The fourth question is similar to the third :
" The sweater deals as a middleman with the
manufacturer and the worker. If he did not



62 WHITE SLAVES

deal -with this kind of work, it would cost the
manufacturer more to reach the worker than it
does now. No sweater would be employed if
he did not earn what he makes. Then the
manufacturer, or clothier, could pay less for
making the pants, because he now pays all the
trade will bear. If it cost him more to reach
the worker, he must pay less. Suppose we
abolisli the sweater, or middleman, then he
would not distribute the work, and there
would be no work. Is that better than some
work?"

I have already answered this question in
part. It is not correct that it would cost the
manufacturer more to reach the worker without
the sweater than with him. It is also ridicu-
lous to suppose that if the sweater were abol-
ished there would be no work. The demand
for clothing would be just the same without the
sweater as with him. Besides that, everything
that takes the employer away from the people
who do his work, and removes him from contact
with them, is a bad thing, and always bodes ill
to any haimonious relation between capital and
labor. I am satisfied tliat there are proprie-



REPLY TO A CRITICISM 63

tors in Boston firms, who, if they could go
around with me, and see, as I have seen, the
poverty and suffering of the sweaters' slaves
who are making up their goods, would revolt
against the whole system. It is only the
sweater who comes in contact with these peo-
ple, and the sweater is, as a rule, greedy and
avaricious, and hardened against all humane
feeling.
