VII.

LENGTH AND QUALITY OF NEGRO DOMESTIC SERVICE.

In regard to length of service, we have 284 reports from men employed in domestic service, and 591 from women, 875 altogether.

Of these 213 are from men personally interviewed, and since this question was uniformly asked, these 213 reports will represent the service of the rank and file of men servants.

The remaining 71 were recorded upon the family schedules, and were obtained, therefore, from the statements of their parents or sisters, and since no question regarding length of service appears in the family schedule, this information was evidently volunteered. From this fact it seems probable that the length of service in these 71 cases was put forward as being something unusual, as indeed it is, including as it does, 7 records of 10 to 15 years service with one family, 12 records of 16 to 20 years, and 10 records of over 20 years of service, one coachman having served 41 years in the same family. In view of the nature of this information it has been kept separate from the other records and dealt with by itself in order to avoid misrepresentation of facts.

The service periods shown in these 71 records range from 2 to 41 years, the average service period being 11 years and 5 months.

TABLE XVII.

(Domestic Service.)

SERVICE PERIODS OF SEVENTY-ONE “LONG-SERVICE MEN” IN THE SEVENTH WARD OF PHILADELPHIA.

The following table (No. XVIII) gives the nativity of these 71 “long-service men.”

TABLE XVIII.

(Domestic Service.)

NATIVITY OF SEVENTY-ONE “LONG-SERVICE MEN” IN THE SEVENTH WARD OF PHILADELPHIA.

Here the 18.4 per cent from Philadelphia agrees with the Philadelphia percentage in Table II, and also the 28.2 per cent from Virginia corresponds very nearly with the parallel record in that table which shows 27.9 per cent of the total domestic service of Philadelphia coming from Virginia. Turning to consider the pay of these long-service men, it is found that of these 71 men 20 are coachmen, while 51 are “private waiters.” The following table gives their range of wages and average wages. The general average wage will be seen to approach close upon 9.00 a week.

TABLE XIX.

(Domestic Service.)

WAGES OF SEVENTY-ONE “LONG-SERVICE MEN”IN THE SEVENTH WARD OF PHILADELPHIA.

With these facts concerning service periods, nativity and wages of “long-service men,” it may be interesting to compare the same facts for the men of the rank and file. With the “rank-and-file men” the service periods vary from a few days to 31 years, the average period being 4 years 6 months and some days, a considerable contrast with the 11 years and 5 months of the long-service men.

In the following table the nativity of the long-service men and that of the rank-and-file men are brought together:

TABLE XX.

(Domestic Service.)

NATIVITY OF “RANK-AND-FILE MEN” COMPARED WITH NATIVITY OF “LONG-SERVICE MEN” IN THE SEVENTH WARD.

In this table as in previous ones, Maryland and Virginia are seen to be far in the lead'in the matter of furnishing the domestic service of the Seventh Ward of Philadelphia. Here indeed, the Virginia record rises to a number almost twice as great as that furnished by both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania taken together; although the percentage from the State here practically agrees with that of the long-service men. The facts in regard to range of wages and average wages of coachmen and private waiters in the “rank and file” of service in the Seventh Ward are given in Table XXI, which follows:

TABLE XXI.

(Domestic Service.)

WAGES OF “RANK-AND-FILE MEN”IN THE SEVENTH WARD OF PHILADELPHIA.

A comparison of this with the average pay of the “long-service men”(whose average coachman's wage is 10.74, while their average waiter's wage is 8.10 and their general average wage is 8.84, nearly 9.00), would seem to point to the possibility that length of service may have some occult connection with length of pocketbook, and that the “giving satisfaction” may not be all on one side of the line in the domestic service question. Of course it is true that a bad servant can not command high wages, also it is impossible to transform a poor servant into a good one by paying him high wages; but, on the other hand, it is true that good service can not be obtained without paying good wages for it.

Schedules giving service periods of colored women employed in the Seventh Ward show 591 records, only six of which were volunteered as unusual, as in the case of the long-service men given above; in view of the smallness of this number these six schedules have not been dealt with separately; but the women who have served five years and over have been isolated, irrespective of the manner in which the information was obtained, and their statements separately treated as in the case of the long-service men.

These “long-service women” who have served five years and more show 178 records; the range of service periods is from five to thirty-five years, the average being six years and eight months.

The range of service periods of “rank-and-file women” varies from one day to five years, while their average service period is found to be three years and six months, only about one-half the service period of the long-service women.

Their nativity and that of the “rank-and-file women” are given together for purposes of contrast and show the following facts:

TABLE XXII.

(Domestic Service.)

NATIVITY OF “LONG-SERVICE WOMEN” COMPARED WITH NATIVITY OF “RANK-AND-FILE WOMEN” IN SEVENTH WARD.

According to this record a greater proportion of “long-service women” come from Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, which is not the case in Table XX, contrasting nativity of the men.

The following tables show the range of wages and average wage for each of the classes of women servants here considered:

TABLE XXIII.

(Domestic Service.)

WAGES OF “LONG-SERVICE WOMEN” IN THE SEVENTH WARD OF PHILADELPHIA.

(In this table and the one following 4 weeks have been reckoned to a month.)

TABLE XXIV.

(Domestic Service.)

WAGES OF “RANK-AND-FILE WOMEN” IN THE SEVENTH WARD OF PHILADELPHIA.

By comparing the last two tables it will be seen that the wage varies less between long-service and ordinary-service women than in the case of the men. The ordinary cook's wage, 3.99, compares more favorably with 4.21, the long-service cook's wage, than does 8.58, the ordinary coachman's wage, with 10.74, the wage of the long-service coachman, and the contrasts throughout will be seen to be less pronounced in the women's than in the men's wages.

But if the wage of ordinary service and long service varies less among the women than among the men, it must be remembered that the length of service varies less among the women than among the men. The average service periods of two classes of men servants are four years six months, and eleven years five months, the one being two and one-half times as great as the other; while the average service periods of the two classes of women are three years six months, and six years eight months, the one being not quite twice the other; hence, the narrower variations in wages of women as compared with those of men would corroborate the theory of the close connection of quality of service and consequent length of service with high wages, rather than weaken that theory. Also it is true that in spite of the occasionally greater range in the wages paid to the “rank and file,” the average wages of the long-service domestics, both men and women, are uniformly greater than the average wages paid to the “rank and file.” Combining the average service periods of the long-service domestics with those of the “rank and file” gives us a combined average of six years and one month as the average service period of colored men servants, and four years and five months as the average service period of colored women servants in Philadelphia. Again, uniting these averages of servants of both sexes in Philadelphia, gives the combified average service period for all colored domestics in the Seventh Ward of Philadelphia. This combined average service period is 4.96 years, that is to say, five years lacking less than one month. It is based on 875 records:¹⁷

This offers a decided contrast with the average length of service of domestics the country over, which average service period, Miss Salmon states, “is found to be less than one year and a half.”¹⁸

This contrast in service periods may be made clearer by the following graphic representation, showing length of service period of Negroes and of general domestic service in the United States, given in terms of a common unit of length.

These service periods will be seen to stand to each other in the ratio of about 3 to 10, and may have some connection with the relative numbers of white and Negro domestics. It may be that the Negro service period is three times as long as the average service period, because there are three times as many Negro servants proportionately, and therefore three times as many chances for capable servants to be found among them. Another possible explanation of the longer period of colored domestics may be their greater docility as servants. As one employer whose name is well known in Philadelphia circles has said of colored domestics : “If you get a good class of colored people they are the most faithful, honest and biddable servants in the world.” This docility which is a recognized trait of the Negro character has doubtless been developed by slavery, and it is not unlikely that it has been still further cultivated in these later days by their knowledge that losing their places in service may mean inability to get work of any kind for an indefinite period. However, if we may judge from the remarks of a certain colored waitress upon length of service, the Negroes feel that there is a point beyond which docility and a respectful bearing cease to be virtues. As she had held her own situation for twenty-two years, her remark may fairly be taken as unaffected by personal considerations. She said : “Yes, they say long service is good service, but sometimes you can't stay at places ; some of the ladies an'gentlemen's not very pleasant.” An employer, on the same point, says : “It isn't the servants any more than it is the mistresses who are responsible for the frequent changes of place.” She thinks that “it varies with the individual, not with the race.” Many of the employers who discussed the subject with the investigator said that their experience was that colored servants were “more respectful” (six said this), “less impertinent” (2), “very anxious to please”(2), “more agreeable and obliging and have nicer manners” (4).

A third possible explanation of the longer period of service among colored domestics may be found in the fact frequently adduced by their employers, that they “are much more likely than white girls to become attached to the family”—so they naturally stay longer in one place than others do. Another employer says : “When they become fond of you they are very staunch friends,” and yet another, says of them : “They are much more loyal and infinitely more affectionate than white servants. They have shown me absolute loyalty in service.” This is significant as being the testimony of a Northern woman who had “never seen a colored servant” before she was married and who employed them for the first time on coining to Philadelphia and now, after sixteen years, “would never have any one else.”

The question whether one State or one section furnishes better domestics than another State or section is interesting, and has its bearing on the point under discussion. It is possible that the Philadelphia colored people represent a higher grade socially and intellectually, than the Negroes of the South—and so, in searching for an explanation of the connection between length of service and quality of service it may be suggestive and valuable here to compare the facts already tabulated in regard to nativity with the facts in regard to ordinary and extraordinary service, to see if any indication may be forthcoming as to the locality which furnishes the best quality of colored domestic service, whether Philadelphia and Pennsylvania or the South. Such a comparison may cast light on the moot question whether Philadelphians are more likely to be well served by Philadelphia colored people or by Southerners. In the table given below, therefore, the per cent of Philadelphia colored people among long-service and ordinary domestics is compared with the corresponding per cent of Virginia-born colored domestics. Virginia has been chosen to represent the South because it is the Southern State furnishing the greatest number of domestic servants in the Seventh Ward and is perhaps the State coming most sharply into competition with the native colored domestics.

TABLE XXV.

COMPARING QUALITY OF SERVICE (AS IMPLIED IN LENGTH OF SERVICE PERIOD) OF COLORED DOMESTIC SERVANTS OF VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA.

The proportions of Pennsylvania and of Virginia service here shown, are approximately represented by the fractions , and , where the numerator in each case stands for Philadelphia servants employed in the Seventh Ward, and the denominator stands for Virginia servants there employed. When these fractions are reduced to the same scale they become . Here, as wil1 be seen, the first and smallest fraction stands for the shortest service period (three years and six months); the second fraction for the next longer service period, and so on. The values of these fractions will be seen to increase progressively, excepting the last, so that the greater values correspond with the longer service periods. The values of these fractions then, when taken in connection with the increasing service periods, would seem to indicate that the greater the proportion of Philadelphia domestics as compared with the proportion of Virginia domestics, the more valuable is the service ; that is to say that Philadelphia-born colored people appear to render the more efficient service. It should be said that the fourth fraction in the above comparison, to be consistent with the theory offered, should be larger than the third, but it must be remembered that the fourth fraction is based upon only seventy-one records and is therefore less likely to represent the facts accurately than the others which are based on a much greater number of records.

Such indications as the above approach nearer to accurate treatment of the question of quality of service rendered than it is possible to get through quoting opinions of employers. The subject is hard to treat at all adequately for the reason that all statements of degrees of excellence or of incompetency must be based on the shifting sands of opinion and upon the opinions of many different people, having different traditions, different education and home influences, different degrees of insight and different standards of excellence. Statements so conditioned must necessarily be relative and impossible to reckon up and number with any semblance of statistical precision. Still the opinions of the employers of colored domestics in the Seventh Ward of Philadelphia, a large proportion of whom have employed both white and colored help, should have a certain interest and value, even though they are not reducible to figures.

Fifty-five employers¹⁹ in the Seventh Ward stated their views in regard to the qualities of Negro domestics and many varying opinions, both favorable and unfavorable, were expressed. The balance of testimony from these fifty-five employers, however, seems to be largely in favor of the colored people rather than whites, both in regard to the service offered and in the attitude of the employe toward the employer. Only one employer stated that she preferred white to colored ; she was employing colored help at that time only because she had not been able to secure satisfactory white girls. Twenty employers say that they find colored domestics quite as neat as whites, while two find them not as neat and five find them more so ; “much cleaner than the Irish both in their work and in their persons;”’they keep their kitchen and their own room cleaner.” Ten employers think they stay for as long or longer a service period, while seven think they do not stay as long as the whites. Fourteen employers think they render as good service as whites, and eleven think their service better, or “a great deal better;” while one—although employing three colored servants—thinks the whites do better work and says she has colored servants “because they look more like servants.” She also thinks they drink more than the whites, an opinion which, so far as the present investigator can learn, she is unique in holding, since all the other employers who discussed the point held the opposite view.

One gentleman, the business manager of one of the large first-class apartment hotels which employs thirty dining-room men, names their freedom from intemperance as one of the chief reasons why he” decidedly prefers colored help.” “They give more attention to their work,” he says, “are better waiters and they drink less. They can be counted upon on pay day the same as any other day, while white serving men are likely to go and drink up their pay and be useless for the rest of the day.” The business manager of the Continental says the same thing, as do also all the hotels which employ colored service.

A very few employers think colored domestics “are lazy and neglect their work,” while more than four times as many say that they are “industrious” and “good workers,” splendid workers,” “a great deal better workers and decidedly better cooks than the whites.” One employer says on this point: “No, I have not found them lazy, at least no more so than others; there are good ones and bad ones among both white and colored.” Skill in cooking was mentioned by only six employers, all of whom think colored cooks superior to other servants in this respect.

Further judgments are: “They are excellent servants and have an intuitive knowledge of what you want;” “they do all the things white servants wait to be told to do.” Several employers agree on these points, but one says: “They have to be told to do everything, but if you keep after them, you can get the things done.” The testimonial of one cook upon the virtues of ’her madam “will show this matter from the domestic point of view. This cook says, “My madam gives me the key, and she never comes down to see if I'm here in the morning; she knows I'll be here; and she never comes into the kitchen to see if meals are getting along, because she knows when half-past six o'clock comes she can trust her girls to have it ready right then.” One mistress said: “Trust them, and I have found they always prove themselves worthy of trust.” Eighteen employers concur in the view that they are trustworthy and do not disappoint confidence; while three think them unreliable and untrustworthy, as compared with white servants. On this subject one employer on Spruce street said: “I think the colored people are much maligned in regard to honesty, cleanliness and trustworthiness; my experience of them is that they are immaculate in every way, and they are perfectly honest; indeed, I can't say enough that is good about them.” These sentiments were held by several other employers, one on Broad street using almost the same words: “I think the colored people are very much maligned in this matter of honesty and trustworthiness; I have two colored men now who are as honest as the sun, and my cook, who also does all the marketing, is very industrious and careful —painstaking. She is a good, faithful creature, and very grateful.”

In regard to the question of the pilfering of food left from the table, the concensus of opinion is heavily against the colored people. There are only three employers who have anything to say in defence of them in this particular, and six against. Their defenders say: “After ten years of experience with the colored people, I have never had a colored servant take anything, even food;” the next: “We lost more food, etc., from the treating in the kitchen, which the Irish indulge in, than we have ever missed from pilfering of colored servants,” and a third, who employs both white and colored servants, says: “I know it is frequently said that the colored people take food home from the kitchen, but I have not found it so.” On the other hand it is said: “They are good servants, but they will carry things off; “while another says that they” take food; they don't mean to be dishonest, but they don't consider that stealing, and are perfectly honest about money.” Another employer says: “Unquestionably they are light-fingered about food and sweetmeats; slavery has always clothed and fed them and taught them to help themselves; we think slavery is responsible for it.” Another thinks “they are like children in temptation; they can't resist sweetmeats, but never take things of value.” The other two employers who spoke on this point say practically the same thing: “They are honest; they take things to eat home, but they don't count that; we never lose anything valuable.” The other calls them “thieves,” but evidently means pilferers of food.

In regard to their honesty, the balance is as strongly with them as, in this question of purloining food, it is against them. Eighteen employers say they are honest, and not one states the opposite. Two of these find them “more honest than white servants,” and two others, already quoted, say they are “perfectly honest,” “as honest as the sun.” Many remarks made by domestics themselves, in the course of conversation, might be quoted as casting light on the subject, but only two will be given here. One elderly colored man, who had been a school janitor in the west end of the ward for two years, and was nearly nine years in his former place, said: “Some people say if you put your hand in a man's pocket, you're stealing; they think that's the only way; but if you loaf two or three hours every day when your boss is paying you for working, I say you're stealing just the same—stealing his time; I say we only live one day at a time, and that one day we've got to do the same as if we'd just come to that place. In summer places I've seen them so triflin’—fooling away their time, and merely because the proprietor don't see them.” The same spirit was shown by a woman cook on Broad street, who took pleasure in doing good work always for “her lady,” whose kindness she enlarged upon with a warmth that showed a strong affection. This woman said: “When my time comes to go home from here, it will be a pleasant thought that I have done all I can to help my kind employer.” These two cases imply not only honesty in the overt act, but an entire honesty of purpose. Many similar cases might be cited.

The question of the general bearing and manners of colored domestics was discussed by many of their employers. The general opinion of the employers is that they are “more willing and obliging” than white servants. As one employer says: “The Germans drink and the Irish order you out of the house, but the colored people are more respectful and anxious to please.” “They are more agreeable and obliging and have nicer manners,” says another employer, and adds: “When my sister was ill, the Irish maid I had at the time refused to carry up the breakfast tray, ‘because,’ she said, ‘it was not her business to do nursing,’ and she ‘wouldn't do it for ten dollars.’” So the employer herself prepared and carried up the trays until the colored girl, who came soon after, volunteered her services with: “Let me take up the breakfast tray, Mrs. W—. You look ready to drop,” and since she came, Mrs. W— has never had a white girl in the house. That the colored people are more willing and obliging in manner is attested by twenty employers and denied by no one, while one employer, who is connected with the University, and has had years of experience, both with white and colored servants, says of the colored people: “Whether they are better or worse than the whites may depend upon what whites you have. We had white servants for seven winters, and always employed the best Irish servants we could get; but they were so unsatisfactory that we gave them up and tried colored servants. Our experience of them is that they are infinitely cleaner than the white Irish, both in their work and personally; they are more self-respecting and better mannered—more agreeable in manners; indeed, I have found them capable of the very highest cultivation of manner. One of our men has the education of a gentleman and is improving himself constantly; the other is ignorant, but is exceedingly refined and modest in manner. Of course they have faults; they are fickle, changing from place to place, even when they are fond of their employers, and they have quick tempers, but they are truthful and honest; we have never lost a thing by them. We keep them by preference, and shall continue to do so.”

Several employers agree in regard to this instinct of the colored people for good manners. One who constantly employs nine servants, and in the last twenty-five or thirty years has had only one set of white servants says: “There is much more to them than people think; our first man servant has as many of the instincts of a gentleman as anyone I ever saw.” This is high praise. “They have a native, deep-seated refinement and very lovely manners,” says another who has employed them for fifteen years.

A judgment which was frequently encountered and always among those employers who had had experience of both white and colored servants was that colored servants are “just like other people of their own class.” One employer says on this point: “I don't find a bit of difference; some are very neat and some are very untidy; it depends entirely on the girl.” Another says: “There are good ones and poor ones among both; it varies with the individual, not with the race.” Another, in charge of a large institution, employing many servants of whom half are white and half colored, says: “My experience has been very satisfactory with the colored ; they are less impertinent, but in most respects are much like white people of their own class. One is about as faithful as the other, and in the matter of neatness they are just like other people ; it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. As to trustworthiness I have found certain ones are perfectly reliable— just as with other human beings.” Those who are interested in this subject will doubtless see that, although these opinions of employers have no statistical value, they will have a practical value for many readers, and especially if they open the eyes of the Philadelphia public, or even a small part of it, to the hitherto apparently unsuspected fact that there are grades among colored people, just as there are among white people; and among colored servants as among white servants; that they are “just like other human beings;” some of them trustworthy, and others not; some of them “perfectly reliable,” and others the opposite of what that phrase expresses, exactly as with white people of their own class. To class the whole race together, or to class all colored domestics together, is to make a serious mistake.

17 Some time after the beginning of the investigation it was found to be practicable to get two records of length of service from each individual interviewed by adding the question, “How long were you in your last place ?” This question was then uniformly asked, which accounts for 875 records of length of service from only 616 people personally interviewed. It must also be noted that the average is high, partly because the number of cases is small and includes a few cases of excep tionally long-service periods.

18 L. M. Salmon, “Domestic Service,” p. 109.

19 Most of whom have employed both white and Negro domestics.