relented and agreed to changes to make ventilation "satisfactory", and dropped its threat to blacklist the initiators of the walkout. The question of ventilation was less important to the company than establishing the princi- ple of management prerogative. In exchange for these "concessions," the company in- sisted that strikers agree in writing to a list of eight work rules. Company representatives said that these rules had been in effect for some time. They had not required 160 employees to formally acknowledge them, because before the strike, they had had “confidence" in their help. The strike had destroyed that confidence. Therefore, strikers, but not other employees, would now have to give formal consent to these rules." The rules were as follows: WORK RULES - Cooper-Wells & Co. - St. Joseph, Mich. 1. Hours of work will be from 7 o’clock to 12 and from 1 to 6. Employees must be in their places ready to begin work at 7 and at 1. 2. Employees must not destroy any property belonging to the company not carry any stocking, waste or other material into the toilet rooms. 3. Employees must not visit one another during working hours nor shall they visit other departments during the noon hour. 4. Employees must give two weeks notice before leaving voluntarily or forfeit one week’s pay. 5. It is strictly forbidden that employees stay away from work without permission of their overseer: in case of sickness word must be sent. 6. Any employee attempting to incite a strike or create a disturbance while in the employ of Cooper, Wells & Co. will be discharged at once. 7. Employees must obey all orders of the overseer or superintendent. B. Any employee not strictly obeying these orders is liable to be discharged. This was the company’s position when the worker- selected citizen’s group met with Cooper-Wells’ officials on Monday, May 1. The company was not really concerned about windows or ventilation, but about industrial discipline and management rights. The work rules specified working hours, prohibited vandalism and theft, restricted movement and conversation within the mill, required regular attendance at 161 work except when ill, and required employees to give two weeks notice before quitting. The company made no compara- ble guarantee of two weeks’ notice before layoffs. Accord- ing to these rules, Cooper-Wells could discharge any employ- ee who attempted to incite a strike, or who disobeyed any rule or order of a supervisor. It could hardly have been more sweeping in its demands. These rules are quite similar to a model list of "Knit- ting Mill Rules" published in a 1899 trade journal, Iextile World and ndustrial ecor . The journal argued that post- ing rules increased the quality and quantity of production and avoided "the disagreeable necessity of frequent verbal corrections." These 1899 rules not only prohibited visi- tors, eating, smoking and spitting, but also “laughing, talking and singing." Even when machines were stopped for repairs, workers were forbidden to gather at windows. Vio- lators could be fined from ten cents to twenty-five cents, or even dismissed. Clearly, factory life was not supposed to be enjoyable." Cooper-Wells’ management clearly understood the broad issues involved in the strike, but Father Esper and Supervi- sor Potter, who mediated the dispute, indicated no awareness of them. Because the company agreed to open g1; the windows from the top, instead of opening only alternate windows, Esper and Potter announced, "Girls, you have won the strike, for we have a concession from the company--they will accede to your demand for more fresh air.” While it is true that 162 the strikers had said they wanted ”only the right to breathe,“ they were also seeking recognition for the right to decide how much fresh air was enough, i.e., a say in working conditions. The "work rules" explicitly denied such a right. And although the proffered settlement promised "more“ fresh air, it was not at the level of the workers, but at the ceiling. Esper and Potter were satisfied with this offer. After their visit to the mill on Monday, they reported that it was “well-ventilated,“ clean, orderly and in "first-class condition," echoing the opinion of the state factory inspector who described it as ”one of the most up- to-date hosiery mills in the United States, [giving] great care and attention to the question of light, heating and ventilation."" The workers were not disputing the condition of the mill, except with regard to fresh air. They must have been disappointed when even their own representatives failed to make a distinction between adequate ventilation in an empty, idle mill, and one in which two hundred people are operating machines. Nevertheless, there is no record of a public dissent. The strikers agreed to call off the strike if none were blacklisted and all were allowed to return to their jobs." When the mill reopened all departments on Tuesday, May 2, one local newspaper account was euphoric: The fair strikers have returned to their duties at the knitting factory. They are happy. The compa- ny officials are pleased to have them return. They also are happy. Business men and others 163 indirectly interested are happy, too. Everybody is thus made happy and the whistle of the mill sounds better than ever. It is unlikely that all parties were as “happy" as this indicates. All second-floor workers, except the six who had not struck, were asked to sign the work rules. Violating the pledges made only two days earlier, one hundred eighty- four strikers signed them. Although their opinions have not been recorded, the six strikers who did not return to work may have understood the underlying meaning of the conflict and of its apparent resolution. Five of these, Frances Ouardokus (identified in the newspaper as one of the initia- tors), Stella Showers, Cora Morden, Maud Van Brunt, and Helen Langer, came to the mill and publicly refused to sign the work rules." These few refusals suggest that not all the partici- pants agreed that the "girls" had won. The settlement was not a total victory; it included several negative aspects from the workers’ point of view. First, they did not get exactly what they had sought, the right to regulate the windows as they wished and a breeze at the level of the machines. The company did promise to make ventilation “sat- isfactory," without specifying who would define "satisfacto- ry," management or workers. A newspaper from a nearby town reported that on really hot days, the windows could be opened at the bottom, and if necessary, the company would also cut holes in the floor to increase circulation.” These extra details were not reported in St. Joseph papers. 164 Second, company threats to blacklist the ”ringleaders“ pro- bably discouraged others from expressing dissatisfaction in the future. Third, the price for the “concessions" of open windows and no blacklist was written agreement to a sweeping list of rules, which formalized the near-absolute authority of management over the actions of their employees on the job. From the company’s point of view, things could hardly have worked out better. Work culture had identified unacceptable working condi- tions and inspired collective protest. Standing together, immigrant and native women of various ages had won modest improvements in their working conditions. They had received a certain degree of support and sympathy from some segments of the community, but were basically on their own, lacking a formal organization and history of united action. The strike revealed a lack of solidarity among the workers in different parts of the mill, and among workers throughout the town. No other departments came to the aid of the second-floor workers, and except for the workers at Truscott Boat, there is no record of working class support, even from the dozen or so trade unions that participated in St. Joseph's Labor Day observances.‘° The working class may have had little reaction, but this, the only local strike reported in the St. Joseph press between 1880 and 1920, caused quite a stir among other groups. Newspaper accounts suggest a range of community attitudes towards the dispute--from blunt criticism of the 165 strikers, to calm objectivity, to open support. For exam- ple, on the first day of the strike, e veni ress was openly critical. Following the headline, "Imperfect Venti- lation Given as Excuse," the unnamed writer attributed the walkout to “an acute attack of spring fever." "Some half dozen girls...walked out...and forced about 200 others to join them." He dismissed the girls’ claim that they needed more air because "a committee of prominent citizens“ had "expressed their opinion that the place seemed thoroughly aired." The author sympathized with the company’s efforts to prevent window gazing by using frosted glass and opening only the upper sashes. The article concluded: The management has always been kind and consider- ate in its treatment of employees extending to them many little courtesies unthought of in other factories so in the light of all this it seems all the more wanton that these same employees should cripple the mill at one of its busiest seasons. Although totally vague about Cooper-Wells’ "many little courtesies," there is no question about the writer’s own attitude--the strikers are "wanton," and the company has more than met its obligations.‘u However, he v in r ss almost immediately changed its tone. The Monday edition provided more details about the walkout, included interviews with strikers and omitted any criticism of the strikers or expressions of support for the company’s point of view. The paper went so far as to praise the strikers’ "brilliant“ organization "in the fight for better ventilation." In the face of the obvious tension associated with the walkout, Ihe chss injected a light note 166 into the strike coverage by that announcing that two strik- ers had taken advantage of this time off to get married. “If this keeps up, Cooper, Wells and Co. will find that the strike must continue indefinitely for there will be no more girls to come back.““2 A different author and/or a response to sympathetic town opinion could have caused this change in tone. The April 28 article may have been written by the editor, Elmer Sheridan, while the later ones were the work of Frank Crockett. A competing newspaper identified Crockett as "the new Eggs; reporter," who was one of only two men present at the Saturday night strikers’ meeting and the author of the workers’ solidarity pledge. Crockett may have been genu- inely on the strikers’ side, protecting his special rela- tionship with them, reflecting sympathetic public opin- ion, or simply trying to sell more newspapers. On April 30, a former mayor had promised the strikers that "the good citizens of St. Joseph" would "see that the rights of the girls are safeguarded." This kind of public attention might also have influenced the 853;;L1 reporting." Strike coverage in the other daily paper, the 5;; as h n n r d, was detailed and informative, but also included personal judgements and insights into local attitudes. According to these articles, the strike was an uncomfortable and unjustified occurrence. It is unfortunate that a thing of this sort should happen....It has been demonstrated beyond all rea- sonable doubt that the Cooper, Wells, and Co. factory is the best equipped and best ventilated 167 institution in the country. After reporting that the girls and women had left the factory cheering, the Herpld remarked: "It seems better, however to hurrah for steady employment than for a season of idleness."“ These statements probably reflected the views of at least one group in St. Joseph, the ”boosters." Leonard J. Merchant, the owner and editor of the St, Joseph Eyening Herald and of the St. Joseph Saturday Herald, was one of their number. Merchant had a long and active record of encouraging local industrial development. In 1877, he had proposed the formation of a Village Improvement Association which was instrumental in founding the Cooper-Wells mill. He regularly promoted St. Joseph in his newspapers. For example, the May 2, 1903 St. Joseph Saturday Herald praised St. Joseph’s "natural resources and transportation facili- ties,” its healthy climate, and steady industrial employ- ment. “The position held by our city is such that our citizens can have a feeling of pride for the place they call home." Although he had no direct financial connection with the hosiery mill, he was a St. Joseph booster and clearly proud of the company he had helped establish." However, Merchant’s enthusiasm for industry did not extend to support for labor organizations. Earlier news- paper articles indicated a hostility to such associations. For example, in 1903, the St Jose h Satu da erald re- ported that labor troubles might force some Chicago factor— 16S ies to close, offering "a good chance for St. Joseph" to acquire new industry. Quoting Ipe Chicago Iripune, Factories, clothing establishments and small in- dustries are being driven out of Chicago by the arbitrary exactions of the labor organizations in the matter of wages and hours, constant strikes, and intolerable interference in the management of the plants.“ Paralleling the view of courts which defined labor unions as "conspiracies in restraint of trade," e se h Satupday Herald saw “labor oppression" as an obstacle to industrial progress and prosperity. In addition to its "natural resources and transportation facilities" and its healthy climate, part of St. Joseph’s appeal was its freedom from such "interference" by labor organizations. From man- agement’s point of view, St. Joseph ”labor organizations" did not seem to have been particularly troublesome. The St. Joseph newspapers reported no strikes by the traditional craft and transportation unions in St. Joseph between 1880 and 1920. The walkout by Cooper-Wells’ knitters, loopers, menders and transfer girls threatened this image and St. Joseph’s advantage over Chicago. Presumably, many in the community shared these views. Since private citizens became directly involved in resolving the crisis, this Cooper-Wells’ dispute seemed to have been more serious than the walkouts in Belding. St. Joseph’s proximity to Chicago may have made some over react to a minor event, but this walkout also differed from the Belding occurrences in several ways. First, it involved a larger percentage of the mill’s workforce, three-fourths of 169 the women, and nearly half of the total. The largest strike in Belding involved only fifteen percent of its workforce, and the others, only five percent or less. Second, the paternalistic style and claims of interest in their employ- ees that prevailed at Belding Brothers were less in evidence at Cooper-Wells. The St. Joseph hosiery mill had no long- standing public policy of friendly, paternal relations with its workers: it made no claims to be concerned with worker welfare, although it originally insisted that ventilation was good. It locked-out the workers, threatened to black- list strikers and to hire strikebreakers. It told the workers, “you need us more than we need you: the warehouses are full and you can be replaced." J. Ogden Wells explicit- ly described the strike as a power struggle, not as in Belding, a "misunderstanding.“ Such blunt talk made some St. Joseph citizens uncomfortable enough to intervene. Of course the Belding walkouts were also power conflicts, but that fact was veiled rather than trumpeted. In Belding, the public stayed out of the way. The Belding public may have considered worker resistance "unthinkable,“ and therefore did not take the walk-outs seriously, or it may have simply been confident that the two parties could sort things out because of a long tradition of mutual respect and communication. Another reason "outsiders" may have chosen to mediate at Cooper-Wells was that the hosiery strike involved an issue of worker well-being, whereas the Belding walkouts 170 concerned only wages. Even citizens who were hostile toward "labor organizations" and opposed strikes over wages, might have been willing to support a "fresh air strike.” In all of these small cities, wages were more likely to be defined as a management prerogative, whereas basically decent work- ing conditions might have been a legitimate topic for com- munity concern. Despite its hard line, Cooper-Wells softened a little at the end, and compromised on the windows in order to assure the public that its workers were being treated pro- perly. Apparently even immigrants and girls who were not ”ladies" deserved some consideration. Neither Cooper-Wells nor the city of St. Joseph wanted the image of tyrant and oppressor of women workers. At the same time, they wanted no ambiguity about where the power lay. Philosophy and Practice at Warren Featherbone At Warren Featherbone as at the other two companies, factory inspectors’ Reportp, interviews and newspaper ac- counts form the main sources of data on day-to-day interac- tion between employer and employees. In addition, some company records are available. On their annual visits, Michigan state factory inspectors apparently found much to admire, praising management in enthusiastic tones. The 1892 Report acknowledged that wages were "small", but added that the firm treats "the help well," allowing "many liberties, the girls going and coming almost at will." According to 171 the 1903 Re ort, ”The management of this plant spare no pains to insure the health and comfort of their employees, particularly is this noticeable regarding the women and girls under their charge.” In 1911, an inspector ”found the conditions in Three Oaks unusually satisfactory....It is quite evident that an important consideration of The Warren Featherbone Company is that those in their employ shall be well treated and well cared for in every way." The inspec- tor praised Warren for obeying the law regarding the employ— ment of women and children, but unfortunately, provided little specific information about labor relations.“’ Details from interviews and company documents are less congratulatory, but do not contradict this generally posi- tive image. Activities that were prohibited in the model rules published in the 1899 ngtile World Record, such as conversation, singing and snacking at work, were permitted at Warren’s. Payroll books for portions of the years 1890- 1914 indicate that Warren’s, who paid many employees a hourly wage, kept meticulous records of time on the job, eg. 57.3 hours. Suggesting a tolerance for occasional tardi- ness, or for brief absences, people who worked an hour or less than the full 54 or 60 hour week often received full pay, indicated by the note FULL in the "wages" column. In the textile industry as a whole, absenteeism and high labor turnover rates were chronic problems, whereas Warren’s work- force appears to have been steady and reliable. The popula- tion was not very mobile, and there were few employment 172 alternatives. Their regular work habits and the relatively short labor supply relieved these workers of the fear of being fired for minor rule infractions. Women workers could not remember anyone being fired, and could not suggest what actions would be cause for termination. However, a male Featherbone employee said that in the 1930’s, men and boys were "bawled out" for being late, and were sometimes fired for "horseplay" and for refusing to work overtime. State law prohibited overtime for female workers." The Warren Featherbone Company initiated and supported a variety of employee activities and provided some employee benefits that fit the general definition of “welfare capi- talism." For example, in 1897 the company provided a peri- odical reading room that was open to employees at noon and to the public in the evenings. In 1906, The Women’s Mis- sionary Society held a benefit cantata in the Featherbone Warehouse. Later, when the company rented the local opera house, The Acorn, for its business, Warren employees hosted a community Halloween costume party there. Dancing, food, games and prizes attracted 600 guests. The company green- house sent flowers to workers who were ill and to those who had had a death in the family. In 1911, reading and smoking rooms in the opera house served as "clubrooms" for Warren employees. The "Warren Employees’ Welfare Association" was intended to "stimulate a feeling of goodfellowship and co operation among its members, afford wholesome amusement and recreation."" It seems that Edward Warren agreed with the 173 attitude expressed by the State Commissioner of Labor in a letter to him in October 1911: [Employers’l relation to their employees is one of mutual obligation and...their desire for loyal and intelligent service on the one hand calls for appreciative and considerate treatment on the other."° In 1914, the Warren Company offered a tangible benefit to its employees by providing accident and life insurance. The company paid one-third of the premium for employees in their first year, two-thirds for second year workers and the full premium after that. Later, the company annually gave each employee one share of company stock for every five years of service.'* In spite of the fact that it was the national headquar- ters of the Warren Featherbone Company, Three Oaks remained a very small village that was primarily a marketing and service center for farmers. In 1925, the Berrien Coppty Record described Three Oaks as a place where “the community spirit fully is alive....The troubles and sorrows of the humble citizen are...part of the thought and friendly helpfulness of the town."'a This gushy boosterism no doubt exaggerated the strength of Three Oaks’ community spirit, but it was probaly accurate in describing the highly person- al nature of social interaction in the village. Work, neighboring, church membership and kinship involved dealing with many of the same individuals. For better or worse, most residents were well known by all! there were no strangers. 174 These villagers valued social patterns that included, rather than excluded others. Work culture at Warren’s in- cluded informal standards of behavior for supervisors and co-workers that judged people by their friendliness and fairness. One unpopular forelady was known to bring candy to work, but never shared it, eating it all herself when she thought no one was looking. Another foreman had the habit of "sneaking up" on workers, trying to catch them in some mistake or misbehavior. Workers appreciated supervisors who helped them earn more and who distributed higher paying jobs equitably, and not just to “favorites.“ One long-time Fea- therbone employee contrasted the humane pace of work at Warren’s with her later experience at another factory, where "you had to make money" all the time. They were willing to put in a day’s work, but did not want constant pressure to maintain top speed. They resented workers who “ruined" jobs by producing so much that the company lowered piece-work rates. Workroom sociability sometimes continued in off work hours, when workers took turns hosting gatherings in their homes.'3 Unlike the other two firms, there is no record of a strike or walkout at Warren Featherbone, and only two re- corded conflicts concerning employer-employee relations, one in the late nineteenth century and one during the First World War. In the first incident, the company responded to rumors that it was mismeasuring output and therefore under— paying its workers. In the second instance, homeworkers 175 were unwilling to work, frustrating company efforts to meet high demand." In 1697 and 1698, the firm was plagued by "malicious stories“ that it was "cheating the girls in the measurement of their cord" (lengths of Featherbone). In March 1897, Warren asked a "number of disinterested well known business men“ to investigate these charges by examining the measuring reel. A 200-yard machine-measured length of cord measured 199 2/3 yards when they measured it by hand with a yard- stick. These ten unofficial ”inspectors“ concluded: The measuring reels are as true and correct as it is possible in our opinion to make a machine that will measure in large quantities and rapidly....We unhesitatingly pronounce them as nearly perfect as possible and any statement that the company is taking dishonest measurement is without foundation and is untrue." In spite of these assurances, the charges seem to have continued. In a December 1898 statement, Warren referred to these “false reports“, observing that they had made employees dissatisfied and had "strained relations between the promoters and the community....While the Co. can prove every such accusation false, the frequency of such is, to say the least, annoying." Warren pleaded “‘Not Suilty’ to all charges of unfairness, irregularity, and having anything but the best interest of Three Oaks at heart.“ In support of his claims, Warren pointed out that he kept the factory in Three Oaks, an inland and unknown town,...contrary to best business interests and against the wishes of out- side directors, because it was his home and he desired to give it the benefit of his labors. 176 He pointed out that the company had developed without any local capital investment (other than his own) and had strug- gled for many years before becoming profitable. While the company had imposed no direct costs on the village, it had greatly contributed to village development by spending $558,000 on labor and supplies in the village since 1886 and by stimulating local commerce, construction and transporta- tion. Warren considered that these facts established his credibility. He denied the charges and attributed such stories to jealousy over the company’s recent successes." Disputes over the measurement of output were common in this type of production. While it is possible, it is un- likely that ten citizens and the man who operated the reel would conspire to cheat the operatives. Since the same device was used to measure goods for sale, false measure- ments would have irritated customers as well as operatives. The rumors were not traced to the workers directly involved, and may indeed have reflected personal hostility or suspi- cion, rather than a specific grievance. It is probable that the Warren family had made some enemies because of its adamant opposition to having a saloon in Three Oaks. In any event, the subject never reappeared in the local paper." The second situation occurred during the First World War, when the company was behind in several orders, espe- cially on items made at home by "outside" workers. The minutes of a September 11, 1916 staff meeting reveal manage- ment’s frustration and the surprising independence of these 177 village women workers. Despite the current pressing situa- tion, some of their most productive employees refused home- work because of “vacations, getting the children ready for school and canning." Others were willing to work, but refused this particular task, preferring other jobs. In frustration, the staff planned to rent a building in a neighboring town and hire workers who were less selective about what they would do and when. Edward Kirk Warren, the founder and owner of the company, was annoyed at this lack of local support and failure to appreciate the employment benefits offered by his firm." It is no accident that this self-assertion occurred during the war, since this was a period both when orders were up and when employment alternatives at substantially higher wages were available in nearby towns. Road improve- ments, bus service and car pooling broadened the options of many in Three Oaks. One company which experienced a real boom during this time was Clark Equipment, a Buchanan manu- facturer of truck axles, only about fifteen miles away. Although Clark employed men, not women, a family in which a male worked at Clark’s could more easily do without a wo- man’s wage from Warren’s. Like the St. Joseph hosiery workers who preferred to pick berries in the summer, even if they risked their chances of later employment at Cooper- Wells, these Three Oaks women followed their own priorities when they could. The First World War created widespread conditions in which workers became "uppity." However, these 178 Three Oaks’ women were not involved in any group action, or a class-conscious assertion of ”workers' rights" versus company power. Their independence was a personal and indi— vidual expression of autonomy, apparently unrelated to any theoretical analysis or group decision." The women and men who worked at Warren Featherbone had no more formal say in determining the conditions and terms of their employment than did the workers at Cooper-Wells or at Belding Brothers. They needed and expected to work, and knew that wages there were modest. The work was also con- venient, steady and non-threatening. Bosses and co-workers were neighbors, not strangers. Power and hierarchy was personal, not remote and anonymous. In such a social set- ting, formal rules are often supplemented by a series of informal arrangements which balance the company’s need for workers with the workers need for wages and for conditions which meet their social and domestic requirements. Thus Warren Featherbone didn’t pay much, but neither did it hassle its employees to produce the maximum. The company also allowed brief absences from work and let people enjoy some conversation and friendliness on the job. This inform- al system appears to have broken down somewhat in 1918 with regard to the homeworkers. It seems that until then, the company could get enough workers when it really needed them. In exchange, the company had been committed to keeping production in Three Oaks. When these women refused work for what the company saw as frivolous reasons, the company 179 viewed it as a breach of contract and in turn threatened to drop its end of the bargain by starting production else- where. Except for these few incidents, Warren Featherbone and its employees maintained a reasonably satisfactory rela— tionship. However, even if major differences had developed, War- ren family economic interests were so great in Three Oaks that open confrontation was unlikely. In addition to the factory, Warren owned a bank, the only newspaper (after 1898), a department store and several farms in the area. Everyone knew that Warren had put Three Oaks on the map, and that no one else was likely to commit such large sums of money or offer so many jobs. Even if Three Oaks had been less dependent on Warren family investments, workers who were dissatisfied were more likely to gossip, complain or simply leave, instead of organizing for change. Collective resistance was unlikely because the village lacked institu- tions or traditions which would support such activity.‘° Conclusion This detailed investigation of three companies yields a composite picture of some of the structural and ideological dimensions of industrial relations in three small Michigan towns between 1880 and 1920. Residents in these villages shared a belief in the legitimacy of authority, a general conviction that even in industry, such authority was neces- sary and beneficial. The hierarchical organization of pro- ISO duction was congruent with such an assumption. According to this model, male directors and managers determined the pace and manner of production, as well as wages and personnel practices. All three of the companies in this study formal- ly adhered to this system. However, in many places, includ- ing these, this model was subtly but significantly altered in practice. In his investigation of New England textile mills in the period 1812-1840, Jonathan Prude observed that wages, hours and workload were established unilaterally in both the large and the small mills. However, the small, less well- known mills, which were located in rural areas and paid lower wages, seldom used fines, firings or blacklists to enforce discipline. It seems that what the smaller mills couldn’t offer in wages, they “made up for“ in tolerance, accepting a degree of tardiness and drinking, for example, that may have resulted in firings and blacklisting at mills where the labor supply was more abundant. Their need for workers apparently limited the degree of coercion they could practice.“ Similar labor supply conditions in the twentieth cen- tury suggest that formal authority was modified in rural industries by the subtle power dynamics that existed between workers and managers in many small industrial settings. For example, a 1904 article which outlined the formal hierarchi- cal organization of a mill (manager, superintendent, fore- men, help) also warned that authority was not absolute. 181 Each person should have only one "boss," "only one person from whom each is required to take orders respecting his work, or by whom he will be reprimanded for bad work or inefficient service." Foremen should be able to hire and discharge workers in their own departments, and be held responsible for the quantity and quality of work. However, one could secure "the very best service from the help [only] by using them right, repecting their feelings, treating them fairly and impartially without any favoritism.“ The author warned that speaking angrily and humiliating workers would not serve the best interests of the employer. Instead of intimidating workers, the author recommended allowing danc- ing in the mill during noon hour, and sponsoring baseball teams, picnics and other entertainment in order to secure "better service from their employees."‘3 Even when companies unilaterally established rules, it was not always easy to enforce them. Achieving prompt and regular attendance at work seems to have been especially difficult. In 1905, one troubled supervisor wrote to the Textile World Record: What are the best methods to follow in order to maintain strict discipline over female employees of a knitting mill in a place where help is scarce and therefore independent, and where it is not policy to discharge them in order to maintain proper discipline? Our female help are in the habit of coming to their work late both in the morning and at noon, especially the piece workers, who think they are the only losers by being late at their work. The editor responded that although he had once fired an operator who came late because of the influence she had on 182 others, who also stayed “in town shopping," he did not recommend firing. He preferred to post rules and talk the matter over with them in a kindly way,..- calling attention to the prompt girls who earned the best wages. I try to show them...that their loss of time...restricts production and...affects all succeeding departments in the mill. Combining the carrot and the stick, he suggested closing the door, "shortly after the mill starts," and forcing late comers to "report at the office.” He echoed the proposal that allowing dancing in the mill during the noon hour might encourage those who went home for lunch to "hurry back to take part in this recreation.“" Other mills also had problems with attendance. In 1906, a New England writer complained that recent hot wea- ther had increased absenteeism. His machines were idle and orders unfilled, while the ”happy mill operatives" were on their way to the beach with money in their pockets. Spin- ners at that mill had recently struck for higher wages, but stayed out until the next day, even when the company agreed to a wage increase.“ Another article discussed the special difficulties of "controlling“ operatives in a knitting mill. Knitters posed a challenge because they tended to be young and be- cause it took from three to six months to learn the work. It is poor policy to discharge [an expert opera- tor) for breaking some of the rules and be obliged to get a new girl in her place....The operators know this also, and know they will not be dis- charged for any slight offense, and for this rea- son they are apt to take greater liberties than the help in other departments, who know if they are discharged the foreman can fill their places 183 at once." This modification of the formal power structure also appears in the Iextile World Record’s advice to foremen. Although they had the power to hire and fire in most mills, they were told to adjust their actions to existing condi- tions. If labor is in short supply, they must "overlook the faults of the good operators.“ Nor should they "give some- body a call down...every time they pass down an aisle." The writer warned that such behavior makes him unpopular with the help: they soon get so used to being found fault with that they don’t pay any attention....l know of more than one in- stance where the help simply refused to work until the foreman was discharged....The proper way to manage help...is to for the foreman to treat each (worker) as he would like to be treated.“ The foreman should not only know the job thoroughly, he should also know the abilities of each worker, and put the best workers on the finest goods. He should encourage all to increase their skill so they can earn more. He must keep himself aloof, tolerate no undue familiarity and yet appear to be democratic and well-disposed toward all. Favorites he should have none. Absolute impartiality is the only safe course." This catalogue of pitfalls awaiting the unwary overseer suggests the complexity of exercising power, even in a formally hierarchical system. The details reported in this chapter indicate that the companies in this study were aware of and attempted to address some of the issues relating to the distribution of power in an industrial setting. Belding Brothers and Com- 184 pany and Warren Featherbone and Company made deliberate efforts to be friendly and accomodating to their workers, and sponsored several modest recreational activities. There is no evidence that the Cooper-Wells hosiery mill attempted such gestures until it constructed a dormitory in 1919. Alone among the three companies, it adopted rigid written rules that asserted management prerogatives, but in view of the discussions in the national literature, it is doubtful that they were strictly enforced. The national literature and these Michigan examples indicate that labor supply is a structural variable that can modify the power of formal authority in industry. The labor supply available to each of the companies in this study was limited to a greater or lesser degree, by the size of its village, by the general state of the economy and by its own varying need for workers. There seems to have been no extended period of time when these firms were so flushed with operatives that they could afford to indulge in harsh and arbitrary methods of enforcing industrial discipline. Ideological and behavioral factors also tended to mod- erate the exercise of management prerogatives in these vil- lages. These factors included the ideology of mutual bene- fit, the concept that women workers deserved some special consideration and the relatively high level of obedience and cooperation found in these village factories. All three employers were restrained by the necessity of maintaining an appearance of fairness in order to retain a moral leadership 185 role in their communities. They could not contradict this status by openly abusing or mistreating their workers. This was especially true because so many of their employees were young women, toward whom the culture expected a certain degree of chivalry. In small town factories, supervisors at all levels had less freedom to intimidate workers who were the daughters, nieces, cousins and school mates of their neighbors and associates. In addition, the small-town set- tings and their relatively stable populations tended to reduce labor turnover and limit the ”casual“ attendance patterns that plagued many urban factories. These workers did not always do as the bosses wished, but they were loathe to annoy by irregular attendance, the foremen in the only factory in town. These factors also influenced the character of “home- work" in Belding, St. Joseph and Three Oaks, making it more like the traditional putting-out system of the early nine- teenth century, than the sweatshop style of turn of the century New York City. Originally, homework was a part-time occupation of a surplus agricultural population. Wages were low, but the work involved no transportation costs, and could be fitted in around other duties. The main economic activity of these households was agriculture, not manufac- turing. In urban areas in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, homework, or outside work, took on a very different character. Entire families often depended upon it as their sole source of income and it became identi- 186 fied with the abuses referred to collectively as the "sweat- ing system.“" In New York City, where high rents and intense competi- tion made it almost necessary for some workers to provide their own workplaces, heat and light, the clothing industry was particularly dependent on homeworkers. Most of the workers involved in this system were immigrant women and children. Their lives were made miserable by wage-cutting, underpayment, and non-payment of wages. They were hired by contractors who had negotiated with a manufacturer a total price for a number of collars, cuffs or sleeves, and who paid them piece-work rates. The contractors’ profits de- pended on getting the work done as cheaply as possible. Piece rates were often so low and competition so great that fifteen-hour work days were common, and still one was not guaranteed enough to live on. Moreover, work was not stead- y, and underemployment (insufficient work and income) was a severe problem. Makers of women’s clothing suffered extreme fluctuations in demand. Spring and fall were busy, but there was very little work in winter or summer. In addi- tion, outside workers had to spend time without pay, seek- ing, picking up and delivering work. Such irregulac and desperate conditions contributed to the eventual prohibition of homework in the textile trade." These conditions did not apply to homework in the three villages in this study. There was no shortage of space to force production into crowded settings. Much of the work 187 was not suitable to home production, because it required the use of large machines. Homeworkers performed only a small percentage of the production and were not required to pro- vide their own materials or machines. Piece-work rates were low, but these workers did not have to look for work, or pick up and deliver it and they had the advantages of a flexible work schedule. Some homeworkers in these three villages may have needed money very badly and may have worked long hours. But they were in much stronger positions vis-a-vis their employers than the typical urban immigrant textile worker. Homeworkers were available, but not so abundant that their numbers drove rates below subsistence levels. Nor did it appear that entire families were totally dependent on this source of income. Public reactions to strikes suggest the existence of community standards of justice which offered further protection. Unlike anonymous contractors in large cities, these employers were known to all and could not withhold pay or otherwise cheat without risking public outcry. In all three villages, people without previous indus- trial experience entered factories in which the formal hier- archy gave them little power, but in which informal forces created a pattern of give and take. By the late nineteenth century, even beginning factory workers knew approximately what to expect, since they knew in general what a “factory" was. They knew they would have to conform to time disci- pline and meet production standards. They accepted these 188 conditions in exchange for wages and for the convenience and security of local employment. The companies dictated wages and workloads, but like the small mills studied by Prude, also made efforts to maintain personal contacts among their employees and to accomodate some non-monetary worker prefer- ences in response to local conditions. The story of the interaction between the companies and the workers indicates both that the officials were confident of their authority and that workers felt they could exert personal and moral pressure on management. In each town, the employer was involved in the community in many ways, not just in one factory. Frequent personal contacts and oppor- tunites for casual conversation and recognition increased feelings of mutuality. The companies were moderate in exer- cising their authority, and the workers expressed little overt resistance. Workroom camaraderie and the feeling that they belonged to an enterprise which was important to the entire community contributed to creating relatively obedient workforces at each company. Strikes, walkouts, summer berry picking and refusals to do more or to do certain kinds of homework indicate that workers in various departments had evolved their own standards of legitimate and illegitimate corporate authority. These incidents show that they were willing to publicly protest when they felt those bounda- ries had been exceeded, and to try to re-establish an equi- librium more to their liking. In general these strikes were conservative attempts to forestall changes in their working 189 conditions. Although these episodes assert personal and group autonomy, they show no evidence of a theoretically informed working class consciousness or challenge to capi- talist authority as such. Individuals who were truly dis- satisfied probably left, like the Belding and St. Joseph strikers who refused to return to work on company terms. Although operating in a structure which, within the limits of law, gave all authority to management, it is clear that informal and ideological factors also were significant in determining worker and management attitudes and behavior in these three industries. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION Contrary to the image of small towns as dying or inac- tive places, many small towns were part of the current of industrialization that swept the United States between 1880 and 1920.* The institutions, values, and behavior that are called ”modernization" were widely distributed, not exclu- sive to large metropolitan areas. There were thousands of lively towns which eagerly sought industry and change, and which produced from one-third to one-quarter of the manufac— tured goods in America. This study has examined three village factories, Belding Brothers and Company, Cooper- Wells and Company, and Warren Featherbone Company in order to analyze the interaction of forces which shaped the char- acter of industrial experience in such places. The small-town setting appears to have had an ambiva- lent effect on corporate power. On the one hand, these firms were very influential because they were the chief industries in their communities and had so little competi- tion. On the other hand, the exercise of power was res- trained by face-to-face contacts and by their desire to retain the good will and good opinion of the community. It was assumed that each firm would act in its own interest, but each was supposed to consider the general welfare as well. Cooper-Wells threatened to hire strike-breakers, but quickly added that it preferred that local people keep their jobs. Warren Featherbone Company had to justify the tempo- rary operation of plants outside Three Oaks, because of the 190 191 housing shortage. Belding Brothers and Company claimed to favor their Belding mills over those in other cities during slack work periods. All three companies from time to time publically justified their treatment of workers as ”fair," defending their reputations against potential criticism. In varying degrees, the owners of each company contri- buted time and money to furthering the prosperity of each town in addition to managing their own factories. There is substantial evidence that these owners possessed a sense of duty and obligation toward others, yet it is often impossi- ble to separate their economic self-interest from community development. Their support for improved material conditions and public services fits their roles as "modernizers," and in most instances, served both immediate business needs and corporate "image" needs. They preferred to be associated with ”progressive,“ rather than "backward" communities. As Lewis Atherton pointed out, ”Every country town had an inner circle whose own personal interests were so tightly inter- woven with those of the community at large that one cannot determine where self-interest ended and public spirit be- gan."’ Such corporate leadership could be seen as an anachron- ism, a throw back to early nineteenth century paternalism in the style of Rockdale and Lowell. It could also be seen as a cynical strategy to diffuse labor discontent and forestall unionization, a community-wide version of "welfare capital- ism," a control device masquerading as benevolence.’ John 192 S. Ellsworth, a sociologist who studied social organization in a New England village factory, has suggested an addition- al perspective. In this factory, the workers believed that "community responsiblity“ was a corporate objective. This concept included the idea that the company should provide employment for local people and should otherwise contribute to the town’s welfare.“ Evidence suggests that the compan- ies and towns in this study ascribed to a similar conception of “corporate responsibility." The companies, residents and workers might not always agree that this duty had been fulfilled, but it appears that they all agreed that some such duty existed. In a sense, the companies and their towns were like members of a family, bound together and obligated to support each other, whether they wanted to or not. To the degree that these local companies were per— ceived as fulfilling these community obligations, people were loathe to criticize, oppose or challenge them. Ac- cording to Atherton, ”Common citizens might grumble at high- handed acts or impugn the motives behind the program of a lcoal capitalist, but criticism broke into the open only when such a man overstepped the recognized limits of his power."' Living and working conditions for the workers in these three companies were quite unlike those experienced by a slightly earlier generation of factory workers in Troy and Cohoes, New York. According to Daniel Walkowitz, the lives of iron and textile workers between 1855 and 1884 were 193 marked by "meager wages, unsanitary and cramped living con- ditions, and child labor....Technology constantly threatened to reduce skills, intensify labor, or absorb jobs complete- ly, and depressions, company paternalism, seasonal employ- ment, and other such conditions kept most families in a continual state of dependence."‘ In contrast, the workers at these three companies experienced regular employment and material working conditions that were among the best in the textile industry. Wages were only average, but child labor was minimal and housing was comfortable, neither cramped nor unsanitary. The forces that created dense populations with- in walking distance of urban factories did not exist in small towns. The combination of new plants on large lots, state inspection and insurance concerns as much as any humanitarian concerns supported above-average factory condi- tions. All three companies deliberately tried to avoid fluctuations in employment. There were some seasonal varia- tions in volume and type of output, but the production and marketing strategies of all of these firms were geared toward maintaining steady year-round employment. In pur- suing their corporate goals of long-term stability and strength, they concentrated on the manufacture of staple items, for which demand was relatively steady, and avoided specialty products, which offered both the promise of great- er immediate profits and greater risks. Until the 1930’s, these workers had few episodes of unemployment. The preceding discussion of corporate action provides 194 only part of the equation that shaped village industrial experience. Workers’ values, goals and behavior provide the other major dimension. These factory workers had not been participants in a pre-industrial artisan culture. Although they did not have previous industrial experience, in general they knew about and accepted the time and work discipline of factory produc- tion. There is no evidence of the high rates of labor turnover and absenteeism reported in so many urban facto- ries, and in many village ones as well. Only a handful of incidents of conflict between workers and management have been recorded. There were no unions among these workers, some of whom volunteered anti-union remarks during inter- views. Interviews and behavior show great similarity with the attitudes reported by John Bodnar in Workerp’ Wprld, a study based on hundreds of interviews with workers in Pennsylvania industrial towns. These interviews indicate a continuity in values from 1890 to 1940, during which the family not the workplace or the economic system was the center of worker consciousness and aspirations.’ In his study of Troy and Cohoes workers in the decades before 1890, Walkowitz simi- larly observed that although national economic pressures exerted great influence on workers’ experiences, “a narrowly privatized and local vision also persisted within large segments of the working class.”' Bodnar found that workers had limited social aspira- 19S tions, not bourgeois goals of individual upward mobility. They “took what came,“ aware of the improbability of chang- ing their status. Most families supported this social con- servatism. Kinship provided access to industrial jobs: families socialized children to seek steady factory work, and seldom criticized capitalism. Family members were en- couraged to sacrifice individual wishes in favor of im- mediate family needs. Social equality and social idealism were personal goals that took second place to job security, the pine gua non of family survival. During this period, "Families generally searched for ways to make ends meet, achieved little in the way of savings, sent their children to work early in life, and valued steady employment.”’ The values and goals of these Michigan village factory workers seem quite similar to those studied by Bodnar. There were some instances of upward mobility, but most workers were primarily concerned with supporting themselves or contributing to the family. Employment for them was a job, not a stage in a career path. The predominance of women among these workers reinforces the conservative dimen- sion of employment. Their situations were similar to those of the wage-earning urban women described by Tentler. Her evidence suggests that wage labor offered these women work- room sociability and greater social freedom, but little opportunity for individual mobility. For most of the women, low wages, subordinate work roles, and continuing family responsibilities reinforced traditional roles.‘° Although 196 wages at these three companies were reliable and a little above average for women, most workers were in subordinate roles and retained strong family connections. Nearly all of the workers at Cooper-Wells and Warren Featherbone lived with their families. They needed work and took whatever job was available. Most of the Belding workers had migrated to the village in search of jobs, but still maintained family contacts, often sharing dormitory rooms with a sister or cousin, and contributing to family income. Nor did these village workers seek control over the workplace or an alternative to capitalism. These broader issues were not salient (meaningful in a psychological sense) for them. They resisted "unfair" wages and the arbitrary exercise of power, but not the principle of capi- talist authority itself. Working-class consciousness was not a factor in their lives. The few recorded walkouts included only those workers who were directly affected by a particular company policy. Strikers demonstrated solidarity with co-workers based on their common grievance, but they received no support from workers in ”unaffected” depart- ments. At Cooper-Wells, only those who worked in the stuffy rooms went on strike. At Belding Brothers, the weavers and the spoolers were alone. A family-oriented culture would support such behavior with the judgement, ”It doesn’t affect you, so stay out of it." Bodnar likewise found little evidence that workers sought control over the workplace or major changes in capi- 197 talism. He argues that most people were powerless to influ- ence the larger society, and they knew it. Instead, workers concentrated on achieving family security. For most work- ers, union organization, efforts to control the production process, and opposition to capitalism were means of achiev- ing family security, not ends in themselves. Workers were not radical, not because they expected individual mobility, but because they accepted the priority of family survival, which required participation in and obedience to, the indus- trial order. From this perspective, labor protests in the 1930’s were conservative because workers’ values had been conservative, not because any previous radicalism had been defused by the New Deal, or defeated by the depression.“ Certainly these Michigan factory workers also had conservative goals. The steady wages they earned fit per- fectly with many workers’ aspirations to contribute to fami- ly survival. Although these jobs would not provide upward mobility, they would provide a reliable living. The greet- ing used by factory workers in a small town in Illinois, “You working?" suggests workers’ preoccupation with irregu- lar employment, a problem that was minimal for these Michi- gan workers.‘a These factories demanded obedience, but neither these workers’ ages, sex nor skill level had led them to expect autonomy on the job. The general culture considered obedience an appropriate trait for young women and even adult men had to take orders at work. Furthermore, frequent personal contact with managers who recognized them 198 and expressed friendly interest in them, helped bridge the social distance between bosses and workers, and softened the exercise of authority.*3 Under these conditions, it is not surprising that many found these village factories, "good places to work," and regretted it when the factories closed, ending an era in their towns’ lives. Further research is needed to determine whether these conditions were typical of Midwestern village factories during this era. ENDNOTES CHAPTER I ‘The literature on this subject is voluminous. For an analytical survey of recent work, see David Montgomery, "To Study the People: The American Working Class,” Lgpg; History, 21 (Fall 1980), pp. 485-512. See also “Annual Bibliography on American Labor History" and ”Books Reviewed“ in Lapor History. .For example, Thomas R. Navin, Ipp Wpitip flacpipp Work; Since 1831: A Textile Machinery Qompany in an Industrial Village (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1950): Anthony F. C. Wallace, ockdale: The Growth of an e ican illa e in the arl d strial evol ti (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978): Thomas R. Winpenny, IndustriplAErQ; gress and Huggn Welfarg (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, Inc., 1982). However, many company mining towns and southern mill towns were as strife-torn and unpleasant as some eastern cities. 3Primary sources consulted for this study include com- pany records and official publications, federal and state censuses, state factory inspectors' reports, trade publica- tions, local newspapers, photographs and personal observa- tions, and interviews with village residents. “Amos H. Hawley, e ulat f 1960: A9 Analysis of Gcowth, Distributipn and Comppsitiop (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1949), pp. 97, 101. For general background on these towns, see E. E. Branch, s or o onia Co n i n' P o Industries, pnd Institgtiops, Vol. I (Indianapolis: B. F. Bowen and Co., 1916), pp. 227-240: Orville W. Coolidge, 8 wentieth Centu Hi tor of errien Cou ichi an (Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Co., 1906), pp. 171-183, 267-273, 318-319, 1001-1004. 'Rolla M. Tryon, sehold anuf c r s in he nited States, 1950-1860 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1917), especially pp. 242 ff.: also Stuart Bruchey, ng Boot; of merican conomic Gr wth 07- 86 (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), pp. 74-91. ‘See Hannah Josephson, Qplpgn Ipcpggpg ”pg Englppd’p Girls d M nates (New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1949): Constance M. Green, Holyoke, Massachusetts; A Case Study pf the nd strial evolution n America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939): Michael H. Frisch, Iown ipto Ci; : 4§prin fi ld assac setts 854- 9 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1963). 199 200 'One of the most detailed studies of manufacturing in the Midwest is Margaret Walsh, The Manufaptpring Frontier; ioneer dustr n ntebellum Wisconsin 1830-1860 (Madi- son, Wisconsin: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1972). On a county-by-county basis, Walsh documents wide- spread manufacturing in Wisconsin, consisting mostly of primary processing industries. These included planing and sawing lumber, milling flour, brewing, tanning leather and curing meat. For comparable development in Michigan, see Willis F. Dunbar, hichigan: AgHiptory of the Wolvering Stgte, rev. by George S. May (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), Chapter 21, "The Growth of Manufacturing," pp. 459-483: Sidney Glazer, "The Beginnings of the Economic Revolution in Michigan," Michiggn Histor , 34 (Sept. 1950), pp. 193-202. See also, Willis Frederick Dunbar, flow It Was ih hartford; An Affgctionggg Account of a Michigan Small prn in the Early Years of thngwentigth Century (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968). 'Alice E. Smith, hillgtgnp pnp Sgw; Ihp thgihp of upenah-henasha (Madison, Wisconsin: State Historical Socie- ty of Wisconsin, 1967): Charles N. Glaab and Lawrence H. Larsen, actories in he I e ' eenah- n sha 870-19 0 (Madison, Wisconsin: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1969), especially Chapters 1 and 2. ’Lewis Atherton, 1 8t e t e i dle or er (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1954), pp. 330-3493 Richard Lingeman, Small Tgwn America: 8 Narrptive Hiptory, 1620-the Phesent (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Compa- ny, 1980), esp. pp. 359-363: Carl Abbott, Boosters and usinessmen: Po ular conomic Thou t nd r an 8r wt in the Antehellum hiddle West (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1981), esp. pp. 198-209. ‘°U. 8. Bureau of the Census. Elgygn nth Qpnpup of thg Unitgd States, 189 , Vol I, Qompendium (Washington, D. C.: G. P. O. ), p. xlviii. ‘prprtpphth Qensus pf the upitgd Stgtgs, 122 , Vol. I, Eppulatioh, p. 53: Vol. IV, Qpcupgtions, p. 34. "W. Vol - VIII, hpnufactuhgs, p. 118. “For a discussion of Michigan’s dominant role in the automobile industry in the early twentieth century, see George S. May, A Most Uni ue achine' ich i ins pf the ehghipan Automobile Industry (Grand Rapids, nMichigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), pp. 331-345! and G. T. Bloomfield, "Shaping the Character of a City: The Automobile Industry and Detroit, 1900-1920," hichigan Ouar- terly Egyipw, 25 (Spring 1986), pp. 167-181. For Michigan 201 during World War I, see Dunbar, rev. by May, pp. 540-541. For a general discussion of the Michigan economy, see Thir- teenth Census of the United States, 1910, Vol. IX, pp. 547- 562: fourteenth Census of the United States, 1220, Vol. IX, “Definition of "factory" from Marvin Mark Fisher, Workshops in the Wilderhess (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 14. " In 1920, in these thirteen southwestern Michigan counties, there were five cities larger than 10,000: Grand Rapids (137,6340), Kalamazoo (48,487), Battle Creek (36,164), Benton Harbor (12,233), Holland (12,183). In the fifteen counties in southeastern Michigan, there were fif- teen such cities, including Detroit (993,678). Hawley, pp.96-111. “National Industrial Conference Board, a thphic Analysis of the Census of Manufactures pf the United States, 1849-1919 (New York: National Industrial Conference Board, 1923), pp. 98-101. ‘TAtherton, pp. 330-338. CHAPTER II ‘The major sources on Belding are John S. Schenck, history pf Ionia and Montcalm Counties, Michigan (Philadel— phia: D. W. Ensign & Co., 1881), pp. 284-287, and E. E. Branch (ed.), htptoryypf Ionia Qognty, Michigan (Indianapo- lis: B.B. Bowen and Company, Inc., 1916), Vol. I, pp. 227- 245. The earliest surviving Belding newspaper is the Bel- ding Home News (1879-1882). There are no surviving issues for 1883-1888. Certain issues of the Bglding Banner were especially helpful: "Souvenir Edition," 18 May 1905: "In- dustrial Edition," 27 June 1912. aU.S. Census. hir e ens s of e i ed at s 1210, Vol. VI, egricglturg, p. 783. 'J. Harold Stevens, “The Influence of New England in Michigan," hichigan History, 19 (Autumn 1935), pp. 321-353. Morris C. Taber, “New England Influence in South Central Michigan," hiphigan History, 45 (December 1961), pp. 305- 336. ‘Dunbar, rev. by May, pp. 200-201, 289. 'The sources mentioned in Endnote 1 also discuss Belding Brothers and Company. Several company publications are available in the Alvah N. Belding Memorial Library in 202 Belding, Michigan. ‘Sources disagree on the date. Family members may have arrived at different times. Schenck, p. 284, and Branch, p. 228, say 1855: Belding Home News, 7 August 1879, says 1857: Belding Banner, 27 June 1912, says 1858. ’Eplging home hpws, 7 August 1879. “This is the spelling used by Schenck, p. 285, and Branch, p. 228. Other spellings: Patterson’s Mills, Bel- ping Banner, 27 June 1912: Patterson Mills, Ionia Sentihel, 23 September 1871. Patterson sold the mill in 1862. ’ eldin Home News, 7 August 1897: Branch, p. 231: Belding Banner, 27 June 1912: Belding Brothers and Company, 1863-1925 (New York: Edward B. Smith & Co., 1925), p. 10. The most detailed source on these early days is O. D. Fos- ter, "Keeping Out of the 'Red Ink’ for 61 years out of 62," Eorpes, 15 December 1925, pp. 9-11, 42, 44. Alone of all the sources, Foster says that David, rather than Milo, sent them their first stock. ‘°Foster, p. 9. uaplding Banngr, 27 June 1912: Branch, p. 231: Foster, p. 10. uFoster, p. 10. "&glglng_flgmg_flgh§, 7 August 1879: Foster, p. 10. “ eldin ome News, 7 August 1879, 19 February 1880: Belding Banner, 25 July 1895, 20 February 1896, 5 October 1911. "Foster, pp. 10-11: Beldihg Brpthprs ghd Compahy, 1863-192 , p. 10. “ t ti ics of t State f Michi an ollec d f r the Ninth Cehsus of the Unitgd States, June 1970, Lansing, Michigan, p. 42. f’Branch, p. 229. “W. 7 August 1879. "LQQLQ_§ghtthg_, 23 September 1871. ”Belgium. 7 Aunts-t 1879. "Helen Cusack, ”When Pine Was King Lumber Story," Eglding Banner-flaws, Special 1972 Labor Day Edition. 203 '3 ldi Home ews, 11 June 1880. ”W, 31 July and 28 August 1979. "Cusack, “When Pine Was King,” el i a n - ews, Labor Day, 1972. "Beldihg home News, 24 July 1879. "Belging hpgg hews, 18 September 1879: Schenck, p. 287. a"‘Belding home News, 24 July 1879. "U.S. Bureau of the Census, om en iu f e l vent Census of the United States, 1890, Part I, Eopulatioh, p. 241. "W. 15 April 1880. ’°§ouvenir, City of Beldihg, hichigan, with Spgcipl Reference to the Interests of Beldihg Brothers and Co,, Silk hanufacturehs (n.p.: n.p., [1907]), p. 3. "Victor 8. Clark, History of hanufactprps in the United States, Vol. III, 1893-1928 (New York: Peter Smith, 1949), pp. 210-217. ’aBelding Heminway Company, Inc., the successor to Belding Brothers and Company, has a display of over twenty such awards in its New York Office. Personal correspon- dence, 29 January 1979. "Eglglhg_fighhgh, 18 April 1901. This interview was originally published in the thrpit qurhgl, which has not been preserved. "Margaret-Mary Love, A Geographic Study of the Belding Silk Industry, M.A. Thesis, Wayne State University, 1940. "D. C. Crawford, fitlps of Iphig ngnty, hichiggh (New York: J. B. Beers & Co., 1891), pp. 16-17, 20-21. "Confirming evidence in many sources, including Belding Banner, 18 May 1905, 5 October 1911, 9 May 1912, 27 June 1912: Beldihg Brpthers pnd Company, 1863-122 . ”W. E19073. pp. 8-11: Belding Banhgp, 27 June 1912, 10 April 1913: Belding Banner-News, 29 August 1957. "Beldihg Bgnngr, 19 November 1908. "W. 11 Anon-t 1915! W. 30 July 1919. 204 “9 ldi nn r, 10 May and 21 May 1900. “‘Esldin9_fiannsc. 24 Auoust 1911. “'Esldin9_fiannsc. 19 Auoust 1897. “'Belging Bannnn, 19 April 1900. “‘Branch, p. 227. “'Qonpengign of the Eleventh Census, 1890, Part I, Eopulation, p. 241: Hawley, p. 101. “‘Bplding Bhotherp and Qpnpany, 1863-1925, pp. 17-18. "Foster, p. 9. “'Bruce Calvert, Ihe Story pf g §ilk hill (New York: din rot ers and C m an 86 - , pp. 10-15: Belding Banner-News, Centennial Edition, 29 August I957: G. R. Stevens, Ihe Belding-Corticelli §tgry (Montreal: Belding Corticelli Ltd., 1951). '9 ood ’ anual of nve m nts n ec i tin Service (New York: The Moody Corporation, 1925), pp. 24-25: Belding Brothers and Company, 1863-lg; , p. 7. "”Tnkl 310.000.000 from $100," Eusnigsn_nansiastscsc nnd Fingncialifigcord, 27 June 1925, p. 12: Foster, p. 43: Belding Brothers and Company, 1863-1925, pp. 7 and 17. "Eslding_§snnsc:flses. 7 July 1932- r n h C nsu e ite tes , Vol. VI, Agriculture, p. 781. "Thirtgenth Census of the United States, 1910, Vol. II, Eopulation, p. 934. "Dunbar, rev. by May, pp. 200-201. "There are only three published histories that deal with St. Joseph in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: Franklin Ellis, istor of er en and ren qunties, Michigan (Philadelphia: D. W. Ensign & Co., 1880): Orville W. Coolidge, A Twentieth Century History of Berrien County, hichigan (Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company, 1906): L. Benjamin Reber, Hiptory of St, Joseph (St. Joseph, Michigan: St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce, [19247]). Surviving issues of the St. Joseph newspapers were particularly helpful, especially ”Industrial" and “Booster" editions, such as t J s h v ler- er 1 , 19 205 May 1883, 2 June 1883: St. Jose h Evenin Herald, 15 Novem- ber 1906, 4 November 1909. "For example, in 1846, shipments from the port of St. Joseph included 129,333 barrels of flour, 263,116 bushels of wheat, 1,500,000 board feet of lumber and 2721 casks of whiskey. Coolidge, pp. 180-183. "Coolidge, pp. 180-185. "Hawley, p. 49. ‘°§t. Joseph Ihanger-heralp, 19 May 1883, 2 June 1883! Reber, pp. 62-80. .15: Joggph Evening heraId, 4 November 1909: Coolidge, pp. 46-47. ‘agt. Joseph Thaveler-Herald, 29 September 1877: '§t__L Joseph Sgtunggv Herald, 5 September 1903: St, Joseph Evening herald, 23 October 1912. ‘98elected references include St, Joseph hergld, 30 January 1886, 18 June 1887, 21 January 1888, 12 January 1889: St, Joseph Saturday Herald, 22 February 1890, 9 August 1890, 17 January 1891, 8 October 1892: St. Joseph Evening Herald, 27 June 1907, 23 October 1909, 4 November 1909, 22 April 1912, 4 August 1914, 22 September 1915. “ J se h Saturda e ald, 5 September 1903: Ellis, p. 320. " t. ose Saturd e ald, 5 September 1903, 6 Feb- ruary 1892. Other variations of the name are used in the St, Joseph Inaveler-Herald, 19 May 1883 and Ellis, p. 320. The original punctuation, Cooper, Wells and Company was later changed to Cooper-Wells. I have used the latter style throughout. “Cooper’s last salary from the Methodist Church was $1,147, paid in 1871. The source of the capital to begin the hosiery mill is still unknown. Methodist Episcopal Church, Minutes of the North-West Indiana Conference, Octo- pgr Igito 17. 1892 (Cleveland: The Cleveland Printing and Publishing Company, 1892), pp. 77-79, Depauw University, The Archives of Indiana United Methodism. Also St. Joseph Eaturday herald, 6 February 1892: St. Joseph Evening Herald, 31 December 1903. When Willis and his brother Charles died in a fire in the Iroquois Theater in Chicago on December 30, 1903, the obituary in the St. Joseph paper was very compli- mentary. Besides expressing the opinion that Willis had transformed a "run down" company into "one of the largest and best run in the nation,“ the paper noted that his new employers had doubled his salary after the first five years, 206 from $5000 to $10,000 and required him to work only three days a week. See also, Menosha Evening News [Wisconsin], 16 and 31 December 1903: 2, 4, 6 January 1904. "Et. Joseph Saturgay hehald, 6 February 1892: St, Joseph Evening herald, 31 December 1903. " t J se h Traveler- er ld, 23 February 1884, 25 April and 18 July 1885: St. Jose h Herald, 18 June 1887: St. Joseph Eaturday Hergld, 11 January 1890: gt. Joseph Evening herald, 15 November 1906, 23 October 1912: Coolidge, pp. 189-191, 318-319. "§£;_Jgggph_hghnig, 17 April 1886: gt Joseph Evening herald, 7 January 1915: St. Joseph herald-Press, 10 July 1919: The Herald-Press (St. Joseph), 3 and 4 May 1928. J. O. Wells died in his own garage of carbon monoxide poison- ing, presumably accidentally. Ihe Herald-Phess (St. Joseph], 17, 22, 28, 31 December 1928: 2 and 3 January 1929. 7°Michigan, Bureau of Labor, Annual Apport (Lansing, Michigan), 1907, pp. 512-513, hereafter cited as Report! Coolidge p. 318: St, Joseph Inavelpr-heral , 19 May 1883: Eenton Harbor Mews-Palladium, 8 June 1973: Sales brochures from Bill Wallis and the Fort Miami Heritage Society, St. Joseph, Michigan. "Et. Jpseph Saturday herald, 5 September 1903: Beport, 1907, p. 512: The Herald-Press (St. Joseph], 24 June 1950: The herald-Palladium (Benton Harbor-St. Joseph), 13 March 1975: "Hosiery and Underwear Brands Have Shown Steady Growth,“ underwear and Hosiery Review, 25 (November 1942), pp. 135-160. Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Cooper- Wells and Company, St. Joseph, Michigan, December 24, 1917, Prepared by Mortimer A. Davis, Certified Public Accountant, Fort Miami Heritage Society, St. Joseph, Michigan. '3 orts, 1900-1920. ’9 . J se h avel - ra d, 19 May 1883. "Hawley, p. 97. "Reber, pp. 130-147. St, Joseph Sgtpnpay hernig, 7 January 1893: St. Joseph Evening herald, 15 November 1906, 4 November 1909. "Hawley, p. 97. ’TThere are few published histories that deal with the Three Oaks region or the Featherbone Company. Books include the county histories by Ellis and Coolidge, and The Begion pf Ihrgg Oaks (Three Oaks, Michigan: Edward K. Warren Foundation, 1939). Continuous runs of Three Oaks newspapers 207 are available only for years after 1891, and they contain little local news. Only scattered issues exist for the years before 1891, and none at all between December 8, 1881 and December 31, 1885. "Ihhpp Opts Press, 1 January 1897, 10 September 1897. Coolidge, p. 269, called it Chamberlain’s Station: hegion, pp. 127-137, called it Chamberlain’s Siding. '°Ihg_Apphn [Three Oaks], 6 February 1919, pp. 12-13. "Edward K. Warren, Letter to Munn and Company, New York, 11 December 1882, Warren Featherbone Collection, Re- gional History Collections, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, hereafter cited as WFC-RHC, WMU: Egath- phhone Magaginette, Autumn, 1901, pp. 24-26. P'Warren to Munn, 11 December 1882, WFC-RHC, WMU. 9'Enatherpone; A hoyeI Enpdpct and how It in hspd (Three Oaks Michigan: Warren Featherbone Company, 1888), pp. 1-16. "Ouoted in Bpgign, pp. 161-162. "Benign. p- 162- "839122. 99- 162-165- "Warren Featherbone Whip Company, Annual Report, 31 December 1887, WFC-RHC, WMU. "Warren Featherbone Whip Company, “Answers to Dues- tions Showing Condition of Business," 1892, Warren Feather- bone Company Archives, Gainesville, Georgia, hereafter cited as WFCA-GG. "Warren Featherbone Whip Company, Record of Organiza- tion and Business Meeting, 1892, WFC-RHC, WMU. ’°Edward Kirk Warren, Letter to Chappell and Earl, Attorneys, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 14 March 1907, WFCA-GG. "Basin. 9- 165- ’3There are many samples in the WFC-RHC, WMU and in WFCA-GG. ’3U. 8. Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois, In Equity, Warren Featherbone Company v. Herbert DeCamp and James Anderson. Edward Kirk Warren Deposition, June 1906, pp. 580-593, 709-710, WFC-RHC, WMU. The transcript provides 208 many details about the company’s early production and mar- keting experiences. "WFC v. DeCamp and Anderson, EKW Deposition, p. 580. ’PWFC v. DeCamp and Anderson, EKW Deposition, pp. 588, "WFC v. DeCamp and Anderson, Brief for Complainant, pp. 18-19, WFC-RHC, WMU. ”’See Sample Books, WFC-RHC, WMU, and WFCA-GG. "Copies in WFC-RHC, WMU and "FDA-88. "W. 8 December 1899: In; kas [Three Oaks), 25 January 1902. ‘99 Oaks ess, 11 and 17 February 1898, 11 March 1898, 8 July 1898, 17 February 1899, 10 March 1899: Ihg Acorn [Three Oaks), 12 July 1901. ‘°‘Ihe Acorn [Three Oaks), 15 February 1901, 12 April 1901, 15 February 1902. Payroll Books for Porter, Indiana dated 1899, in WFC-RHC, WMU. Another indication of the company’s prosperity was the construction of a new three- story brick office building in Three Oaks in 1904. Ihg Acorn [Three Oaks), 19 August 1904. ‘°3WFC v. DeCamp and Anderson, EKW Deposition, p. 5931 The Acorn [Three Oaks), 20 April 1906. f°°Engthgrpone Mngazingtte, Autumn, 1901. ‘°‘For example, e ster’ e r i l o r of the English Lnnguage, 2nd ed. (Springfield, Massachu- setts: G. and C. Merriam Company, 1957). ‘9'For example, Jane Fales, e m k n ' a ual r Schools ang Collnges (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, ‘9‘”The Boning That Revolutionized Dressmaking," Eight page reprint from The American Magazine, 1901, WFCA-GG. ‘°’Frederic W. Chamberlain, Enbulops Enntherhpne (Three Oaks, Michigan: The Warren Featherbone Company, 1946), pp. 1-15. Jeffrey Whalen, Ihe Warren Feathnrbone Qompany Cen- tennial, 1883-i983 (Gainesville, Georgia: Warren Feather- bone Company Historical Committee). ‘°'Letter Books, WFC-RHC, WMU: Ihn_Agpnn [Three Oaks), 31 October 1912, 2 January, 16 January, 30 January, 13 February 1913, 6 February 1919. 209 *°’Ihhgp Onks Prppp, 22 July 1898. t*°1hn_Apgnn [Three Oaks), 6 February 1919. ‘“The Acorn [Three Oaks), 6 February 1919: David J. Murrah, “From Corset Stays to Cattle Ranching: Charles K. Warren and the Muleshoe Ranch,“ he Wes T a or al Association Year Book, 51 (1975), pp. 3-12. ‘f'Ihe Acorn [Three Oaks), 1 February 1901, 15 March 1907, 13 March 1908, 18 March 1910, 3 March 1911. ff’Three Oaks Ernss, 24 February 1899, 3 March and 17 March 1899. M“Three Oaks Press, 10 June and 17 June 1898. u'Ihn Aggrn [Three Oaks), 8 February 1907. u"Ihe Acorn [Three Oaks), 31 July 1913, 27 May 1915, 9 November 1916, 9 January, 1 May, 5 June, 26 June, 10 July, 31 July 1919. H"Coolidge, p. 1003: Ihg Acprn [Three Oaks), 6 February 1919. ff'Ihhgg ans Ecnss, 28 April, 2 June, 9 June 1899: Coolidge, p. 1003. ‘f’Ihe Acorn [Three Oaks), 1 November 1917, 18 July 1918: The Herald-Press [St. Joseph), 1 April 1918. "°Bpgion, p. 201. "‘Bagiep. pp- 201-204- ‘33Edward K. Warren Collection, Michigan State Univer- sity Archives. ‘3' i n, p.205: Warren Woods Reconnaissance Report, Unpublished report of Michigan Natural Areas Council, pre- pared by staff of the Cranbrook Institute of Science, March 1960. li‘Inrgg fink; Ecnpp, 27 March 1896. ‘a'Ihrng ngs Pcpsp, 10 March 1899. ‘3‘Atherton, p. 23 "’Bsgien. pp- 166-167- "'Stuart Bruchey, e ots f r n c no Growth, I607-IE61: An Essay in Social Causation (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), pp. 74-91, 141-177, 208-215. 210 ‘a'Richard Jensen, ”Midwestern Transformation: From Traditional Pioneers to Modern Society,“ in Local history Ioday: Papers Presented at Epur Regional Workshops for Lo- cal Histohy Organizations in Indiana, June 1278-April, i979 (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1979), p. 9. *'°Richard D. Brown, Mpdernization: Ihe Inansfghmatipn of American Life, I600-1865 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1976), p. 199. CHAPTER III ILElizabeth Brandeis, "Labor Legislation," in John R. Commons and Associates, history of Labor in the United States, Vol, III (New York: Macmillan, 1935), pp. 397-697: Wendell D. MacDonald, "The Early History of Labor Statistics in the United States," Labor history, 13 (Spring 1972), pp. 267-278: Gustavus Adolphus Weber, “Labor Legislation in the United States," U.S. Bureau of Labor, BBIIgtin 54 (1904), pp. 1421-1486: William F. Willoughby, "The Inspection of Factories and Workshops in the United States,“ U.S. Bureau of Labor, Bulletin 12 (1897), pp. 549-568. 2See 8gpghtp, 1884-1920 and Euhli; Aptp pf thn LpgisIa- ture of the State of Michigan. Lansing, Michigan. Hereafter cited as Michigan Public Acts. Michigan’s Governor Begole explicitly stated that the Massachusetts bureau was the model for Michigan’s. Beport, 1884, p. 3. 9 ic ' an u lic cts, 1893, No. 126, Sec. 10. “"Boiler Inspection," in the 1896 Bnppht, pp. xi-xv, describes an November 6, 1895 explosion at the Bgtrpit Journal which killed 33 and injured 12. Between January 1, 1883 and January 1896, there had been 102 boiler explosions in Michigan which killed 172 and injured 209. The 1901 Bnport, lists six explosions in 1900, which killed 8 and injured 8, pp. 241-242. The 1902 Beport, pp. 141-146, lists seven explosions in 1901, which killed 32 and injured 60. 'Michigan Puhllc Actn, 1893, NO. 126: 1901, NO. 113! 1909, No. 285. . ‘ orts, 1894-1920. ’ or , 1896, p. x, lists 253 accidents, including 43 fatalities and 98 explosions (boiler, gas, dynamite). The inspector noted that more injuries were reported this year because the lists included "slight" injuries which had been passed over in previous years. 'Bnpghtp, 1894-1920. 211 ’Interview, Three Oaks, Lucille Long Roundy. In 1983 I interviewed ten former Featherbone employees and other vil- lage residents (listed in Bibliography) who had direct know- ledge covering the years 1915-1956. Their length of service with the company varied from a few months to thirty years, and represents a wide range of occupations: winding, weav- ing, office work, shipping clerk, sewing, printing, making sample cards. These interviews corroborate written sources, add details and interpretative remarks. Interviewees are named in Endnotes only when their comments are unique or judgmental. General descriptions that corroborate written sources or repeat details provided by several informants are cited as Interviews, Three Oaks. *°Daniel Nelson, ana ers nd Wor r ' ' s of e ew Factor 8 stem in the United States 880-19 0 (Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1975), pp. 25-26. “§slding_fiappsc. 27 June 1912: fielding Bennnr-Nens, Centennnial Edition, 29 August 1957. The description of the mills is also based on direct observation of the three remaining mills, on photographs and pamphlets in the Alvah N. Belding Memorial Library, Belding, Michigan and on the work of Dr. Charles Hyde of Wayne State University who has nominated the mills to the National Register of Historic Places. See also Souvenir, City pf Belding, Michigan, with Special Reference to the Interests pf Belding Brothers end Co., Silk Manufacturers (n.p.: n.p., [1907)), 34 pp. ‘3 uv nir, [1907), p. 7: Nelson, pp. 27-28: gentiin- tion and Heating: Principles and Application (Boston: B. F. Sturtevant Co., [1896]): lextile World, 14 (March 1898), pp. 35-37: ]extile Wohld Becord, 33 (April 1907), pp. 132- 133. “'Interviews, Belding. In 1979-1980 I interviewed fourteen former Belding silk workers and other village resi- dents (named in Bibliography) who had direct knowledge covering the years 1910 to 1940. Their service at the mills varied from one summer to forty years. They represented all four mills and a variety of occupations, including winding, twisting, spooling, labelling and weaving. These interviews corroborate written sources and add details and interpreta- tive remarks. Interviewees are named in Endnotes only when their comments are unique or judgmental. General descrip- tions that corroborate written sources or report details provided by several informants are cited as Interviews, Belding. “§esxsni:. E19073). pp- 25-34I Beldinn_flappsc. 27 June 1912. "Bruce Calvert, Ihe Stphy pf g Bilk MiII (New York: 212 Belding Brothers and Co., [1914)), p. 9. “'Interviews, Belding. Photographs from Alvah N. Belding Memorial Library, Belding, Michigan. "Grace Hutchins, anor end Biih (New York: Inter- national Publishers Co. Inc., 1929), p. 116. f'Hannah Josephson, ol en h eads: ew E n ’ Mill Birls and Magnates (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1949), p. 76: Tamara K. Hareven and Randolph Langenbach, Amoskea : ife and Work in en American Factory-City (New York: Pantheon, 1978), pp. 155-156, 199-200. "Interviews, Belding. '°Nelson, pp. 17, 22: Calvert, p. 17. "Photographs from Alvah N. Belding Memorial Library, Belding, Michigan. Interviews, Belding. a'Nelson, pp. 27-28. '323LQLQQ_BnnneL, 18 April 1901: U.S. Senate, 61st Congress, 2d. Session, Doc. No. 645, Beport on Condition of Woman and Child Wage-Earners in the United States, Vol, Iy, Ihe Silk Induetrx (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1910), pp. 179-180, 211: National Industrial Conference Board, hours of hork as Related tp Output and Heal of rkers' Menufecturing, Research Report No. 16 (Boston: N.I.C.B., 1919), p. 44, quotes cost of insurance per $100 payroll: silk, $.25: cotton and wool spinning and weaving $.55: wool combing $1.05. "W, 18 December 1902. "W. 9 May 1907. "For other complimentary assessments, see Bnppht, 1903, pp. 465-471: 1905, p. 266: 1906, pp. 272, 397-399: Belding Banner, 18 April 1901, 9 August 1906, 14 October 1909, 1 August 1912, 16 December 1914, 26 September 1917. "Details regarding this 1903 mill are found in St, Joseph Saturday Herald, 5 September 1903. See Appendix, Table A-3 for specific employment data. "WM. 5 Supt-tuber 1903. "WW. 1‘9 Hay 1883. '°Knitting mill processes described in U.S. Senate, hgman and ChiId Wage-Earners, Vol. XVIII, Enploynent pf hpmen and Children in Selegteg Indestrinp, 1913, pp. 194- 213 213, and Beport of the Michigan State Commission of Inquiry into the Wages and the Condition; of Labor_igr Women and the Advisabilitv of Establiehing:e Minimum Wage (Lansing, 1915), pp. 375-376. Hereafter cited as Michigan Commission of Inguiry. "Information on machines in use at Cooper-Wells, from Bt. Joseph Saturday Herald, 5 September 1903. General ex- planation of knitting technology, from Textile World and Industrial Record, 16 (January 1899), pp. 75-76: 16 (Febru- 'SU.S. Senate, mean end Bhiig hage-Earnere, Vol. XVIII, pp. 198-199. ”W. 99- 118. 375. "St. Joseph Eyening hecplg, 28 April, 1-3 May 1905. "W. p- 119- "ngght, 1907, pp. 512-513. ”WW, 31 December 1932. "Featherpone, A Novel Phoduct and How It Is Used (n. p.: Warren Featherbone Company, 1888), pp. 2-8. Advertis- ing brochures, WFCA-GG. "WFC vs. DeCamp and Anderson, EKW Deposition, pp. 576, 589-591, WFC-RHC, WMU. ‘°Ihree Oaks Pcess, 8 December 1899. he e ail Ste_, 12 September 1902. e..- “Interviews, Three Oaks. Advertising brochures WFCA- BB. “‘Beppht, 1903, p. 472: Ihe_Appnn [Three Oaks), 24 August 1911. “'Miphigan Bublie Aptp, 1909, No. 285. “See Bepocts, 1895, 1899, 1903, 1904, 1918. " e rt, 1903, p. 299. “‘Bepphtp, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1900. Interviews, Three Oaks and Belding. “’See Bnppnt, 1897, "The Eight Hour Day,“ pp. 192-222. " ort, 1905, p. 266. 214 “’Bepght, 1903, p. 472: 1907, pp. 512-513. '°Elizabeth Sands Johnson, “Child Labor Legislation," in Commons, Histor of abor ol II, pp. 403-456: Woman end Child Wage-Earner . Vol. IV, p. 43: Vol, I , p. 61. "Michigan Pphlic Acts, 1893, No. 126. 'Slnterviews, Belding and Three Oaks. 'Pfieport, 1894-1920. Interviews, Belding, St. Joseph, Three Oaks. In 1985-86, I interviewed nine Cooper-Wells mill workers and other St. Joseph residents (named in Bib- liography). Their direct knowledge covers the years 1910 to 1950. Informants are named in Endnotes only when they add unique or interpretative details. "For a discussion of wage and price levels, 1880-1920, see Don Lescohier, “Working Conditions," in John R. Commons and Associates, Histor of abor in the United States, Vol. III_(New York: Macmillan, 1935), pp. 40-80. Also Whitney Coombs, The Wages of Unekilled Labor in the Manufecturinq lnduetriee of the_ynited States, 1890-1924 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1926) and Paul H. Douglas, Real hages in the United States, 1890-I926 (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930). 9' e ort, 1892, pp. 96, 98, 188. "Warren Featherbone Payroll Book, WFC-RHC, WMU. "Textile W rld nd s r l ecord 16 (January, 1895), pp. 75-76. "WFC-RHC, WMU. "Beports 1905, pp. 266, 270-271; 1907, pp. 12-13; 1912, pp. 362-363. ‘° 1 ann , 18 April 1901. “Calvert, p. 21. ‘aBelding Banner, 5 May 1920. ‘9hiles Baily Sten, 27 February 1903. “WFC-RHC, WMU. "Interviews, Belding and Three Oaks. “U.S. Census, 1910. Interviews, Belding, St. Joseph, Three Oaks. 215 "See Appendix, Tables A-2, A-3, A-4. ‘Pfieppht, 1906, pp. 381-383. ‘TBetht, 1892, p. 173: other comments pp. 171-176, 183. 7°agppgt, 1906, p. 393. T‘ t ose h er 1d, 1 December 1888: e h a r- W. 21 December 1889, 3 January 1891: at. .305th Eyening Heral , 3 January 1910: 1hree Oaks Press, 10 Septem- ber 1897, 24 December 1897, 1 July 1898: Belding Banner, 22 March 1900, 5 March 1905, 5 and 20 May 1920: eldi an r- Mews, 29 August 1957. Interviews, Belding. '3For example, see Carl Gersuny,"'A Devil in Petti- coats’ and Just Cause: Patterns of Punishment in Two New England Textile Factories" usiness istor ev w, 50 (Sum- mer 1976), pp. 139-141. T'Michigan Commipsipn pf Inguiny, p. 76. "Beport, 1892, p. 185. 7' i h n Commissi n f n uir , pp. 75-76- "Payroll Books, WFC-RHC, WMU. ’78ee Roy Rosenzweig, Eight Hours for Whet We Will: Workers end Leisure in_en Induetrial City, 1870-1920 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983): Kathy Peiss, Cheap Amusements: WorkingyWomen and Leisure in Turn-of—the-Centu- rx_New York (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986). 7' c i an Commission of n ui , pp. 13-16. ’78222ct. 1900. p. 61. '°Interviews, Belding and Three Oaks. "Belding Banner, 18 April 1901: 26 September 1917: Beports, 1901, pp. 220-221: 1904, p. 314: 1905, pp. 263-286: 1906, pp. 271-283. '33eppht, 1900, pp. 37-41. Data based on canvas of 2102 women working in 25 Michigan cities. "Bepght, 1892, pp. 95-98. "ngpht, 1892, pp. 182-183. " ld n , 18 April 1901. 216 CHAPTER IV ‘See Chapter I and Table I-1. 'Robert W. Smuts, o en nd Work n mer ca (New York: Schocken Books, 1959), p. 46. See also Thomas Dublin, men et Work: The Transformetion:ejphprk and Community in tow- ell, Massachusetts, 1826-1869 (New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 1979) and Judith A. McGaw, "'A Good Place to Work,’ Industrial Workers and Occupational Choice: The Case of Berkshire Women," Journal of Interdisciplinary history, 10 (Autumn 1979), pp. 227-248. ='The classic work on this topic is Barbara Welter, "The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860,” American GuarterIy, 18 (Summer 1966), pp. 151-174. See also discussion in Sarah Eisenstein, Give Us Bread, But Give Us Roses: Working Women’s Consciousness in the_United States, I890 to the First World War (Boston: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1983), Chap- ter 4, “Victorian Ideology and Working Women,” pp. 55-112. ‘Smuts, pp. 38-51: Eisenstein, Chapter 5, "Working Women’s Attitudes Toward Marriage and Work," pp.113-145. See also Gerda Lerner, "The Lady and the Mill Girl: Changes in the Status of Women in the Age of Jackson," Midcontinent Anerieen Studies Journal, 10 (Spring 1969), pp. 5-15: and Leslie Woodcock Tentler, hage-Earning Women: Industrial Work and Femily Life in the United States. 1900-I930 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979). 'Lucy Larcom, A New England_Birlhpod (1889: rpt. New York: Arno Press, 1974), p. 210, quoted in Eisenstein, p. 175. ‘Eisenstein, pp. 70-95. ’Smuts, p. 48, 87-88. Michigan Boenipeipn of Inguiry, p. 19. Alice Kessler-Harris, But to Werk: A History of Wage-Earning_Women in the Bnited States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982) pp. 71-72, 101-102, 105. 'Eisenstein, p. 95, and discussion pp. 95-112. ’Kessler-Harris, pp. 139-150. For a general discussion of "de-skilling," see Harry Braverman, Labor ang Monopoly Bepital; The Begradation of Work in the Twentieth Bentury (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974). ‘9 ldi nner, 18 April 1901. "For details on employment, see Appendix, Table A-2: Souvenir [c. 1907): Belding Banner, 18 May 1905: Belding Banner-Mews, 29 August 1957: Interviews, Belding. 217 ‘3 e orts, 1894-1920: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900, Manuscript Popu- lation Schedule, Otisco Township, Ionia County, Michigan. Interviews, Belding. "Q,S. Cnnsep, I209. uBelding Bennen-Mews, 29 August 1957: Bpuvpnir [c. 1907): Belding Banner, 27 June 1912, 17 February 1915: Interviews, Belding. *‘For details on company housing, see Beport, 1892, p. 187 and Report, 1903, pp. 465-470: Calvert, pp. 19-25: Belding Banner, 18 April 1901, 9 August 1906, 29 June 1912, 26 September 1917. “'For details on college dormitories, see Thomas Woody, A Hietory of Women’s Education in the United States, Vol.II (New York: The Science Press, 1929), pp.198-203: Maude Gilchrist, Ihe Firet Three Decades of home Economics at Michigan State College (East Lansing: School of Home Eco- nomics, Michigan State College, 1947), pp. 66-69: Dorothy Gies McGuigan, A Dangerous Experiment; Bne hundred Years of Women at theIUniversity of Michigan (Ann Arbor: Center for Continuing Education of Women, 1970), pp. 67-68. f’Bouvenir [c. 1907) pp. 11-16: Bouyenih, 1920: Inter- views, Belding. According to a Detroit reporter, Miss Zieman, one of the boarding house matrons, was “commanding yet motherly...[She) wins the confidence and love of the girls under her charge, thereby supplying a loss many girls experience in leaving congenial home surroundings to enter the world of self-reliance." Belding Benner, 26 September 1917. For a discussion of urban working class women "on their own," see Tentler, pp. 115-135. u'Belding Bennnh, 4 November 1897. f’Interviews, Belding. See Thomas Dublin, ”Women, Work and Protest in the Early Lowell Mills: 'The Oppressing Hand of Avarice Would Enslave Us,’" Eabor hiptory, 16 (Winter 1975), pp. 104-106 for reports that residents in New England dormitories exerted similar pressures in the early 19th century. ' W. 26 September 1917: W 822;, 19 March 1924. "Eglging_Bennen, 18 April 1901. Similar comments in Belding Banner, 18 May 1905, 26 September 1917. a"Calvert, pp. 17-18. Calvert was nationally known for his interest in social issues. This particular work was published by Belding Brothers and Co. a“Interviews, Belding. "Herbert Gutman, "The Worker’s Search for Power: Labor in the Gilded Age," in H. Wayne Morgan, ed., Ihe Gilded Age: A Beappraisal (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1963), pp. 47-48. "For contrasting situations, see Dale Newman, "Work and Community Life in a Southern Textile Town," Labor Hieto- ny, 19 (Spring 1978), pp. 204-225: Edmund deS. Brunner, Industriel Village Churches (New York: Institute of Social and Religious Research, 1930), pp. 81-86: and Glenn Gilman, human Relations in the Industrial Southeast (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1956), pp. 226-232. Southern textile towns often treated mill workers with con- tempt. Prude noted that some New Englanders perceived fac- tory operatives as ”separate ominous social groupings." See Prude, "The Social System of Early New England Textile Mills: A Case Study, 1812-40,” in Michael H. Frisch and Daniel J. Walkowitz, eds., Workin Class America' ssa s on Labor, Community and American Society (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983), pp. 1-36. “Beppht, 1892, p. 187. Belding Benner, 18 May 1905, 27 June 1912. Calvert, pp. 16-19. Interviews, Belding, espe- cially Pearl Olger Burns. 3’Appendix, Table A-3. St, Joseph Ineveler-herald, 19 May 1883: Bt. Joseph Seturpey Herald, 20 December 1890, 5 September 1903: St. Joseph herald Press, 21 May 1919. "St, Joseph herald, 24 July 1886: Bt, Joseph Saturday herald, 20 December 1890: Bt. Joseph Evening Herald, 8 September 1906. 'TU.S. Bureau of the Census, Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900, Manuscript Population Schedule, St. Joseph Township, Berrien County, Michigan, and Otisco Town- ship, Ionia County, Michigan, is the source for the compari- sons in this and following paragraphs. The St. Joseph census listed 226 hosiery workers in 1900: the state factory inspector reported that Cooper-Wells employed 277 in 1900. See Appendix, Table A-3. '°U.S. Census, 1900: Interviews, St. Joseph: Pamphlets on Churches, Fort Miami Heritage Society, St. Joseph, Michi- gan. The twelve block residential area on the Lake Michigan beach, below the bluff, was heavily German. Into the 1920’s and 1930’s at least four churches in St. Joseph held ser- vices in German and many shOps had bi-lingual clerks to accomodate German-speaking customers. Some of the German- speaking residents of the St. Joseph area had come from Russia, not Germany. Their familiies had previously been welcomed by the Russians, but as the political climate 219 changed, many left. "Bt. Jpseph Saturgey heraId, 7 June 1890. '3Textile hohld Becord, 31 (August 1906), pp. 65-66 and 33 (April 1907), pp. 76-87: Iextile World Journal, 52 (April 1917), pp. 93-95. Bt. Joseph Saturgey Her 1d, 7 June 1890. See Bt. Joseph Herald Bress, March, May, June, Sep- tember, October, November, December, 1919 and January, 1920. 3’St, Joseph Herald Press, 11 July 1919: he r ld Balladium [Benton Harbor), 13 March 1975. "Interview, St. Joseph, Herbert Gorr, 1985: U. 8. Census, 1900, St. Joseph. 'PKessler-Harris, pp. 137-140. "Interview, St. Joseph, Ruth Hoffmann Becker, 1986. ”’See Louise A. Tilly and Joan W. Scott, hpmen, Work, and Family (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978). See Joseph A. Hill, Women ineBeinful Occgpations, I870 to I920, Census Monographs IX (1929: rpt. Westport, Connecti- cut: Greenwood Press, 1978). "Ihree Oeks Bress, 16 December 1898, 24 February 1899: Ihe Acorn [Three Oaks), 8 April 1915: Belding Banner, 6 May and 9 September 1909. St, Joseph heral , 24 July 1886: St. Joseph Evening herald, 15 November 1906, 26 December 1907, 6 April 1909, 4 November 1909, 3 April 1914, 30 April 1915. Reber, pp. 48-49 and 132-134: Michigan State Bazeteer and Business Directory (Detroit: R. L. Polk & Co., 1895, 1907, 1917). Hereafter cited as Polk. "Reber, pp. 132-134. ‘°Hawley, Ihe Eongatipn of Michigan, pp. 97 and 101. In 1920, the population of St. Joseph was 7,251: that of Belding, 3,911. “‘Appendix, Table A-4. Ihe Niles Baily Btar, 27 Feb- ruary 1903: Interviews, Three Oaks. “’Ihree Baks Phess, 10 March 1899. “'U. 8. Bureau of the Census, Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900, Manuscript Population Schedule, Three Oaks Township, Berrien County, Michigan. “8epght, 1892, p. 188. S ensus 90 . "Beport, 1892, p. 188. 220 “W12: 27 FIDFUM’Y 19°3- "Ihhee Oaks Bhess, 11 February 1898, 11 March 1898, 17 February 1899, 12 March 1899: [he Acohn [Three Oaks) 15 February 1901, 12 April 1901, 12 July 1901, 15 February 1902, 19 August 1904, 20 April 1906: WFC v DeCamp and Anderson, EKW Deposition, p. 667. “'See “Help Wanted" notices, Ihe Acohn [Three Oaks), 4, 11, 18 June 1914: Minutes of Department Heads Meeting, 11 September 1918, WFC-RHC, WMU. “T rt, 1892, p. 188. '9 e aks s, 30 December 1898. "Begipn, pp. 159-199. Interviews, Three Oaks. 'alnterviews, Three Oaks. "Tentler, pp. 22-23. "Prude, p. 8. "Bt. Joseph Betgrday heheIg, 20 December 1890: Ihnee Qaks Press, 10 March 1899: Souvenir [c. 1907), pp. 10, 34. ""Less than half of the wage-earners’ families in manufacturing industries...depended entirely upon the earn- ings of the fathers...[Unless the father is in an especially well-paid occupation,) the larger the family income the greater were the proportionate contributions from the wage- earning mother and wage-earning children, or from boarders and lodgers.“ William Jett Lauck and Edgar Sydenstricker, Bonditions of Labor in American Ingustries (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1917), pp. 357-358. See also Dublin, Women et Work, pp. 165-182: Tentler, pp. 85-114: McGaw, pp. 227-248. 'Tlnterviews, Three Oaks and Belding. " l n r, 18 April 1901. "Bouyenir [c. 1907), p. 34. CHAPTER V til orl cor , 27 (September 1904), pp.136- 138. See also Iextile World Becord, 29 (May 1905), pp. 154-155 and 32 (January 1907), pp. 139-140. 'See Chapters II and III. For Belding Brothers and Company, see BeIging Brothens eng Company, 1863-I92; (New 221 York: Edward B. Smith & Co., 1925). For Cooper-Wells and Company, see Bt. Joseph Seturday Herald, 6 February 1892: St. Jose h Evenin Herald, 23 October 1912: The herald-Press [St. Joseph) 22 & 28 December 1928. For Warren Featherbone and Company, see Ihe Acorn [Three Oaks), 6 February 1919. “Interviews, Belding, St. Joseph, Three Oaks. John S. Ellsworth, Factory Folkways: A Study of Institutional Btructure and Change (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952). For a discussion of the effects of personal super- vision in early New England factories, see Prude, pp. 4-6. “For a discussion of work culture, see Susan Porter Benson, "‘The Customer Ain’t God’: The Work Culture of Department Store Saleswomen, 1890-1940," in Frisch and Walkowitz, pp. 185-211. 'Bouyenir [1907), p. 12. ‘Belding Banner, 26 September 1917. 'Copies of these advertisements and of instructions to salesmen and dealers are in the files of the Alvah N. Bel- ding Memorial Library in Belding, Michigan. The ads ap- peared in the March and April issues of Ladies home Journa , Good Housekeeping and Belineator and were the only Belding advertisements that used this focus on workers and working conditions. Both before and after this, Belding Brothers and Company ads focused on their products’ luxury, durabili- ty, beauty and long lasting colors. The Belding dormitories were also described in the Michigan Bureau of Labor Bepor , 1892, pp. 187-188. 'For a detailed survey, see Stuart Brandes, American helfare Capitalism, I880-i240 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970). For a political assessment, see David Brody, orkers in dustri l merica: ssa s on the Twen- tieth Century Struggle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), Chapter 2, "The Rise and Decline of Welfare Capital- ism,“ pp. 48-81. For a study of corporate social control, see Peter Iverson Berg, “Welfare Capitalism at the RED Motor Car Company,” Michigan histgny, 69 (Nov./Dec. 1985), pp. 37- 44. ’Bpuvenir [1907), pp. 13-16. These views are similar to those expressed in the Iextile Worlg Becor , 27 (Septem- ber 1904), pp. 136-138: 29 (May 1905), p. 154: 33 (April 1907), pp. 76-87. ‘°Eglg1ng_fienneh, 13 February 1919: 31 December 1919. Interviews, Belding. “Interviews, Belding. Belging Bennnr, 26 September 1917. Iextile World and Indestrial Record, 16 (March 1899), 222 pp. 76-77, recommends fining as a means of maintaining discipline and output. "Interviews, Belding. "Bnports, 1894-1901, note reductions in wages and/or total workforce during those years. For example, the 1895 Beport indicates that since April 1893, Belding Brothers had reduced wages by 10%, Richardson Silk by 15%. *‘BeIQing_Benneh, 5 May 1915. See Chapters II and III. Interviews, Belding. uBelding Banner, 22 March 1900. “According to the 1901 Report, the average daily wage at the three Belding Brothers mills was 93 cents, and 83 cents at the Richardson mill. Two of the Belding mills were weaving mills and one was a thread mill, like the Richard- son. Weavers were paid more than the thread mill workers, and their wages brought up the average for the Belding workers. Management philosophy and interviews indicate that the two thread mills paid comparable wages. Therefore the Belding spoolers probably earned close to the Richardson’s daily wage, 83 cents. Belding Banner, 22 March 1900. "A canvass of 154 women workers in Belding in 1905 indicated an average daily wage of 95 cents (Beport, 1906, p. 272.) Assuming that this sample was fairly representa- tive, and given their relative status among women workers, the spoolers probably earned a little less than average. "W. 9 March 1905. "W. 5 and 12 Hay 1920. “W. 5 May 1920- "Bouvenir, [1907), p. 16. 2”Many states, including Michigan, considered estab- lishing a minimum wage for women. These legislative efforts were not very effective in raising women’s wages. For example, in 1918, the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Commission, which had the authority to recommend “living wages" for women and minors, suggested a minimum wage for skilled millinery workers that was 15% Iess than estimated weekly needs. "In practice, the living wage...never rose to a level adequate to provide the necessities of life for a single self-supporting woman, much less for one with depen- dent children.” Kessler-Harris, pp. 142, 196-197. See "LegieIetion for Women in Ingeetry: Miminum Wage," American Labor Legieiation Reyiew, 6 (December 1916), pp. 383-393. 223 a3Belding Bannen, 9 March 1905. "For details on the walkout, see these newspapers: The BuchananLBecord, 2 May, 5 May 1905: The Evening Bress [St. Joseph), 28 and 29 April, 1, 2, 3 May 1905: Bt, Joseph Evening Herald, 28 April, 1, 2, 3 May 1905. ”'Bepeht, 1905, p. 493. The 1907 Beport included nearly identical statements, pp. 512-513. a“'Ihe Evening Press [St. Joseph), 29 April 1905: gt, Joseph Evening Heral , 28 April 1905. None of these names were found in the 1900 U.S. Census or in St. Joseph city directories. 3’ t. se h vs in er d, 28 April 1905 listed the names. Except for the mayor, the newspaper omitted first names. Polk, 1904-05 lists Henry Roblee, pastor of the First Congregational Church: Dr. Edward Witt and Dr. Frank M. Gowdy, physicians and surgeons. "Reverend Frye“ may have been either William A. Frye, pastor of the Methodist Episco- pal Church or Edward G. Frye, pastor of the Evangelical Association. Coolidge, p. 186. Mayor Frank L. Pixley was the son of a local fruit grower and had lived in St. Joseph since 1871. He had been a member of Schultz-Pixley, Real Estate and Insurance, since 1889. Bt. Joseph Evening Herald, 2 May 1905. "Iflg_§xgning_flneee [St. Joseph), 29 April 1905. a""Ihe Evening Phess [St. Joseph), 29 April 1905: Bt. Joseph Evening Hehald, 28 April, 1 May 1905. In 1910, Assistant Superintendent Charles Gess left Cooper-Wells for another firm. He had worked there for twenty-two years, beginning when he was a "boy" and eventually became the ”head of the department of female help.“ Bt, Joseph Evening herel , 20 December 1910. ’°Ihe Evening Bress [St. Joseph), 1 May 1905: Bte Jgeeph Evening Heralg, 1 May 1905: [he Buchanan Becord, 2 May 1905. "St. Joseph Evening hernld, 1 May 1905: Polk, 1904-05. Coolidge, p. 190, lists John V. Starr, Mayor, 1896-1899, 1904-1905. “alhe Eyening Bress [St. Joseph), 1 May 1905: age Joseph Evening Herald, 1 May 1905. a'Ihe Evening Bcnss [St. Joseph), 1 May 1905. "Ihe Eyening Bhess [St. Joseph), 1 May 1905: Bt, Joseph Evening Herald, 1 May 1905. 224 3'"Knitting Mill Rules," Tngtin hprip end Industrial Becord 16 (March 1899), pp. 76-77. " se eni Id, 2 May and 5 May 1905. '7 se h v in d, 2 May 1905. " t Jose h veni Herald, 2 May and 3 May 1905. Only Maud Van Brunt (b. 1887) was found in the 1900 U.S. Census. She and her parents were born in Michigan. Her father was a carpenter. Helen Langer was listed in Polk, 1902 as a "roomer". "Ihe Buchanan Becprd, 5 May 1905. ‘° t Jose h Saturda e ald, 24 May 1902: gt, Joseph Evening Herald, 8 September 1908. “‘Ihe Evening Bress [St. Joseph), 28 April 1905. ven n ss [St. Joseph), 1 May 1905. ‘9 t. ose h enin Her 1d, 1 May 1905. “ t. Jose h i er Id, 28 April 1905. “'"Booster Editions" include: Bt, Joseph Iceveleh; Herald, 19 May 1883: St. Jgeeph Seturdey Herald, 2 May 1903: 5 September 1903: St. Jose h Evenin Herald, 15 November 1906: 4 November 1909. This last reference describes the policy of Ihe Herald since Merchant’s association began in 1870: ”Loyalty, too, to its home city and general interests had been a cardinal principle of the management....The Herald will continue to do its part in the upbuilding of this section." “Bt, Jpseph Betprpey herelg, 29 August 1903. “T or , 1892, p. 188: 1903, p. 472. Ihn Acohn [Three Oaks), 24 August 1911: 2 November 1911. “'Payroll Books, WFC-RHC, WMU. ”Early Days at Three Oaks Factory," St. Jose h Herald-Pr ss, 10 February 1928, reported on a presentation to the Three Oaks Historical Society by Mrs. Joseph Lee, Fred Edinger, David Potts, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Portinga. The article noted that Richard Portinga was a long-time Featherbone employee. According to Ihe Acorn [Three Oaks), 7 December 1911, Joseph Lee was the custodian of the Three Oaks opera house, which was used by Warren Featherbone for business and recreation. Ihe Galien River Gazette [Three Oaks), 23 May 1957, printed a 1917 photo of Featherbone department heads, including Fred Edinger and David Potts. Interviews, Three Oaks. IextiIe hprld Becohg, 16 (March 1899), pp. 76-77. On absenteeism 225 and labor turnover, see Textile horld Record, 29 (May 1905), p. 154: 31 (Sept. 1906), p. 65: 33 (April 1907), pp. 76-87: and Teetile World Journal, 51 (August 19, 1916), p. 16: 52 (April 28, 1917), pp. 93-95. “’Ihree Qaks Prnpe, 12 February 1897: 12 March 1897: 10 September 1897: 30 December 1898. Ihe Acorn [Three Oaks), 16 March 1906: 2 November 1911: 7 December 1911: Interview, Three Oaks, Charles Jackson, 1983. '°Ihe_Aephn [Three Oaks), 2 November 1911. "Ihe_Aeghn [Three Oaks), 14 May 1914: Interviews, Three Oaks, Vonda Hollett Chilson and Charles Jackson, 1983. 'aBerhien County Becgcg, 8 March 1925. "Interviews, Three Oaks, especially Vonda Hollett Chilson, Jessie Lowe, Lucille Long Roundy, 1983. "IDLQQ_QQL;_ELeee, 12 March 1897: 30 December 1898. Minutes of Department Heads Meeting, 11 September 1918, WFC- RHC, WMU. "Ihhee Oaks Bhesp, 12 March 1897. Signed by W. K. Whitehead, J. Chatterson, J. L. McKie, D. H. Beeson, J. E. Bommerscheim, G. L. Stevens, J. B. Paddock, Wm. Holz, W. T. Green, D. F. Bommerscheim. "Ihhee Oeks Bress, 30 December 1898. According to the local newspaper, this was a prosperous time for Warren Featherbone Company. See Three Oaks Press, 10 September 1897: 11 February 1898: 10 March 1899. Between 1899 and 1906, the Warren Featherbone Company had additional produc- tion facilities in Chicago, in Porter (Indiana) and in Middleville (Michigan). Their original production method had been so labor intensive that Three Oaks could not pro- vide adequate workers or housing. After 1906, the company developed more efficient production methods and closed the other facilities. "The last saloon in Three Oaks closed in 1897. Edward Kirk Warren, President of the Village Council, and a majori- ty of its members had opposed granting any new licenses. Debate over this issue had "clogged" the "business of the village council...for two months" in 1898. E. K. Warren’s son, Charles, said that he would vote to move the factory out of Three Oaks if another saloon were allowed. Ihnee Qeks Preps, 28 October, 9 December, 30 December 1898. From 1899 to 1915 (when Three Oaks voted “dry“), the Warren Featherbone Company annually paid $250 to the village treasury, equivalent to the cost of a liquor license, to compensate it for lost revenue. See Ihnee Oeks Press, 24 February 1899: Ihe Acorn [Three Oaks), 8 April 1915. 226 "Minutes of Department Heads Meeting, 11 September 1918, WFC-RHC, WMU. E. K. Warren, "Let them whistle up here." "Interviews, Three Oaks. Robert W. French, Liying Iogether: Buchanan and Clark. 1904-1925, (n.p.: n.p., [1976)), 194 pages. ‘9 hree Oaks Press, 22 July 1898: Ihe Acorn [Three Oaks), Special Memorial Edition, 6 February 1919. ‘fPrude, in Frisch and Walkowitz, pp. 1-36: Dublin, Women at Work, pp. 60, 225, also noted that "the scarcity of experienced hands led Lowell firms to modify their written regulations in actual practice." In spite of the rules, workers who had quit without giving the required two weeks notice were often rehired. ‘aTextile World R cord, 27 (September 1904), pp. 136- 138. See Berg for the adoption of similar strategies by the RED Motor Car Company. "W, 29 (May 1905), p. 154. “IQ££LL2_EQLIQ_53§QLQ, 31 (September 1906), p. 65. ‘°IQ§£LLg_flQLIQ_Beephg, 32 (January 1907), pp. 139-140. “Textil World Record, 32 (January 1907), pp. 139-140. "IeetiIe_World Reeghg, 33 (April 1907), p. 87. "Kessler-Harris, pp. 149-151. Christine Stansell, "The Origins of the Sweatshop: Women and Early Industriali- zation in New York City," in Frisch and Walkowitz, pp. 78- 103. "In 1909, 59,000 women in New York City worked in the women’s clothing industry. Irene Osgood Andrews, "The Relation of Irregular Employment to the Living Wage for Women," American Labor Legislation Reyiew, 5 (June 1915), pp. 365-366. Many homeworkers wanted to continue such work, but end the abuses. Instead, in the 1930’s many types of homework were made illegal, without making any provisions for the workers who depended on such employment. Kessler- Harris, pp. 269-270. CHAPTER VI ‘See Lingeman, pp. 321-363. aAtherton, p. 23. 227 ’See Anthony F. C. Wallace, ckdale' T e rowth of an Americen Village in the Early Induetrtel_Revolution. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978): Hannah 8. Josephson,1he Bolden Ihreads: New England Mill Girls and Magnates (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1949): and David Brody, ”The Rise and Decline of Welfare Capitalism,” Chapter 2 in Work- ers in Industrial America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). ‘Ellsworth, p. 113 'Atherton, p. 26. ‘Walkowitz, horger City, pp. 259, 254. ’John Bodnar, Worker’s World: inshi Communit Proteet ineen Induetrial Society. 1900-1940 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982). 'Walkowitz, p. 13. ’Bodnar, pp. 168, 178, 181. ‘°Tentler, pp. 180-185. uBodnar, pp. 165-185. This sense of powerlessness is suggested by a phrase used by my husband’s parents: "What are you going to do?" This is said with an air of resigna— tion and helplessness in response to some political or job- related circumstance. They lived in Detroit, Michigan and Andrew Havira worked at the Chevrolet Gear and Axle Plant for nearly forty years. ‘aMy husband’s family, especially his aunt, Mary Havira, routinely greets us this way. For thirty years, she operated a high speed, double-needle sewing machine in a factory in Streator, Illinois. ‘3See Ellsworth, pp. 1-26. APPEND I X APPENDIX Table A-1 List of Factories Employing 100 or More (1919) CITY COMPANY PRODUCT EMPLOYEES‘ (POPULATION) M F C T Allegan County Allegan Blood Brothers machinery 112 12 0 124 (3637) Machine Douglas E.E. Weed fruit 111 22 0 133 (305) packages Hastings Consolidated power 298 8 0 306 (5132) Press presses Grand Rapids furniture 179 15 2 196 Bookcase and Chair Hastings Table furniture 140 29 0 169 Hastings Wool wool boots 68 46 0 114 Boot Otsego Bardeen Paper paper 264 57 0 321 (3168) MacSim Paper paper 216 4 1 221 Plainwell Michigan Paper paper 259 79 0 338 (2049) Bernien County Buchanan Clark Equipment drills, 664 45 0 709 (3187) wheels, axles Coloma Friday Brothers canned 34 80 0 114 (663) foods Niles French Paper paper 222 34 0 256 (7311) Kawneer Mfg. metal 258 30 0 288 store fronts National Print- printing 103 17 0 120 ing & Engraving 228 St. Joseph (7251) Three Oaks (1362) Watervliet (1073) Branch Bounty Bronson (1257) Coldwater (6114) Ouincy (1251) Union City (1268) alhoun Count Albion (8354) Homer (1076) W Dowagiac (5440) 229 Auto Specialties Manufacturing Bradford Cooper-Wells Warren Feather- bone Watervliet Paper Douglas & Rudd Manufacturing Hoosier Shoe Wolverine Port- land Cement Wolverine Port- land Cement Peerless Port- land Cement Albion Malleable Iron Gale Mfg. Hayes Wheel National Spring and Wire Union Steel Homer Furnace Beckwith Rudy Furnace auto parts novelties hosiery sewing notions paper electric supplies shoes cement cement cement castings castings auto hubs 352 33 217 143 227 89 54 122 100 110 898 260 357 auto cush-105 ion springs steel wire furnaces stoves, furnaces furnaces 268 152 756 170 79 67 300 196 63 68 60 46 40 32 128 23 28 27 38 26 10 10 431 100 544 377 290 157 114 123 100 118 944 326 389 243 301 784 176 EM Bellevue (1035) Charlotte (5126) Eaton Rapids (2379) Grand Ledge (3043) W Belding (3911) Ionia (6935) N Burt Portland Cement Hancock Mfg. E.R. Woolen Mills Grand Ledge Chair Belding Bros. (four mills) Belding Hall Dort Motor Car Hayes-Ionia Pere Marquette R.R. Shop E.F. Stafford Manufacturing Ypsilanti Reed Furniture Malamazoo County Vicksburg (1712) W Comstock Park (unincorp.) Rockford (1143) Sparta (1502) Lee Paper Wallin Leather Hirth-Krause Welch Mfg. cement auto parts yarns, woolens chairs silk refrig- erators auto bodies auto bodies R.R. car repairing furniture furniture paper tanning shoes store fixtures 205 147 283 110 298 203 159 227 259 589 183 132 107 166 34 115 26 652 17 14 292 89 12 15 29 37 212 181 368 138 979 210 159 369 228 273 918 248 133 197 178 Ottawa County Coopersville E.P. Dagget (914) Canning Ferrysburg Johnston Bros. (unincorp.) Grand Haven Challenge Mach- (7205) inery Challenge Re- frigerators Keller Pneu- matic Tool Eagle-Ottawa Leather Story & Clark Piano Zeeland Wolverine Furn- (2275) iture St. Joseph County Centreville Dr. Denton (701) Sleeping Gar- ment Mills Sturgis Aulsbrook and (5995) Jones Grobhiser Cab- inetmakers Kirsch Mfg. Chas. A. Miller Morency-Van Buren Mfg. National Carbon Coated Paper Royal Easy Chair Sturgis Steel Go-Cart canned foods boilers printing machinery refrig- erators leather tanning pianos furniture sleepers furniture furniture curtain fixtures plumber’s supplies plumber’s supplies carbon paper chairs baby cabs 70 109 168 166 208 367 271 96 62 160 120 176 118 142 115 203 173 4:5 11 19 22 57 64 111 32 16 86 21 60 18 42 36 115 109 179 189 230 460 343 106 173 192 136 139 145 175 221 215 232 Wilhelm Furni- furniture 134 27 0 161 ture Three Rivers Eddy Paper paper 102 2 0 104 (5209) Fairbanks Morse railway 915 54 0 969 motor cars White Pigeon Eddy Paper paper 305 28 0 333 (887) an uren ount Hartford S.M. Carpp canned 48 70 1 119 (1361) Canning foods South Haven National Motor castings 166 1 0 167 (3829) Casting S.E. Overton wood spe- 115 2 0 117 cialties Cable Nelson pianos 165 36 0 201 *Males, Females, Children under 16, Total. Source: Michigan. Department of Labor. Report. 1920. Table A-2 Employment at Belding Brothers and Company, 1893-1919“ Year Males Females 14-16 Total Year Olds 1893 44 131 8 183 1894 50 150 3 203 1895 42 157 6 205 1896 24 49 73 1897 80 80 1898 31 99 6 136 1899 69 253 22 344 1900 350 1901 67 200 6 273 1902 No Data 1903 No Data 1904 46 88 4 138 1905 154 494 16 664 1906 186 412 9 607 1907 193 478 6 677 1908 177 470 2 649 1909 226 677 2 905 1910 166 515 1 682 1911 147 426 12 585 1912 173 430 15 618 1913 184 548 7 739 1914 198 601 799 1915 175 549 5 729 1916 203 613 816 1917 200 558 22 780 1918 197 505 19 721 1919 199 432 22 653 “Richardson Silk Mill data on following page. Source: Michigan. Reports. 1894-1920. Table A-2 continued Richardson Silk Mill Year Males Females 14-16 Total Year Olds 1893 46 100 8 154 1894 30 240 4 274 1895 30 220 7 257 1896 25 100 3 128 1897 25 25 1898 35 140 175 1899 31 170 9 110 1900 300 1901 44 281 325 1902 No Data 1903 No Data 1904 75 195 5 275 1905 67 249 8 324 1906 79 232 311 1907 63 204 2 267 1908 60 202 262 1909 62 227 289 1910 51 207 258 1911 50 262 312 1912 66 204 270 1913 62 200 2 264 1914 54 142 196 1915 61 137 198 1916 108 193 301 1917 77 199 10 286 1918 82 197 9 288 1919 99 220 319 Source: Michigan. Beports. 1894-1920. Table A-3 Employment at Cooper, 235 Wells and Company, 1893-1919 Year Males Females 14-16 Total Year Olds 1893 100 150 16 266 1894 50 150 14 214 1895 70 130 18 218 1896 50 185 6 241 1897 93 187 00 280 1898 121 198 30 349 1899 105 188 22 315 1900 277 1901 116 195 7 318 1902 No Data 1903 No Data 1904 162 266 48 476 1905 170 255 50 475 1906 143 263 44 450 1907 165 290 37 492 1908 146 275 22 443 1909 155 286 30 471 1910 181 306 28 515 1911 182 328 18 528 1912 189 302 15 506 1913 205 317 23 545 1914 191 304 25 520 1915 218 309 15 542 1916 223 345 578 1917 212 290 36 538 1918 255 327 20 602 1919 217 300 27 544 Source: Michigan. Beports. 1894-1920. 236 Table A-4 Employment at Warren Featherbone Company, 1893-1919 Year Males Females 14-16 Total Year Olds 1893 75 150 225 1894 75 100 12 187 1895 100 175 15 290 1896 142 153 15 310 1897 118 80 2 200 1898 125 200 8 333 1899 75 150 10 235 1900 312 1901 190 185 17 392 1902 No Data 1903 No Data 1904 97 169 5 271 1905 138 150 11 299 1906 146 153 17 316 1907 122 137 64 323 1908 173 160 7 340 1909 130 134 14 278 1910 148 151 18 317 1911 131 134 11 276 1912 151 146 6 303 1913 140 144 8 292 1914 216 273 38 527 1915 185 140 12 337 1916 211 178 2 391 1917 135 150 3 288 1918 105 140 23 268 1919 143 196 38 377 Source: Michigan. Reports. 1894-1920. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES NEWSPAPERS The Acorn. [Three Oaks) 1891-1930. Belding Banner. 1889-1919. Belding Banner-News. 1920-1932. Belding Home News. 1879-1882. Belding News. 1900-1919. Galien River Gazette. Continues The Acorn, 1930-1957. The Herald-Press. [St. Joseph) 1916-1932. The Ionia Sentinel. 1869-1885. Ihe Eveninqureee. [St. Joseph) 1895-1916. Merged with St. Joeeph Evening Herald to form St. Joseph herald- [19%- The Oaks. [Three Oaks) 1901-1903. Kenosha Evening Mews. [Wisconsin] 1903-1904. St. Joseph Evening herel . 1901-1916. St. Joseph Herald. 1868-1889. Bt. Joseph Saturdey Herald. 1889-1916 Formerly St, Joseph Bersld- St, Joseph Iraveler-Heral . 1874-1885. Ihree Oaks Eness. 1891-1900 Continued by The Acorn. Ihree Oaks Quill. 1889-1891. Three Oaks Sun. 1881-1889. Iextile World. [title varies) 1888-1915, weekly: 1915- 1932, monthly. N (A \l GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS Michigan. Bureau of Labor. AnnuaI Repor . 1884-1920. . Beport of the_Michigan State Bommissign of Inquiry Into the Wages and Conditione of Labor for Women and the Advisability of Establishing a Minimum Wage for meen. Lansing, Michigan, 1915. — . Bublic Acts of the Legislature of the State of Michigan. Lansing, Michigan. 1880-1920. - . Statistics of the State of Michigan, Collected for the Ninth Census of the United States, June, I87 . Lansing, Michigan. U. 8. Bureau of the Census. Manuscript Population Sche- dules, Ionia and Berrien Counties, Michigan. Twelfth Census, 1900. —— . leventh Census f he Uni ed Stat s 890. Vol. I: Bompendigm. Part I: Egpulation. Washington: GPO. - . Twelfth Census of the United Btates, I20 . Vol. IX: Manufactpres. Washington: GPO. — . Thirteenth Census of the United States, I910. Vol. II: Eopulation. Vol. VI: Agripelture. Vol. VIII: Manufactures, Beneral Report. Vol. IX: Manu- factures hy States. Washington: GPO. ---------- . Eourteenth Census pf the Bnited Btates, I22 . Vol. I: Population. Vol. IV: Occupations. Vol. VIII: Manufactures General e or . Vol. IX. Manu- factures by States. Washington: GPO. U. 8. Senate. Report on Condition of Woman and Child Wage- earners in the United States. Vol. IV: The Silk Industry, 1911. Vol. XVIII: Employment of Women end Children in Selected Industries, 1913. 61st Cong. 2d sess. 8. Doc. 645. Washington: GPO. INTERVIEWS Belding - 1979-1980 Lena Aelick, Ada Bailey, Leslie Bailey, Pearl Olger Burns, Edith Glass Campbell, Margery Childs Case, Bessie Olger Caverly, Neva Dekau, Hubert Engemann, John Griffin, Ruth Harger, Lena Russell Waite Leonard, Hilda Oberlin, Lydia Gantz Yost. 239 St. Joseph - 1985-1986 Ruth Hoffmann Becker, Alice Brandt, Edward Brown, Herbert Gorr, Richard Grau, Frieda Klann, Barbara Troost, Thelma Troost, William Wallis. Three Oaks - 1983 Shirley Benhart, Vonda Hollett Chilson, Helen Cupples, Gladys Loop Hefferan, Raymond L. Hoffman, Charles Jackson, Jessie Lowe, Gertrude Portinga Miller, Lucille Long Roundy, Lillian Long Staton. ARCHIVAL COLLECTIONS Alvah N. Belding Memorial Library, Belding, Michigan. Materials relating to Belding Brothers and Company and Richardson Company silk mills. Fort Miami Heritage Society. St. Joseph, Michigan. Materials relating to Cooper-Wells hosiery mill and German settlement in St. Joseph. Maud Preston Palenske Memorial Library. St. Joseph, Michigan. Materials relating to Cooper-Wells Hosiery Mill. Michigan State University Archives. East Lansing, Michigan. Warren Family Collection. Regional History Collections. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan. Warren Featherbone Collection. Three Oaks Memorial Library. Three Oaks, Michigan. Materials relating to Warren family and the Warren Featherbone Company. Warren Featherbone Company Archives. Gainesville, Georgia. BOOKS AND ARTICLES Abbott, Carl. oos rs nd Businessmen: P ular conomic Thouqht and Urban Bhowth in the Antebellum Middle West. Westport, Connecticutt: Greenwood Press, 1981. Andrews, Irene Osgood. “The Relation of Irregular Employ- ment to the Living Wage for Women." merican or Legislation Beview, 5 (June 1915), pp. 365-366. Atherton, Lewis. Main Btreet on the Mindle Borger. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1954. eldin others d an 1863- 9 . New York: Edward 240 B. Smith and Company, 1925. Benson, Susan Porter. "'The Customer Ain’t God’: The Work Culture of Department Store Saleswomen, 1890-1940." In Michael H. Frisch and Daniel J. Walkowitz, eds. Work- n Class merica: ssa s n abor o munit a d American Society. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983, pp. 185-211. Berg, Peter Iverson. “Welfare Capitalism at the RED Motor Car Company.“ Michigen History, 69 (Nov./Dec. 1985), pp. 37-44. Bloomfield, G. T. “Shaping the Character of a City: The Automobile Industry and Detroit, 1900-1920." Michigan Quarterly Review, 25 (Spring 1986), pp. 167-181. Bodnar, John. Workers’ Worlg: Kinship, Community, and Protest in an ndustrial Society. 1900-I940. Balti- more: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982. Branch, E. E. History of Ionia County, Michigan: Her People, Industries and Institutions. 2 Vol. Indianapolis: 8. F. Bowen and Company Inc., 1916. Brandes, Stuart. American Welfare Capitalism, 1880-I940. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Braverman, Harry. abor and on o1 C it : he D rada- tion of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974. Brody, David. Workers in Industrial America: Essays on the Iwentieth Bentury Struggle. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1980. Brown, Richard D. Modernization: The Thansformation of AmericeneLife, I600-186 . New York: Hill and Wang, 1976. Bruchey, Stuart. The Root; of American Economic Growth, I607-I8 I. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Brunner, Edmund deS. Industrial yillage Churches. New York: Institute of Social and Religious Research, 1930. Calvert, Bruce. The Story pf a Silk Mil . New York: Belding Brothers and Company, 1914. Chamberlain, Frederic W. Eebquus Eeatherpone. Three Oaks, Michigan: The Warren Featherbone Company, 1946. 241 Clark, Victor 8. history of Manufactures in the United States, yol. III, I893-192 . New York: Peter Smith, 1949. Commons, John R. and Associates. istor of bor n the United States, Vol. II . New York: Macmillan, 1935. Coolidge, Orville W. A Twentieth Centur 'stor of errien County, Michigan. Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Co., 1906. Coombs, Whitney. The Wages of Unskilled Lehpr in the Maneiecturino Induetries of the United States, I890- I924. New York: Columbia University Press, 1926. Crawford, D. C. Atlas of Ionie County, Michigan. New York: J. B. Beers and Company, 1891. Cusack, Helen. ”When Pine Was King Lumber Story." Belding Banner-Mews. Special 1972 Labor Day Edition. Dawley, Alan. glass and Community: Ihe Industrial Bevolution in Lyn . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976. Douglas, Paul H. Real Wages in the United Stetes, I890- 1926. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930. Dublin, Thomas. Women at Work: The_Transformation pf Work end Community in Lowell, Massachusetts, I826-1860. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979. -— . "Women, Work and Protest in the Early Lowell Mills: 'The Oppressing Hand of Avarice Would Enslave Us.’" Labor history, 16 (Winter 1975), pp. 99-116. Dunbar, Willis Frederick. How It Wee In hertford: LAn Afgectionate Account of_e Michigan Small prn in the EethWXeehe_of the Twentieth Century. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1968. . Michigan: A history pf the Wolverine State. Rev. by George S. May. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wil- liam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980. Eisenstein, Sarah. Give Us read ut Giv U oses' Working Women’s Consciousness in the United States, 1890 to the First World War. Boston: Routledge Kegan fi—e Paul, 1983. Ellis, Franklin. History of Berrien and Van Buren Counties, Michigan. Philadelphia: D. W. Ensign and Co., 1880. 242 Ellsworth, John S. Eectory Folkways: A Study of Inetitu- tional Streeture and Change. New Haven: Yale Univer- sity Press, 1952. Fales, Jane. Bressmakinq: A Manual for Schools end Bolleges. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1917. Featherbone: A Noyel Product and flew It is Used. Three Oaks, Michigan: Warren Featherbone Company, 1888. Eeatherbone Magazinette. Autumn, 1901. Fisher, Marvin Mark. Workshops in the Wilderness. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. Frisch, Michael H. Town into City: Springfield, Massachusetts, 1854-1921. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1963. — and-Walkowitz, Daniel J., eds. Working Class America: Essays on Labor, Community and Americen Beeiety. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983. Gersuny, Carl. "'A Devil in Petticoats’ and Just Cause: Patterns of Punishment in Two New England Textile Fac- tories.“ Business Histor Review, 50 (Summer 1976), pp. 131-152. Gilchrist, Maude. The Finet Three Decades of Home Economics et Michigen State College. East Lansing: School of Home Economics, Michigan State College, 1947. Gilman, Glenn. human Relations in the Industriel Seutheast. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1956. Glaab, Charles N. and Larsen, Lawrence H. Factories in the Valley: Neenah-Menasha, 1870-1910. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1969. Glazer, Sidney. "The Beginnings of the Economic Revolution in Michigan.” Michigan History, 34 (September 1950), pp. 193-202. Green, Constance M. Holyoke, Massachusetts: A Case Study of the Induetriel Revolutipn in Americe. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939. Gutman, Herbert. “The Worker’s Search for Power: Labor in the Gilded Age.“ In The Gilded Ag_: A Reappreisal. H. Wayne Morgan, ed. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1963, pp. 38-48. — — . Work Culture and Societ n ndustriali in 243 America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976. Hareven, Tamara K. and Langenbach, Randolph. Amoskeag: Life and Work in an Amehican Fectory-City. New York: Pantheon, 1978. Hawley, Amos H. The Population of Michigan IB40ItQ 1960: An Analysis of Growth, Distripution and Compostipn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1949. Hill, Joseph A. homen in Geinful Occupatipn . IB70 to 1920. Census Monographs IX, 1929, rpt. Westport, Connecti- cut: Greenwood Press, 1978. “Hosiery and Underwear Brands Have Shown Steady Growth.” Underwear and Hosiery Review, 25 (November 1942), pp. 135-160. Hutchins, Grace. Labor and Silk. New York: International Publishers Co. Inc., 1929. Jensen, Richard. "Midwestern Transformation: From Tradi- tional Pioneers to Modern Society." In Local History Toda : a ers Presented at Four Re ional Worksho s for Locel Hietory Organizations in Indiana, Jgne 19ZS-April I979. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1979. Josephson, Hannah. Bolden Threads: New England’e Mill Girls and Magnates. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1949. Kessler-Harris, Alice. gut tpeWork: A Hietory of Wage- Eerning Women in the_ynited States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. ”Knitting Mill Rules." Ieetile World_end Industrial Becor , 16 (March 1899), pp. 76-77. Lauck, William Jett and Sydenstricker, Edgar. Conditions of Labor in American Industries. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1917. Lerner, Gerda. "The Lady and the Mill Girl: Changes in the Status of Women in the Age of Jackson.“ Migcontinent American Studies Journal, 10 (Spring 1969), pp. 5-15. "Legislation for Women in Industry: Minimum Wage.” Ameri- can Labor Legislation Review, 6 (December 1916), pp. 383-393. Lingeman, Richard. Small Town Americe: A Narnetiye history, Ip20-Present. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1980. 244 Love, Margaret-Mary. "A Geographic Study of the Belding Silk Industry.“ M. A. Thesis. Wayne State University, 1940. MacDonald, Wendell D. “The Early History of Labor Statis- tics in the United States." Labor History, 13 (Summer 1977), pp. 267-278. May, George S. A Most Unigue Machine: The Michigan Origine of the Americen Automobile Industry. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1975. McGaw, Judith A. "'A Good Place to Work,’ Industrial Workers and Occupational Coice: The Case of Berkshire Women." Journal of Interdisciplinery History, 10 (Autumn 1979), pp. 227-248. McGuigan, Dorothy Gies. Dan erous x eriment' One Hundfied Years of Women at the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: Center for Continuing Education of Women, 1970. Methodist Episcopal Church. Minutes of the North-West Indiana Conference, Octoper I2 to I7, I8 2. Cleveland: The Cleveland Printing and Publishing Company, 1892. Michigen State Gazeteer and Business Directory. Detroit: R. L. Polk & Co., 1895, 1907, 1917. Montgomery, David. "To Study the People: The American Working Class." Labor Histony, 21 (Fall 1980), pp. 485-512. Mood ’s Manual of nvest ents and Securit atin Service. New York: The Moody Corporation, 1925. Murrah, David J. "From Corset Stays to Cattle Ranching: Charles K. Warren and the Muleshoe Ranch.“ The West Iexas Historicel Associetion Year Book, 51 (1975), pp. 3-12. Navin, Thomas R. Ihe Whitin Machine Works Since 1831: A Textile Machinery. Company in en Industrial Village. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950. Nelson, Daniel. Managers end Workere: Origins of the New act r S stem in the United States 880-1920. Madi- son: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1975. Newman, Dale. ”Work and Community Life in a Southern Tex- tile Town." Labor history, 19 (Spring 1978), pp. 204- 225. Prude, Jonathan. "The Social System of Early New England 245 Textile Mills: A Case Study, 1812-1840." In Michael H. Frisch and Daniel J. Walkowitz, eds. Working Class America: Essays on Labor, Community:end American Bpeiety. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983, pp. 1-36. Peiss, Kathy. Cheap Amusements: Working Women and Leisure in Turn-of—the-CenturyLNew York. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986. Reber, L. Benjamin. histony of Bt. Joseph. St. Joseph, Michigan: St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce, [1924?]. Region of Three Oaks. Three Oaks, Michigan: Edward K. Warren Foundation, 1939. Rosenzweig, Roy. Eight Hours for Whet WeeWill: Workers and Leisure ineen Industrial City, 1870-1920. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Schenck, John S. history of Ionia and Montcalm Counties. Philadelphia: D. W. Ensign and Company, 1881. Smith, Alice E. Millstone and Saw: The Origins of Neenah- Menasha. Madison: State Historical Society of Wiscon- sin, 1972. Smuts, Robert W. Women and Work in America. New York: Schocken Books, 1959. Bouvenir._Bityeof Belding, Michigan, with Special Reference to theeInterests of Belding Brothers and Co., Silk Manqjeetuhege. n.p.: n.p., [1907). Stevens, J. Harold. "The Influence of New England in Michigan.” Michigen Hietory, 19 (Autumn 1935), pp. 321-353. Stevens, R. The eldin -Corticelli tor . Montreal: Belding Corticelli Ltd., 1951. Taber, Morris C. "New England Influence in South Central Michigan." Michigan history, 45 (December 1961), pp. 305-336. "Take $10,000,000 from $100." Michigan Manufacturer end Einancial Becord, 27 June 1925, p. 12. Tentler, Leslie Woodcock. hage-Earning Women: Industriel Work and Femin Lifeein the United States. 1900-19§_. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Tilly, Louise A. and Scott, Joan W. homen. Work. and Eamily. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978. 24¢. Tryon, Rolla M. hpueehold Manufecturee in the United States. 1640-1860. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1917. gentilation and Heating: Brinciples and Application. Boston: B.F. Sturtevant Co., [1896]. Wallace, Anthony F. Bockdale: The Growth of an Americen Village in the Early Industrial Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978. Walkowitz, Daniel J. Worker City, Company Town: Iron and Cotton-Worker Protest in Troy:end Cohoee. New Xerk. IB§§3BA. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978. Walsh, Margaret. The Manufacturing Frontier: Pioneer Industry in Antebellum Wieconein. 1830-1860. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1972. Weber, Gustavus Adolphus. “Labor Legislation in the United States." In U.S. Bureau of Labor, Bulletin, 54 (1904), pp. 1421-1486. Welter, Barbara. “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860." American Quarterly, 18 (Summer 1966), pp. 151-174. Whalen, Jeffrey. The Warren Featherbone Company Centennial, I883-1983. Gainesville, Georgia: Warren Featherbone Company Historical Committee, 1983. Willoughby, William F. “The Inspection of Factories and Workshops in the United States." In U. S. Bureau of Labor Bulletin, 12 (1897), pp. 549-568. Winpenny, Thomas R. Industrial Progress and Heman Welfare. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, Inc., 1982. Woody, Thomas. A history pf Womens’s Education in the hnited States. Vol. II. New York: The Science Press, 1929. "I7'lfl'7fliflfljilfll7fl'lmflilfliifliflFl“