Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 3.djvu/191

 SCIENTIFIC VALUE OF THE SOCIAL SETTLEMENTS I 77

When we remember what we thought about things then, and what we know about them now, we realize that our ethical standards and methods have indeed broadened. A good illus- tration of this is our attitude toward the saloon. We looked upon the saloon keeper as the agent of immorality and crime in the neighborhood, and would have nothing to do with him. But many facts came to our attention that gave us a great deal of thinking to do. We found two kinds of saloons, the neigh- borhood and the concert type. Most of the keepers of these neighborhood saloons were foreigners who respected their fam- ilies and business, and looked upon themselves as good citizens. They allowed no immorality or disorder in their saloons. Many of these men were loud in denouncing corrupt politics, and wanted honest aldermen elected.

The concert saloons were centers of immorality and crime. Lewdness, profanity, and drunkenness were here opened up to the public. Women who passed these places were insulted. Corrupt politicians made these dens their headquarters, and things were generally bad.

When the residents of Chicago Commons took steps to organize a council of the Civic Federation some of the better class of saloon keepers asked to be admitted as members, and an ethical question arose. Should we reject them because they kept saloons when otherwise they were the type of men we wanted in our federation ? Accepting them might mean joining hands with part of the liquor element. We all feel now that the broader ethics was good common sense. It split the saloon vote, closed up every concert saloon in the ward, and finally sent an independent alderman to the city council. We recognized a common ground on which both could stand. The position of the settlement was a protest against the spirit that masses the saloon element on one side and says that everyone connected with it must be entirely ostracized. Other cases could be cited where fuller knowledge of facts modified our ideas of the ethics of our neighbors. This continual modification, brought about by more intimate knowledge of the real lives and condition of