New leisure: how is it spent/ by Frances Hampton

New Leisure-How Is It Spent
by Frances Hampton
(Researched in June 1934 in Leaksville, Spray and Draper, NC)
(To download this entire document, please go here.)

A 1934 study, New Leisure, revealed how enthusiastically mill workers embraced the pleasures introduced in the 1920s. Sociologist Frances Hampton interviewed 122 workers in Leaksville, Spray, and Draper--a mill complex thirty miles northwest of Burlington, North Carolina. Her study showed how much times had changed since the days James Pharis (of Spray) remembered, when the only thing to do in summertime was to go to the mineral spring.

"The road would get thick with people going to the spring, trying to spend a bigger part of their Sundays with nothing to do but just drink water and talk." 1

Now, on soft summer evenings, millhands moved inside to listen to the radio or walked to the theater to see a movie. Eighty-seven of Hampton's 122 informants had radios in their homes, and, with the exception of some housewives who listened while they worked, most people gave broadcasts their undivided attention. Stringband music and jazz were their favorite programs. Although half of those interviewed owned Victrolas, most considered them "out of date" compared to a radio. One family found the radio so alluring that they sold their piano in order to purchase one.

Page I.

NEW LEISURE: HOW IS IT SPENT?

A study of What One Hundred Twenty-Two Textile Workers of Leaksville, Spray, and Draper Are Doing with the New Leisure Created by the N. R. A. as Applied to Certain Types of Activities

                          (Click on image at right to enlarge)

                                                    Table of Contents

           Chapter                                                                           Page

I.   Introduction………………………………….........…....I

II.   Increased Leisure: A Problem………………….………1

III. Reduction of Hours Since 1776…………............….…..7

IV. A Brief Summary of the Industrial Growth in the South,
       And a Description of the Mill Village …................……20

V. A Brief Summary of the Historical Development of
       Leaksville, Spray, and Draper………………....….......24

VI. Findings……………………………………………....51

VII. Conclusions…………………………………………..99

       Bibliography…………………………………………111

I. Introduction

        What is leisure? How should it be used? Who shall have it? How much shall he have? Such questions have existed for a long time, and many different answers have been given. Today, questions concerning leisure have a peculiar significance- they are questions arising from a pulsing social problem of comparatively recent origin: namely, the creation, by an act of the Federal Government, under the direction of the National Recovery Administration, of new leisure for the laboring class. One might well pause here for another question: Why is the new leisure for the laboring class a social problem? An answer is suggested by another question: How is the new leisure spent?

      Questions of this kind actuated the present study, the chief purpose of which is to show what certain textile workers are doing with the new leisure created by the N. R. A. A brief review of the history and the development of the mill village in the South; a summary of the gradual reduction of working hours for textile workers since 1776; and a few facts about the communities which served as a field for the study, are given as a background for the findings.

Page II

FIELD

       Those in search for something, rarely ever begin at home- foreign places are much more alluring. However, in selecting a field for this study, the investigator did not seek unfamiliar ground: the “home-town” presented itself as a most interesting source for the information desired. Thus, the mill communities of Leaksville, Spray, and Draper became an area for investigation. Representative streets of the three communities were chosen, and a house-to-house canvass made.

NATURE OF STUDY

       During the interviews with the textile workers, data concerning their leisure-time activities was collected. In order to support general impressions, the resulting information was tabulated according to sex, age, and community, and, in some instances, combinations of the mentioned classifications were used.

METHOD

      It is generally understood that in a study of this type, a formal questionnaire cannot be used. Questions concerning what one does with one’s spare time cannot always be correctly answered with a mere “yes” or “no”. Certain modifications are frequently necessary. However, as a guide in directing questions during the interviews, the investigator did use a rough schedule of possible leisure time

Page III

activities. Willingness to talk, on the part of the one questioned, is often checked when he sees that the questioner is writing what he says. In order to prevent this situation, the investigator did as little writing as possible during the interviews, resorting only to checking items and taking down catch words or phrases. The bulk of writing was done after the investigator reached home.

      It is necessary here to make further comments about the reliability of the answers given to some of the questions. Sometimes “no” (or “yes”) would be given as the answer to a question, whereas further questioning would prove the inadequacy of the first answer. For example, let us take an actual case:

1. Question: “Do you read very much during your spare time?

                        1. Answer: “Right smart.”

2. Question: “Do you read magazines?”

2. Answer: “No.”

                        3. Question: “Do you read newspapers?”

                        3. Answer: “Yes, I read the funnies.”

               4. Question: “Do you read books?”

4. Answer: “Nothing but the New Testament.”

The criterion of how much reading “Right smart” actually is, seems to vary with the individual. However, during the casual conversation, which in some cases was quite humorous, much light was thrown on the answers to certain questions.

Page 1

II.   Increased Leisure: A Problem

       Leisure, meaning freedom from necessary occupation or business, continues to be a subject of much comment and agitation. For many years, interest in the question was chiefly centered around argument for and against shorter working hours for the laboring masses. Gradually, the working hours have been reduced, and with recent years, discussion of leisure has taken on a different tone. With the realization of increased leisure has come the problem of what to do with it.

      Many difficulties have arisen from the attitude of large numbers of people toward leisure. Conditions during the early development of this country emphasized the value of work, and leisure was more or less placed under a ban. Only the jobless rich had the privilege of enjoying freedom from work; the poor were considered indolent if idle.1 The old proverb, “the Devil finds work for idle hands to do,” expresses a traditional attitude. Fortunately, this point of view has been gradually modified, and large numbers have accepted a philosophy based upon the idea that man cannot live by bread alone and that time is needed for life enrichment.

      The increased amount of leisure and the new view of its importance have led to a more critical consideration of the

1. Cutten, G. B. The Threat of Leisure, p. 16

Page 2

forces which influence the use of leisure, and of the various ways in which the American people are making use of it. What one does during his free moments is largely determined by his tastes, interests, attitudes, background, and loyalties, plus the existence or absence of appealing opportunities.2 His action mirrors the influence of individual and group examples. What are some of these major influences? First in importance is the home, because it is here that the first habits, attitudes, and interests are formed. The school and the church are also influential factors. The former creates opportunities of self-development and opens up new avenues of interest. The church serves as a moral influence, directing the individual’s choice of leisure activity. The neighborhood and community tone- “They say,” “It isn’t done,” “It’s the thing to do,” “They’re doing it,”- likewise exercise a control over the individual’s inclination.3 Not to be ignored as major influences in determining the use of leisure, are advertising and commercial amusements in general. It would be difficult to ascertain the actual extent to which advertising is responsible for the wholesale participation in certain activities; however, the fact that it is a significant

2. Lies, E. T. , The New Leisure Challenges the Schools, p. 28

3. Ibid., p. 253

Page 3

influence is unquestionable. Closely associated with advertising are the commercial amusements. Too frequently, one’s leisure activities are entirely confined to the passive enjoyment of the various commercial amusements offered in his community; in fact, the outstanding characteristic of the attitude of certain groups of American people toward diversion in general is that of passive participation.

      What are the most popular leisure time activities of the people of such groups? Pleasure motoring, attending movies, reading newspapers and light fiction, listening to the radio, and attending baseball and football games are the foremost diversions.4 In practically every case, they are activities which require no active participation on the part of the individual. What a contrast are those diversions which absorbed the leisure time of our forefathers! The difference is largely due to the fact that the present generation is more or less dominated by the machine. Stuart Chase informs us that the total annual cost of all forms of play and diversion in the United States is roughly estimated as twenty-one billions of dollars- about one half, or nearly eleven billions, of which is spent for diversions impossible without machinery.5 He further states that the machine has affected play in a number of major ways: (1) It has given us more

4. See Chase, S., Men and Machines, p. 257

5. Ibid., p.256

Page 4

playthings; (2) More leisure in which to play; (3) More income per family with which to buy the increase in output of playthings; and (4) Mass production in amusement.6 The result is that we have become watchers rather than doers; we have acquired a restless passion for being entertained.

      The importance of having some leisure time is no greater than that of the proper use of this time- we have attained the first, but the latter constitutes an immediate social problem. How to avoid the misuse of leisure- which Burns defines as “any occupation of spare time which leads to a degradation of personality or of the tone of social intercourse or to a degree in health, intelligence, or vitality of any one, owing to what he or she does in that spare time- is the problem to be solved. It is during one’s leisure moments rather than during the hours of work that character is made or marred 8-what one does during his leisure time reveals what he really is; it is the supreme test of his inner life. Because of its significance in the molding of personality, and because of the opportunities which it offers for life enrichment, individuals must be trained for the proper use of leisure time. Herein lies a challenge to education: Children must be taught how to live and not

6.        Chase, S., “Play”. Ch.XIV. Whither Mankind, p.343

7.        Burns, C. D. , Leisure in the Modern World, p. 220

8.        Lies, E. T., op. cit., p. 28. See also Gulick, L. H., A Philosophy of Play, p. 120

Page 5

merely how to make a living. Training must be given during the school years to develop interests and traits that make for a richer and more satisfying adult life. A man or woman who has been educated for leisure will not depend upon these people to keep amused.9 Man’s happiness comes from within himself, and the happiness which his nature demands is impossible until the creative part of him is awakened. The reason so many people are at a loss what to do with themselves in their leisure time, and make a stupid use of it in consequence, is that their creative faculties were never awakened when they were young.10 In order better to meet these demands, the school program should include physical education, reading and literature, dramatics, music, and the handcrafts, nature study, and social life.11

      The responsibility of training individuals for a proper use of their leisure time is not confined to the school, for there are individuals who enjoy only a brief period of schooling. The various community agencies, Y. M. C. A.s, clubs, etc., must share this responsibility. Individuals have to learn to appreciate good literature, good music, games, and sports. The community not only must offer desirable opportunities for occupying leisure time, but it must also teach the individual to make use of such

9.        Jacks, L. P., Education Through Recreation, p.40

10.     Ibid., p.102

11.     Lies, E. T., op. cit., p.253

Page 6

opportunities. The problem will be solved, according to Cutten by means of two complementary methods:

“In the first place it should be through communities organizing to bring about desirable means for occupying leisure time, and, in the second place, the individual will be trained to spend his own leisure in a satisfying manner. Little can be done until public opinion and community spirit instill a general ideal, and community organization aids in consummating it.” 12

All this points to the need of a positive program rather than to our present negative or indifferent attitude. We must realize that leisure is and must be a means and not an end; that its true value is measured by what we do with it- by whether it lifts us or lowers us in the world not of material but of spiritual values. 13

      Aside from the theoretical question concerning leisure, we are primarily interested in the problem from the standpoint of the textile worker. In what ways is he making use of his newly acquired privilege- increased leisure?

12. Cutten, G. B., op. cit., p.113

13. Alger, Geo. W., “Leisure- For What?’, Atlantic Monthly, CXXXV (April, 1925), p. 492

Page 7

III. Reduction of Hours Since 1776

Arguments For and Against Shorter Hours

      In order fully to appreciate the significance of the present leisure for the textile worker, and to understand more sympathetically the manner in which he is making use of such an opportunity, it is necessary to consider the working hours before January 30, 1934, and to review briefly the industrial growth of the South. Before reviewing the gradual reduction of working hours since 1776, let us consider for a moment some of the arguments for and against shorter hours, or increased leisure for the laborer.

      Arguments for shortening the work day in the United States at first were based on the grounds that children should have more opportunity for education, and that adult workers should have sufficient leisure to permit them to exercise more intelligently their rights as citizens. In recent years, the health dangers of excessive hours have furnished the chief excuse for shortening the work day.1 The benefits of shorter hours are briefly summarized in the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences as follows:

“When the hours of labor are excessive, the worker is denied the opportunity to become a capable citizen. A democratic regime acquires vitality

1. National Industrial Conference Board, Legal Restrictions on Hours of Work in the U. S., p.

Page 8

only through the shortening of working time, which releases millions of people for civic activities. Shorter hours also contribute to social progress in another way: increased leisure at the disposal of employed workers tends to stimulate new wants, leading to an expansion in the demand for consumer goods and to a more intensive operation of the productive system.”2

Arguments against the shorter hours seem to follow, in general, the old adage: “Idleness is the Devil’s workshop.” This attitude is summarized as follows:

“Strange as it may seem, leisure is looked upon with misgivings by some high-minded, moral and well-meaning people. They seem to feel that the American people will not know what to do with leisure; that they will accumulate bad habits of mind and action; that it will cause a general breaking-down of good intentions and of moral ways of living.”3

History of Working Hours

      In the North, the length of the working day has been reduced much more gradually than in the South, where the changes, in some instances, have been extremely abrupt. These differences should be kept in mind while reviewing the history of working hours.

      At the beginning of the factory system in the United States, the hours of work were exceedingly long. This of course, was a natural outcome of an earlier agricultural society in which the hours of labor were from sunrise to sunset. In the early factories (1775-1835) the working day

2. Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, VII, 478

3. Walker, L. C., Distributed Leisure, p. 226

Page 9

was, in summer from 14 to 16 hours a day with 2 hours or less off for meals; in winter, 9 to 12 hours, with 1 hour or less for meals.4 An estimate of the time worked in factories was made in 1839 by James Montgomery, who is quoted by John R. Commons:

“In many, and perhaps the majority, of the middle and Southern States, the average was about 13 ¾ hours per day or 82 ½ hours per week in summer, and about 75 ½ hours per week throughout the year.”5

      The first attempts to shorten the length of the work day met with more formidable opposition than any modern effort to gain an eight hour day, for public sentiment could appreciate no reason why an employer should not require his wage earners to work as long as the former shop keepers or housewife.6

After making unsuccessful appeals to Congress for legislation for a shorter working day, labor early in 1835 appealed directly to President Jackson, who ordered the ten hour day established in government work.7 In 1840, President Van Buren issued an executive order, making the ten hour day in government work a permanent policy. Many states, of which New Hampshire was the first, passed laws making ten hours the legal day, and by 1870, the ten hour day was the

4.        Beman, Lamar T., Five-Day Week, p. 43

5.        Commons, John R., History of Labor in the U. S., I, 172

6.        National Industrial Conference Board; op. cit., p. 3

   7.     “America’s Trend Toward Shorter Hours Since 1791”, an editorial, Congressional Digest, XI (October,1932), 22

Page 10

rule in crafts, but bakeries, transportation, cotton mills, and others worked eleven to fourteen hours.8 The South did not respond to the demand for a shorter working day.

      During the late sixties a drive for an eight hour day had begun, and by the middle of the eighties it had rolled up great momentum under the leadership of a large labor union called the Knights of Labor. On May 1, 1886, 190,000 workers struck, 42,000 successfully, and 150,000 others won shorter hours without striking. 9

“The eight hour question had appeared in December 1865 when Senator Grotz Broun of Missouri offered to the Senate a resolution instructing the committee on judiciary to inquire into ‘the expediency and rightfulness’ of enacting a law providing for eight hours on all government work.”

In 1868 the U. S. Congress passed the eight hour law for laborers employed on Federal Government work, but private enterprise hesitated to follow the example.
Union organizations continued their fight for the shorter working day, and in many industries the hours were reduced. Naturally, the labor unions have centered their attack upon those industries which were made up primarily of men employees (in contrast to women and children). On the other hand, the fight for shorter hours by legislation has chiefly applied to women and children. In practice, however, this has meant (at least in those

8. Beman, Lamar T., op. cit., p. 48

9. Ibid., p. 43

10. Commons, John R., op. cit., p. 104

Page 11

occupations including many women) the limiting of the operating hours of the establishment, thus accomplishing the purpose of shortening hours for all members. By 1906, 76% of the workers in manufacturing industries throughout the United States worked 54-60 hours a week, and 8% over 60. The South was especially slow in reducing the hours, and as late as 1917, approximately 79% of the workers in the South were in establishments where the prevailing nominal hours were 60 or more per week; only 18.3% were in establishments where the hours were as few as 56 per week. None was on a shorter schedule than 56 hours. 11

      The situation in the South from 1907 until the enaction of the present N. R. A. Code can be seen by observing the law regulating the hours of work for women and children in Southern Industry:

“The maximum hours of work fixed by law in 1907 in cotton mills were sixty a week in Virginia , South Carolina , and Alabama , and sixty-six in North Carolina and Georgia . Mississippi had no legal restriction.” 12

By 1933 some improvement had been made: Arkansas , Louisiana , Oklahoma , and Texas limited the hours of work for women to nine hours a day and 54 a week, with exceptions. North Carolina limited the hours of employment of women workers in manufacturing , except season industries, to

11.     National Industrial Conference Board, Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers, p. 4

12.        Otay, Elizabeth L., “Women and Children in Southern Industry”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, (January 1931), 166

Page 12

eleven hours a day and 55 a week. Georgia , Kentucky , and Mississippi limited the employment of women to ten hours a day and sixty a week; Virginia ten hours a day, but no limit to the week; and Tennessee allowed a ten and a half day and a fifty-seven hour week for females.13 Alabama had no regulations concerning the hours of work of women.

      As has been said the North was far ahead of the South in the reduction of hours. Since our study is primarily concerned with the situation in North Carolina , let us pause, in our discussion of the reduction of hours, for a brief view of the situation in this particular state. Before the passage of 1903, of a law limiting the number of working hours in a week to 66, the length of the working week ranged from 63 to 75. with the average close to 69. 14 The legislature of 1901 would have passed a bill but for an agreement signed by most of the mills limiting the hours to 66 and the minimum age to 12 years. 15 A ten-hour law was introduced into the state senate in 1911 by a senator from Leaksville, the late Allen D. Ivie, who won his campaign through the stand he took in regard to shorter hours. The working hours of the majority of the mills in the state, as reported by the various commissioners of

13.        Ripkin, Charles W., “Social Legislation”, Ch. 30 Culture in the South, p. 133

14.        Thompson, Holland , From the Cotton Field to the Cotton Mill, p. 133

15.   Ibid., p. 134

Page 13

Labor (1921-1926) ranged from 10-11 hours a day, or 55 or 60 hours a week. Night work has been as universal in North Carolina as have been the long hours.

      The state, has from time to time, passed laws regulating the working hours of women and children. The League of Women Voters has played an important role in the struggle for shorter hours for the children of North Carolina . A summary of what had been accomplished by 1929, was given by Mrs. Bulus B. Swift, Chairman of the Committee on the Working Child of the North Carolina League of Women Voters, in an article, Child Labor Laws are an Outgrowth of the Public Demands of the State, published in the Sunday Herald Sun of October 20, 1929. 16

“The General Assembly of 1903 passed a statute forbidding children under 12 years to work in factories or manufacturing establishments, but specifically exempted canneries where oysters needed to be opened and shucked. Children under 16 and over 12 years had their working week limited to 66 hours by this Assembly.

“In 1907 the Child Labor Law was amended by throwing out the exemption referring to canneries, and adding that children between 12 and 13 years could not work in any factory except in an apprenticeship capacity, and only then after having attended school for four months out of the preceding 12 months. Night work in factories was also forbidden at this time, to boys and girls under 14 years, between the hours of 8 p. m. and 5 a. m.

“The legislature of 1913 took another step forward when it raised the night work prohibition of children from 14 to 16 years of age, even though the hours were changed from 9 p. m. to 6 a. m.

16. In file, “Child Welfare”, North Carolina Collection, Library of the University of North Carolina .

Page 14

“By this same legislature employment certificates for children over 12 and under 13 years, showing age and school attendance, were made mandatory

for manufacturers, and county superintendents of schools were given the duty of investigating violations of law.

“In 1915 a 60-hour week and 11-hour day was enacted for minors and women. In 1919 the state child welfare commission, consisting of the state superintendent of public education, secretary of the state board of health, and commissioner of public welfare, was created. To this body was given the power of making rules and regulations for the enforcing and carrying out of the child labor rules. By law in this year, children under 14 years were forbidden to work in any mill, factory, cannery, work shop, manufacturing establishment, and in or about any laundry, bakery, mercantile establishment, etc., except in cases under regulation of the Child Welfare Commission. Children under 16 were forbidden to work in mines and quarries. By ruling of the Commission, the legal work day of children under 14 years was limited to 8 hours. Girls under 14 years were prohibited from working in any of the above mentioned establishments, and work certificates based on proof of age were made mandatory.

“The 1927 law which permits children between 14 and 16 years who have passed the fourth grade to work 11 hours a day and 60 hours a week, while the working hours of children who have not reached this educational requirement are limited to eight hours a day and 48 a week, also prohibits night work between the hours of 7 p. m. and 6 a. m. for children under 16 years.

“The present rulings (1929) may be summarized as follows: There is an 8 hour day for children under 14. There is a 48 hour and 6 day week for children 14-16 in occupations specified under minimum age, except that children of 14 who have completed the fourth grade may work 11 hours a day and 60 hours a week.”

      In 1931, the notorious “fourth grade clause” was eliminated, that the 8-hour day and 48 hour week would apply to all children under 16 in the occupations covered by the child labor law- except to boys over 14 who were supporting themselves or widowed mothers. The working hours for women

Page 15

over 16 years of age, in factories and mills, were limited to 11 hours a day and 55 hours a week by another bill which, however, removed all restrictions on hours of men over 16. Girls between 16 and 18 years of age were also prohibited from working in mills, factories, canneries, etc., after 9 p. m. and before 6 a. m.

While the prevailing hours in North Carolina, and in the South in general, were sixty hours a week, the North, which had generally won the eight-hour day, began agitation for a five-day week. In addition to the usual argument of “justice to the worker in order that he might have more time in which to enjoy life,” another reason was advanced. From 1929, the situation in industry arising from the depression brought forth a general appeal for parceling out work in a manner that would keep as many workers employed as possible. The executive council of the American Federation of Labor voiced such an argument in its plea for permanent adoption of the five day week:

“It is the one remedy which can be quickly applied, and which in operation will restore jobs for millions of working men and women who are now idle, and who are suffering from hunger, distress, and want. Surely these idle people have some claim upon our economic, political, and social order.

“Labor holds that they may properly demand the right to work. Industrial management can make vital and active the exercise of this right by making an equitable distribution of the amount of work available.

“The failure of industry, industrial management, and individual ownership to meet the situation voluntarily through the National Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturers’ Association, or financial organizations, to allocate the available amount of work among all

Page 16

who are able and willing to work, makes it necessary to call upon the Chief Executive of the Nation, speaking for all the people and supported by public opinion to demand, in the name of all the people, that industrial management institute immediately the shorter work day and the shorter work week not in isolated industries, but in a national way and upon a national basis.” 17

During the late twenties, many industries did adopt the “share the work” policy, which was an attempt on the part of the employers to hold their working organizations together, and to insure all families some little source of income. The leisure time thus created for the worker was forced, irregular, and uncertain. In addition to these disadvantages, wages were naturally reduced, and during the “enforced leisure” there was no income whatever.

      Pro and con discussion of the five-day week continued, and in the North, many industries began to adopt it as their working schedule. The South, again, was slow to make any further reductions in the working hours. However, the textile industry, because of overproduction, tried to limit the hours of operation by voluntary agreement. The plan, which originated with a group of southern mill owners, resulted in the organization, in June 1926, of the Cotton Textile Institute. The first really effective attack on the long-week and on excessive production in the textile manufactures was the 55-50 plan, involving voluntary

17.  “The Nation Wide Drive for the Five Day Week”, an editorial, Literary Digest, (August, 1932), p. 4

Page 17

reduction of hours to 55 hours for the day shift, and 50 hours for the night shift, which was adopted by the Institute in March 1930. At a meeting of mill executives in Atlanta, Georgia, June 6, 1930, George A. Sloan, president of the Institute, stated that “68 out of the 83 narrow sheeting mills in Georgia, Alabama, North and South Carolina, or 91% of the productive capacity of this group in the United States, computed on a loom basis, have endorsed the soundness of the 55-50 plan and have already put its principles into effect- mills in the North and South, with some 23,500,000 spindles, about three-fourths of the going mills in the United States, have approved this voluntary adjustment downward in working hours.” 18

In the summer of 1930 there developed an increased conviction that night employment of women and minors should be eliminated, and by March 1, 1931, a preponderant part of the mills were following a recommendation of the Institute to this effect. The continued effectiveness of the movement was dependent upon the pursuance of this policy, after March 1, 1932 , by 80% of the spindles, including a corresponding percentage of night runners. An agreement was reached by which mills, representing 86% of the spindles in going mills in the United States including 82% of those in night classification, were to pursue this policy after

18. “Finding Favor for 55-50,” an editorial, Textile World, LXXVII (June, 1930), 42

Page 18

March 1, 1932 . 19   In advance of the signing of the recovery act, the Institute agreed to a new schedule of hours: a maximum of 40 on the day shift and 40 at night. The industry was thus ready to act immediately in the new business of code-making.

      Throughout the nation, agitation for the shorter work day and the shorter work week increased, until finally, a national program for a shorter work period was inaugurated under the direction of the National Recovery Administration. The Code for the Textile Processing Industry, as approved on January 30, 1934 , states the maximum hours for employees as follows:

“Employees shall not be permitted to work in excess of forty hours per week, subject to the flexible provision that because of the exigencies of the Industry it may be necessary to work employees more than forty hours per week on occasion, provided that no such employee shall work more than an average of forty hours per week during any twelve months and not more than forty-eight hours in any one week. Supervisors, receiving and shipping crews and truckmen may be employed with a tolerance of four hours in excess of the standard maximum hours stated herein. Firemen and Watchmen may be employed up to fifty-six hours per week.” 20

      We must not lose sight of the fact that the present hours of work under the N. R. A. Code were a considerable and sudden jump from the ten and eleven hour day which

19. “Cotton Industry, Policy in Night Work Overwhelmingly Re-affirmed”, an editorial, Textile World, LXXXI, (March, 1932), 27.

Page 19

prevailed in the South. Without any preparation for the use of leisure, laborers, after the code went into effect, found themselves with a considerable amount of “time on their hands.” Aside from reducing the working hours of the textile workers, the National Recovery Administration also provided a guaranteed wage-scale for them

“No employee shall receive for forty hours of labor less compensation than he received or would have received as of May 1, 1933 , for not exceeding fifty-two hours per week, and the wage differentials for all operations shall be equitably adjusted.” 21

Such a protection makes the new leisure much more significant, because wages greatly influence the use of leisure time.

      Thus hangs the story of the reduction of hours since 1776- a story which has aroused much interest and speculation, but a story whose last chapters are yet to be written.

Page 20

IV. A Brief Summary of the Industrial Growth in the South
And a Description of the Mill Village

Even as the reduction of working hours was much later in the South than in the North, so it has been with the industrial development. From the early colonial days, conditions in the South favored agriculture, the profits and settled habits of which were more attractive to the Southerner than were manufacturing and cities. In spite of the predominance of agriculture, there were in 1860 about 160 mills in Southern states, with 300,000 spindles, and a yearly product worth more than $8,000,000.1 The establishments were small, less than one-third the average size of mills in New England, and few attempted to supply more than the local demand for coarse yarn which the country women knit into socks or wove into cloth.

      During the Civil War, however, these mills were worked to their full capacity, and many of them were literally worn out at the close of the war. In 1870, there were fewer mills in operation than before the war, but during the decade which followed, hope of industrial success began to return to the South. By 1890, nearly a million and three quarter spindles in the South compared with less than six hundred thousand in 1880. 2 Between 1880 and 1920 the number of manufacturing wage

                1. Thompson, Holland , The New South, p. 88

2. Ibid., p. 91

Page 21

earners in the Southern states increased from 318,000 to 1,432,000, an increase of 350 per cent.3 The South now has more looms than has New England , while a decade ago New England had 85,000 more than had the South. In 1927 the Southern mills used 72% of all the cotton processed in American mills, had 53% of the country’s active spindles, and turned out 57% of the country’s cotton goods by value. In 1930, the South had 277,820 wage earners in cotton mills, or 49% of the country’s total.4

      The natural advantages of the South in waterpower, coal, water transportation, and the newly developed rail transportation, nearness to raw material, lower cotton, cheaper labor, and lower cost of living; together with better and cheaper construction of mills, cheaper power, lenient tax policies, and longer hours of operation are responsible for such a rapid progress.

      The early mills, largely manned by the people of the vicinity, were built on the streams to utilize the small water power advantages. As the mills grew in size, however, it became necessary to import labor. Naturally, the needed supply was chiefly recruited from agricultural areas- both from the mountains and from tenant farms. In

3. Evans, Mercer G., “Southern Labor Supply and Working Conditions in Industry,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, (January, 1931) p. 28

4. Mitchell, Broadus, “Growth of Manufacturing in the South,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, (January, 1931) p. 28

Page 22

order to care for the housing of the newly congregated and large groups of factory workers, the mill village was created, and became a traditional part of the industry.

      To the employee, the mill village offered a place to work, a home, and all the opportunity for recreation, education, and spiritual expression that was available to him. To the employer, the mill village presented many social problems which resulted from the congregation of large numbers of untrained and unsocial ruralists, unused to the necessity of living in groups. The mill owner saw a social duty toward his employees, and he sought to fulfill it. There resulted management-controlled policing, management-made laws and regulations, management-influenced schools, management-devised codes of morals, management-maintained poor relief during of unemployment or in cases of accident, sickness or old age, and management-supported churches.5

      Such a policy of supervision and control on the part of the employer, of the political, religious, educational, and physical life of the employees has been attacked from all sides. In terms of material comfort the mill worker probably gained a good deal, but subjection to the new forces of social control caused them to lose a large part of their initiating power. The mill worker has become so accustomed to having everything “handed out” to him that

1. Evans, Mercer G., op. cit., p. 160-161

Page 23

he makes few attempts to do anything for himself. Such dependence has created problems, among which are those concerning the use of increased leisure.

Page 24

V. A Brief Summary of the Historical Development of
       Leaksville, Spray, and Draper

       The background for our study of what certain textile workers are doing with the new leisure is not complete until we have been introduced to the three communities which served as the field for our study.

      In the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, along the banks of the Smith and Dan Rivers, are the communities of Leaksville, Spray, and Draper- the region chosen for this study. Located in the extreme northern portion of Rockingham County, North Carolina, they are sister communities- Draper is less than four miles northeast of Spray; while Spray and Leaksville are practically one town.

      Of the three communities, Leaksville alone is incorporated, and the corporate limits cover a very small area of the town itself. The population of Leaksville is listed in the latest census as 1,814; for Leaksville Township, the total is given as 14,154.1 The people are largely of Scotch-Irish ancestry. From the earliest days of settlement to the present day, the influx of population has been chiefly from the neighboring state of Virginia. 2

1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930 I. 795

2 In tracing the early history of the three communities, the writer has obtained much of her material from feature articles published (1925-1929) in the Arrow, a weekly newspaper sponsored by the Carolina Cotton & Woolen Mills for its employers and employees- the paper has been recently discontinued.

Page 25

       Spray, which had its beginnings in the first mill boom of the 1830s is one of the oldest mill villages in the state. After the first mills were built, however, the little village remained as it was until the ‘90s, when a second period of growth became manifest.

      The first mill, a corn and flour mill, was built in 1813 by one Mr. Barnett. It was five stories high, and was run by an overshot water wheel having a fall of twelve feet. During a real estate boom in May, 1818, John Motley Morehead (later governor of North Carolina) and his brother Samuel, with their father, purchased considerable quantities of the land and the two brothers established a combination business, later developing it into various kinds of mills, general merchandise, and supplies of all kinds. In the Greensboro Patriot, dated October 16, 1833, the firm of Barnett and Morehead ran an advertisement of a plant “composed of a saw-mill, oil mill, carding mill, cotton gin, blacksmith shop, general merchandise, and supply store, and their own line of boats on Dan River.”

      In 1839, John Motley Morehead built the first cotton mill at Spray, located not far from the old flour mill, but further up the ravine where a fall of nineteen feet could be obtained. It was built of stone and came to be known as the “Old Rock Mill” although its official name was the Leaksville Cotton Mill. In connection with the mill, several brick houses were built as dwellings or boarding houses for the workers. About this time was built

Page 26

“Old White House”, a two-story frame tenement with apartments for six families, which remains today as one of the old landmarks.

      A contemporary picture of this young industrial village is found in an article printed in the Fayetteville Observer and reprinted in the Richmond Whig in June, 1850. The Fayetteville writer tells of a visit to the village:

“Being attracted by the magnitude and number of the buildings, I stopped a few hours to look around. Here was a large stone building, the cotton factory, constructed in the most substantial manner and of the most durable materials. It is situated at the mouth of a magnificent canal, leading from the Smith River and operated by the largest and finest metal water wheel I have ever seen. Near by are the oil mills, flour mills, and saw mill, -all operated by water from the same canal which appears to have a fall of twenty-five feet, and at slight expense could be made to propel millions of dollars worth of machinery. After surveying this immense water power and canal, capable of being made to control the entire current of Smith River, I looked upon the hills that jut in towards the manufacturing establishments, to see the neat and substantial dwellings- some brick and others frame- where hundreds of laborers and their families live, who earn honest and respectable support from the capital here invested. The store house and factory appear to have been built some years, and all the establishments and plans show that intelligent enterprise and capital have accomplished much here for the benefit of the country, when such improvements were in their infancy in North Carolina.”

    The status of this mill in 1860 can be learned from the United States Census for that year, for that work credits Rockingham County with only one cotton mill; therefore, the figures given for the textile industry for the county refer to the Leaksville Cotton Mill. It is represented as having

Page 27

a capitalization of $70,000, employing twenty-five men and eighty women, paying $12,000 annually in wages, using materials valued at $33,000 and turning out products valued at $64,000. 4

      The cotton mill at Spray was one of the industries that continued operations during the Civil War, and escaped the ravages of that period. At the death off John Motley Morehead in 1866, his second son, James Turner Morehead, assumed management of his Spray properties.

      Governor Morehead was responsible for the establishment of another mill at Spray, The Leaksville Woolen Mill, which is at present owned by Mr. John Lindsay Morehead II, who describes the origin of this mill as follows:

“The Leaksville Woolen Mill was originally founded by Governor Morehead in the loft of the commissary built for the convenience of his cotton mill operatives and his idea was to card and spin the wool grown on his own land by machinery and to do away with the irksome task of carding and spinning by hand. The mill was first operated on the barter and exchange system, the farmer bringing in so much wool and receiving so much yarn for it. It was entirely a community proposition and was not commercialized till later. At some stage of the game, Mr. Noah Ford, a nephew-in-law of Governor Morehead, became associated with the Leaksville enterprises,and at his insistence that the wool taken as toll from the farmers be manufactured into blankets and cloth and sold commercially, some looms and finishing machinery were installed in buildings, which were really additions to the original commissary, in whose loft the carding and spinning machinery had been placed. From this beginning, the Leaksville Woolen Mills continued to grow, but even as late as 1898 all its wool was received from farmers

4 Leaksville News, Development Issue, August 1934, Section A, p.4

Page 28

and its commercial production was made entirely of toll wools.”5

      About 1892, the late Mr. B. Frank Mebane and associates purchased all the Spray property except the Leaksville Woolen Mill Properties from the firm of J. Turner Morehead and Company. This deal included extensive holdings of land and mills. Two companies were formed, the Leaksville Cotton Mill Company, and the Spray Water Power and Land Company, with the latter controlling water rights and landed properties separate and apart from the manufacturing side of the interests. Mr. Mebane, son-in-law of Mr. J. T. Morehead, became president of both companies. Besides developing the water power, the company organized and built several cotton and one woolen mill.

      Before considering the history of the mills which this particular company established, we should take notice of a mill which was built in 1896; namely, The Spray Cotton Mill, which was incorporated by Reverend F. J. Murdock, W. R. Walker, and Clem G. Wright. Most of the stock of the new venture was owned originally by local people, but two individuals interested in the promotion of the cotton industry in this section, namely Dr. Karl Van Ruck, of Asheville, and Mr. Benjamin N. Duke, of Durham, held considerable stock. At first, there were only 12, 000 spindles, but after two years,

5 Ibid., p.4

Page 29

of progress in which were seen a growing demand for the knitting and weaving of yarns, which the mill was producing so efficiently, additions, more than doubling the original capacity, were made to the mill. The prosperity of the mills continued until the general panic of 1907 swept the country. Spray Cotton Mills escaped bankruptcy, but the mill operated unprofitably for a good many years. The Spray Cotton Mills, run by power generated by the water from the canal which flows alongside the plant, and by an auxiliary stem plant, now has 25, 968 ring, and 3,700 twister spindles, and employs 350 workers.6 The activity of the mill is confined to the spinning of knitting and weaving yarns in warps, skeins, and on tubes and cones. The yarns are spun in numbers twelve to twenty sixes, both single and double ply.

      Under the direction of the company mentioned above, several mills were built in Spray. The first of these was the Nantucket Mill, the first unit of which was built in 1898. It was less than half the present size of the building, and was, at first, devoted strictly to weaving. Less than forty machines were in actual use when operations began in the fall of 1898, but by 1926 there were 700 looms, and spinning equipment adequate to correspond to the number of looms. Carding and spinning were begun in 1901.

6. Davison’s Textile Blue Book, p. 265

Page 30

      There are now 17, 568 ring spindles; 2,028 twister spindles; 68 cards; and 300 broad looms. The mill employs 300 workers, who weave automobile upholstery and sheeting.7

      The Lily Mill (another of the mills promoted by the Mebane interests) was built in 1900 to make outings, but in 1910, it was changed to make ginghams. In 1911, the Lily and Nantucket Mills were bought by the Marshall Field and Company. When the company bought the mills, the old equipment of the Lily Mill was junked and entirely new materials installed. At present, the mill is known as the Lily Silk Mill, and there are 412 broad looms for making silks and rayons. 8

      Around 1900, another mill, the Morehead Cotton Mill, was built. This plant, a three-story brick building of standard mill construction, produces warp and skein yarn. There are 13,440 ring spindles.9

      The American Warehouse was built and put into operation in 1900. The name is hardly indicative of the functioning of this particular and very important plant, which not only warehouses a large percentage of the manufactured products of the other mills, but also performs the task of finishing and packing these products. The plant finishes, bills, and ships such products as cotton and wool blankets, ginghams, rayon dress goods, and outings. The mill has 108 napping

7.        Ibid., p.365

8.        Ibid., p.436

9.        Ibid., p.265

Page 31

machines and employs 350 workers.10

      The Spray Woolen Mill was incorporated in 1902 and the construction was completed in 1903. This plant produces woolen blankets, and soon after it became the property of Marshall Field and Company (around 1912), a carbonizing plant- to remove the specks of foreign matter from the wool- was installed. The mill now has 100 broad looms, 5,580 spindles; dyes, bleaches, and finishes blankets; and employs 250 workers.11

      The Rhode Island Mill, the home of the very high grade cotton blankets, was built and incorporated in 1903. The mill started with 140 looms, 34 spinning frames, 40 cards, and 9,000 spindles. In 1912, the Carolina Cotton and Woolen Mills Company (Marshall Field) bought the mill, and in 1914, several additions were made to the equipment. A bleaching unit was built around 1918. On August 2, 1930, The Rhode Island Mill was forced to close, but reopened in 1934 as a suiting mill. There are at present 12,592 ring, and 4,128 twister spindles; 60 cards; 210 broad, and 24 narrow looms. Two hundred workers are employed.12

      In 1910, negotiations for a disposal of some of these textile plants to another company was made, and Mr. Mebane sold his control in all the mills, with the exception of the Leaksville Cotton Mill and the Morehead Cotton Mill, to

10.     Ibid., p.643

11.     Ibid., p.361

12.     Ibid., p. 265

Page 32

The Marshall Field Company of Chicago.

      Under the direction of this company, the Spray Bleachery was started in 1916. This plant has a capacity of 80 tons weekly for bleaching and finishing sheeting, and finishing muslins, cambrics, etc. It employs 200 workers.13

      Today, there are ten textile plants in Spray, six of which are owned by The Marshall Field and Company, (under the name of Carolina Cotton & Woolen Mills). The population is scattered over a large and hilly territory, of which there is little unity. The business sections are likewise distributed, but there are two chief centers. Some portions of Spray are distinctly rural, and the social life of the people is greatly influenced by this lack of compactness.

      Before 1906, what is now known as Draper, consisted of only a few shacks and a small railway station called Sharp. At this time, Mr. A. J. Draper, who planned the town, and for whom it is named, came to this section in view of opening a mill. His plans did not materialize as he expected and he soon left. However, the mill was built in 1906 by the German-American Company, a stockholding corporation to which the late B. Frank Mebane is understood to have held a considerable block of stock. This mill, called the German-American Mill had 38 cotton cards; 11,936 ring spindles; 12 sets of wool cards; 5,280 mule spindles; and 189 blanket looms. About 280 persons were employed in the

13.     Ibid., p. 643

Page 33

mill. About one hundred houses were built for the employees, and a boarding house and two general stores were also constructed.

      In 1912 the German-American Company declared itself bankrupt, and at an auction sale held the same year at Wentworth (the County Seat), The Marshall Field Company secured the plant at Draper as well as several plants at Spray. The mill at Draper was started up again as the Draper American Mill, and there are at present 54 cards, 33 set cards, 480 broad looms, and 32,848 spindles.14

      In 1916, The Marshall Field Company built the Wearwell Sheeting Mill, which now has 80 cards, 498 looms, and 22,944 spindles.15

      The population of Draper, in 1910, numbered less than 500. The company’s houses were constructed intermittently with no special detail as to planning. The streets were muddy and almost impassable during winter weather. Electric lights were unknown. The scope of amusements was naturally very limited for a long time. After the World War, Draper began to grow. Many homes, other than those owned by the company, were constructed, and many new business concerns were established. An asphalt road was completed to Spray, and the streets were improved throughout the town. Draper today is a compact town with a population of approximately

14 Ibid., p.246

15 Ibid., p.246

Page 34

3,500 people. There is only one chief business section, and the social life of the community is practically confined to the various activities sponsored by the Y. M. C. A., by the churches, and by the school.

      Leaksville, the oldest of the three communities, has the youngest mill history. The town was laid out during the previously mentioned real estate boom of 1818, with the belief that it would become the head of transportation on Dan River. The attempts to increase service of the river transportation were not successful, however, and resulted in the grounding of the first vessel in shallow water. By 1839, two schools were being successfully operated in Leaksville, and there were several churches. In the years that followed, the town enjoyed a period of prosperity; trade was drawn from many of the counties of Virginia, and from the adjoining counties of North Carolina. At one time, there were three tobacco warehouses and several tobacco factories, which thrived until put out of business by larger companies. The town of Leaksville was incorporated by act of the General Assembly in 1784; the present charter was granted in 1901.

      The aristocratic Leaksville felt herself superior to her sister industrial communities (Spray and Draper), and when there was talk of establishing a mill in Leaksville, the aristocrats became indignant. “Think of our children having to go to school with such riffraff.” The wailings, however, were to no avail, and in April or May of 1916, the

Page 35

Athena Knitting Mill was established, on the banks of the Dan River, just back of the business section of Leaksville. Owned by The Marshall Field Company, the mill was originally located in Chicago, but the machinery was shipped to Leaksville for installment in the spring of 1916, and operations began in the late summer of the same year. In 1930, the mill was transferred to Roanoke, Virginia.

      In 1917, another mill was established in Leaksville- the Bedspread Mill. When operations began later in the same year, there were 76 satin looms and 100 crochet looms. At present there are 65 cards, 254 broad looms, 17,280 ring and 2,700 twister spindles, and a total employment of 300 workers.

      In 1922, the South was introduced to the carpet and rug-making industry. In fact, the only carpet factory south of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was started in Leaksville in the building left vacant by the removal of the machinery of the Athena Knitting Mill. The carpet mill was called the Homecrest Mill, and at first, there were only 24 looms, which were later increased to thirty-five. Regular grades of the Axminister rugs were made. In 1928, the machinery was altered, and a new type of rug is now made. The name of the mill was also changed, and is now called the Karastan Rug Mill, a trade name for the type of rug (imitation of oriental rugs) now manufactured.
      In 1917, the company had in Leaksville one hundred and sixty-seven houses. In 1923, it built 40 more houses, and in

Page 36

1925, it built twenty. Many of the houses are of brick and stucco construction. This development is on the southern side of Leaksville, and is called "New Leaksville." Even though there are separate business districts, churches, and schools, recently the lines of demarcation have become less distinct. Now shopping is chiefly centered in the older business district, which has been greatly enlarged due to the increasing population. Within the past year, the schools were re-districted, and the boundary line for the Burton Grove School (in New Leaksville) was moved to include that portion of Leaksville in which many of the older, more prominent families reside. There has always been only one high school, which serves all three communities- Leaksville, Spray, and Draper.
The following summary appeared in the July 18, 1929 issue of the Arrow (several changes have occurred since that date):

Leaksville- Spray- Draper, North Carolina
(State Highway 709)
Leaksville Township

Textile Plants: Total 15
3 spinning mills
2 cloth mills
2 cotton blanket mills 16
2 woolen blanket mills
1 bedspread mill
1 carpet and rug mill
1 bleachery
1 finishing mill
1 silk mill

16 Both kinds of blankets are made in one of the mills.

Page 37

Invested capital…………………………..$9,500,000
Total spindles 167,880
Total wide looms 2,016
Total narrow looms 1,200

Floor space 2,047,423 sq. ft. - 47 acres

No. of Employees 3,615

Raw Material consumed annually
Cotton (American) 24,160,000 lbs.
Cotton (China) 2,700,000 lbs.
Wool 3,450,000 lbs.
Jute 800,000 lbs.
Total raw material 31,110,000 lbs.

Annual Production
Yarn spun (for sale) 7,400,000 yds.
Cloth woven (Auto Upholstery, etc.) 3,000,000 yds.
Sheetings 7,500,000 yds.
Cotton blankets 3,000,000 prs.
Wool blankets 700,000 prs.
Bedspreads 900,000
Silk & Rayon 1,500,000 yds.
Rugs- over one hundred thousand large and small

Other statistics
31 churches
4 Y. M. C. A.s
1 Girls' Club
8 Grammar Schools
1 Township High School
6 Negro schools
6 Banks
2 Building & Loan Associations
2 Newspaper weeklies
1 Furniture Factory (novelties)
1 Commercial Gas Company
1 Electric Light & Power Company
1 Telephone Company
1 Pasteurizing Plant
1 Hospital
2 Job Printing Plants
1 Bakery
1 Steam Laundery
1 Florist & Flower Grower
6 Dairies producing Grade A Milk
2 Grade A Slaughterhouses
15 Grade A Markets

Page 38

Leaksville (town incorporated, own water system, white way on Washington Street)
Kiwanis Club, Rotary Club, Business & Professional Women's Club, American Legion Post, National Guard Company, Township Sunday School Association, Township Ministerial Association.

Population 16,000
Assessed Values $15,000,000

Influential Factors in the Use of Leisure

Of significance to the present study, are the various organizations in the three communities which influence the use of leisure. Such organizations are the churches, Y. M. C. A.s and Girls' Club. Other sources of entertainment are the theaters, community baseball, and the public library. Let us stop to consider briefly these organizations.
There are nineteen churches, representing nine different creeds, in the three communities. (This number includes only those groups represented in the Ministerial Association of Leaksville, Spray, and Draper.) Since Leaksville is the oldest of the group, naturally, the first churches were organized in that village. By 1844, there were four churches in Leaksville- Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and Episcopal (listed in the order in which they were organized). With the help of members of these groups, together with the financial aid of mill employers, similar denominations were started in Spray, when the population of that village had increased to the extent that separate organizations were needed. The first church in Spray, however, was the First Christian Church, organized

Page 39

in 1891. In 1900 the Methodists organized, and the Baptists in 1903. In Draper, the Methodist group organized a Sunday School in 1906, in the very earliest beginnings of the town. Soon after the building of the first mill in Draper, the Baptists organized.

      The churches have had a marked influence upon the lives of the people of the three communities, especially upon those of Spray. In this community there are numerous denominations and many sects of the same denomination. There is