^2F'Vw*«^ "*r-. '-7-1 '^"^< ^^ « «a:-'' .^^? l»'^t»^ Strata, 5Je«j ^atb THE GIFT OF f n/j^ol. Vy. ^.VCUlJU^ DATE QUE m^ ^Y»^*«1 rii f^- iSwH j«*«-9!!r:ffi msmmnf^^m-^ MerWbn ryfrpiL ?>^*** ■'^ViSfi ^t^ \ \ \ \ \ ■■ CAVLORD PntNTCOINU.S.A. Cornell University Library HF105.A47 C53 1916 Interstate commerce In products of child olln 3 1924 030 136 117 Interstate commerce in products of child labor HEARINGS BEFORE THE GOMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNITED STATES SENATE SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H. R. 8234 AN ACT TO PREVENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES m Printed for the use of the Committee on Interstate Commerce WASHINGTON GOVEENMBNT PRINTING OFFICE 1918 f4F /or ■a 51 ^2/5-> '7 ''o CO^rsriTTEE ON INTERSTATE COMJIEUCE. FRANCIS G. NBWLANDS, Xev^itla, Chuirman. ELLISON D. SMITH, Smith Carolina. ATLIfiE POMERENID, Ohio. HBNRi' L. MYERS, Montana. JOB T. ROBINSON, Arkansas. WILLARD SATJLSBDRT, Delaware. WILLIAM H. THOMPSON, Kansas. HAMILTON LEWIS, Illinois. THOMAS P. GORE, Oklahoma. * llAi.n Mi: 2 OSCAR W. TJNDERWOOD, Alabama. MOSES E. CLAPP, Minnesota. ALBERT B. CUMMINS, Iowa. HENRY F. LIPPITT, Rhode Island. CHARGES B. TOWNSEND, Michigan. ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, Wisconsin. MILES rOINDEXTEH, Washington. PRANK B. BRANDBGEE, Connecticut. .Vf.l.ISTRE, Clerk. INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. TUESDAY, FKBRUABY 15, 1916. United States Senate, Committee on Inteestate Commerce, Washington, D. O. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m. pursuant to the call of the. chairman. Present: Senators Newlands (chairman), Pomerene, Myers, Rob^ inson, Thompson, Underwood, Clapp, Brandegee, Lippitt, La Fol- lette, and Poindexter. The Chair MA ?>'. The committee has been called to consider the bill (H. E. 8234) to prevent interstate commerce in the products of child labor, and for other purposes, which the reporter will insert in full in the record. (The bill referred to is as follows:) Be it enacted by the Senate and Souse of Representatives of the Uiiilcd Siate» of America in Coiuiress assembled. That no producer, manufiiclurer, or dealer shall ship or deliver for shipment in interstate commerce the pi-oduct of any mine or quarry situated In the United States which has been produced, in whole or In part, by the labor of children under the age of sixteen years, op the product of any mill, cannery, workshop, factory, or manufacturing estab- lishment situated in the United States which has been produced, in whole or in part, by the labOr of children under the age of fourteen years or by the labor of children between the ages of fourteen years and sixteen years who worl^ more than eight hours in any one day, or more than six days in any one weekj or after^ the hour of seven o'clock postmeridian, or before the hour of seven^ o'clock antemeridian. Sec. 2. Proof of the employment within sixty d*ays prior to the shipment of, such product therefrom (first) in a mine or quarry of a child under the age ot' sixteen years, or (second) in a mill, cannery, workshop, factory, or manufac-. turlng establishment (a) of a child under the age of fourteen years, or (b) ol- a child between the ages of fourteen years and sixteen years for more than, eight hours in any one day or more than six days in any one week, or after the hour of seven o'clock postmeridian^ or before the hour of seven o'clock; antemeridian shall be prima facie evidence that such product has been pro-, duced in whole or in part by the labor of such a child. Sec. 3. That the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Sec- retary of Labor shall constitute a board to make and publish from time to time uniform rules and regulations for carrying out the provisions of this act. Sec. 4. That for the puri)ose of securing proper enforcement of this act the Secretary of Labor, or any person duly authorized, by him, .shall have authority to enter and in.spect at any time mines, quarries, mills, canneries, workshops, factories, manufacturing establishments and other places in which goods are produced or held for interstate commerce ; and the Secretary of Labor shall have authority to employ such assistance for the purposes of this act as may from time to time be authorized by appropriation or other law. 3 4 I^'TEKyTATE CO.MMEJtCE I^' PKODUCIS OF CillLD LABOB. Sec. 5. That it sliall be tlie duty of (■adi diwtrict attorney to whom the S<-'<-'- i',etary of Ijnbor shaH i-epovt any ^'lohition of this act, or to iNhom any Ht;\te factory or mining or quarry inspector, commissioner of labor, State medical inspector, or sciiooi-attendance officer, or any other person shall present satis- factory evidence of any such violation to cause appropi-iato proceedings to be commenced and prosei-iited In the proper courts ot the United States without delay tor tlie enforcement of the penalties as In such cases herein provided : Provided; That nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to bona fide boys' and girls' canning clubs recognized by the Agricultural Department of the several States and of the United States. Sec. 6. That any person who violates any of the provisions of section one of this act, or who refuses or obstru<'ts entry or lnSp(>ction autliorized by section four of this act, shall for the first offense lie jiunislied by a fine of not more than $200, and for each subfseciuent offense sliall be punished )iy a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than ,$100, or by imprisonment for n(jt more than three months, or by both fine and imprisonment. In the discretion of the court : Pro- vided, 'That no dealer shall be subject to conviction under tlie iirovisions of this act who shall establish a guaranty Issued by the person by whom such goods were manufactured or produced, resident in the United States, to the effect that in the manufacture and production of such goods, neither in \\iiolo nor in part, had children been employed or permitted to work in any mine or quarry Bnder the age of sixteen years, or in any mill, cannery, workshop, factory, or manufacturing establishment under the age of fourteen years or between the ages of fourteen years and sixteen years who worked more than eight hours in any one day or more than six days in any one week or after the hour of seven o'clock postmeridian or before the hour of seven o'clock antemeridian, and in such event the guarantor shall be amenable to any prosecution, fine, or penalty to which the person seeking the protection of such guaranty would otherwise have been subject under the provisions of this act. Said guaranty, to afford the protection above provided, shall contain the name and address of the person giving the same. Sec. 7. That the word " dealer " or the word " person " as used in this act shall be construed to include any individual or corporation or the members of any partnership or other unincorporated association. The term " ship or de- liver for shipment in interstate connncrce " as used in this act means to ship or deliver for shipment from any State or Territory or the District of Columbia to or through any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia. Sec. 8. That in prosecutions under this act each shipment or delivery for shipment shall constitute a separate offense. Sec. 9. That this act shall take effect from and after one year from the date of its passage. The CHAiK]\r.\N. I understand that Mr. Grant Hamilton, of the American Federation of Labor, desires to be heard for a few mo- ment?, and the committee will now hear him. STATEMENT OF GRANT HAMILTON, ESQ., REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. Mr. Hamilton. Mi. Chairman and gentlemen. m_y statement will &e very brief. As you well knoAv, the American Federation of Labor has, during its entire existence, been very much in earnest in promot- ing child-labor legislation in the various States, and I anticipate that there ought not to be very mtich difficulty in the Senate of the United States, so far as the sentiment is concerned, any more so than the tariff. I desire to say that, in my judgment aad in the judgment of the Federation, the passage of the child-labor bill is a still further ad- vance to protect our oncoming future population. I have heard a great deal and did hear a great deal in the House about the con- stitutionality of this bill. I am not a lawyer, and therefore what- pvor logic 1 may bring to bear upon this situation will be purely IXTEESTATE COMMEECE I'N' PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. 5 from a hxuiianitarian standpoint, and not that of a laMver. I take it, liowever, that when we read the Constitution of the United States ^Ye ha\e in mind the interest of all the people of our country, and the firtt section of the Constitution, among other things, saj's that the Congress of the United States shall be authorized to pass such legis- lation as will promote the general welfare and to protect posterity. The child-labor legislation is to protect our posterity, and the bill which passed the House, and which is now before this committee, provides that children under 16 years of age shall not be permitted to work in mines and quarries and labor of that character, and in the canning factories and similar occupations they shall not be permitted to work under the age of 14 years; that an eight-hour daj^ shall be established also, and certain hours specifiecj within which they shall work. My judgment is that those who opposed the bill in the House, and who may, perhaps, oppose it in the Senate, if their own convictions could be expressed — and when 1 sa,j their own convictions I mean their own sentiments and their own feelings in the matter, unbiased by any other consideration — my judgment is there would not be a single vote against it. I can readily recognize men coming from certain sections of the country, where industry employs children to a very large extent, that influence without question has a beaiHng upon their action in Congress, but I feel very kindly disposed even toward those who vote against the child-labor bill, because I believe, as I have just remarked, that it is not from any conviction which they have, or rather a conviction which comes from sympathy and a regard for the rights and lives of children. I want to call your attention also to something that occurred about 20 years ago. One of the European monarchs endeavored to interest other monarchs of the European countries for the purpose of arriv- ing at some understanding whereby children would not be employed in industry. I am not going to question the motive of the monarch who made this proposition, but will give it the \ery best construc- tion. The idea, perhaps, behind it was that in the question of com- petition all of the countries of Europe would be upon an equal basis provided the labor of children below a c&Vtain age could be elimi- nated from industry. Senator Pomeeene. What monarch was that? Mr. Ha^iiltox. That was the German lEmperor; about 20 years I think I have nothing further to offer upon this subject, except to reiterate that the labor movement of this countrj'. as represented by the American Federation of Labor — which, in my judgment, not only represents the organized wage earners, but is the only medium through which the unorganized can be spoken for — I think we represent a very large per cent of the Avorking population of our country, and I wish to urge this committee, upon this particular bill, that I hope, and the Federation hopes, that, action will be taken upon it so that the Senate will have an opportunity to act upon the bill prior to the congestion which Avill probably come when matters of larger moment — 5 would not say larger moment, because they are not larger — but matters which seem to more interest the public mind at a intekstatl: commerce in pboduots of child labok. the present time, come before it, and I want to again urge that, if in the wisdom of this committee it may see its way clear to report the bill at a very early day, that it do so in order that we may have the opportunity which I spoke of. I should certainly be pleased to have that done, and so would the Federation and all of those who are in- terested. I thank you, gentlemen. Senator Underwood. Will you allow me to ask you a question ? Mr. Hamilton. Certainly. Senator Underwood. This has been usually talked of as a bill to limit the work of children under the age of 16 years. As a matter of fact, most of the children that it applies to are under 14 years of age; is that not a fact? Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. _ Senator Underwood. It is only with respect to the mines and quar- ries — those are the only portions of the bill that relate to 16 years, and in all other factories and foundries and machine shops and can- ning factories they can work, if they are over 14 years of age, and do not work more than eight hours a day? Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. Senator Underwood. So it is practically a bill to limit the hours of work, in a large percentage of cases of children, to 14 years '. Mr. HA:\riLT0N. That is true. Senator Pomerene. May I ask you a question. "Was this bill pre- pared under the auspices of the American Federation of Labor? Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Well, I note that in this bill it piohibits I am speaking generally now — interstate commerce in goods whicli are the product of child labor. In the bill relating to convict labor, as I recall it now, there was not an attempt to prohibit by direct legisla- tion of Congi-ess interstate commerce in thai class of gcods. but it Was an attempt to confer upon the State authorities the power to control that situation; in other words, it sought to leave the com- merce in that class of articles under the control of State legislatures. Now, my query is why was there this discrimination in thg method of treating the two classes of goods ? Mr. Hamilton. The main reason is that the convict labor (]ue.stion is settling itself by States more rapidly than is the question of child labor. There are many of the States at the present time where the sentiment is well crystallized against the use of convict labor except where they are employed under what is known as the State-use sys- tem; where they are employed to manufacture products consumed by the State in the State-supported institutions, and it is not as vital a question for that reason. If we apply the same principle to the child-labor bill the chances are it would h& a long time in being set- tled. We have considerably more interest in the children of our country than we have in the convicts, although we certainly have an interest in them; but it is not so great. There are mort- children than there are convicts. Senator Potmerene. What I was seeking to get at was the legal reason, if there was a legal reason, why you would differentiate be- tween the two. It seems to me that if we ado])t the right policy, if this is the right policy in the child-labor bill, tliat it ought to apjily with equal force to the other bill. INTERSTATE COMMEKCE IN PRODTJOTS OF CHILD LABOR. 7 Mr. Hamilton. Of course, I could not speak from a legal point of view. I can readily understand, of course, yoiu' query ; but for the reason which I have stated, that the comict-labor proposition is rapidly settling itself, and by the States, whereas, so far as the em- ployment of children is concerned in certain of the States — some of the States, as you know, are extremely backward Senator Pomeeene. Oh, yes. Mr. Hamilton. In enacting legislation of that kind ; and further- more you will realize this fact, that our industry is changing very rapidly, that is, women are going more and more into industry, and so are children, and the problem itself, that is the social problem, as differentiated between the convict-labor question, is hardly a par- allel. Senator Pomeeexe. Well, I simply had in mind the principle in- volved. Mr. Hamilton. Yes ; the legal end of it. Senator Pomeeene. The legal end of it, yes. ■Mr. Hamilton. That, as I have said, has been primarily the rea- son for taking that position. (Mr. Hamilton was thereupon excused.) The Chaieman. Gov. Kitchin is present. Governor, are you ready to proceed? Mr. Kitchin. Yes, Senator. We would like to have the commit- tee hear Capt. Ellison Smyth, from Green-ville, S. C. STATEMENT OF CAPT. ELLISON A. SMYTH, OF GREENVILLE, S. C. Mr. Smyth. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, there has been so much misrepresentation made as to the condition of the southern cotton mills that I would like, with your permission, to make a brief state- ment and then will be read}' to answer any questions that any mem- ber of the committee desires to ask. It is 3-5 years ago since I left Charleston, my native city, to build a cotton mill in the upper ])ortion of the State, in the foothills of the Blue Pidge Mountains. We built first one mill and subsequently three others, so that now we have four mills there. The town has a population of about 5.000. and we have on our pay rolls something like 2,000 employees. We actually do not employ more than about 1,600, but a good many of them are what we call half-timers — men who work half the time — so that the pny roll is very much larger than it would otherwise appear. When it came to our first time for paynient of State taxes I was impressed with the fact that 75 per cent of the men who were em- ployed in the building operations could neither read nor write — white men — consequently the company started at once ii school for the children, for those who were engaged in the building of mills, not the people we expected to employ in the operation of the cotton mills. To-day we have three schoolhouses in the village and liave 650 children at school, and the schools are maintained and run liy the Pelzer Co. and are in operation nine months of the year. I found great difficulty, in the al)sence of any compulsory school law in South Carolina, to get the children who should be at school to attend school. I tried a number of i^lans and finally found that l)y ])ay- ing them in regular mail envelops 10 cents a month foi' each scholar 8 INTERSTATE CdArAn-.nCE IX PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. that did not miss a day at school that that was really the only wav in which we cduld secure a fidl or fair average for the attendance of those who were enrolled. We ha\e estalilished there a savings bank which is a corporation separate from the mill company, and only part of the stockholders are stockholders in the mill company, and we have over 800 depos- itors now and about $1^0,000 from the mill employees on deposit. That bank lends the money out to the farmers in the surrounding country and to the merchants in the village. It is not the practice in South Carolina to any extent to run mill stores or commissaries, and in none of the mills with which I am connected are there com- missary or mill stores. We have 1-2 stores that are rented out to merchants, and they conduct their business independently entirely of the corporation. \V& supply the town with water brought in from a mile and piped all over the town. We also supply the inhab- itants with electric light — 16-candlepower lights — for which we charge 10 cents a light a month. They can burn them all night, as the current is on all night, if they wish. There are five churches in the village. We ha\e a large building that we call the Lyceum, where lectures are delivered e\ery mouth, and there we have a circu- lating library of over 7,000 volumes, where any inhabitant of the village Can go and take them without cost. We also have rooms for games and amusements, and in the reading room we take 25 newspa- pers and magazines for them to read. There is a military company there of f<0 members that has been to New York once, at the Demy parade, and to Savannah, and has been here to Washington at the presidential inaugurations. We also have two troops of Boy Scouts and any quantity of baseball clubs — from 8; to 10 — and we pay a great deal of attention to cooking schools and schools to teach girls how to sew and how to make garments and to cut cloth. For over 30 years I have kept very carefully the health rate of the village, and the death rate has never exceeded in any one year 2 per cent; the average has been between 1^ and li- per cent dm-ing the past 30 years. The birth rate has run from 16 per cent to 22 per cent during that period. During the 30 years we have had only nine deaths from tuberculosis and not one case of typhoid fever, owing to the pure water with which the village is supplied— at least that is our belief about it. Now, the statement has doubtless been made to yon that Pelzer IS one of the show mills of South Carolina, and that they are held up as to what tliey have done for their employees, and other mills that did not do tlie same are shielded br the good reports that are made of that null. ' '^ ^ I am also directly in charge of the mills at Belton, S. C 10 miles from 1 elzer. and tlie conditions there are practically similar in all respects to what tliev are at Pelzer. Aly son is president of t^'O mills, one IS at Laurens. S C.-the Watts miUs-aLl also the Dun can mill at (xreenville: and my .son-in-law is president of two mills one at GreenwcKKl. S. C. and one at Xinety-six. S C • an 1 T j from my personal intimate acquaintance With the runnina nf fCI plants and the condition of those villages that the conditions • + the .same, practically, as they are at Pelzer, and I could nnm."\'' •• of mills in South Carolina, like Clifton. Pacolet, Glendale, Wo 1 "T Piedmont, AVilliamstown, Newberry, and dozens of others, and f IXTEBSTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCES OE CHILD LAJ30"R. 9 my intimate acquaintance ivith the management I can testify that the conditions there, both as regards the sanitary and health rate and the welfare work, are practically the same and as good as they are at Pelzer. Ever since the organization of the Cotton Manufacturers' Associa- tion of South Carolina, 12 j^ears, I ha\ e been its president, and have been brought into contact with all the manufacturers of the State; that is, at least 95 per cent of the manufacturers are members of that association. We never discuss at those meetings anything relating to wage scales. Eveiything else is open :to debate and discussion, but there is no agreement in South Carolina among the mills as to the wage scale, and never has been. Wages are regulated in each mill, and, of course, competition for help at times is acute, and in some of the finer mills — for instance, in my son's mill at Duncan,, which is the last mill we built, about four and a half years ago — they have very fine goods and Jacquard looms and goods that are very fine. Their wage scale is higher than it is at Pelzer. They have more skilled labor. They require greater skilled labor and it requires a greater degree of intelligence. I attended last summer a meeting of the Southern Textile Asso- ciation, which is composed of superintendents and overseers of all the Southern States, some 1,100 men. They met at Asheville, N. C. I was surprised to find there 53 men — boys who had been raised at Pelzer; the only schooling that they had had was had at Pelzer School. These boj's were now supei-intendents at good salaries, from $2,000 to $5,000 per annum. It was a very gratifying experience. One year before a law was enacted by the State legislature reduc- ing the hours to 10. The association voluntarily went on a 10-hour basis and observed that law among all the mills in that association, and ever since 1909 we have petitioned the South Carolina Legisla- ture to enact three laws. This resolution was unanimously adopted on January 22, 1909 : No. 1. That the association renews its recommendation to the legislature that there be passed a general compulsory education law requiring the compulsory education of children under 14 years of age. No. 2. That, provided there be passed such compulsory education law, this association feels that there is no objection to advancing under proper limita- tions and restrictions the age limit of children working in textile mills and other industries to an age to comply with the general compulsory education law as passed. Xo. 3. That this association also renews its strong and urgent recQjnmenda- tlon to the legislature that a law he passed in this Slate requiring registration of births and marriage licenses. We also claimed that it was impossible to properly enforce the child-labor law unless there was a l)irth-registration law, as in the absence among the poor classes of people of family Bibles and records it would be practically impossible to determine the age of a child. We only succeeded in getting the birth-registration law passed last year, and there was i^assed last year what was called an optional compulsory school law, making the unit to elect and enforce the school district, but making no provision for any punishment for non- obedience to the law, and no provision for truant officers, or placing the responsibility on anybody to see that the law was enforced ; con- sequently, the laAv is a dead letter. Wa are urging the legislature which is now in session this year again to pass a compulsory school 10 TXTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUOTS OF CHILD LABOR. law. ]jut if not, we have urged them— and our committee is m Co- lumbia to-day— urging the legislature to pass a 14-year la^v, but urging and asking that they pass also the compulsory school law. Senator Underwood. You say a 14-year law. Please explain what vou mean by that. „ . Mr. Smyth. That is a law that prohibits the employment ot chil- dren under 14 years of age for any purpose. Senator Underwood. A law of that kind would not be injurious to your milling interests, would it? Mr. Sjti-Tii. It would not be so injurio.us to the milling interests as it would be to some of the poor women who are dependent upon their children for support. But Ave have also asked the legislature to make some provision for the support of these women. Senator Underwood. The reason I asked you that question is that this bill, so far as the milling industry is concerned, fixes the age limit at 11 years, as is indicated by your statement. Mr. Sjiyth. Ko, sir ; this bill practically fixes the age at 16, because it says they can not work under 16 except eight hours, and that would force the mills to go on the eight-hour basis, which we are not pre- pared to do, or else it would be limited, it would limit our em- ployment age down to IG. That would be the practical effect of the bill. It would be a 16-year bill. Senator I^nderwood. Your objection to the bill, then, is not the provision that prohibits the working of children under 14 years, but is the provision of the bill which refers to the hours of labor between 16 and 14? Mr. Smyth. Our objection is twofold. First, the point you raise as betweezi 11 and 16, and then for Federal inspection and control of our internal affairs by the General Government. Senator TTnderwood. The other is a constitutional question, is it not '. Mr. Smyth. We are subjected now in South Carolina to a very rigid inspection by the superintendent of the department of labor in South Carolina. We are constantly beipg investigated by inspec- tors, and are constantly Ijrought up to taw, and no child now in Sciiith Carolina under ll can work in a cotton mill without permit of the department of labor. Senator Pomerene. Is it your judgment that children between 14 and 10 ought to I)e permitted to work more than eight hours i\ day*?® Mr. Smith. Most decidedly, 3'es. Senator Konixsox. How long ought tlieV to be permitted to work^ Mr. Sjiyth. Hoav many hours a day ? Senator Korinson. Yes. Mr. Smyth. Our law is 10 hours. Senator La Fot.lette. How long do you work them? Mr. Smyth. The children? Senator La Follette. Yes, sir. Mr. Smyth. Well, they work 60 hours a week; not over that. But as I have stated ' Senator La Folle tti:. How is that time divided ? Mr. Smyth. They work 11 hours a dsty on Mondays, Tuesdays Wednesdays, and Thursdays. On Fridays they work 10 hours and on Saturdays 6. The mills are shut down a*t 12 o'clock on Saturdays INTERSTATE COMMEKCE XK PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 11 The Chairman. Captain, are you through with your preliminary statement? Mr. Smtth. Not quite; there is one other point that I wanted to allude to. I was very much interested two years ago in reading an article published in the American Magazine. I saw a review of it in a newspaper and I cut that out because it ^^as more convenient to keep than the article itself. It was written by a man named Alfred Jay Nock, and he gave the results obtained by Prof. Carl Pearson, the head of the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics at the Uni- versity of London. The article was based on the theory that restric- tive legislation reduced the birth rate, and Prof. Pearson's summary was this : The older civilized countries of tlie world are mucli concerned as to tlioir birth rate. In England, France, and Germany the figures slio«' an alarming decrease. If the population shows more deaths than liirths, then one or two things will happen to that country : It must either induce people who are born somewhere else to migrate to that country cmitinually or the nation will die. This question was taken under consideration 1)y tlie laboratory of eugenics and careful investigation undertaken in three typical sections of England : 1. Bradford, Manchester, Bolton, and Leeds, the industrial heart of England. You know the cotton manufacturing industry in England is con- centrated within 6 miles around Manchester, where the condition of the climate and the standard of living are the same. 2. Cornwall, an agricultural, mining, and fishiijg- district. 3. York, a county town, chiefly a trading center, with manufacturing jivirely incidental. That is in the Mancliester group. These investigations sliowed a decline in birth rate of about "iO per cent in tlie first group, beginning in 1877, a short drop in the second group in 1S67 and in 1887, and the same loss to a slightly less degree in 1887 in the third division. Furthermore, this rate is still decreasing and has not come back. The reason of the great fall at fixed periods in all these groups suggested a common cause and after serious investigation the cause is stated to be restrictive legislation by the English Parliament affecting child labor and showing that in each case or group the enforcement of these restrictive laws was immediately followed by the drop in birth rate heretofore stated. That is a vei y interesting fact from the standpoint of eugenics. I have in my hand The Economic World, a magazine that is pub- lished in New York City. This is dated February 12, 1916. last Saturday. The editor is Prof. A. E. Marsh, who was fonnerly professor of statistics and economics at Harvard University, and he writes an article here signed by his name, entitled '" The Public and Controversies over the Conditions of Labor." There is one para- graph that I would like to read to you : What is the essential matter raised l>y the iivuijosed iiatioiial (■liild-lal)iir law. according to the terms of which children under tlie iige of 10 will lie iiivvented from all industrial production 7 The advocates o,f the njeasure would say that it is to give to all American children unburdened, free, and happy years of child- hood, devoted to education and to useful reere:ition. This is an aim appealing to the niinds of all of generous nature. But what of the ec wh^r^ would you get the help for the other two hours? ^^*^'® Senator Pomerexe. Of course, I am not familiai' with tho mnrli tions down there at all. and I am simply asking the (inesticn :Mr. Smyth. It would be a practical impossibility If the bill 1 c.in.es a law as it is now written, it is going U, drive out of the miu's IjMTERSTATE COMMEECE IX PEODUCXS OF CHILD LABOR. 13 of the South all of the childieu under the age of IG years, and with- out any compulsory school law what is going to become of them? Take our village of Pelzer. We have 5,000 people. We have two policemen. They are a most remarkable set of people — the best people in the world — who work in these cotton mills. It is the very best stock, largely upon the mountain country, and they are pure, unadulterated Anglo-Saxons. In the 35 years that I have been there we have had only one murder in that town. Those two policemen are appointed by the government and paid by the corporation. Now, we can not work people two hours a day ; they will not make a living. Senator Lippitt. In reply to the question of the Senator, will you not explain to him that these children do not work in one department all by themselves, but that they are mixed in with the other oper- atives, and the machinery has to run proportionately so that it would not stop merely a few machines where the children work, but it would stop the whole thing in every department. Mr. Smyth. That was what I was trying to explain, that the chil- dren are mainly in the spinning room. We do not employ children in the weaving room, and but very few in the carding room. The chil- dren are employed in the spinning room, and we can not work them eight hours and then get somebody else to come in and vrork two hours. I suppose we could find them, but if we worked them five hours a day they would not make a living. Senator Pomereke. Suppose you work one of these children eight hours per day and have him relieved by another child for the other two hours? Mr. Smyth. That could not be done. No other child would come in and work two hours. Sena;tor Pomerene. Not continuously, I -dare say, but might that not happen on one day and the next day have him work his eight hours? Mr. Smyth. No, sir; we could not arrange that. It would be a practical impossibility. If the bill passes, the children under 16 are driven out of the mills. Senator Eobixson. How many children under 14 does that mill employ which Senator Pomerene asked you about ? Mr. Smyth. He was asking me about between 14 and 16. Senator Eobinson. No ; I am speaking about this mill. How many children under 14 are employed in that mill ? Mr. Smyth. There are 102 between 12 and 14. Senator Kobinsox. What number of those are boys and what number girls ? Mr. Smyth. There are 69 boys and 49 girls. Senator Kobixson. Have you any children employed there under 12? Mr. Smyth. No, sir. Senator Eobinson. What work do these children under 14 per- form? Mr. Smyth. They are spinners and sweepers. Senator Kobinson. What length of time do they work ? Mr. Smyth. Sixty hours a week. Senator Eobinson. The same as the men iji the mills? 14 INTERSTATE CdJNI MERGE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. Mr. S^iYTH. Yes. sir; all employees of the mill work the same time. Senator Eobinshn. Does the work require their constant attention? Mr. Smyth. It does not : no, sir. There is a great deal of play- time. If YOU go aiound the mills in the Summer time you will find the boys out in the yard playing ball — what we call doffers. When the spinning frame.s become full of yarn, these boys have to doff them. While that is going on the spinners are doing nothing. The doffing comes evei'y two hours. Senator Poinde\tki>'. How long does that last? ]Mr. Smti'h. The doffing lasts about half an hour. Senator La Foli.kj ie. How often. does that occur in one day? Mv. Smyth. Every t^\ 'i hours. Five times during the day. Senator Lippitt. You do not mean to say that the spinners are doing nothing while the doffing is going on, do you? ^h-. Smyth. Yes, sir : they are just playing about. Senator Robijvson. How do you get them back? ^rr. SatYTH. We whistle to them out of the windows to come back. Senator La Follette. ^Yhy could you not arrange for a two-hour playtime for those between 14 and 16 years? Mr. Smyth. I did not catch that question. Senator La Foij-ette. Why could you not arrange for a tAvo-hour playtime for those between 14 and 16 years? Mr. Smyth. Well, the l)oys between 14 and 16 have two hours' playtime now — an hour and a half to two hours in the mill in good weather. Senator Eobi.nson. You have testified aljout the conditions in the mills you are familiar with. I believe you stated that you are the head of the millers' orL'anization of South Carolina. .Mr. Sjiyth. The manufacturers' association; yes, sir. Senator Eobinsox. Do you know the number of mills in South Carolina? Mr. Smyth. Ajiproximately : yes, sir. There are about 4,000,000 spindles in South Carolina. I have given it to you in corporations. Take ours, for instance: we have 4 distinct mills, and in the cor- ]:)oration it is something like 1-20. Senator Robinsox. There Avould probably be more mills than that. INfr. S-AiYTH. Oh, more mills; yes. sir. Mills, something like 190. Senator Robinson . Are they all cotton mills? I\Ir. Smyth. That is what T am speaking of— cotton mills; yes, sir. Senator Robinson. How many of those are you familiar with do you: think — about Iioaa- many ? . ' Mr. Smyth. I have visited almost everv one of them, I think Senator Robinson. Are you familiar with the sanitary conditions lue\ailing in them f ]\rr. Smyth. In general; yes. sir. I have been through them Senator Robinson. The conditions are shown by A-our fio-ures and statement in the one village or town to which voii referred and ap- peal- to me to be lemnrkable from a sanitarv standpoint. ' :\Ir. Syjitit. They are. with resjiect to the birth rate. ' Senator Robinson. I believe you stated you had only two deaths irom tuberculosis in 30 years. Mr. Smyth. In 30 years; yes. sir. You will hear other testimony from physicians upon the same matter. -^ TXTEKSTATE COMMEECE IN PKOUUCXS OF CHILD LABOR. 15 Senator Robinson. Do you mean to say, in your opinion, that analogous and practically the same sanitary conditions prevail throughout the mills of South Carolina a^ at that particular mill? Mr. Smtth. I think so; yes, sir. Senator Robinson. Hare you made a comparison to know what the death rate, and especially the death rate from tuberculosis, is from the mill towns and in the towns where mills are located ? Mr. Smyth. There ha-^e been no vital statistics kept in South Carolina at all until during the past vear. At the session of the legislature last January and l^bruary such a law was enacted, but I have never seen the reports as yet ; they have not been sent in. Senator Robinson. The work has not jet proceeded far enough to enable you to arrive at a conclusion. Do you think that the health in the mill communities is very much better than the health in the rural communities? Mr. Smyth. I think it is fully as good and possibly better. Senator Robinson. It is inconceivable to me that you could find another community with so many inhabitants where there would be only two deaths from tuberculosis in a period of 30 years. Mr. Smyth. I did not say two. Senator Robinson. Then I misunderstood you. jNIr. Smyth. I said nine. Senator Robinson. I understood you to say two. Mr. Smyth. No, sir; not in the 30 yearg. Senator Robinson. If you did not say that, I misunderstood you. ^Ir. Smyth. Nine is what I intended to say. Senator Robinson. But even taking the figure 9, that is less than one in three years. Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir. I have kept these statistics very carefully at Pelzer, because the charge has been made that the cotton-mill business is a very unhealthy one, and that'it causes tuberculosis and causes different diseases. Senator Robinson. That is the point to which I am addressing my inquiry now. If your statistics are reliable, and of course I have no means of impeaching them, they not only show that the cotton- mill sections are very healthy, but that they are far more healthy than any other section in the State. Mr. Smyth. Well, take our town of Pelzer. The condition of health there is very much better than it is in any town in South Carolina where statistics are kept. I sent the reports to the Medical Society of South Carolina, and those reports came to me from physicians in the town. We ha^e three physicians there and they make monthy reports of the births and deaths, the cause of death, and the ages. Senator Robins<^)n. Who keeps those? Mr. Smyth. The physicians send them in to me every month, and they are compiled in our office. Senator Robinson. Have you ever cheeked the matter up or In- vestigated it to know wliether they kept an accurate record ? Mr. Smyth. I have no reason to think they have not. They have no reason not to do so, one way or the other. Senator Robinson. But do you know that they have? Mr. Smyth. They ha'\'e no interest in it one way or the other. 16 IXir-llSTATK COMMENCE IX PKODUCTS UF CHILD LABOR. Senator EoBnNsoK. I do not mean to provoke an argument ^Yith you. I am simply asking you a question. „, , ^: +i Mr. Smtth. 1 can check the death rate, but not the causes of the diseases or the number of births. Senator Eobikson. What is your altitude at Pelzer i Mr. Sjiyth. About 1,100 feet. Senator Robinson. What is the population of the town ( xMr. Smyth. Five thousand. An old gentleman was walking on the streets of Pelzer a short time ago and he asked a man Tyhoni he met what the altitude was, and he told him 90 per cent Baptists. [Laughter. I Senator Robinson. The atmosphere ought to be very pure at Pelzer at that altitude ? :\rr. Smtth. It is a \ eiy fine climate. Senator La Follette. He was thinking of the humidity. [Laughter.] Senator Robinson. Are those vital statistics kept of the other mills in the State, or do you know anything" about that? Mr. Smyth. I do not think they are. t have never heard of their being kept anywhere else. Senator Robinson. You made a statement some time ago that Pelzer was regarded by many as a show mill. What do you mean by that? Mr. Smyth. That has been charged by some of the national child- labor people. Senator Robinson. Why? Mr. Smyth. Because they knew the conditions there were good and they could not gainsay them ; they could not contradict it. Senator Robinson. Is it not just as true Mr; Smyth. They said the mill there was not to be considered a ■criterion, because other mills were very much worse off; but this mill was always put forward as ideal in a sanitary way. Senator Robinson. Can not the same things be obtained at other mills? Mr. SMrTH. Certainly, they could be. Senator Robinson. Why are the statistics kept at that one mill, and why are not some statistics available there from other mills? Mri Smyth. If they choose to take the trouble to keep them, there is no reason why they could not be kept. Senator Robinson. Yon say_ you are president of the organization, and you discuss everything in that organization except the wage scale? Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir. Senator Robinson. Why do you not discuss that? Mr. Smyth. Because we do not want to appear to be trying to coerce labor or to agree among ourselves as to what wages ought to be. Senator Robinson. And what is the primary purpose of the or- ganization in South Carolina? Mr! Smyth. It is to protect ourselves on freight rates mainly. Senator Robinson. Then, you discuss freight rates, I take it a good deal? ' ' ' Mr. Smyth. We discuss our freight rates and legislation and in- surance. We all have our mutual insurance companies. INTEKSTAXE COMMERCE IjSf PRODUCTS OE CHILD LABOK. , 17 Senator Kobinsok. Do you discuss the child-labor legislation? . Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir ; we discuss that, among other legislation. There is frequent legislation proposed in. South Carolina. There was legislation proposed the other day to regulate the humidity of the mill — and Senator Lippitt will appreciate this — and the resolu- tion proposed to fix the standard, that the temperature should not rise above a certain degree, and if it varied 5°, up or down, no mat- ter what the climatic condition was on the outside, it was considered a misdemeanor. It Avas considered seriously by the Legislature of South Carolina. Senator Robinson. The attitude of the organization is one of op- position to this legislation, I take it ? Mr. Smyth. Very decidedly. Senator Kobinson. But I believe, if I remember your statement correctly, that it is based not on the interest of the organization but on sympathy for the employees between the ages of 14 and 16, par- ticularly with the parents of those employees. jNIr. Smyth. Our opposition is based upon a twofold ground: First, jon may say. because the age of 16 would cause a great hard- ship to a great many deserving people in South Carolina and in other Southern States; and, secondly, we object to Federal supervi- sion and control of the industries of South Carolina. Senator Eobixsox. Upon what is that objection based? Mr. SisiYTH. Well, we think it is a matter to be regulated by the State. Senator Robi.nson. Your objection is a constitutional objection, is it — ^^a legal objection? Mr. Sjiyth. Yes. sir ; I am not a lawyer, and, of course. I do not express an opinion as to the constitutionality of it, but I do object to it as being an interference with our internal affairs. Senator Eobixsox. What is the death rate among children em- ployed in your mill? Mr. Smyth. It is very small. Senator Robinson. I know; but what is It. Of course it is bound to be verv small. Mr. Smyth. I have not the detailed figures here with me. I have that but I did not think it necessary to get'it. Senator Roeinsox. That is rather more important than the denth rate of the total population, is it not? Mr. Saiyth. The death rate at Pelzer. the lartiest rate, of t'ourse, is among children under. I would say, 5 years of age. That, I thmk, you will find everywhere. Senator Robinson. Have you any statistics or ha\e yon Icept any, showing the mortality rate 'among the chiidi'en employees of your institution? Mr. Smytit. Well, our figures would ghow the total deatlis m Pelzer. Senator Robinson. But that is not the question. Mr. Smyth. How do you mean? Senator Robinson. You have a certain reumber of employees, have you not? Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir. 27896—16 2 18 INTERSTATE COMMIOECE IX PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. Senator Eobij;son. And yon have had snch employees ever since your mill has been in operation, hare you riot? Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir. • ^.i • ■ Senator Robinson. Now, it is important to know, m this investiga- tion how the employment affects the health of the children; that is one 'question, I take it. Have you kept any figures to show what diseases have afflicted these children and how many of them have died while so employed by the mill ? Mr. Smyth. Our figures would show the ages of everyone who died at Pelzer and the cause of death. Senator Robinsox. But it would not ^iiow how many of those that died were children, would it? ;Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir ; it would show their ages. Senator Robixsox. Then, can you tell, now, how many of them who have died were children? Mr. Smyth. Xo, sir ; it would be entirely a guess on my part, now. I did not bring those fioiues with me. I just brought the total averages. • Senator Robinsox. What is the total a\ erage death rate for Pelzer? Mr. SiiY'TH. It averages about 1^ to 1| per cent. It has never exceeded in an epidemic year over 2 per cent. Senator La Follette. May I ask a question? Senator Robinsox. Certainly. Senator La Follette. If you have the names and the ages of all who died within the year reported to you by your local physicians, and you ha^'e the record of the employments in your establishment of the children, you could ascertain exactly what the death rate is among your employees, could you not? Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir; very easily. Senator L \ Follette. "Will you get your record of that and make it a part of this record here? Mr. S:\rYTii. I will do that very cheerfully. Senator Robinsox. Your inquiry is as to children employees par- ticularly, is it not? Senator La Follette. Entirely so ; that was what was I was asking him about. Mr. Smytit. I understand that you want statistics sent up as to the average ages that have died at Pelzer during a period of time? Senator Robinsox. Xo. Here is what wc want: The total number of deaths occurring in Pelzer for a given year; so many of them were children under 16 and so many of them were children under 14. That is what I want. Mr. Smyth. I will take pleasure in getting that. Senator Robixson. C'liildren between 14 and 16, embracing all classes of children employed in the mills. - Senator La Follette. So many of thetti were employed in the mills. Senator Robinson. I think those are the figures, so far as health accidents, and deaths are concerned, that affect this resolution ' (The statistics referred to are as follows:) Deaths at relzer, S\ C., during past four years of children between the aees of 12 and 16 years: One male, 12 years (,f age, died of fever- one femalp I^R years of age, died of meningitis. ' i^emale, 16 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD UABOE. 19 Senator Eobinsokt. I want to ask you one further question, and then I will not, I think, take any further time. Is there a common wage scale in force in South Carolina? Mr. Smyth. No, sir. Senator Eobinson. What wages are paid to children under 14 years in the Pelzer mill? Are they paid a uniform wage? Mr. Smyth. Our average wage last month was $1.31, and that was for men, women, and children. Senator Robinson. I am not speaking about the aAerage wage, but the wage of children under 14. Mr. Smyth. It depends very much upon the desire of the child to accumulate. We have plenty of children there now earning $1.25 a day who are between 12 and 16. Senator Robinson. What is the average wage of children under 14! Mr. Smyth. I should say $1 a day. Senator Robinson. And the average wage for children over 14 and under 16 — ^between 14 and 16? Mr. Smyth. It is about the same. I think their capacity is about the same. Senator Robinson. The younger children get the same as the others ? Mr. Smyth. Oh, yes, sir. Senator Lippitt. Are they pieceworkers or day workers? Mr. Smyth. They are pieceworkers. They work on the sides in the spinning room. Senator Lippitt. They attend more or less, according to the ca- pacity ? Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir; if they attend eight sides they get a dollar a day for that. Senator Robinson. What are the adult -porkers paid? Mr. Smyth. We have a good many departments. In the weaving department it is entirely based upon the piecework, and in the rov- ing frames and counting rooms it is piecework. But take our card grinders and cloth-room people, for instance; they are generally day laborers. Senator Robinson. Have you any statistics concerning the subject of accidents among the employees in your mills, or are 3'ou required by law to keep them ? Mr. Smyth. We are not required by law to keep them, but we do keep them. Senator Robinson. Have you those statistics available? Mr. Smyth. I have not got them with me. Senator Robinson. Do you have many accidents in the cotton mills of South Carolina? Mr. Smyth. We have a few trivial accidents; nothing very serious. Senator Robinson. Do you know how many persons — whether any have been killed in accidents, for instance, in the Pelzer mills. Mr. Smyth. No, sir ; there has never been a person killed. Senator Robinson. Not a single person? Mr. Smyth. No, sir. Senator Robinson. Do you know how many serious accidents have occurred in the 30 years that you have been in charge of that mill? 20 IXTEllSTATE COMilEHCE IX l^EODUCTS OF CHILD LABOK. Mr SiiYTii. I think the most serious accident happened to two men riding on the elevator. They got their arms crushed at the next storv They were leaning out, not knowmg where they were going. The> had their arms crushed. That xvas a most serious accident. They were operated upon. , i- t -vi j. • u ii. Senator Robinsok. Have you an employers' liability act in bouth Carolina? . , . • ^ i • i at Mr. Smyth. A compensation law is ]ust being passed now. My rule is to pav e\-erybody that gets hurt at Pelzer for lost time and doctors' bills', and if they are seriously hurt Senator Eobixson. Without regard to. the question ot contribu- tory negligence? n j. t Mr. Smyth, Yes, sir. It is simply a matter of good teelmg and good will. I have some other statistics here which perhaps would be of inter- est to you. In 1889 at Pelzer we had then only 30,000 spindles. We liad two mills, and our average pay was $0.53 a day. That was in 1889. We have now 136,000 spindles, and the a\erage pay was $1.31 last month. Now. having, as we have, 136,000 spindles as against 35,000, there are actually less females employed in Pelzer mill to- day than in 1889. The percentage of female employees in the Pelzer mills to-day is only '2('t per cent, and when we started business, back in 1871, 75 per cent of our weavers wer0 women. To-day only 2G per cent are females, including the girls in the sjoinning room. The girls all marry off when they get. to be IS or 16 years and go out of the mills, and the weavers are practically men. Senator Pomerene. I want to go back to the subject matter about which I was inquiring a moment ago. Twelve children working 10 hours per day would do the work of 15 children working 8 hours per day ; that is, if you were to be put on an 8-hour scale, it would only require one-fourth more" children than it does now on a 10-hour scale. So that your 139 children between the ages of 14 and 16 Would have to be increased by 35, or one-fourth, making a total of 174 children. Now, that is the only change, so far as the number of children is concerned; and, assuming that those who work 8 hours a day would get the same wage per hour as those who would work 10 hours per day, whj' could not a schedule of time be arranged for those children so as to relieve them and not require them to work more than 8 hours per day without embitrrassing the oi)eration of the mill very seriously? Mr. Smyth. If you were a practical manufacturer I oouUl oxpliiin it very easily to you. It is simply impossible. It could net be done. You can not work a hand eight hours a day and another hand two hours a day and gi^e the one who has worked two hours a day legitimate support. He could not support hinist-lf or tliose who are dependent upon him. Senator Poindexter. Could you not )York two shifts of eio-ht hours each ? Mr. Smyth. You would shut, down the balance of \our mills and have your steam engines going and running only jDait of the spin- ning room ; and that would not be a very healthy experiment from a financial standpoint. Senator Poiudextee. I do not know a thing aljout it. I simply tisked 3'ou the question. IXTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 2], iVfr. Smyth. You gentlemen may as well make up your minds to this, that, if you have that 16-year-old limit, no children under 16 years of age can find work; there is no other way in which you can face it, and you may as well recognize it. Those children are often the, main support of widowed mothers. Now, what is going to become of those people unless the city or General Government makes some provision for their support and maintenance or forces them to go to school, because I claim that unless the child is forced to gq to school it is better for that child to be at work. You do not want to raise a child in laziness. Senator PoM:EEE>rE. How manj'' of those 139 children have widowed mothers ? Mr. SMrTH. I can not answer that positively or definitelv. but i\, considerable number. Senator Pomeeene. What proportion ? Mr. Smyth. I suppose one-third, or fully one-fourth. Senator La Follette. The death rate must be chiefly among the men in your town. Mr. Smyth. Xo; the death rate is not so much, but the men are very largely in the farming industries,, and it is the widows who come to the mills to a very large extent. The men are engagea in farming operations to a large extent, except those who have been born and raised up in the mill community. We have dozens of f am-i ilies there that have been born and raised at Pelzer and have never worked anywhere else. They have children that work at the mills the same as they did. Senator Clapp. Captain, I have understood — I do not know how accurate it is — that in Massachusetts in the cotton mills the rule ia eight hours a day. Senator Lippett. No ; 9 hours — 54 hours a Aveek. Senator Clapp. Well, nine hours. Then it would be possible to change from a 10-hour to a 9-hbur basis, would it not? Mr. S:nTTH. Oh, it would be possible to go to an eight-hour day, of course, but if you'-want to equalize conditions between the South and New England, and if you are doing it by reducing the number of hours in the South or by increasing the age limit at which chil-. dren may work in the South, you ought then to consider other con-, ditions. "A mill in New England at Fall River or Providence cai\ buy cotton cheaper than we can buy it in South Carolina. That; is a fact. Senator Eobtnson. Why? Mr. Smyth. Because they can buy from the large centers like Gali: veston. New Orleans, Mobile, Charleston, and Savannah. They have water rates and land their cotton right up there. The mills in South Carolina use between 800,000 and 900,000 bales. We can not use the cotton from lower Carolinas ; it is a different staple or color, and we are forced to go to North Alabama and North Georgia to get cotton. We have to pay the local ratps of freight, and that is highpr than the rate from Memphis to Boston, for instance, and when we manufacture our cotton goods we pay a 4:5-cent rate to New York as against 15 cents from New England to New York. Then, too, the New England mills have a very large command of money, They have their savings banks in Massachusetts and large amountg 22 IXTEilSTATE COMMEKCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. of monev that they loan to cotton mills at a very low rate We have not that' capital in the South and not that credit in New York, and we pay a higher rate for our money. If you are going to equalize conditions, vou must e.iualize them all around. \ ou must give us good freight rates and cheap money. Senator Clapp. That is very interesting, but you undertook' to show that it would be practically impossible to go on an eight-hour basis. I am informed that the rule in Massachusetts is eight hours. I am also informed that the rule in Ohio- Mr. Smytm. You have been misinformed. :Massachusetts is not on an eight-hour basis. Senator Pomeeene. It is nine hours. Mr. Smyth. Kine hours. I did not say it was impracticable to go on an eight-hour basis in the South or to go on a six-hour basis. Of course you can run mills on a six-hoiir basis only, but I say you can not ^\ ork eight hours in one department and two hours in an- other. Senator Clapp. Xow, Mr. Smyth, if there is no difference in Mas- sachusetts based upon the age as to the number of hours the em- ployee works, then it is possible to accomplish that, is it not? Mr; S:mtth. It is possible, of course, but it is not fair. Senator Clapp. I am not speaking of that. I would like to con- tinue on one line at a time. Xow, if iq, Ohio there is one rule for adults and another rule within certain, age limits in the factories as to the hours of work, then it is possible there also to adjust two different rates or scales as to the hours of labor, is it not ? Mr. S31YTH. I do not know what it is in Ohio. I am not familiar with the situation there, and I do not undertake to say. Senator Clapp. Well, if that fact exists? Mr. Smyth. That is a hypothesis. Senator Clapp. But you started in here with the suggestion that you could not adjust two rates in the hoiir scale. Mr. Smyth. I maintain that in the cotton mills you could not do it. Senator Clapp. Now, if it is done in Massachusetts Mr. Smyth. But it is not done in Massachusetts. Senator Clapp. Well, we will discuss that later. If it is done in Ohio, it could be done in North Carolina!, could it not? Mr. Smyth. I suppose that what has been done in one part of the <;ountry could be done in another, as far as the practicability of it is concerned. Senator Lippitt. Does Ohio run any cotton mills? Mr. Smyth. I never heard of any cotton mills in Ohio. Senator Clapp. We will discuss that later. Senator Thompson. And I understand you could go to an 8-hour basis. Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir; an 8-hour or a 6-hour basis. Senator Thompson. It is simply a financial proposition now. as I understand it. Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir ; but you are undertaking in this bill to pro- tect other States against Southern children who are working under the age of 16. You are not going to protect this country against the iioods made by the cheap labor of children, after this war is over INTEESTATB COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR, 23 that is going to be imported under this Underwood tariff into this country. [Laughter.] By this child-labor law you are opening the door to a deluge of goods made by cheap ehild labor, where they are working from 12 to 14 hours a day, and we can not compete with them. Senator Clapp. Do you anticipate that the cotton manufacturers of New England are going to get enthusiastically behind this bill as a matter of competition with the North Carolina or South Caro- lina people? Mr. Smyth. Mr. Mann made that statement in the House, and it was made by Mr. Gardner of Massachusetts. Senator Lippitt. What was this statement? Mr. Smyth. That the bill should be passed because it was a de- fense of New England manufacturers and a protection to them and putting them on an equality with the Southern mills or bringing the Southern mills up to an equality with them. Yon will find that in the Congressional Record. Senator Lippitt. You do not believe that, do you ? _Mr. Smyth. No, sir; I do not. I know that a great many of my friends in Massachusetts are opposed to the passage of this law. Senator Lippitt. You do not believe for a minute that the manu- facturers of New England are endeavoring to have this bill passed lor the purpose of engaging in competition with the South, do you? Mr. Smyth. Not at all. Senator Lippitt. I want to ask you one question. In this bill there is a provision not only that the chilren shall not work more than 8 hours, but also that they shall not work before the hours of 7 o'clock in the morning and after 7 o'clock at night. The history of the textile business has been a gradual reduction in the hours of labor Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir. Senator Lippitt. A voluntary reduction in the early stages and a reduction by law in the later stages. In North Carolina, I think, you Iiave no law, have you, with regard to the hours of labor? Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir; we have. Senator Lippitt. That has been very recent, then. Mr. Smyth. North Carolina, I think, has had a law for two years, but T am not familiar with it. In South Carolina we have such a law. Senator Lippitt. What is the law of South Carolina? Mr. Smyth. Ten hours; 60 hours a week. We are allowed to work longer on any one day, but not over 60 hours a week. When we started in business we were Avorking 11 J hours. Voluntarily the mills reduced that time to 10 hours beforb there was any legal re- quirement, or before the law was passed. Senator Lippitt. You, of course, understand that in New England the hours are materially less than in the South, do you not ? Mr. Sjiyth. Yes, sir ; I so understand. Senator Lippitt. Is it not quite reasonable to suppose that in time the hours of labor in the cotton mills will be still further lowered ? Mr. Smyth. I think so. Senator Lippitt. That the time will arrive when it will run eight hours a day. 24 IXTERSTATF, COMMERCE IX PHODXJCTS OF CHILD LABOR. Mr. Smyth. I think we are heading toward eight hours in time; ■^^Senator Lippitt. Has it <»rcurred to you to consider under what system the mills might run economically, employing their labor c'liiht hours a day ; has it cccnri'ed to you to consider the possibility of rimning your mill with two shifts of hands, starting, perhaps, at half past' 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning for one and running along until 2 or ?, o'clock in the afternoon, or whatever the time is? Mr. Smyth. That would be provided Senator Lippitt. Just a moment — running along to perhaps 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and with another shift of hands running into 10 o'clock at night, or whatever the time would figure out? Mr. SiMiTiy. Yes. sir. Senator Lippitt. I believe it is perfectly possible to fix a schedule of lal)or by which tlie mills will run practically 16 hours a day with two shifts of hands, all of those people being employed substaiitially in daylight — not entirely so. l)ut substantially so — and by which the mills can be run quite as economically uiider the eight-hour basis as they can under the i^resent nine-hour basis in New England. This bill, with this provision which I have referred to, would prevent that. It would seriously increase, or Avould it not seriously increase, the cost of cotton manufacturing on account of the high cost of ma- chinery in the cotton mills, if you can only keep it in operation such a small ]xirt of the time? Ml'. Smyth. T^ndoulitedl^' so: yes. sir. Your fixed charges would remain the same, as well as your taxes, and insiu'ance. and overhead charges. Senator Lippitt. T wish you gentlemen would consider rjuite seriously tluit 2)articulai' provision in this bill with regard to the future position of the textile industries of this country with relation to the industries of tlie world. T think that looking forward to the future development of the industry as at sometime coming to the eight-hour basis, that that provision would perhaps be one of the most economically burdensome of anything there is in this bill. Senator T^ndeewood. What class of goods do you spin at Pelzer? ^Ir. Smyttt. We make coaise goods altogether — wea\ing. Senator Underwood. What are the sis^es of the varus that you make into goods? Mr. Smyth. We make from 13s up to iT>s. Senator Underwood. You said awhile ago that there was a danger of importation. Have you ever Imown^^of any serious amount of importations of that class of goods commg into this country here- tofore ? Mr. SsiYiMf. Yes, sir; there have been importations of yarns, I think, above 25. Senator Underwood. I mean any serious importations, that would amount to as much as 1 per cent' of the total spinning capacity of tliis country. Mr. Smyth. Not the total. It would not be a fair proposition. Tlie total spinning capacity of the country is not to be gauwed on 13 yarns. ' .- & Senator Underwood. But of that class of yarns, I mean. ^h\ Smyth. I think it will be as much as 1 per cent of the pro- duction of that class of yarns. IJfTEKSTATE COMMERCE IK PRODUCTS OF CH ELD LABOR. 25 Senator Underwood. As a matter of fact, there are practically no importations into this country of yarns of goods below 40s, are there ? Mr. Sjiyth. There has been nothing for two years, but for a few months under the new tariff law it looked very alarming to us. Senator Underwood. Of goods under the 40s? Mr. Smyth. It appeared to be goods of all descriptions. Senator Underwood. Are you sure of that 't Mr. Smyth. I did not say particularly 13 yarns; no, sir. Senator Underavood. I suggest that you look into the transaction.'^. Mr. Smyth. I mean of the entire output. Senator Underwood. Where do yoii sell tliose goods ? Mr. Smyth. Those 13 yarn goods ? Senator Underwood. I mean the class of goods you are making at Pelzer. Mr. Smyth. Largely to the Philippines. Senator Underwood. And to the Red Sea? Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir ; but none to China now because of conditions there. Senator Underwood. In other words, the output of your mills is practically an export trade? Mr. Smyth. No, sir; only about one-third of our productions have gone in export. We make a good many print cloths and we are making bed sheets that are used in this country. Senator Underwood. The mills at Pelzer then export at least one- third of your output in competition without a tariff with the mills of Europe and the cheap labor of Europe now ? Mr. Smyth. I did not say that. I understand we are protected in the Philippines with a preferential duty. Senator Lippitt. As a matter of fact, with respect to the Philip- pines, your goods go free into the Philippines, do they not, and Europeans haA'e to pay 25 per cent? Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir. Senator Liffitt. And before there was a preferential duty you exported nothing there ? Mr. Smyth. Practically nothing. That business has increased remarkably in the last few years. Senator Undera\'00d. In the Eed Sea country you get into competi- tion Avith the world, do you not ? Mr. Smyth. In the Red Sea we get what business we have by our personal representatives. I have had a man over there for 12 months. Senator Underwood. I did not ask you that. I asked you if you did not get into open competition with the world in the Red Sea. Mr. Smyth. Not particularly the world. Our competition is principally with Austria, but it is owing to the superior quality of our goods. Senator Underwood. I have no doubt that is true, and that is the reason I do not think you need all the tariff and all the protection tlmt you cry for. You are capable of making superior goods. Senator Poindexter. What is the rate of tariff on goods of the same quality that you manufacture now under the Underwood tariff? ^fr. Smyth. I could not say. We consider the Underwood tariff 26 INTEBSTATE COMMEECE IN PRODUCTS OF CHIT.D LABOR. to be inoperative, so tliere may be no importations now owing to the war. Senator Poindextee. But j'cu were concerned in it, as you stated, before the war started. Mr. Smyth. Yes, sir; we are very much concerned. I have not those figures. Senator Pomerene. That is, you have not been concerned enough about that tariff to post yourself as to what the tariff rate is? Mr. Smyth. It has been inoperative. The CiiAiRMAx. Will you tell us what the health and strength of the children employed in these mills are as compared with the health and strength in the towns outside of the cotton mills, and also the health and strength of children in the agricultural region. Mr. Smyth. Oh, I would like you to see them and see their con- dition. I would like you to come down and see the children in our mill schools, who are the children of our operatives working in the mills, and see their condition and see what they look like. Mr. Lip- pitt has been there and he has seen them. The CiiAiRjiAK. When do they get the recreation that enables them to be healthy ? ^Ir. Smyth. On Friday afternoons the mills are shut down at 5 o'clock, and on summer evenings the sun does not set until 8 o'clock and they have three hours of recreation and daylight to play in. But on Saturdays they shut down at 12 o'clock and they have the whole afternoon to play in. They have an hour nooning every day during the week besides. The Chairman. And I understood you to say they had half an hour in every two hours. Jlr. Smtth. The spinners, yes, sir. The Chairihan. That is only a portion of them. Mr. Sjiyth. Oh, not the others; not the .grown folks. Senator Lippitt. How long do the children work on the planta- tions in South Carolina. Mr, Sjmyth. They work from sun to sun. They pick cotton and work all day in the hot sun. Senator Lippitt. Do they have a half holiday on Saturday? Mr. Smyth. No, sir. Senator Lippitt. How many hours a week do they work? Mr. Smtth. In the summer they work about 72 hours. Senator Lippitt. They work longer than that, do they not? Mr. Smyth. They do at some time ; yes. The Chairman. What effect does this life in the factories have on the men and women who come in from the farming regions? Mr. Smtth. You can not get them to go back to the farm. The Chairman. Are they healthier and stronger than when they went there? Mr. Smtth. They are just as strong and healthy. The business is not unhealthy in any way, and it was tb confirm my belief about that that I kept the statistics. The Chairman. There is no tendency then toward race deteriora- tion? Mr. Smyth. No, sir; and no lessening of the birth rate either. INTERSTATE COMMEECE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 27 Senator Poindextek. Have yoii made any study of the proposition that you get more efficiency out of the workers on an 8-hour day than on a 10-hour day? Mr. SiviTTH. No, sir. Senator Poindexter. You have never studied tliat question? Mr. Smtth. No, sir; we can not get the same production out of a 10-hour day as we do out of 11. Senator Poindextbr. In many employments it lias been discovered, has it not, that you get as much result from an 8-hour day as you formerly did from a 10-hour day ? Mr. Smyth. That may be the case, say, with a bricklayer or where the work is done largely by the individual or manual labor, but in the cotton mills it is the machinery. A speed is set; it is run at a certain speed, and the operative simply attends that machine. There is no heavy lifting and no straining at all. Senator Poindextek. But constant mental application? Mr. Sjitth. No, sir; they watch the looms; they are automatic looms and run alone for two or three hours. Senator Poindextek. Then, according to that it is neither physical labor nor mental application. Mr. Smtth. No, sir; I wish there would-be more mental applica- tion about it. You would be surprised to see the amount of visiting in the cotton mills. The hands start the automatic looms up, and they run for an hour or an hour and a half without any attention, and then the weaver is in another part of the factory talking to somebody. The work is confining; there is that much to be said about it. Senator Poindextek. You said it was impossible to have two shifts of eight hours each, but I did not understand your explanation as to why it was impossible. Mr. Smyth. Well, it would be impossible for us, because of the scarcity of labor. We want labor now, and if we were to run to-day on an 8-hour shift and not pay them as niuch as on a 10-hour shift they would not be willing to run to work for it. There has been no effort on the part of our people to lessen the hours of work, but they want more money. I have been asked to make this explanation as to the work that is done by the children in ithe spinning room. The spinning room is simply converting coarse yarns into finer yarns. The fine bobbins are set down below and the coarse ones are set up above, and that cotton yarn is drawn through rolls and the twist is put in it, and the result is finer yarn. Now the work of spinning is simply to keep those ends up. If it breaks down the spinner pieces it up. She does not put those bob- bins up above nor does she put them on the spindle. Her duty is simply to do the piecing when it is necessary to be done. Now the doffer is simply the boy, who is generally from 16 to 18 years, who comes along and takes those bobbins off, those full bob- bins, and puts on the empty bobbins, and While he is doing that the spinner is doing nothing ; she can go off and play. When the doffer gets through with his rounds he is at liberty to go out into the yard and play. He is whistled for when he is wanted. There is no physical labor about it. All you can say about it is the confinement. 28 IXTKESTATE COMMERCE IX PRODUCTS DF CHIED LABOR. Senator Thompso-n. Yon spoke of providing facilities for schooling for the children? Mr. Smtth. Yes. sir. . Senator Thojif.^on. What time or opportunitj- do those children between 1-t and Ifi have to attend? Mr. S:mtth. There are a great many children in our village be- tween 14 and 16 who go to school and who do not work in the mill. They are alternating to a large extent. One of them Avill go to school and'the brother will Avork in the mill, and vice versa. Senator Tiiompso:s. Those are all day schools, are they? Mr. Smyth. They are day schools, but we have night schools, too- different schools. The day schools run nine months in the year, and when the schools shut dow'n there is a rush to get into the mill on the part of the children who have been going to school. Senator Ttigmpson. Is there an opportunity for children between l-t and 16 to go to school, who work in the mills? Mr. Smyth, '^'es, sir : they go to night school. We have a night school that is open five nights in a week. Senator Pomebexe. Has your State labor department or any other department of your government any available statistics showing the number of children who are employed between 12 and 14 and between 14 and 16, in your State ? Mr. Smtth. I have the report of the commissioner of labor right here. Senator Pomerene. I would be very much pleased if you would insert, as part of your testimony, whatever statistics you have. Mr. Smyth. I shall give you the full report if you woidd like to havejt. Senator Po3iere>;e. Xo: I just want the tables with respect to the matter to which I have callecl yonr attention. JXr. SiiYTH. Coujuiissioiici- ^A'atsou said: In regard to the labor situation, as shown by census, there are no«- more people employed in the textiles than at any time in the prist four ye.us. the total number being 50,597, representing a mill population of 126,74(;. I am happy to note that 1,171 of this Increase is i-ei)resented by male.? over 16 years of .-ige, while 503 are by women and girls over 16 years of age. In the matter of child labor, there are 121 less males under 16 years old employed this year than last year, and only 37 more girls under 16 than were employed in 1914. This makes a total working force up- der 16 in the textiles of only 7,328, which is considerably less than in any year in the last foiu' years. The figures show that only 3,518 of these children are between the ages of 12 and 14. and the bulk of this number is represented by children very nearly 14 years of age. As r stated last year, the tendency in all the textile plants is away from the emploj'meut of the child between ]2 and 14, and, in my opinion, these 3,500 children between 12 and 14. out of ,a total of 50,597 employees, could be easily eliminated without damage to employer or employee by the enactment of a flat 14-year-old child labor provi.sion. Mr. Smyth was thereupon excused. The Chairman. The committee will now take a recess until 3 o'clock to-day. (Accordingly the committee, at 12 o'clock m., took a recess until 3 o'clock p. m.) AF'JEI; RECES.S. The eoniiiiittee I'esiuned its session at 3 o'clock p. m, pursuant to tlie expiration of the I'ecess. INTEESTATE COMMEHCE I.\ PEODUCXS 01-' CHILD LABOR. 29 The Chaiemak. Senator Clapp, I believe vou have something you desire to insert in the record? Senator Clapp. I desire, if you please, to insert the table found on page 9 of Eeport No. 46, House of Eepresentatives, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session. (The table referred to by Senator Clapp is as follows:) Table 1. — t^tntcs having slmiilard prori.sions ii-illioiit cxDiiptions. {II ) Fourteen-year limit in factories and canneries: Alabama. Maine. New York. Arizona. Massachusetts. North Dakota. Arkansas. INIichigan (1.5 .years ; 14, Ohio (16, girls ; 15, bovs). Connecticut. canneries). Oklahoma. Florida. Minnesota. Oregon. Illinois. Jlissouri. I'enn.sylvania. Iowa. Montana (IG years). Ithoae Island. Kansas.. Nebraska. A\-isconsin. Kentucky. New Hampshire. Louisiana. New Jersey. (6) Sixteeii-.\ ear limit loi- night work in factories and canneries: All States listed under I (a) except Jtaine, and, in addition — California. Idaho. South Carolina. Delaware. Indiana. Vermont. District of Columbia. North Carolina. (c) Ei.srht-honr day under 16 in factories and canneries: Arizona. Kentucky. Ne\\' York. Arkansas. ."Mn.ssaehusetts. North Daknta. California. .Alinnesota. Ohio. Dlstrict.of Cdlumliia. Jlissouri. Oklalioma. Illinois. Nebraska. 'Wisconsin. Iowa. Ne\-ada. Kansas. New Jersey. (Noxr:. — Jfontana forbids the employment of children under 16 in factories.) (d) Sixteen-year limit in raine.s and quarries: Alabama. Kentucky. Oklahoma. Arizona. Maryland. Tennessee. Arkansas. Nevada. Texas (17 years). California. New York. AVisconsin "(18 years). Connecticut. Ohio. (e) Sixteen-year limit in mines but not in quarries: Colorado. Montana. Washington. Illinois. Peini.sylvania. The Chairman. Gov. Kitchin, whom will you introduce now? Mr. Kitchin. We should like to ha\e Mr. Hope address the com- mittee. STATEMENT OF DR. W. D. HOPE, LOCKHART, UNION COUNTY, S. C. The Chairman. Doctor, please give your name, residence, and occupation to the stenographer. Dr. Hope. My name is W. D. Hope; residence, Lockhart, Union County, S. C. I am a practicing physician and have practiced medi- cine 28 years, being a graduate of the University of Maryland. The Chairman. Dr. Hope, you may proceed with your statement. Dr. HoPT!. I have practiced medicine m the countrj^ districts prior 30 INTEBSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOE. to 17 years ago and have practiced in the mill town of Lockhart for 17 years. I have been associated with the mill people and the sur- rounding country districts for 17 years. I have observed the health, growth, and the development of mill children, in comparison with the country children. I have practically seen no difference. I have observed children Avho have worked in the mill as early as 12 years of age who have now developed into manhood and womanhood and wlio. as fathers and mothers, have produced healthy offspring. That is practically as far as I care to go, unless'there are some gentlemen who would like to ask questions. Senator Brandegee. Did you state what town you are fronij Doctor ? Dr. Hope. From Lockhart, Union County, S. C. Our population varies from 1,500 to 1,700 people; and 60,000 spindles in the mills. Senator Beandegee. Did you hear the testimony of Mr. Smyth this morning before the committee ? Dr. Hope. Yes ; I heard it this morning. Senator Brakdegee. Have you any information about how the health of the children employed in the mills of which he spoke com- pares with that of the health of the children in the same town not engaged in the mills? Dr. Hope. I have no statistical report from any other mills. Senator Brandegee. Do you speak of the mills'he spoke of? Dr. Hope. No, sir; I am speaking of the mills of the town at which I am located. Senator Beandegee. How is it with the mills where you are located? I understand you to say the health of the children from 12 to 16 years who are employed in the cotton mills there is as good as it is of the children who are not employed in the cotton mills. Dr. Hope. Employed in the surroundijig country districts. It is a small mill town, and I am connected with the country districts. Senator Braxdegee. In your opinion, is the cotton industry espe- cially deleterious to the health of children? Dr. Hope. It is not, sir. Senator BRAxnEOEE. Are the mills that you speak of well ven- tilated? Dr. HoPK. Yes, sir. Seiiatoi- BRAXDiXiEK. Is the manual lafeor required of these chil- dren of the kind that, so far as being a tax upon their physiques, is deleterious to their health ? Dr. Hope. I w'ould not think so. I am not familiar with the work in the mills. The appearance of the children does not indi- cate it. Senator Braxdegkk. Have you been thrdugh these mills frequently? Dr. Hope. Yes. sir; I ^o through them. Semitor Bii.\Nr)i;(ii;i;. Are you familiiir witii the condition of ven- tilation and sanitation in them? Dr. Hope. Yes. sii-. Senatoi- Braxdegee. In your opinion, are they insanitary? Di'. Hope. X(i. sir; they are not insanitary. The sanitary condi- tions are good. Senator BnAxui:(ii;K. What sort of ventilation ha^e thev? Dj'. Hope. Tlwy lia\e the skylight above and then the rolling windows witli ti-iinsoms. ° INTEBSTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOK. 3t Senator Braxdegee. Have you not seen .the children at work at many of these looms or spindles as yon weni through? Dr. HojPE. Yes, sir. Senator Erandegek. I understood you to say you did not know anything about the kind of work required of them ? Dr. Hope. I am not familiar with it. I have merely seen them at work. Senator Brandegee. That is Avhat I mean ; you observed the kind of work they do. Did it seem to you to be a kind of work that would affect their physical condition badly .? Dr. Hope. No, sir. Senator Brandegee. It is not hard work? Dr. Hope. No, sir. Senator Brasdegee. It is light work, the shifting of bobbins and spools ? Dr. Hope. Yes, sir. Senator Braxdeoee. And there is no heavy work required of them ? Dr. Hope. No, sir. Senator Brandegee. That is all I care to ask. The Chaiemajc. Wliat chances have they for recreation during the.se hours? Dr. Hope. During Avhat hours? The Chairman. During the working hours. Dr. Hope. You mean with respect to the smaller children? Ihe Chaikmax. Yes. Dr. Hope. They, have the noonday recess, of course, for their meals. I do not understand the mill Avork, but the children doing the spinning have a period in between while they do what they call " doffing." As I say, I am not familiar with the mill work. I am located in the mill town, and I only go through the mill. But there is a period when those children oftentimes go out in the mill yard and play a half -hour at a time, and by a whistle they call them back in. They have different signals to call them in. I am not familiar with just what the period is between the recreations. You go in a mill and you will observe the children are talking and laughing, congregated together in different places in the milk The Chairman. Does the work in the mill involve any great tendency toward disease? Dr. Hope. No, sir; we have only had a vital-statistics law in our State about a year. Mr. KiTCHiN. I A\ish you would direct his attention particularly to tuberculosis. That is one of the charges against mill work. The Chairman. How about that. Dr. Hope? Dr. Hope. We have some tubercular trouble at the mills, but it is. not out of proportion to the population. I do not know the per- centage ; I have not the statistics. I have been in there about 17 years,, and we have possibly had 10 or 12 deaths, or maybe more, from tubercular trouble at Lockhart; but it is not anything like an epi- demic in the mills. It does not spread among the employees. We have possibly as much tuberculosis through the country districts as we have in the mills. The population which came to the town in which I am located when the mill first started consists of at least 32 INTERSTATE COMMEKCK IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOE. tliree-fifths of the original population that came when the mill first hegan. They have made their homes there and have grown up there. The Chairman. Have you o))served any deterioration m the mill employees? ^ ^ i, n .1 . Dr. Hope. No, sir: I have not. Last year the death rate was a little less than 2 'per cent in Lockhart, acording to the statistical re- port by our State board of health. I sent those figures out last year ni\self. We run a little lower than that sometimes, and have run a litle higher when we have had epidemics. The mortality among children is not any greater in the town than it is in the country dis- tricts, from 1 to 2 years old, during the second summer, which is known as the hard period on children. The children of all mill people seem to resist the diseases as well as any children. Senator Pomerene. What portion of these 17 cases were mill employees '( Dr. Hope. Well, I was speaking of the mill village proper when I said 10 or 12 cases. Seiiiitor PoJiERENE. I know; but you made the statement that there were 10 or 12 cases of tuberculosis? Dr, Hope. Probably that many ; yes, sir. I have not the statistics. Senator Pomerene. What proportion of them were mill em- ployees '. Dr. Hope. "^Miat proportion of them w'oj-ked in the mills? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Dr. Hope. They were all at work. I was speaking of that town; but some of them, as I recall — one or two^came to the mill infected. The heads of the families became infected with the tuberculosis, and the family worked in the mill. Thenthej would'die there from the results of tubercular trouble. Senatoi- Pojierene. What portion of these 10 or 12 were children in the employ of tlie mill i Dr. Hope. I can not recall. >ienatcr Pomerene. Did any of them, contract this tuberculosis Mhile working in the mill ? Dr. Hope. That is a pretty hard question to answer, sir, as to ^vhere they contracted it. I do not know of 11 single child that has contracted tuberculosis in the mill. Senator Pomerene. What is the effect of the breathing of this lint, dust, ete.. in the mill? Dr. Hope. With good ventilation they will throw it off. Senator Pomerene. How is that? Dr. Hope. AVhen they have good ventilation they throw it off. Senator Pojierenk. And when they do not. of course, the child is affected somewliat? Dr. Hope. If they liaAe not sufficient oxygen tliey are liable to. As long as tliev have sufficient oxygen in which to combat the germs, and tlie individual has good resisting powers, then he can throw off any di.se.ise. Tt is only the want of resisting ^^ower that causes the people to liecome infected with any disease. .'-^ejifitor Pomerene. Would you like to have your own children engaged in the niill in this kind of employments AVould you reoard it as conducixe to their health? Dr. Hope. J^et nie understand your question exactlv. You mean would I object if they had to labor at this employment? INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 33 Senator Pomerene. That is what I mean. Dr. Hope. I would not, if they had to laljor; no, sir. Mr. KiTCHiN. Our next will be Mr. Scott Roberts, of Alabama. STATEMENT OF ME. SCOTT ROBEETS, TEEASUEEE ADELAIDE MILLS, ANNISTON, ALA. The Chairman. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. Mr. Roberts. My name is Scott Roberts, -and I am treasurer of the Adelaide Mills, Anniston, Ala. I am 37 years old. Mr. Chairman, I will ask your permission to read a very brief excerpt from the Congressional Record, in connection with the hear- ing held there about six weeks ago. I quote from page 2543, being the extension of remarks, Wednesday, February 2, 1916, by Hon. John R. K. Scott, of Pennsylvania. He makes this statement : The opponents of this biU lack the courage to come out and squarely attack the measure upon its merits. Instead they are attempting to becloud and con- fuse the real issue and conceal their real objection by bringing forward a feigned and fictitious reason to sustain their opposition. Senator Poindexter. Whose statement is that? Mr. Roberts. John R. K. Scott. [Continues reading :] They will not and dare not attack this bill uppn its merits. They lack the audacity to come forward and argue in favor of the exploitation of the children by the merciless, avaricious Industrial interests of the South, and so they proceed to contemptuously attack the provisions of this most meritorious piece of legislation by raising the hue and cry of constitutional infringements. Gentlemen, I am one with sufficient audacity to attack this measure on its merits and solely on its merits. I feel that in this legislation we are attempting to infringe upon the inherent human rights of the poor young children in the South and everywhere else. When we have been shown the means to care for these people when they are thrown out of employment I would even then be willing to debate with anyone the wisdom of leaving them without an occu- pation; but until you do show us some satisfactory provision for these young people, I can not see what merits there can be in such a proposition. As I look around me I am struck with the fact that almost every successful man I have ever known not only went to work early in life but boasts of it and credits that fact with his ultimate success — that early he learned the habits of thrift and industry. Now, why is it that we have turned so completely around against the experience of almost every successful man in the acquaintance of everyone here? Of course, that is not every man, but it is so much so that I judge almost any man would admit it. There can be but one reason, and that is that we feel that the work that the children are doing is injurious to them. Well, m connection with this, some years ago the Beveridge in- vestigation — I suppose you would call it — was responsible for the appropriation of something like $300,000 to make an investigation of the condition of the woman and child workers throughout the United States, including the South. It has been charged that that investigation was biased from the first. I shall not attempt to say whether it was or not. But they discovered some very remarkable 27896—16 3 34 INTEBSTATE COMMEBGE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. things in connection with it. Their various agents were sent, all over this ?ountry and the results of their investigations were published in 19 volumes. This is one of them [referring to book] It is volume 1, Cotton Textile Industry Report on Condition of Woman and Child Wage Earners in the United btates; benate Document 645 Sixty-first Congress, second session. The quotation I have be- fore me is not exactly the one I was looking for, but while I have it I will read it, to save the time of this committee and all others interested. In this report, on page 120, 1 quote as follows: The personnel avis, Mr. Mills has returned from your place two differeat times re- porting tliat he was unable to secure work. I have come now to tell you that we iiinst haA'e work. I do not want you to tell me that there is no room vacant In your village that you can give us, because it Is a matter of desperate neces- sity. We live 20 miles out here in the country. We have almost nothing in the hoine; no clothes ; and we are on the point of .starvation. Gentlemen, it would be of no interest to me to stand here and tell you that unless it was true, absolutely. The man and his wife and children are at my place to-day. I told that woman : " I will provide a place for you. Come." In three days she came in, and in the meantime I had secured a three-room cottage for them. She said : Mr. Davis, it' you find another family in hiiA shape as we are, and have Iw empty house in which to put them, you let me know it and I will make arrange- ments to let them have one room of my home, because I feel that if there, is another family in this whole community in such straits as we are, that some- body ought to take them In. To-day that family is with me. That father has two sons, one in his fifteenth year ; and the reason I did not get his picture is because he was off with the Boy Scouts. We have the Boy Scouts there in our mill village, and I would have secured quite a number of other boys for the picture, but they were off on a hike, and T was unable to get them. They had already made the arrangements to go when I con- ceived the idea of getting the photographs. That son there [indi- cating on photograph] is making 50 cents a day, his brother $1, and the old gentleman $1 ; making $2.50, or $63.50 a month, and they are paying $1.50 house rent. Senator PoiNDEXTER. $1.50 a month? Mr. Davis. $1.50 a month; and he feels richer to-day, perhaps, than any of us, because he was right at the place where he felt, and his wife did, too, that they were in a desperate condition. I am not telling you gentlemen that fliis is universal in our com- munity ; no. But I tell you this, that in the past 10 or 15 years I have iiad charge of the Newberry Cotton Mill, I have got more pleasure out of doing things for other people along that line than I have in operating the mill. There is an obligation, gentlemen, that we are under to humanity. Whenever we bring a crowd of people together in close proximity we are responsible not only for the char- acter of the employment, but we are responsible for the environments of those people. We provide the homes; we design the homes; we select the lots and the size of the lots; we pro\-ide the sanitary condi- tions; and we are responsible, to a large extent, for the entire en- vironment which surrounds these people. If I had to operate a cotton mill on a pure, cold-blooded business basis, just simply to make money for the stockholders — and that is the primary object, of cour.se, and that is one of my duties — if I had to do that just from a sordid business ^•iewpoint, I would resign to-day. But it carries with it the humane thought of being able to do something for others that are unable to do for themselves. We have at Newberry Cotton Mill a good mill, and we have pro- vided for our people. INTEESTATE COMMEBCE IN PRODUCES OF CHILD LABOK. 53 I want to show you several photographs exhibiting conditions about our plant. I have several of these, but I am afraid I might wear you gentlemen out. Doubtless this thing has come up before. ' Jlere is a photograph [indicating] showing the character of the J people. It is a photograph of a Sunday-school class. That was not I taken especially for this occasion, as were those first four photo- : graphs. That is simply a photograph of a Sunday-school class, and I have three others at the hotel, showing the faces of the people that are working in our mill. Senator Thompson. How many people have you employed? Mr. Davis. Seven hundred, in round numbers. I should think it might be 695. Senator Thompson. What sized corporation have you, as to capi- tal? JMr. Davis. One million dollars. We have connected with the mill also play grounds, recreation grounds, a bathhouse for the people. Why, the people who com- pose the operators or employees in the Newberry Cotton Mill came right from the soil, and I will venture to say, gentlemen, that they certainly had no access to the very primary sanitary conditions which a home should have in the country. The conditions of a poor renter On the farm, who had to make his living and then give half of it to some one else can not possibly hope to have anything. That [indicating] is our school building.- Mr. KiTCHiN. All of those people in that long picture are workers in the mill ? Mr. Davis. Yes, sir; all except a minister who was photographed there, and I will defy the gentlemen here to pick him out. I have any number of these photographs with me, but I brought so many I was really ashamed to bring them up here from the hotel. Senator Eobinson. Do you know what might be called the school population of your village is? Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. The school population of the village is 162 out of a population of 1,200, and I have 27 going to school who are of working age, according to our State law! While speaking about education: You see the school building there [indicating]. It is just as nice a school building as there is in the city of Newberry. Just as well equipped in every way, and the teachers have to pass an examination for certificate, just as they do if they taught anywhere else. I have four cases here in my village that I would like to call your attention to in emphasizing education. All these cases can be actu- ally verified. I have a lady and gentlemen there by the name of Hubbard — Mr. and Mrs. W. E. Hubbard. They are two of the most ignorant people you would want to see. I do not suppose they hardly know their letters. They are extremely ignprant, and were raised in the country and had absolutely no educational advantages what- ever, and to look at those two people, the very expression of their face shows they are ignorant and unlettered. They have one child, a daughter, and to look at them you would select them as the last people on earth to appreciate an education; and yet their daughter is -a graduate of Columbia Female College, and is now teaching school in the city of Columbia, S. C. 54 INTEHSTATE COMMEECE IN PKODXJCTS OP CHILD LABOR. Another case is that of Mr. J. R. Thorhton and his wife, who have been with the Newberry Cotton Mill for twenty-odd years. Mr, Thornton's education is very limited and his wife has absolutely none. They have three children, two boys and one girL The second boy is graduating this year in our high school, and their only daughter, a very fine young lady, graduated at Newberry College in a literary course and also in music, and she is now teaching school in the city of Columbia, both in the graded school and music, making $90 a month there. Now, two other cases : I have a lady there who married years ago, and her husband left her. I am not going -to give her name, because I do not think it is expedient to do it. She has a boy and a girl, She put the boy in the mill at a very young age, and the girl wlaen she was old enough to work. The boy is remarkably smart; he is a marvel. I have three boys of my own, and one I think will do very well, but he is not a circumstance to this boy. This boy won every medal in the high school and the Newberry College, and he is now going to be an Episcopal minister; that is, he will finish college this year. Another case : An old lady who is a cripple and who has a house full of children, and she sent them all to school, one at a time, and they went through the graded school, and she had one especially bright boy, a good talker. This boy will graduate this year in col- lege, and he is going to be a Presbyterian minister. It looks like we are making preachers out of all of them, but Presbyterians and Episcopalians do not predominate there. A great deal has been said to you in opposition to the adoption of this bill, from the standpoint of the -manufacturer. What I say to you is going to be based more on tlje standpoint of the people who are going to be directly affected by the bill, because coming up from the ranks myself, and being familiar with these conditions and intensely interested in the welfare of the people who work in the cotton mills of the south, I am here before you this afternoon chara- Eioning the cause of the people who will be directly affected by this ill. We say a great deal has been written about the oppression of the child in the southern mills. Why, do you not loiow that the southern father and mother love their children as well as any other father and mother? Do you think that the Southern blood would allow that oppression anywhere, and do you think that the southern man- agement would want to do it, if they could? Not a bit of it. Of course, you will find this, gentlemen, in your investigation — if you do investigate it, and I hope you will^where a family has seven to eight boys and girls under 16 years old, a good sized family, you are going to find some bad boys in there. Yes, you will. And, as a representative of the management, I want to say I do not object to a bad boy; it simply shows strong Americanism in him; it simply shows there is manhood behind him; that is all. I do not object to that. Here is one feature about this bill that I want to call your particu- lar attention to, and that is the earning power of the father of a family. I do not think that has been brought out. But, you take a family that has been raised in the country — take this family I INTEBSTATE COMMERCE IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOK. 55 referred to awhile ago. The old gentlem^m is 50 years old; he has been on the farm all of his life, and knows nothing else but to do hard laborious work. When he comes into the mill you can not put him to operating machinery like you could a skilled operator. He can not learn it ; he is too old and clumsy, and he he can not begin to become efficient. You have to put him at some simpler position that does not pay well. If this law should pass and we would take those two children out of the mill that I referred to a while ago, it would leave that old gentleman there with $1 a day to support a family of live — a fhysi- cal impossibility. I referred a moment ago to my own sous;. J ajii die father of four children. I have a son 22 years old, -a graduate of Charles- town and a graduate of the Mechanics Institute ui ]]oclie.-:ter, N. Y., and he is to-day working in my mill, and hxi wont in there every vacation from the time he was 12 years old. My other boys have done likewise. It is work that trains a boy how ito work, t ^\ ould not want my son to wait until he is 16 years old bofoie he slriJces a lick of work, and I do not believe many t.itliei's do. I se^^ boys work- ing around in this building under 16 yearn old. Fathers right liere in the city of Washington do not want to do il. And why should they? If I want my sons to become citlzetis and become business men, I will not allow them to grow iti idleness until they reach that age when they will not want to work. There are two kinds of education — a literary education and an edttcation of training. That is an educfiticn of 'loing things, and they both liave got to go along together somewhat, t have known young men, graduates of Newberry College there in my city, who came over there and started in the mill after they were 18 or 19 or 20 years old. How long did they last ? Sometimes a month ; they did not last over three months at the Outside — 90 days was just about enough to see them gone. Why? Because they never started early enough to work; they did not want to work; they did not want to get on their overalls and do the hard work that was neces- sary to make a success in life, and I will tell you when you have a boy who wants to start at the top and come down he will never amount to anything. These children that" we are training we know them ; we know what they want and what they ought to have. We have in our State a law limiting the* age at present to 12 years, and there is a bill introduced now in the legislature to limit to 14, and in all probability it will pass. I think it will. But at the same time these people will probably feel it a hardship even if the law passes at 14 years old. But we are developing. I do not want to convey this idea to you, that we will never reach the time when a 14-year old law, and perhaps 15 or even 16 years, might not be acceptable. I do not know what the future holds for us, but when I think back 20, 25, or 30 years ago and recall the condition of the mills then, when I think of having to work there for almost noth- ing when I was a boy, and when I think of the marvelous improve- ments that have been made in the machinery and in the environment of the people who do this labor, and that the mills are throwing their whole weight in the dcA^elopment of strong citizenship, com- posed of the people who are employed in the southern cotton mills. 56 INTERSTATE COMMERCK IK PEODUCtS OF CHILD LABOR. when I see that and realize the mighty strides that have been made in the development not only in the machinery which does the work, but in the environments of the people and in providing ways an| means by which the people can enjoy themselves socially and re- ligiously — we have three churches in our village and three min'- isters live in the village, indicating we take good care of the re- ligious side of life, which is by no means the least side — and we have provided every convenience possible in our mill. I will say that, gentlemen, and I will be through. I want to speak about the sanitary conditions inside the mill. We provide drinking fountains; we provide lavatories; we provide disinfectants there and keep it sanitary, and we do not provide the cheapest disinfectants we can find. I will venture to say that we are purchasing a disinfectant with a coefficiency of 20, which means 20 times stronger than carbolic acid, and I will venture to say that there is not a single school in the city of Washington to-day that is buying a disinfectant as strong as that. We employ every conceivable method and means by which to look after the health conditions of our people. We would be foolish not to do it. We are proud of them, and at the same time we feel it will be working a serious hardship on the pfl,rt of these poor people- unfortunately poor people — to not allow them to make a nice living. Senator Poindextee. Where do you draw your employees from chiefly? Mr. Davis. From the country. Senator Poindexter. Tenant farmers. A few years ago a consid- erable controversy arose here in the Senate over the question ol what sort of food the mill employees had. What have you to say about that — the kind of living that they get? Mr, Davis. Well, I should think that their living is different, as it differs in other localities of the country. If I go up here to New York, they have various dishes there; I do not know what they are, nor how to order things from the bill of fare when they bring it to me, and I expect I am not by myself in that, because things change, and they have all those French names for common dishes; but the ordinary person has good, wholesome food. I am glad you mentioned that. Conditions are not alike all over the United States, and I want to prove that to you right here. Here [exhibiting photograph] is a handsome 20-room boarding house that I would like you gentlemen to look at. That house is equipped with electric lights, sewerage connections, bathrooms, and cost $6,000. That house was built right there, near our mill. How much rent do you suppose we get for it? We furnish the water, and we get $9 a month. Senator Robinson. For that whole building? Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. Senator Thompson. The company furnishes it, does it? , Mr. Davis. Yes, sir ; the object of that is manifest. Of course, $9 a month, with water furnished, does not pay the taxes and insurance on that building; neither does it pay the taxes and insurance on our entire village, because we rent one of those homes for $2 a month and the other at $3. The object of that is, of course, to provide cheap living for our people. INTERSTATE COMMEBCE IN PEODUGTS OF CHILD LABOE. 57 The man and the woman who rent this boarding house board those people for $10 a month, and thej furnish remarkably wholesome food. There is where we are different; certainly different from New York. You can hardly get a decent one day's stay in New Y^ork for much less than that. Senator Thompson. Mr. Davis, you have testified principally to the practical side of this transaction ? ■ Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. Senator Thompson. I want to ask now if from your experience you could not say that you could get to an 8-hour basis for those children under 16 years of age ? Mr. Davis. Gentlemen, I have been thinking of that question more than any other question since I reached this city. Realizing that I was the practical end of this proposition, I knew that question was coming, and, frankly, I would not say that it could be done, but I would not say that it could not be done. My impression, from the thought that I have placed upon it ud to this moment, is that it would be exceedingly difficult. There are many causes that enter into that. I understand that some mills are doing it in their States. Well, that may be, but at the same time, we are doing lots of things that they are not doing, too, and what is done at one place may or hiay not be practicable at another. There are many little details and technical things that come into this proposition that it would be hard for me to know how to state, but I would not like to go on record as saying that it could not be done. Senator Thompson, Your legislature has changed the law locally from time to time, has it not ? Mr. Davis. Yes, sir ; it has. Senator Thompson. And you have met those conditions? Mr. Davis. Yes; we have. Senator Thompson. Do you not think it would be possible to meet the eight-hour proposition? Mr. Davis. Yes, sir; but here is a condition that comes up all at once. The other change that has come about has been gradual; we liave met it from 10 or 11 — I do not know which it was, whether it was 10 or 11 — but we have certainly come up from 11 until we now have 12, and I believe we will have the 14-year-old law, but we will get to it gradually. The mills of South Carolina have been asking our legislature for several years to pass the compulsory education law up to 14 years of age. The objection, or one of the objections, I would have to this law, from the standpoint of the management — even at the 14-year-old limit— would be that it would turn these boys on the streets and these girls, and it is a hard matter, if the mother and father are at work, unless there is some way to make them go to school. They are not all going to school, only 12. While we have 27 there only 12 are going' to school. Some people appreciate the advantages of going to school, and some have not the same appreciation of it. That is a fair example of what I referred to a while ago. Again, we do not want those children thrown upon the streets. We would rather, in South Carolina, say " you must go to school," and put all of them into school and keep them off the streets. We would rather 58 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. they would do that than to tell them " you can not work " — a negative law that says, " you can not work." Senator Thompson. Have you a local law prescribing any period of time? Mr. Davis. It is 12 years of age. Mr. Thompson. You can not employ anyone under 12 years? Mr. -Davis. We can not employ them under 12 years. The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? If not, what is the pleasure of the committee ? Senator Clapp. I move that the committee do now adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. (The motion was agreed to, and accordingly the committee ad- journed imtil to-morrow, Wednesd{^y, February 16, 1916, at 10 o'clock a. m.) INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. WEDNESDAY, FEBBUABY 16, 1916. United States Senate, Committee on Interstate Commeece, Washington, D. G. '. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment. Present; Senators Newlands (chairman), Pomerene, Robinson, Brandegiee,.Clapp, La Follette, and Poindexter. The Chairman. Gov. Kitchin, who is the next gentleman that you desire to be heard ? Gov. Kitchin. I will ask the committee to hear Mr. Patterson. STATEMENT OF SAMUEL F. PATTERSON, TREASURER OF THE ROANOKE MIIIS, ROANOKE RAPIDS, N. C. ; AISO ROSE- MARY MANUFACTURING CO., OF ROANOKE RAPIDS, N. C. Mr. Patterson. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to say is that I am chairman of the executive committee of the southern cotton mills, and I am authorized by that committee and the friends of the southern cotton mills' employees and the mUlmen of the South to extend to this committee an invitation to come South and visit the cotton miUs. You are at hberty to designate what mUls you would like to visit or go without any designation whatever as guests of this committee. In other words, I mean to say that your entire expenses will be paid from the time you leave Washing- ton until the time you return. The object of this invitation is that we want this committee, as many as will come, to see the true conditions of things in the South for yourselves so that you may act upon this matter inteUigontly. Of course, we take it that you gentlemen, are seeking the truth, and we think the best way you can ascertain it is to come and see for yourself. Senator Clapp. That reminds me that I want to ask you two or three questions. These will not apply to the legal argument because that goes to the merits of this legislation as a whole. You people do not ask to have the cotton mills of the South excepted from tnis legislation, do you ? Mr. Patterson. We are not asking to have them excepted. We have not asked it as yet. Senator Clapp. Do you think the cotton-mill condition in the South, where the mills are now — and I am incUned to think that the 59 60 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILTJ LABOR. work is conducted as fairly as it possibly can be— reflects the indus- trial situation of this country in reference to what we call child labor?, Mr. Patterson. I do not think it properly reflects the industrial conditions in this country with respect to child labor, because I think we are very much better than other districts and other sections. Senator Clapp. I take it that that is true. Now, do you consider that the relative importance of the cottonrmill industry of the South to the industrial situation of this country, with reference to what we call child labor, requires that it should dominate in our policy in dealing with child labor? Do I make myself clear ?_ Mr. Patterson. The idea I had in mind was this, that we have been accused — that is our State — ^with being one of the so-called outlaws, States that have not recognized what is called a modern child-labor liw. Senator Clapp. I had not heard of that accusation. _ Mr. Patterson. There have been four States mentioned as being beyond the pale, so to speak — North Carolina, South CaroHna, New Mexico, an:d Wyoming — as if we were behind the procession, so to : speak, in^the way of passing legislation in regard to child-labor laws. If that is true, then we earnestly solicit .either the whole or a subi- committee, to come down and see whether these so-caUed dilatory States are as bad as they are painted. Senator Clapp, That would go more to relieving those States of a charge that is invidious to them than to our action on child-labor legislation. Mr. Patterson. Well, if you will pardon my saying so, I do not think this bid touches the heart of the real child-labor proposition. In the first place, I suppose I have not the right to ask you a question ? Senator Clapp. Certainly you have. Mr. Patterson. Are you familiar with the southern cotton-mill conditions? Senator Clapp. I am not. . Mr. Patterson. Have you ever been there ? Senator Clapp. Only in a most incidental way. I have never been there and studied those miUs, but this occurred to me yesterday. We sat all day yesterday and heard about the southern cotton mills, and it was interesting information; but -unless the southern cotton mills are to be excepted, or unless the relation of the southern cotton-: mill industry to the industrial situation in this country is such that it should dominate in our policy , I confers I could not see yesterday, why we should take so much evidence in regard to the southern cotton mills. Mr. Patterson. Senator Clapp, I want to call your attention to the fact, with all due respect to you, that, the reason we are talking about the southern cotton mills is because we have no coal mines, practically. It is not a question of child labor in the coal mines in our State, and it is not a question of child labor in the canning fac-' tories in our State, because we have no factories, but we have inr dustries in which child labor is employed. That is not touched at all by this bill any more than the sweatshops in New York are touched by this bill. Senator Clapp. It occurred to me yesterday,.! am free to say, that a great deal of this talk about not giving youth an opportimity 'to be IN-TEKSTAIE COMMERCE IN PEODUGTS OF CHILD LABOR. 61 industrious could have no reference whatever to the terms of this ^ilL. I quite agree with that. / . r Mr. Patterson. Now, I wiJl tell you: It does not make any differ- ence what is said to the contrary, we have invited you now down tlierfe to see for yoursslves. The fact remains the same, no matter how many pieople dispute it, that there are a certain number of children in the South who, through no fault of their own — certainly no fault of the cotton manufacturers— must work for a livelihood, for that is the only way they have of getting it. There is a law against going without clothes, and there is a natural law against going with- out food. Now, then, they must be fed. It has been sneered at and laughed at when the word "widow " is used, but the.fact is that we have nearly one-third of our entire population at our place the families of widows. I took a census some time ago and found that if we had,^wo more widow families in our village, one-third of our houses would^^e occu- pied by the families of WidoWs. Why ? It is the most natural thing •in the world that those poor rentars. in the South, when-ihe bread- Iwiniier dies, are up against a condition,, not a theory, and^J^e condi- tion is this, that some one must provide the necessary clotht^-'and food 'tha.t those people need every day, and the cotton mill is the best place for them. It has been proven so. The reason I say it has been proven 90 is. because there is no law in the State which says, "Thou shalt work in a cotton, mill." They are at liberty to exercise their rights as huirian being and citizens of the State, the same as anyone else. If there were some other field open to them that was just as attractive and just as remunerative as a cotton mill, they would not go into the cotton mills. They would not live on the farms, even if the cotton mills were as bad as they have been painted. So they ;Come in there. Why ? Because, the girls can make good wages in the cotton mUls, whereas they can not make good wages oh the tarms. '. ' : It does not take any argument to prove that. Farm work is not suited for girls, whereas mLll work is. ISow, to illustrate that, some of our witnesses were criticized for saying, for instance, that they did hot thiuk this work, this spinning millwork, would injure a child of, say, 10 years, 11 years,or 12 years — J mean injure the chUd physically. Now, he has a perfect right to say tha,t. He not only had the right to say it, but he told the truth, hecause the work is of such a nature that it can not injure the child physically. Of course, there is a point at which you must stop, just a:kr judge the friends of the bill would not continue to say that you must not work below 14 or 15 or 16 and continue the age up to 29 or 70. But the nature of the work in the cotton mill is of such character that there is nothing about it that can hurt the child physically, and when you speak of the climatic condition in these mills, I want to say thiat the climatic condition in the average Southern cotton mUl — I do not mean all of them, I mean the extremely modern mills, I should say the atmosphere — is better than it is in nine-tenths of the best residences in the State, because not only is the temperature auto- matically controlled, but also the humidity. The children are not the poor, downtrodden, half-starved things that they have been pictured to you. 62 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN P'§.6tp(f&f& OF CHILD LABOE. Senator Glapp. You are aJl the time speaking of a controversy, that I do not thmk the Senators here have ever heard of or given any thought to. Mr. Patterson. Well, it has been published a great deal — if the Senators are reading what is being published. The Chairman. Yes; I have read a good deal on that subjiBct. , Senator Clapp. It still seems to me that either the effort should be made to relieve a kind of industry which you people have pointed out as very favorable or the effort should be made to show that in the Nation-wide equation of child labor there will be more harm done to childhood by the prohibition, such as in this bill, than there will be good done to them. Now, the feeling is quite general that it is bad for children, who are too young, to work indoors. That is the basis of the sentiment, I think, of the child-labor legislation. Mr. Patterson. I do not want you to understand. Senator, for one minute that the Southern mill manufacturers are in favor of child labor as ordinarily conceived. Senator Clapp. Then, what do you propose to meet the situation? Mr. Patterson. What I want to tell you is this, that this bill do® one of two things, positively and absolutely. It either puts the nulls of the South on an eight-hour system or it puts the children on a 16-year age limit. Now, do not let anything else be in your minds than that. Senator Clapp. Now, conceding that, does it not still leave the situation Mr. Kitchin. If you will permit mc, I will explain one of the rea- sons why the cotton-mill men are being heard here, and perhaps the only men being heard in opposition to the bill. If you will read the testimony and the arguments before the committee of the House, yon will be led to the conclusion that except for the conditions of child labor in certain Southern States,, the manufacturing States, that in all human probability this bill would not have been agitated. I think from a full consideration of what has been said about it in the t'ovu'nals apid in the other parts of the press, you would be led to the lelief that if you were satisfied thati .there was nothing wrong, noth- ing injurious in the southern cotton factories, that there would be no necessity for the passage of this bill. As your attention was called yesterday to the fact, perhaps 25 States have the 16-year law. In the report they show how many States have practically what this bUl proposes to establish as the law, or compel the States to establish, and I do not know that it would ailect, my recollection is, five States materially, and if I teU you those States do not need the chastisement of the Federal law, probably you would not feel prepared to chastise any of them. ' Senator (Jr.APP. Now, that throws light upon what yesterday — I could not exactly understand why wo were hearing so much about the southern cotton niillH, Mr. Kitchin. I wiU say, however, that the view that you had in the intimation of exception in' the southerft cotton mUls, as I recall, Frevailed in one State. I think that probkbly Arkansas originally — do not know how the law is now — had a pretty good child-labor bill, but excepted factories, cotton factories, just as many States have ex- cepted canneries. They recognized that the canning business' was a INTEESTATB COMMERCE IN PEODtTOTS OF CHILD LjiBOE. 63 rush .business in certain seasons of the year, and several States except canneries from their. general labor laws. Senator Clapp. I have seen a great deal* of child labor legislation in a good many years, but I have never thought of the southern cotton miUs particularly. It was the industrial condition in. the East largely, and throughout the country generally, but your view- point, that it is the supposed condition in the South that is back of the forces behind the bill makes very plain and very reasonable this discussion of the southern cotton miUs situation. 1 am glad you explained it. Mr. KiTCHiN, As appears in these reports, it is known that it will have very little, if any, effect upon the factory conditions in the East, because they wiQ tell you that they have practically what this bin aims at already. It was repeatedly stated, for instance, that it is practically the Massachusetts 1r,w; but the working conditions in the i'l Eastern States, Boston, New York, and other places, are not affected directly, and if affected indirectly, it is only in a very slight degree, because the worst conditions are in the .sweatshops. Senator Clapp. I am very glad to have your explanations. Judge, because I confess that yesterday it looked to me as though we were dealing^with a subject here that it was not- necessary to deal with. Mr. Patteeson. There is one matter that I do not think is gen- erally understood, but it is a fact nevertheless, according to the Labor. Commissioner's figures. There is only 1 child out of every 16 who is working at gainful occupations in North Carolina in the cotton, mills. Another thing that I think we wiU all recognize is the fact that it is an attack that has been concentrated upon the cotton mills. I think I ;i.m perfectly safe in saying that of all the articles you have read, tha.t have been published recently, 90 per cent of them have to do deal exclusively with cotton mills, and they attack the southern cotton mills and their methods. Now, it is to do away with that idea, which is pure fallacy, that I would like to have this committee come down and see these things. There is but one thing about the bOl that does not seem to be under- stood thoroughly, and that is that it is iiipossible — not impossible but impracticable- — to employ a child of any age, it does not make any difference whether it is 14, 16, or 18, or what age, in the spinning department of a mill eight hours because it is an intermediate process, and that department must run as many hours per day as the other departments run; the consequence is that a southern cotton-mUl owner is not going to run the carding department, where only adults are employed, and their weaving department, where only adults are employed, eight hours a day for the sake of employing children between 14 and 16 in the spinning rooms. Now, in the spinning mills that I have in mind, and of which I am the treasurer, we have but 13 children in the mill under 16 years of age. Three of those are orphans, who will be thrown out of work in case this biU passes. Senator Clapp. I did not understand the State that you come from. Mr. Patterson. North Carolina. I have been in the cotton-mUI business many years. I worked in a cotton mill during my vacations when I was 12 years of age, and when I w^s 16 1 stopped school and went into the miU. I have been in the rnill ever since, and I think I know the conditions that prevail. ^4 INTEKSTAIE COMMERCE IN PKODUCTS 01' CHILD LABOR. These people are not asking for this legislation; they are not asking for eight hoiu-s a day. They are simply asking to be left alone to work out their own salvation in the field of endeavor that they have chosen, and it is a very mistaken idea that they work for a small amount of wages. It might be small if their living expenses were as great as they are in some other localities, but they are not. They have excellent houses. They pay a very small house rent. They pay no doctors' bills at all at our place. That is all furnished to them free, and they are not seeking this legislation. They do not want it. They are opposed to it — I mean the very people who are affected by the biU, or who are supposed to be affected by the bill, are opposed to it. I heard a very distinguished gentleman *say some time ago in talk- ing about this matter — a Member of the sHouse— say that he knew what child labor meant. That he had gone to work in a coal mine at 9 years of age, and that his father had gone to work in a coal mine in Wales when he was 6 years of age. I asked him why. I said, "Why did you go to work in a coal mine at the age of 9, and whj did your father go to work at the age of 6?" He said, "Because it was absolutely necessary." Now there is the milk in the coconut. It was absolutely necessary for him to go to work in a coal mine when he was 9, and his father when he was 6. Poverty has not gone out of fashion, and it is stOl absolutely necessary for children of that age to work in different localities throughout this country for a Uving. Senator Clapp. Do you think — and I do not know whether we should get into that discussion here — that we should sit down and tamely admit as a people that our condition is such that the only alternative is for a chUd of 6 or 9 years of age to go to work in a coal mine ? Mr. Patterson. That is a terrible adrnission, Senator. Neither should we be compelled to sit down and admit that we have thou- sands of unemployed walking the streets of New York City or Boston, We should not have to admit that. We Should not admit that we have poorhouses in every county where petople have to be supported. Senator Clapp. No; that is another proposition, between admitting an existing condition which we have not been able to remedy and admitting that the only remedy for the -condition is that children should go to work in coal mines at 6 or 9 years of age. Mr. Patterson. I beg your pardon; I do not advocate anyone working in a coal mine at 6 years of age. I do not know anything about a coal muie. Senator Clapp. But you were using an illustration there. You stated, as I recall, that that was necessary; that it was either that or starvation. Mr. Patterson. I mean this, however, tliat in saying that children have to work when they are very young is only doing what you said a mmute ago^acknowledging a condition that actually exists, not only m our State, but in every State that I know of. But I do say this, that I have never seen anyone who liVed in a cotton-factory town begging on the streets, and yet you can see them in Washington and Boston and other cities. Senator Clapp. That may well be. Mr. Patterson. We try to take care of our people as well as we know how, but until either the State arranges to take care of those INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS 01? CHILD LABOR. 66 children or the General Government arranges to take care of them, it seems to me as though we ought to approach this subject with very extreme care. Now here is a problem; it is an absolute problem, an actual problem. There are orphan asylums in our State, and I believe I am correct when I say that they keep the child until she is 16, and then turn her out. Is that not so. Gov. Kitchen. Mr. KiTCHiN. They have different rules. I think it is about that. Mr. Patterson. Well, the orphan asylums will not take them after they are 16. There are a great number of orphans who work in the cotton mills of North Carolina. Now, it is a problem, what are those children going to do ? There is another thing that we object to about this matter, and that is this: In our State the manufacturers were the first to advo- cate a compulsory education law for children. Our law now is that children shall attend school between the ages of 8 and 12. I think it would be a very unfortunate condition* of affairs for this law to say that those children can not work until they are 16, and still they are not compelled to go to school after 12. I see that Mr. McKelway shakes his head. I insist that this law does either one of the two things; it either puts a 16 -year age on children or an eight-hour day for the mills. Either one of the two. Senator Clapp. Speaking of that matter, I put into the record yesterday the statement that in Massachusetts from 14 to 16, I think, it is an eight-hour basis. Of course I do not know whether the other labor in these mills is eight hours or not. S3nator Lippitt said nine, and he is of course more familiar with the situation. So it must be that they have either taken the children out, if that state- ment is correct, or they have harmonized the two by hour periods. Mr. Patterson. In trying to get some advice oq this subject, we sent a lot of telegrams out. I think you are mistaken, sir, with all due respect to you. Senator Clapp. I simply used the House hearings. Mr. Patterson. I think it is a mistake. I do not think that Massachusetts has an ideal labor law. I have gone through 52 mills in Massachusetts in the last three years, and there is no such condi- tion prevailing in our State. Senator Clapp. Then you do not challenge the correctness of the House documents, giving eight hours as the limit below 16, do you ? Mr. Patterson. In answer to that question I will just read a telegram from the commissioner of labor in Boston, received last night. It is as follows (reading) : Boston, Mass., February 15, 1916. David Glark, S5, Congress Hall Hotel, Washington, D. C: Two thousand five hundred and eighty-seven minors under 16 employed in Mas- sachusetts cotton mills. Children obliged to have employment and educational certificates. Edwin Mulkbadt, Commissioner of Labor. Senator Clapp. Just a moment. I want you to state, first, whether you challenge the stitement contained in the House Docu- ment, that there is an eight-hour limit under 16. Mr. Patterson. I do not challenge that; no, indeed. 27896—16 5 66 INTJ^KSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCT'S OF CHILD LABOR. Senator Clapp. I simply wanted to know. I read that document, but never examined the law. Mr. Patterson. I mean to say that I do not challenge the fact that there is such a law on the statute books. Whether it is obeyed or not is a different matter. Senator Clapp. I am not discussing that .at all. Mr. Patterson. I would like to put this in the record, also. The matter referred to is as follows : EFFECT or STATE LEGISLATION SIMILAR TO THE KEATING-OWEN BILL. The advocates of this bill claim that it has been a success in Massachusetts and that the mills have had no difficulty in meeting the proposition of employing those between 14 and 16 years of age only eight hours per day while the older employees work longer hours. We know that since the passage of such a law by Masachusetts there has been prac- tically no increase in the number of spindles in that State. We ask permission to insert in the record information which we will obtain in the next few days relative to the effect upon the Massachusetts law upon the cotton mills of that State. Kentucky has a similar law and found that it was impractical to work any one undei 16 years of age. The effect of similar legislation in Pennsylvania is.plainly shown by the following letter to Congressman E. Y. Webb from E. J. McGenijis, district attorney of Schuyl- kill County, Pa., and also an open letter sent to the legislators of Pennsylvania by Mr. McGennis. Mr. Patterson. That was the question you had in mind, I judge? Senator Clapp. Not in that form. Mr. Patterson. I think we could fill the record with just such let- ters as that, that the child-labor law in Pennsylvania has been a very freat disappointment even to the public who advocated the law, ecause instead of putting the children on the eight-hour basis, it has thrown them out of work. Mr. KiTCiiiN. Right there, it might be will to introduce the report from which you read yesterday, Senator Clapp, that the census in 1910 shows that Massachusetts had 279 dtiildren in manufacturing and mechanical operations under 13, and those from 14 to 15, 18,275, which would make about 18, .500, and if that telegram is correct there are only 2,500 emploved. The law was passed m 1913. Mr. McKelway. "f hat is all the mechanical operations in Massachu- setts. Mr. KiTCHiN. I said mechanical and manufacturing operations. The Chairman. I would like to ask a few questions. How many of the States outside of the Southern States ^are engaged in the produc- tion of cotton goods ? Mr. Patterson. I can not say exactly, but there are practically none west of Kentucky. The New England States and the Southern States are the manufacturing States of the Union. The Chairman. Then, regarding Kentucky as a Southern State, the only States in which that industry is condnicted to any considerable extent are the New England States ? Mr. Patterson. I did not get that question. The Chairman. Outside of the Southern States and Kentucky, regarding Kentucky as a Southern State — — Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The only States that have a considerable part of this industry are the New England States ?. INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PEODTJCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 67 Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir; that is right. The Chairman. Do all of these States liave the eight-hour law as applied to this industry ? Mr. Patterson. Now, I remember 19, 1 believe, that have a law which says The Chairman. I am talking about the New England States that are engaged in the cotton-manufacturing industry. Mr. Patterson. Well, I am not familiar with all of them, but I understand that Massachusetts, Arizona, California, Colorado, Dis- trict of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Washington for girls and Wisconsin have laws which prohibit children under 16 from working over eight hours in mills and factories. It does not say that it prohibits them. The Chairman. Then, you enumerate only one New England State in which that law prevails ? In that list there is only one of the New England States ? Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And that is Massachusetts? Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Do you know how it is in other New England States ? Mr. Patterson. I do not. The Chairman. Now, in the States which you are representing, North Carolina, Georgia, and South Carolina — and what other State ? Mr. Patterson. Well, Mississippi and Virginia. The Chairman. In Mississippi they have a cotton industry? Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir; and in Alabama, also. The Chairman. Do any of those States have an eight-hour law as applied to children * Mr. Patterson. I think Mississippi has; in fact, I know they have a law, and I think it is an eight-hour law. That is the one I read a minute ago. The Chairman, Now, what Mmit is there in the other Southerii States to which you have referred that applies to this industry ? Mr. Patterson. Well, I am speaking of this industry, of course. The law in North Carolina says that you can employ a child 12 years of age provided it has attended school a certain length of time dur- ing the preceding school term; I do not think that is recognized by the manufacturers at all. I know we do not employ any children under 13. We have only two in our mills under 14. The Chairman. Does the law permit you to employ children imder 14 ? Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir; under 14. It permits you to employ a child at 12 if it has gone to school a certain length of time m the preceding school period; but I do not know anyone who is working children of 12 years of age. We have not done it for years. The Chairman. I am speaking now of the limit of the law. Mr. Patterson. Otherwise, it is 13. The Chairman. In how many of the States is the age 12 years. Mr. Patterson. It is 12 in South Carolina as I understand it; it is practically 13 in North Carolina. In Alabama it is 14 on the first of September next; it is now 13 and the same thing exists, I believe, in South Carolina. It will be 14 there. 68 INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCT'S OF CHILD LABOR. The Chairman. Do you think that limit ought in all cases be ap- plied to children below 14 years of age; do you think a limit below U years of age ought to be applied in all cases to children, and are there not, in some of those statutes, provisions permitting employment of children under those ages under certain 'conditions, and with the vis6 of certain public authorities. Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Is that so in most of those States ? Mr. Patterson. It is so in several of them; I do not know that it is so in a majority or not. Now the manufacturers of South Carolina have not opposed — that is in the ordinary kcceptation of the term— a 14-year age limit. They did oppose it until the State passed a com- pulsory educational law raising the limit to 14. The Chairman. What do you think about the wisdom of arbitrar rily Irmitmg it to 14 years ? Mr. Patterson. WeU, I doubt the wisdom of it. The Chairman. Without giving the power to some governmental body, or official, to relax the rule in exceptional conditions. Mr. Patterson. I am perfectly frank to teU you if I had my way about this matter, I would set the limit at 14 years of age with a compiilsory education law to 14, but witL.the proviso that by going before the proper authority a child might get permission to work as young as 13, it his condition in life happens to be such ihat he would have to work. The Chairman. Now, my mind is intent Tipon some method of amending this bill. You propose in effect that we should either pass no biU at all, leaving the matter entirely to the States as a matter of domestic concern, or if we do pass a law we should except this par- ticular industry and perhaps particular States from its operation, which would be a very difficult thing to do. Mr. Patterson. I realize that. The Chairman. Now, my mind is intent upon this; I can see that under certain conditions a limitation as low as 14 years or 13 years or 12 years might impose very serious embarrassment upon certain families and upon certain children. Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And deprive the children themselves of oppor- tunities which they ought to have and which would perhaps save them from the pernicious effects of idleness. Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. My mind is tending toward some modification of this biU which will admit of discretionary relaxation of this rule under guard that will insure that the relaxation, will not prove a means of EracticaUy avoiding the purposes of the act. Have your minds ever een directed to that question ? Mr. Patterson. I think so. The Chairman. Have you shaped any Suggestions of amendments to this biU that would cover that ? I regard the passage of a child- labor bill of this kind as practically insured. I think the feeUng is— I may be mistaken — that this subject wiU not be left exclusively to the States in the fear that even though the States may pass wise laws upon the subject the laws themselves may not be properly enforced, and so it seems to me that the ingenuity of the gentlemen who think as you do should be applied to the shaping of an amendment to this INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 69 bill that will enable the exercise of wise discretion by certain author- ities under certain conditions. Mr. Patterson. Senator Newlands, I feel this way about it. Per- sonally I do not think it is a matter The Chairman. Of course I am speaking now entirely apart from the constitutional question. Mr. Patterson, i xmderstand that, 1 do not think it is a matter for Federal control. We can not equalize the conditions over the States by any amount of legislation in the first place. The Chairman. I admit that. Now, as I understand, in your Stat© you say that whilst Massachusetts may have the advantage of an eight-hour law, yet that if you were to accept that you would have then certain disadvantages in competition with Massachusetts; that Massachusetts, for instance, has lower freight rates. " Mr. Patterson. Lower freight and lower fuel. The Chairman. Lower fuel and other conditions that would give her the advantage and you could not sustain your industry down there if you were handicapped by extreme legislation upon this subject. Mr. Patterson. There is another matter that has not occurred to you, I judge, from what you say. Most of the mills in Massachusetts do not furnish their tenement houses, and, fortunately or unfor^ tunately, the mills in the South, in nearly every instance, do furnish the tenement houses. I want to tell yoil that a large amount of money has been invested in tenement houses for southern miU employees, and I feel safe in saying that it does not net the miU 3 per cent. So that is the disadvantage. It is another disad- vantage. The Chairman. I understand; but suppose you were handicapped now by a rule of this kind as applied to your industry. You would then doubtless be obliged to abandon certain expenditures that you make now purely from a humanitarian point of view. Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. WeU, would not the people down there get along just as well without your making these humanitarian provisions in the shape of tenement houses, etc., for them ? Mr. Patterson. If we thought that they would get along just as well in the small log cabins that they came irom on the farm, without the electric lights, without the sewerage, and without proper instruc- tion as to how to cook and what to cook, without trained nurses, without medical assistance, without hospitals (we certainly are not keeping them just for the fun of the thing), we would do away with them if we thought they would get along just as well without them. The Chairman. Your contention then is that if you abandon those things which are not general in other States, the condition of the children under this law would be worse than* under present conditions? Mr. Patterson. Absolutely. Senator Clapp. You spoke of being handicapped as to freight rates. The cotton is raised in close proximity to your mills, is it not ? Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. Senator Clapp. Now, as to the market abroad, where would New England have any advantage as to freight rates. Mr. Patterson. In New England — I think I am correct when I state that the freight rate from Fall River to New York is 5 cents a 70 INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR, hundred pounds. I know I am correct in stating that our freight rate to New York is 39 cents a hundred. Senator Clafp. But you do not have to get it to New York to seud it abroad, do you ? , n -i i i i t Mr. Patterson. We do not send anything abroad, and when X say we send nothing abroad I should say that we have sold a lot recently to some of the charitable societies that are sending stuff abroad for war rehef ; but ordinarily we do not ship ofir stuff abroad. Senator Clapp. I want to put this of record if it is a, fact. Does New England have any advantage in rates \frhere the points to which the product is distributed is as far from the mill in New England as against the southern miUs for the same distance ? Mr. Patterson. They have a very great advantage. Senator Clapp. Now I want to ask the chaii-man a question. He has assumed a certain proposition here, and I want to know whether, as chairman of this committee dealing with railroad rates, he is going to assume that for all time you can haul cotton from the South to New England, manufacture it, and then 'ship it out again an equal distance, with the advantage of railroad rates that New England has? The Chairman. You mean whether the advantage Senator Clapp. You assumed that in the question, the advantage that New England has over the South. The Chairman. I would not assume that that condition would exist for all time. Mr. Patterson. It is largely a matter after all in freight rates, not of distance, but competition. The Chairman. But we do know that the density of traffic is such in New England and in the adjoining regions as to enable very much lower freight rates than prevail elsewhere throughout the country. Senator Clapp. That would be true as to those points within the natural radius of the distribution in New England ; but in compe- tition with the South, points that do not sh*are that condition. That is what I have reference to. Mr. Patterson. I will give you an idea as to that. I heard the other day that two hogsheads of Burley tobacco from New Orleans (not since the war began), but some time ago — were shipped. One was consigned to Liverpool and the other to Danville, Va., and the freight on the tobacco to Liverpool was lesg than it was to Danville. Now, I know that there are points in the adjoining States — Danville, for instance — where the railroad haul is about three times as long as the haul from our place, and where the Water haul is exactly the same — deep-water transportation exactly the same, and where the freight rate is much less than ours. I also know that in Petersburg, Va., which is exactly the same, almost within a mile of the same dis- tance from Norfolk that we are — their freight rate to New York is 23 cents and ours is 39, and we both ship to Norfolk and both there take the Old Dominion Line. Senator Pomerene. Is it your claim that your freight rates are excessive ? Mr. Patterson. 1 only made the remark 'that we could not equalize conditions by this biU or with any other kind of legislation. Senator Pomerene. That does not answer my question. Is it your claim that the freight rates are excessive ? INTERSTATE COMMEECE IN PBODUOTS OF CHILD LABOK. 71 Mr. Patterson. In the South? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Patterson. As a rule, yes. Senator Pomerene. Is not your remedy to correct that to bring the matter before the Interstate Commerce Commission or before your local commission and correct it in that way rather than to counterbal- ance the advantage the other localities may have in freight rates by some legislation on this particular subject ? Mr. Patterson. That is absolutely true; but some of the advo- cates of this bill are contending that it is perfectly right and proper to equalize labor conditions and labor laws all over the country, and, as I say, they might equalize labor laws, but they can not equalize other conditions. They are claiming that the South has an advan- tage over them; that we are unfair competitors. That has been stated in the record. Senator Pomerene. Yesterday a good deal of capital was made out of the thought that we should care for the widows, children, etc. Now, I am willing to concede that as a general proposition, but I do not believe that the conditions are such in the South that you have more widows or more orphans than they hajve in any other section of the country. So that it seems to me an argument of that kind is with- out very much validity. We ought to be able to get something here that is going to be equal and just and at the same time guard the inter- ests of the minor children. Mr. Patterson. I think your supposition is absolutely correct. I do not think we have any more widows in proportion m the South than they have at other places and probably not so many, because we have a very healthy place down there. The Chairman. And yet you stated as a fact that one-third of the families in your village are the families of widows. Senator Clapp. That would be quite natural, that they should drift to the town to get work for the children. Mr. Patterson. I tried to explain that tliat was the most natural result in the world. Just picture for yourselves our community out- side of the miU vUlages. Take the small farmers; most of them are tenants. Now, picture a tenant who has a family, especially of girls, and the breadwinner dies. The father dies. I contend and insist that it is the most natural thing in the world for those people to come into a cotton mill to go to work, because the farming work is unsuited for firls; whereas the mill work seems to be esppcially designed for them, simply wanted to illustrate that. The Chairman. Then, take the conditionof the girls in one of your cotton mills as contrasted with the girls qn the farm as you have described. Which is the more favorable condition ? Mr. Patterson. There is no comparison. The conditions in the mill are very far superior, so much so that it is ridiculous to compare them, not only as to educational facilities, but with respect to church facilities. The Chairman. Do you think so in the matter of health ? Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir; positively. The Chairman. Do you not think there is any tendency toward race deterioration in those mill towns ? Mr. Patterson. To the contrary. 72 JNTEESTATE COMMERCE IN i>KODUCTS OF CHILD LABOH. The Chairman. It is very marked in the mill towns of New England. Mr. Patterson. Again I desire to repeat toy invitation to the com- mittee to come down there and see for themselves. The Chairman. Thero is a m.arked contrast there between the agricultural population and the mill population in size and strength, Mr. Pattekson. That m.ight be so in England, but I say the opposite can be proved — it is just the opposite in our place, I mean in the South, as a whole; not only our place but other places; for instance, the poor farm.ing class in the country—they are good people but they are poor. They do not have the sanitary conditions they have in the towns; they do not have as good houses; they do iiot have the school facilities or the church faciUtios, and they do not have the same kind of food or class of food. We have district nurses to go around to teach those people how to cook and what to cook, and they are supplied by the m.ill. The Chairman. Is that true of aU the mills in your State? Mr. Patterson. I will say that we do more welfare work in some respects than som.e others, and they do m.ore in other respects. I have in m.ind a m.ill at Kanopolis; that is a.-large miUing town where they do a great m.any more things in certain directions than wo do, but we do pay as much or m.ore attention to the health of the opera- tives than any place I know of. We have had your own Government officials down there, and we just transfornied our place from a place that was fairly good with regard to health to one of the healthiest places I know of. The Chairman. What Governm.ent officials do you refer to ? Mr. Patterson. To Dr. Carter and Dr. Von Ezdorf and others. TheCiiAiRiMAN. Of the Health Department? Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Now, you suggested a moment ago that a sub- committee or the entire committee should 'visit your region, and you extended an invitation to them to come at any time. How long would it take to make such a trip and to get a complete survey ? Mr. Patterson. I have seen the railroQ,d officials and they have promised us that they will make you as comfortable as can be done under the circumstances. I would suggest — I am not going to dictate to you — but I would suggest that you leave Washington, say, on the Sunday evening boat and go to Norfolk ; there you will he met by a compartment car and dining car, and from there you can go whcac you please. You can take any length of time you please. You can see some of the largest miUs in North Carolina and return here on the second day after you leave ; that is, you could come back here Tuesday night, but if you go on through to South Carolina, it would probably take you four days, but I feci sure you would enjoy the trip, and I feel sure that every manufacturer would he glad to have you come, and I feel absolutely sure that you will learn more about cotton mills and the cotton conditions in four days than you can loam by reading all the magazines and sentimental articles that have ever been written about this ihatter during the balance of your lifetime. Just come and look; that is what we want you to do. The Chairman. Are there many of those mills in Georgia ? Mr. Patterson. There are quite a numbe,r in Georgia. IXTEBSTATE COMMERCE IN PKODXJCTS OF CHILD LABOE. 73 The CiTAiRMAN. I would presume it would take a little over a week then to make a complete trip through North Carolina, South Caro- lina, Georgia, and Alabama. Mr. Patterson. You could not get through in a week if you did the complete work. We have three or four hundred in our State alone, and I just want to call your attention to this. I will not go into these figures, but I think they will be interesting if you will look the matter up in some of the evidence that was offered in the House in regard to this same thing. Look at the percentage of the school attendance in the States that arfc supposed to have ideal labor laws — that is, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi — as com- pared with some of the States that you claim have not ideal laws, and you will find our children are going to school about as well as the others. It does not work, in other words. Now, we wiU be glad to have you come down; and I repeat, come down and look and see for yourselves. The cotton-mill condition is not what it is ordinarily thought to be by those who have never seen it. Senator Pomerene. You were speaking of the sanitary condition or improvements that have been adopted, down there, and my own inforrtiation is that they have been very greatly improved in the last few years. Mr. Patterson. They have been; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. About how long ago did you begin those improvements ? Mr. Patteeson. Well, we began them immediately after we went to this place, this town that I am speaking of now. They had a large water power there, and we went there and developed this water power, and built these mills, and began to improve the sanitary con- ditions since we went there 18 years ago. Ihe Chairman. I suppose, Mr. Patterson, you will admit that a good deal of this improvement in sanitation and this welfare work has been inaugurated under the whip and spur of this national movement for the child-labor laws. Is that not so ? Mr. Patterson. You ask me to admit that? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Patterson. I say positively that they had nothing whatever to do with it. The Chairman. You think it would have been done anyway? Mr. Patterson. I do not think anything about it. I know it. The Chairman. I remember that in an inquiry that we had before the Committee on Education and Labor some years ago, one of the first inquiries that was made — and I was a member of that com- mittee — ^was with respect to conditions there which seemed very deplorable. Mr. Patterson. I went to work when I was 12 years of age, in the cotton mill. The conditions then were poor, but it is like any other business you might mention. All of your machine shops in New England have gradually improved all along the line. The Chairman. Do you not think that all of that has been accom- plished, as I stated, under the whip and Spur of legislation, either threatened or accomplished ? Mr. Patterson. I do not believe it. There has been no effort as far as I know to pass a law in North Carolina compelling manufac- turers to furnish nothing but deep wells for their employees. That is 74 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. what we do, and we have au expert at Johns Hopkins Hospital to analyze the water; we pay him to do it; with the result that we have had no typhoid fever in that town now for two years. Now, we may not deserve any credit for that. Senator. We realize The Chairman. I think you deserve credit for it. Mr, Patterson. We realize that a person who is well and haj)py makes a better employee than one who is not. That is the thing in a nutshell. The Chairman. Now there is another thing. You are anticipating some change in the economic conditions at the closf of the European war, I observe from your testimony? Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Your fear is that over there they are driven by the necessity of getting back their gold that has largely gone to countries that have been suppyling them with m.unitions of war and not money for local development, that that would stimulate pro- duction and exports to othor countries ? Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And you fear that they will not be as humane as we are in this country regarding the employment of child labor. Have you ever thought that our legislation could be directed toward the prevention of the unfair advantage secured by an inhu- mane system by establishing a humane system ? Mr. Patterson. I do not pretend to Say that I am capable of advising what sort of legislation should be passed in an extreme condition such as we are going to face now. We all know perfectly well that there have been so many men killed off in Europe that there are going to be a lot of women and a lot of children who are going to work at gainful occupations now who have never been forced to that necessity before. We all laiow that, and under the old rule of supply and demand there is going to be a great surplus of labor; there are going to be lower wages; and it is my honest opinion — whether I am right or wrong I do not Imow — that we are going to be flooded with a lot of textiles that have been manufactured under the cheapest labor conditions that have been known for half a century. Senator Pombrenb. Mr. Patterson, I wish you would explain this: With a given condition in Europe we import a given quantity of goods that has a given effect upon our local industries. I have heard this argument before, but I have never .seen an explanation of it. Explain to me why or how from five to ten million dead men and from five to ten million crippled men can increase this surplus product that is going to flood the markets here. Mr. Patterson. My idea about it is that there is going to be so many more men — crippled men, if you like? to put it that way — and so many women and children, who, on account of their financial con- dition, in not having to work prior to the war, they will now have to seek employment. The Chairman. As a matter of fact, I believe it is a statistical fact that after the Napoleonic wars the wage level of Europe was lower than it had been for 50 years prior to that time. Senator Pomerene. Was the production greater ? The Chairman. I do not know about that, but the wage was very low. INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. 75 Mr. Patterson. I do not know that the production would be greater because there have been so many of the manufacturing estabUshments that have been completely ruined, but as fast as they can rebuild them they are going to seek some sort of employment by which they can make a living. We know a great many of them have been impoverished by reason of the war. The Chairman. As I understand it, all this welfare work you are doing in the Southern States, and it seems to me to be very com- mendable, has been a voluntary matter. Mr. Patterson. Absolutely. The Chairman. I was in a factory in Genxiany some years ago that seemed to me a marvel of cleanliness and sanitation and comfort for the convenience of the employees. I complimented the proprietor, who was showing me around, at the end of our trip upon the humanity that they had shown in all of these arrangements ; they far exceeded anything I have seen in this country anywhere, and he looked a little surprised, and his answer was. "We deserve no credit for that. The Government requires it of us." Mr. Patterson . It is a well-known fact that our Government does not require it, but common sense does. We realize that the more contented you can make your people the better class of labor you will get. The Chairman. Does any other Senator desire to ask any quetsions ? Senator Brandegee. I would like to ask one or two questions. Do I understand you cotton manufacturers of the South claim that the condition of the children under 16 years of age, v, horn you employ, is on the whole a great deal better, both in the mills and in the sur- roundings in the manufacturing communitifes, than they were on the farms from which they were drawn ? Mr. Patterson. Very much better. Senator Brandegee. Or than they would be if they should lose this employment ? Mr. Patterson. Very much better. There is no comparison. Senator Brandegee. One other question. In those States which have the eight-hour law applied to children under 16, has the effect been to throw the whole mill under the eight-hour law 1 Mr. Patterson. The effect has been just what a great many of the friends of the measure did not want it to be. It has thrown the children on a 16-year age limit instead of throwing the mills on the eight-hour law. Senator Brandegee. You mean it has thrown out of employment the children under 16 years of age? Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. , Senator Brandegee. Has not that benefited them ? Mr] Patterson. I fail to see it. If this bill is an educational mat- ter, I fail to understand for the life of me how you can send any more children to school by changing their occupations from one thing to another. The children in our mill towns in the South, as a rule — of course there are some exceptions — those who can afford to go are already attending school. Do not get it in your minds, gentlemen, please, that there are no children in the mill villages over 14 who are going to school. There are literally hundreds of them over 14 going to school, but the children who are compelled to work through some force of circumstances, no matter what it happens to be, are now in 76 INTEHSTATE COMMERCE IN PBODtJGTS OF CHILD LABOR. the mills. Now, if this law goes into effect, I can not see how the driving of these children back on the farm would benefit them from an educational standpoint. In the first place, it is going to liiixt them. As they are now the younger members of the family can get all school facilities right at the door, and religious advantages right at the door, whereas if you send them back on the farm they will have neither. Senator Brandegee. Of course, I assume that everyone wants to make the conditions of labor, especially for children, and more espe- cially for girls who are compelled to earn their living, children under 16 years of age, say, as good as it is possible to make them. Mr. Patterson. And I think every southern miU manufacturer feels just that way. Senator Brandegee. Of course, every member of this committee, and every Member of Congress, as a matter of fact, feels that way. It is unfortunate, of course, that young children have to work at all, It is unfortunate that they can not be supported by their families and given a good education and not be compelled to go to work until they nave attained their majority, perhaps. But I am saying that if poor children have got to work at something, what better thing could they be working at than in the proper mill, Such as you have described, surrounded by the sanitary arrangements that you have described ? Mr. Patterson. I could not conceive of any more congenial occu- pation for a child. Now, much has been said on this line^in fact, I was asked a question, not in the hearing, but outside, "How is it that you claim on the one hand that you pay good wages, and on the other hand that the work is so very light and is insignificant in character? How can you afford to do taatV Well, the best illustration I can give you is this : If a grown man were to sit down and tried to thread needles all day, he would wear himself out and get into a profuse perspiration and not accomplish anything. We have all tried, I suppose, to thread a needle. Now, there is no manual work about threading a needle ; there is nothing about the operation of threading a needle that is going to hurt you physically, still if you take some old bachelor and pay him a cent apiece for threading needles, he will starve to death. Senator Brandegee. I know I would. Mr. Patterson. On the other hand, take some 12-year old girl and pay her a cent apiece to thread needltes and she would get trich. Now, the work is of a light character and peculiarly fitted for just women and children. The Chairman. There are two kinds of education, of course; one of the head and one of the hand. Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The system that is provided for in this bill apparently stimulates training of the head up to, say, 16 years of age, but makes no provision for training the hands, and yet both are necessary in the ordinary vocations of life. Now, is it not possible to establish in these mills some method of graduated hours arranged according to the age of the children, so they wiU receive this training of the hands and without too long hours of confinement ? Wliy is it not practicable, for instance, if you only want to employ the mill machinery eight hours a day, to have the children work in two shifts of four hours a day each, so that the children would not be employed INTEESTATE COMMEKCE IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 77 more than four hours a day and have the rest of the day for recreation and mental trainuig? Mr. Patteeson. I have given that matter a great deal of mature thought, and I fail to realize how that can be done. In the first place, it means that you are employing twice as many children as you are now employing, and that is rather a remarkable way to do away with child labor, to employ twice as many. In the second place, as it is now, it is not every member of the family — I mean as a rule it is not every member of a family that would work in a cotton mUl. Some are at work in the cotton miU while others are going to school, and vice versa. I have in mind a family there where there are two boys in school and two in the mill. The last session the two boys who are now at the mill were at school an*d the other boys were at the mill; and besides that, if a boy is sufficiently interested in getting an education and he wants to go to night school, there are free night schools furnished him. The Chairman. What I am trying to a,scertain is this: I think it is very important that we should develop the training of the hands as the training of the head, and I believa that youth is the time to do it. Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir; I think so, too. The Chairman. That is to do both. I would regard a system of head training that would keep a child in school eight hours as a bad system, not affording sufficient time for relaxation and reoreatioUj and by the same process of reasoning I should regard eight hours for hand training, or industrial training, as a bad system because it does not give sufficient time for relaxation and ]*ecreation. The monotony of the employment would be injurious to the proper development of the child. Now, why is it not possible with reference to both to secure devel- opment in youth on these lines without overtaxing the child? It does seem to me that eight hours, either for head work or hand work, for an immature child is too great a burden. Mr. Patterson. Senator, I worked when I was 12 years of age 69 hours a week. I worked 12 hours every day except on Saturdays. I never realized that it hurt me. The Chairman. You look like a man with an exceptional consti- tution. Mr. Patterson. It is not the kind of work that wears one out. There is no manual labor about it. The Chairman. It is not the manual labor that your attention is directed to. There is a strain, and it seems to me that some method could be devised by which children could be trained to make some- thing toward the support of themselves and perhaps the support of their parents, widowed, or otherwise in pase of exigency, without such long hours and without the system being uneconomical so far as the factories themselves are concerned. Mr. Patterson. There are two points that enter into this matter, following what you have just said a momeat ago — and I am endeav- oring to answer your question with regard to it. If the children were employed for half the time it would necessitate of course a great many more tenement houses. It would necessitate twice the num- ber of houses that are necessary to house the children of that age, of course. That is the smallest end of it. In addition to that it would 78 INTERSTATE COMMEKCE IN PRODUCTS OE CIH LD I-ABOh. mean that a child would come to the mill pid work tour hours and then go back and go to school. Was that your idea ? Did i get it? The Chairman. Either that or to engage m recreation. Mr. Patterson. Or do nothing? The Chairman. I mean some recreation. Mr. Patterson. There is no question about our being able to work a child for four hours and lot him ou.t to do nothing the rest of the day. That could be very easily accomplished, but you can not keep families under those conditions, because the famiUes could not live on that sort of work. The children are paid for their services per hour, and right on that line I want i'6 tell you that out of 546 people in our mill, we had only 41, I think it was, who were getting less than $1 a day. We have boys down there 17 years of age get- ting 11.75 a day. The Chairman. But I think it would be a great deal better for a child to get say 50 cents for a half a day than a dollar for a day. I can see, of course, that it would require more operatives. Mr. Patterson. If the number of employees were unlimited you could, by building enough houses, accommodate your help. Work a boy half a day and get some other boy to take his place. The Chairman. At all events, I think a biU like this which abso- lutely cuts off the children under 14 year? from the opportunity for {getting training for the hands, which would fit him for the battle of ife, is an inhumane law — I mean to say it would prove inhumane in many instances. Mr. Patterson. We would like to get tiiis committee, as many as will come down, to see how much inhumanity is being practiced in the southern cotton mills, and whether they look that way. The Chairman. I think children ought .to have a chance between 12 and 16 years of age of training themselves in the industries that they are to pursue as a life vocation. Mr. Patterson. I agree with you exactly on that point, but the question now is who is going to support the families while they are doing it — I mean in remote instances, it is not every instance. I told you a minute ago that out of the number of operatives we have wo only have 13 under 16 years of age. Senator Pomebene. What is that? Thirteen under 16? Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Then it is not going to be a serious trouble with you ? Mr. Patterson. It is not going to be a serious trouble in this way: You must not understand that it means just getting rid of 13 hands; not at all. I have one instance in mind of a young girl who is making about I1.37J a day; she is 15 years old. Her father is a sweeper; he is 72 years of age. All he does is to sweef) the floor; and her mother is a confirmed invalid. Now, this girl, if she is turned out of employ- ment, it does not mean that that old gentleman would support that family; it means that the whole fsimily will have to move out of the village, and go to work for some one else. Senator Pomerene. It is not turning her out; it is simply reducing her time to eight hours a day. Mr. Patterson. That is just what can not be done in our miU because we arc not going on the eight-hour :system until we are com- pelled to do so. INTERSTATE COMMEKCE JJST PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. 79 Senator Poindexter. Why can you notgo on the 16-hour system and have two shifts ? Mr. Patterson. That would not help us unless we put our other departments on the 16-hour system, because they are all figured out mathematically, one to keep up with the other- — so much product Eer hour all the way through — and accorjiing to the terms of this ill you could not do that anyway, because you are not allowed to work after 7 o'clock at night or before 7 o'clock in the morning. Senator Pomerene. You work 10 hours,^ do you? Mr. Patterson. We work 10 hours; yes, sir. Senator Pomeeene. I wish you would explaia to me why it is an insurmountable obstacle to say that here you put 13 children under 16 years of age on an eight-hour schedule and have some one else to take their places for the other two hoiirs of the day ? Mr. Patterson. It is not an absolutely insurmountable obstacle. I do not mean to infer that for a minute. It can be done, but the manufacturers are not going to do it for the reason that they are going to hire people over 16 years of age and work them the regular working hours. If you are working by piecework, you wiU involve a lot ol difficulties when you have a hand working m the middle of the day to take her work away or have her leave it. Senator Pomerene. Are you working on the piecework ? Mr. Patterson. Almost entirely. Where we do not work the piecework, we work so much per hour. The Ghaieman. Are there any further questions to be asked Mr. Patterson ? Senator Pomerene. May I ask just one more question ? Unfor- tunately I was not able to be here during the first portion of your remarks on the subject, but have you any data in your States show- ing the number of children who are employed in mills, say, between 12 and 14 years of age and betvv^een 14 and 16 years of age? Mr. Patterson. No, sir; I admit I have not that data with me. Senator Pomeeene. Perhaps some one from your delegation would have it and furnish it to us. Have you some Labor Department statistics ? Mr. Patterson. I think I can get that for you. m Senator Pomerene. If you can, I think it would be of great interest to the committee. Mr. Patterson. I just remarked a minute ago that out of the chUdren ia the State who are working at gainful occupations, there is only one boy tmder 16 working in the cotton mdl. The Ghaieman. I suggest that you furnish such statistics as you are able to furnish. Mr. Patterson. I will be very glad to furnish them. Mr. Chair- man, I would like to have the paper whioll I hand the reporter go into the record. The Chairman. Without objection it will be inserted. (The paper referred to is as follows:) EMPLOYMENT OP CHrCDREN IN ENGLAND. The Cotton Factory Times, of England, in a recent editorial, says that children of 13 have been employed regularly in the cotton manufacturing industry of England. The following editorial in that paper is very interesting, as it gives an idea of textile labor conditions in England to-day : "The proposal to allow full-time work at 13 years of age has brought forth consider- able opposition from people who do not understand the subject. Some have spoken 80 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR- aaif the change would deprive every child in Lancashire of a year's ?duc^<:j°^'Tf J'^'ft others seem to imaaine that the whole of the future physical well-being of the British En depends ufrwheth..r the full-time age iS to be 13 or 14. Ttese cntics do not seem to be aware that the vast majority of children do already commence to work full time when they are 13, both in cotton fllills and other places. It can b? shown that the percentage of children who remain at school after attaining tnat age is only very small indeed. The change that has been suggested would, as a matter of fact, make very little difference to the present atuation." Mr. Patterson. I also desire to read the following for the record: Office of the District Attorney, Schuylkill County, Pottsvilk, Pa., January £7, 1916. Dear Sir; I address you as one who, I perceive, is working to have Congress pass a just child-labor bill. As one who has given the sfibject deep study for many years, and as one who has lived his whole life among the class of people who are directly affected by such legislation, let me state that the child-idleness legislation adopted in Pennsylvania has caused awful distress among the following classes of large families among the poor: 1. Fathers incapacitated for labor by sickness or disease. 2. Fathers incapacitaed for labor by accident outside of his regular employment. 3. Fathers unable, because of indistrial conditions, to obtain employment. 4. Fathers in prison. 5. Mothers and children deserted by faithless fathers. 6. Families large and fathers' wages meager. And so on. Under our legislation no help whatever is provided for families in any of the fore- gojng classes. The distress among them is terrible. I could relate instances indefi- nitely. The law has taken from these families the right of self-preservation — the right of healthy children to labor when the eixgnecies of the home demand them to labor— and has given them nothing instead. Candidly, isn't it more in keeping with Chris- tian doctrine to let children labor (under proper conditions) than to send whole families to pauper institutions? I began to labor about the mines when I was 10 years of age, and never afterwards ceased to be a wage earner, because my parents needed my help. I am proud of what I did. Why not then leave the same privilege open to the chil- dren of the future? I would respectfully suggest an amendment to the act which would exempt cl ild labor which is performed in order to prevent a family (1) from starving or (2) m order to keep a poor family intact. Believe me that the men and women who advocate these child-labor laws know nothing of the atual conditions that prevail among the poor industrial classes. You must actually live among them to know — for their voices never reach the upper stratas. I urge you in the name of the millions of Linoolns yet unborn to continue your noble efforts to obtain such amendment to the Keating bill as will leave a vestige of hope for the poo#who must labor. Sincerely, your well-wisher, E. J. Maginnis. An Open Letter to the Legislators of Pennsylvania. [By Edward J. Maginms.] [Reprinted from the Pottsville (Pa.) Republican, Apr. 1, 1915.] EVILS OF child-labor BILLS. The chief danger lurking in the majority of the child-labor bills under consideration at Ilarrisburg arises from the fact that one class of citizens composed principally of cultured men and women of small or no families at all, living in comfort, albeit with good intentions, are attempting to force legislation on the industrial class, composed mostly of humble, stalwart men and women of large families living in contentment, but depending for existence upon their daily wages. The distinguishing mark of a free government has been that the laws for the people are made by the people. Whenever the opulent tmd more intellectual element in society succeed in establi.'^hing laws that will operate exclusively upon the prole- tarian class, free government, as Lincoln understood it, ceases and aristocracy rules. Unless we can show that a considerable portion of the people to be affected bv this INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 81 legislation favors its adoption we should, as true members vl a tree country, defer action until the wishes of the common people are better ascertained. The writer at much personal expense of time and labor, and because of a natural sympathy for every soul struggling against adversity, has made careful inquiry among the families of the industrial classes and he has been unable to find a single mother of five or more children depending upon the daily wages of the father for sustenance, who approves of any of the proposed measures. In short, the rich and childless, the old bachelors and maiden ladies, are striving to impose regulations upon the family cf the poor man, which the latter does not want. If thinking, reasonable men of the influential and patriotic class can be got to realize this truth, a powerful protest will assuredly arise against the enactment cf such per- nicious legislation. No effective protest is yet being- heard simply because the ones who will be hurt are not able to make public protest. And even if those good mothers are thus visited with heavier burdens they will suffer on in silence, and the gay wcrld shall little know their agony. Signs of a happy awakening, however, are evident. Here and there great men are beginning to think and speak upon the subject. On March 23 Supreme Court Justice John P. Eltin, a man possessing the broad vision and soft heart of a real statesman, declared in^ public address: "The question of child labor is now being very generally considered. This is a court problem and desires the best thought of thinking people. But in considering this question let us not forget that work is the common lot of mankind. The best men and the best women of the Nation to-day are those who were taught in the school of adversity and were reared to labor with their hands. " Prof. Nearing, of the University of Pennsylvania, has compiled some statistics which are interesting. He says: "Statistics compiled by colleges of America show that the average size of the family of a college graduate is 1.9 children. " As the average family must include at least four children simply to perpetuate the race it requires small argument to show what would happen to thi^ world if all children were constrained to become college graduates. Within a few centuries the earth would become as barren of human life as the moon. Yet we are told in beautiful -language that education is the great moral force of the world. We have a glimmering recollection that the Good, Book somewhere says that man was born to labor. Prof. Nearing further states: "The birth rate in Chestnut Hill and Germantown is two and one-half cliildren to the average family (less than in decadent France); in Kensington it is three children to the average family; and in the second ward of Philadelphia it is seven childrerj to the family. " The lesson is startling; the more mankind is inclined to labor the more he begets respect for and obedience to the prime laws of nature. Is it not time for the brilliant ones among the industrial class to become social uplifters and urge the adoption of civil laws that will insure the perpetuation of the families of the educated and wealthy classes? Or, since the poor must assume the major burden of perpetuating the race, would it not be a just regulation to tax every adult man and woman in elite society, say, $1,000 a year for each legitimate child he or she lacks of a normal family of four, ■and let the proceeds be distributed by the State among the good fathers and mothers of the industrial class who are rearing large families? At the hearing in the hall of the house at Harrisburg on Wednesday, March 17, a host of club women from various sections of the State appeared and made pathetic pleas in behalf of the child laborer. They spoke as though they believed that the average child is a sort of nonrefillable bottle, containing so milch energy which when depleted leaves the child a physical wreck. And yet they all, without exception, went on record as being opposed to an eight-hour day for ser-^fant girls or domestics. These good, noble women, upon whom rests the solemn obligation of attending to social affairs of select society, might be obliged to.do some of their own housework if perchaiice their child servants were limited to an eight-hour workday. Are we to understand that'working girls are to be forced out of the stores and factories and given the alternative of working unlimited hours as domestics? Does not this circumstance again illustrate the misguided agitation back of the child-labor reform? And, lest the writer be charged with taking a stand against liberal education of the mind for any person who can possibly afford it, be it noted emphatically that he has an abiding faith in the good men and women of our- industrial class that they will never deprive a child of the opportunity to acquire such intellectual training as the child needs or desires. Let the State provide every facility tor education; provide board as well as tuition at the State college; offer premiums to the children of the poor who seek higher education; and establish free professional schools tor the poor; but then leave it to the wise judgment of our good fathers and mothers to determine 27896—16 6 82 INTERSTATE COMMEKCE IN PBODTJCiS OF CHILD LABOK. whether their children need manual labor as well as education in order to develop HistorY ^which by the way, is becoming an obsolete study, teaches that labor and sacrifice lA virile youth molded the characters of most of the lovable men and women of fame "But "'the zealous social reformer retorts, "many fathers and mothers ex- ploit their children." True, but why should that fact be a justification for laying harsh restrictions on the parental hand generally? It is a principle of common law that it is better that ninety-nine guilty escape than that one innocent person be punished. Are nut our God-loving fathers and mothers of the industrial class deserv- uig of as much consideration as the criminal? Why yeverse the principle as to them, and punish the ninety-nine devoted parents in order to catch the one who exploits his or her children? Herod, it is said, put 99,000 innocent children to death m order to prevent the rearing of One who was to come to teach-the dignity of labor; but Herod was a rich man without a large family of his own. The records show, and our police authorities attest, that just m the same degree that we have encumbered rur law books with unwise child-labor legislation have we increased the v.-ork of our juvenile courts and crowded our reform schools. ^ An author- ity on Such matters wrote recently in one of our large dailies: "The breaking up of the social unit— the family— is responsible for the fact^that the city of Philadelphia has an army of 10,000 little ones in homes and institutions." ^ Certainly homes will be broken up when we deny to jioor families the God.given right to sustain themselves by labor. Many boys from 12 to 14 years of age are daily brought into our juvenile courts charged with' incipient crimes. Invariably it is found that such boys have formed a dislike for schnol training, but they are willing to work for wages. Under our present system there is nothing left for the trial judge to do except to send them to reform schi ols. There they are associated with hundreds of boys all affected with different forms of ^'ice or moral delinquency. The result is, as the writer ha.s often verified, that they return to society a little better educated in books— and crime. How much better for society if these iboyn could be paroled and put to manual labor under the care their parents. None of the proposed child-labor liills contains an exception in favor of this large' class of boys. They will not go to school, the social reformer ordains that they shall not work, hence they must become criminals, for idleness leads ever to crime. Why not first call a convention of all the probation officers of the State and get their opinion as to what ought to be done with our incorrigible, truant, and delinquent boys? Finally, let us present the case of the mothers in such clear light that only the hardened of heart can longer advocate ine:isiires thati' would rob them of the last vestige of hope. W hen the soldier in vrar shootw down his brother, we decorate him for valor; when the mothers of men sustain the race, we strip them of their natural right to the child's help; we put no trust in their sense of honor. Instead of argument, let us exhibit the living examples of the cruel con.si'leration which the social reformer grants to our Spartan mothers. Here arc ;t few pages taken from the ))ook of life; , examples which have come under the eye of the writer; examples which are multiplied the country over in all our industrial centers. And be it remembered that the jjroposed measures, by restricting further the right of the child to labor, will immeasurably increase the miseries here depicted. And first we take the case of Mrs. O'Brien. .Mrs. O'Brien was a religious woman; she read her Bible and learned that it is God's eternal decree that man shall increase and multiply. She has six children, and her husband worked in the mines. The whole family ate well, slept well, sympathized with their less fortunate neighbors, and obeyed the law. The earnings of the father barely provide 1 for their current needs. One day Mr. O'Brien was stricken down with'an incurable malady. The eldest boys were respectiveh- 11 and 13 years of ag;e. They were willing, anxious, and able to work to make up for the loss of (heir father's wages. But no; it was economically wrong for boys of their tender age to labor in a free country. Hence the family was divided up; one child was sent here, another there, and poor Mrs. O'Brien died of a broken heart. And there was Mrs. Bolinski . She had eight childijen, the eldest a girl of 14 and the next a husky boy of 11. Her husband, in a drunkenf frenzy, committed an aggravated assault on a neighbor and he got two years. Mrs Bolinski came into court with her brood and bade her husband an affectionate farewell as he was being led to prison. There was much weeping among them, and the older children strove to console the disconsolate mother with assurances that they would go to work and try to fill dad's place. But no; there was no right for them to do heroic things in a great free country erected upon the sacrifices of the hardy pioneers; hence Mrs. Bolinski and her flock INTEKSTATE COMMBBOE IN PEODUOTS OP CHILD LABOR. 83 were sent to the county almshouse — where there is 'no education for children. To date no social uplifter has offered her any help. And Mrs. Davis, too. She had but four children, jugt enough to entitle her to a place among the families of tlte elect. She had an unfaithful spouse, and he deserted her and and her little ones and fled the jurisdiction. She was able to take in washing, and Johnnie, her eldest boy, could do a man's job. Bur Johnnie, so an employer told him, was not old enough to be permitted to soil his manly hands in ugly toil; hence, Mrs. Davis, in addition to taking in washing, had to do a little begging on the side to preserve the family unity. It went hard on the proud little woman to beg. And there was noble Mrs. Schmidt. Because of hard times her husband, a trades- man, was unable to get employment. There was plenty of work about that her boys could do, but they could not get employment certificates unless their parents took false oaths. Mrs. Schmidt, fortunately for her, came of a hardy race. She did not go to the poorhouse, but instead took in two washings a day with ironing, and thus kept the table provided while her husband searched the counts-y for a job. It might be added as a detail that the awful strain broke her down in body. But lest the foregoing seem but commonplace recitals of human experience, we will relate the story of Mrs. Haas for the delectation of our pseudo-social reformers. And to avoid all play on the sympathies we will not color any of the details. Last fall her husband became ill and was unable to work. She is the mother of six children, the eldest physically able to work, but prohibited by law. The family income being shut off they were actually starving when a fellow laborer happended in one day. Moved by compassion, the fellow laborer went out and soon returned with three chickens. Within an hour thereafter the chickens were devoured. It was the first substantial food they had eaten in many days. It turned out that the chickens were stolen. Aa soon as Haas got up from his sick bed he was arrested for receiving stolen goods. He admitted to the court that he and his family had eateh the chickens, knowing them to have been stolen. He was sentenced to serve a year and three months. The family became destitute. The distressed mother was tempted to put her virtue on the block, but she was brave. Kind friends brought the matter to the attention of the coui't, and after some months her husband was paroled. Thus hundreds of faithful women are forced by legislation conceived in absolute ignorance of conditions prevailing among the industrial class to sacrifice their bodies, to beg, to retreat to pauper institutions, to sacrifice their Mves, to sell their honor, in order to. preserve their families. "Oh," the college professor, the club woman, and the childless philanthropist will exclaim in unison, "the widows' pension and the compensation act will take care of those unfortunate women." The writer challenges anyone to point to a single provision in the statute books of Fennaylvania, or in any of the proposed reform bills, which pro\'ides any adequate relief for a mother in ,any of the circumstances above noted. And yet, if we were humanely inclined, how easy it would be to incorporate a proviso to permit the healthy sons of distressed mothers, say over the age of 12 years, and having a third-grade school education, to work at such manual labor as his home physician would certify that he is able to perfofm. Down deep in the hearts of these faithful mothers of large families there is a growing conviction that the world is unconsciously uniting in a giant conspiracy to crush them because of their unbending fidelity to the primary laws of God and nature. . In time, slowly it raay be, American manhood will awaken to the evils of fanatical legislation, and then we can hope for a return to first principles. STATEMENT OF W. C. EUFFIN, MAYODEN, W. C, TREASURER OF THE MAYO MILLS AT THAT POIBTT, TREASURER OF THE WASHIH-GTOF MILLS AT FRIES, VA., THE TWINE MILLS CORPORATION, ROANOKE, VA. The Ci-iAiEMAN. You may proceed with your statement. Mr. RuTFiN. Gentlemen, I made a statement before the House committee, and I have very little to add to that. There are, however, some points here that I wish to call attention to. Senator Beandegee. What House committee was it? Mi-. Ruffin. The Committee on Labor. That is a matter of record so it is no use repeating it. H.ie is a copy of a letter written to Mr. A. F. McKissick, jKcsident of the Crandaii Mills, Greenwood, S. C, 84 INTERSTATE COMMEECE IN PHODTJCTS OP CHILD LABOR. signed by W. C. Stiles, chief division of zoology, which I will read, It is as follows : PuBUC Health and M.^«einb-Hospital Sekvice, Washington, D. C, June 2S, 1909. Mr. A. F. McKissicK, President Grandel Mills, Greenwood, S. C. Sir- Your letter of June 21 in reference to newspaper reports of an address I recently made in Washington has been received. The address was given extemporaneously, and therefore I have no copy of it which I can seiad you. You ask me to confirm the newspapers' statement. In reply to this request I would say that m that address I wai5 discussing the general subject of hookworm disease among the tenant whites of the South. In the course of my remarks I made statements which I have made in several other addresses and which I expect to repeat a great many times more. I described the insanitary conditions under which the tenant whites of the rural dis- tricts were living and the vastly improved, though'not perfect, sanitary conditions they enjoy when they come to the cotton mills. I said that I looked upon the cotton milig as the greatest and almost the only real friends of the poor whites of the South, and that I could not concur in the popular condemnation to which the cotton mills are constantly subjected. I took the position that there is another side to the child- labor question, a side not generally understood; that I considered these children Infinitely better off in the cotton mills than on the soil-polluted, diseise-breeding, one-horse, priviless ftirms. About 68 per cent of the southern farmhouses I have seen have no privy of any kind, and many of the country schools have no privy. As a result of the soil pollution, diseases are widespread and many of these country children are extremely anemic and show a high death rate. When they enter the cotton mills they naturally take their farm di.ea-es with them* and persons unfamiliar with the existing conditions have, upon finding these anemic children in tlie cottnn mills, attributed the anemia to the mill life and especially to breathing the cotton lint. As a matter of fact, however, upon reaching the mills the children exchange an intense degree of soil pollution for a very much lessened amount of the same. Theory demands that as a rule their anemia will decrease with their continued residence at the cotton mill village and that as a result their death rate will decrease. My personal observa- tions are that the demands which theory makes are confirmed by practical experience. I do not hesitate to repeat to you a statement which I have often made in private conversation and in public, namely, I have a daughter 10 years old; I think as much of that daughter as any other father in this country tliinks of his child. If I had to choose between putting that girl to work in the spinning room of the average cotton mill and putting her to live on the average cne-lif rse farm of the South, I should be compelled, in justice to the child's health, to send^her to the cotton mill, and I feel assured that by so doing I would give her a better chance to see her 21st birthday. This does not mean that I am au exponent of child labor as an abstract proposition, but rather that I look upon child labor in the Soutih as the less of the two e\ils, and given the present medieval conditions existing on the one-horse tenant farms, I view child labor as an actual blessing when compared with the child misery which is found more particularly in the sand lands and in the Appalachian region. You will find a short discussion of this subject in the last Annual Report of the Sul-geon General, a copy of wliich you can probably obtain by applying to Surg. Gen. Wyman, Wasliington, D. C. Hoping that the foregoing statement makes my position clear, I have the honor to remain. Respectfully, G. W. Stiles, Chief Division of Zoology Gentlemen, this is the part which I want you to pay particular attention to, because it expresses my feelings very forcibly after having been in the mill business ne 'riy 2.5 years The Chairman. Is Dr. Stiles a Governnlent official? Mr. RuTFiN. Yes, sir. The CHAiRsrAN. What position does he hold? Senator Robinson. He is a zoologist. Mr. RuTFiN. He is Chief of the Division of Zoology, and is regarded most highly. INTERSTATE COMMEBCE IS PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOS. 85 Senator Brandegee. What department of the Government is zoology in? Do you happen to remember? IVIr. RuTFiN. The Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service. Mr. KiTCHiN. You may recall Dr. Stiles in connection with hook- worm disease. He is the greatest authority in the world on that disease. The Chatbman. What part of the letter did you wish to call atten- tion to ? Mr. RurriN (reading) : I do not hesitate to repeat to you a statement which I have often made in private conversation and in public, namely: I have a daughteir 10 years old. I think as much of that daughter as any other father in this countrjr thinks of his child; if I had to chooss between putting that girl to work in the spinning room of the average cotton mill and putting her to live on the average one-horai5 farm of the South, I should be compelled in justice to the child's health to s"nd her to the cotton mill, and I feel as- sured that by so doing I would give her a better chance to soe her twenty-first birthday. This does not mean that I am an exponent of child labor as an abstract proposition, but rather that I look upon child labor in the South as the less of the two evils and, given the prcaont medi<.:val conditions existing on the one-hors3 tenant farms, I view child labor as an actual blessing when compared with the child misEry which is found more particularly in the sand lands and in the Appalachian region. You will tind a short discussion of this subject in the last annual report of the Sur- geon General, a copy of which you can probably obtain by applying to Surg. Gen. Wyman, Washington, D. C. I do not believe there is anything in the world that I could add or could say that would more properly fit my ideas of the conditions as they exist in tlie South to-day, and have existed for a long time, than is contained in this letter. Senator Pomerene. That letter fairly construed is not an argu- ment against improving somewhat the conditions of the mills, but it is a very strong argument in favor of improving your local conditions on the farm? Mr. RuFiTN. No, sir; I do not so- understand it. I think it is a very strong letter showing that our conditions at the mill are not perfect or ideal by a great deal, but they are so much better than the people we employ have had befora. We do not claim that our con- ditions at the mill are ideal. We have never claimed that, but we do claim that this class of people from whom we draw our help are greatly benefited by moving to the mills. Senator Pomerene. I have no doubt about that proposition, that the condition in these mills has improved very considerably during the last few years. I have no doubt about it. Mr. RuFFiN. Not only the last few years. Senator, if you gentlemen will bear with me for just a moment. Twenty-five years ago the mills in the South were very, very few. We only had them scattered here and there all ov^r the South. Our milling interests have been built up in the South in the last 25 years^ and every miU that was built was an improvement on the other mill, and we are to-day, amongst ourselves, competitors for help. Now, the Mayo mill at Mayoden is so situated that in six hours anj family that is dissatisfied with us can get emplojmient at 15 other mills. They can move there in two days. Now, how are you going to mistreat such people ? It is to our interest, and it is to our interest not only from a financial standpoint but from a humanitarian standpoint to take care of these people, and, gentlemen, we are doing it; the southern cotton mills are doing it. 86 INTEKSTATE COMMERCE IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOE. Within the last 10 days our superintendent told me that he had three famihes tending farms to apply for work. They have come m there practically without a thing in the world. He asked one ot them "Why have you apphed for this work?" .He said, "Simply because I have farmed out" — and what he meant- was that he did not have any provisions to go on. Now, in those families, gentlemen, there was only one boy 16 years old — I mean by that he was the oldest child and the only child 16. If this law were in effect now, the father and the boy are the only ones who could be in the mUl or who could have gone in the mill. There was one 15 and one 13. Under our present State laws they could go in the mill and work. The point I wish to make is that this law would prohibit the younger ones of 15 and 13 from occupation or doing a thing. Senator Pomerenjs. Oh, no; it would -/lot do that. Mr. RiiFFiN. Why not? Senator Pomeeene. It would simply me%n this, to state the propo- sition fairly, that you would have to so change your conditions as to employ these children over 14 years of age and under 16, eight hours a day instead of 10 hours a day. Mr. RxjFFiN. Senator, we do not think — and in fact we are prac- tically positive — that that is not practicable. Senator Pomebene. Well, it may be a little inconvenient. Mr. EuFFiN. It is not the inconvenience of it; it is almost imprac- ticable; Senator Beandegee. What do you think would be the effect of the passage of this bill on children between 14 and 16 employed in the cotton mills? Mr. RuFFiN. The only way I can answer that candidly is what my position would be. Senator Beandegee. That is what I weuld like to have. Mr. RuFFiN. At the Mayo mills we have from 615 to 630 hands. We have 102 boys and girls under 16. Tjiey would get out of the mills. Senator Beandegee. Do you think that would generailj" happen in the mills that you know about in your State ? ilr. Ruii IN. I do not think there is the least doubt about it. Senator Beandegee. ITow many hours do you run yonr mills a day ? Mr. RuFi'iN. We run 60 hours a week. Senator Beandegee. And this law, if it should be sustained as to its constitutionality, would allow you to employ children between 14 and 16 how many hours a week — 48 hours a week ? Mr. RuFFiN. l?orty-eight hours a week; yes, sir. Senator Beandegee. Well, do you not think the mills would make any attempt to see if they could contrive any Avay to retain the services of those cliildren on an eight-hour basis if the bill should pass? Mr. RuFFiN. The only way I could conceive of it is that they would think about it, and that would be all. Senator Beandegee. Can you explain, for the purposes of the record — not to me, because I think I understand it to a certain extent— why it is not practicable in practice to operate a mill where a portion of the employees are in the spinning room employed 8 hours and where the rest of the hands are employed 60 hours a week! IXTKRSTATE COMMERCE IIC PEODUC'L'S i)¥ CHILD LABOfi. 87 Mr. KuFiiN. We have in spinning different departments. The final production is dependent upon the production of each and every department; the pickle room, which is operated by adults, the card- ing, practically all the card room, then he goes to the spinning room. If you do not operate that on full time and get the full production, you can not operate your loom?* on full time. That is the only answer I can give you. Senator Brandegee. I wanted you to say just what you wanted to. Mr. RuFFiN. Then hero is an article publighed in the Public Health and Marine Hospital Service which 1 wish to read. Senator Pomerene. Is that a long article ? Mr. RxnFFi>f. It is about a page and a quarter. The Chairman. Let me suggest to you that the Senate convenes at 12 o'clock and there are a very few tnembers of the committee present now. Suppose you defer that until this afternoon, and the committee wiU now take a recess until 3 o'clock. (Accordingly the committee took a recess until 3 o'clock p. m.) after recess. The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess at 3 o'clock p. m. STATEMENT OF W. C. EUEFm— Resumed. The Chairman. I want to ask you one question, Mr. Ruffin. You stated that you had something over 100 boys and girls under 16. Mr. RxjFFiN. One hundred and two under 16. The Chairman. Out of how many ? Mr. RtiPPiN. Six hundred and fifteen to six hundred and thirty. The Chairman. What is the average wage of the 102 children ? Mr. RuFFiN. I could not tell you that offhand. The Chairman. Can you put that in yqur statement ? Mr. Ruffin. I will have to get it from the mill. I am perfectly willing to wire for it. The Chairman. Well, you may put it in your statement. Mr. RuFFiN. I will try to get it. The Chairman. Are there any other questions which any member of the committee desires to ask Mr. Ruffin ? Mr. KiTOHiN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ruffin was proceeding to read from a book when the adjournment for luncheon was taken. I sug- gest that the committee allow him to read it now. The Chairman. Very well. Mr. Ruffin. This is from the annual report of the Public Health and Marine Hospital Service for 1908. It is as follows: HOOKWORM DISEASE. In the annual report for 1907, page 14, reference is .made to an investigation of hook- worm disease in conjunction with the Bureau of Labor as it relates to woman and child labor in the United States. The prevalence of thia disease, especially in the cotton and knitting mills of the Southern and New Englanji States, was made the subject of careful stud'y "both from an economic and public health standpoint. The investiga- tions were conducted by the Chief of the Division of Zoology of the Hygienic Labora- tory The field trip lasted about five months, and involved a visit to about 130 cotton and knitting mills and a number of other establishments in the States of North 88 INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PKODTJCTS OF CHILD LABOR. Carolina. South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and -Mississippi, as well as some of the New England States. The data obtained have br@ught out some very important conclusions which, though not altogether in harmony with the popular ideas on the subject of child labor in the South, must be seriously considered m connection with this subject and which also point conclusively to the fact that child labor in the Southern States involves a consideration of certain medical and public health con- ditions not found in the Northern States. The full data obtained are contained in a manuscript report which is practically completed and which will be forwarded to the Department of Commerce and Labor before January 1, 1909. As mentioned in the last annual report this investigation was undertaken at the request of that department. These studies showed that approximately 12.5 per cent (more exactly 12.67) of the cotton-mill employees were found to come within the suspect class of hookworm disease. The percentage varied in the two sexes and S,t different ages. For instance, the percentage of hands over 20 years of age who were classified as suspects was 8.4 per cent; between 16 and 20 years of age, 19.2 per cent; and under 16 years of age, 27.2 per cent were placed in the suspect class. Of females 16.1 per cent were suspects, while of males, 15.2 per cent came within this class. Of boys under 16 years of age 29.4 per cent and of girls under 16 years old 18.7 per cent were suspects. Of males 16 to 20 years of age 20.7 per cent and of females 16 to 20 years of age 18.1 per cent were suspects. Of males over 20 years old 5.8 per cent, and of females over 20 years old 13 per cent were suspects. The foregoing staListics, reported by Dr. Stiles, the'Chief of the Divieion of Zoology, are very significant in their bearing upon the healtlj of these people. It is seen, for instance, that among the females of maternity age from 13 to 18 per cent are in a condi- tion which prevents them from properly nourishing (babes. Of the males of possible military age, 5.8 to 20.7 per cent are in a condition which would materially decrease their military efficiency. Among children of schobl age, generally speaking, 18.7 per cent of the females and 29.4 per cent of the maleB are suffering from an anemia- producing disease which would materially inhibit iheir normal capacity for study. The figures (18.7 per cent) for females under 16 years of age are significant also in connection with the retardation of menstrual development among these girls. Taking all of the statistics together, it is seen that approximately 12.5 per cent (more exactly, 12.6 per cent) are aff acted with a disease which materially inhibits their normal working powers, and hence inhibits the economic development of the community in which they live. The condiaon in question has heretofore been quite generally assumed on the part of people who vidted the mills to be due to breathirig in the lint. That this assump- tion is not free from verjr serious error of interpretation is evident from the fact that the aneaiia in question vaiies greatly in different mills despite the fact that practically all of these people, so far as they breathe in lint, are subject to breathing in the same kind of lint. For instance, Dr. Stiles states that in, certain mills which supply their labor chiefly from clay lands the percentage of infection among the children ran very low — under 10 per cent, or even down to nothing — while in one mill running exclu- sively on sand-land labor 80 per cent of the children were clearly hookworm cases. Plot 'ing the mills according to the orisin of the labor, he has shown that the roills running on clay-land and city-born labor show the lowest percentage of anemia. The presence of mountain labor raises the percenta.gfe of ane i ia, and the presence of sand labor raises the percentage still higher. This fact effectually disposes of the importance wlich has hiilierto been attributed to the lint as a factor in caudng this widespread and extreme aneiria. It ia also imporlant to note that the severest cases of aneria were.found among children who had been in the mills only a few weeks. In looking for an explanation of the origin of this ^noTiia it is necessary to consider certain i nporlant factors found in the South. Taking 8 South Atlantic and GuK States, it is seen that there are 833 negroes to every 1,000 whites in the population. All of these States have 33 per cent, or above, negrq populaion. Both hookworm disease and malaria are found in the negro, but the ijeg-ro is rela ively immune to the pathological effects of both infections and therefore forms a tremendous reservoir for infection. Dr. S.iles states that as a soil polluter the negro is to the white as 795 to 433; there- fore ha is n'^arly twice the spreader of hookworm djsease when compared with the white. He is also a graater relative spreader of malariS,, because he screens less against mosquitoes. The conclution is therefore evident that the white race in the South is living under a hygienic handicap, due to the presence of such a large proportion of nogro pqpula'ion. The whites in better financial circumstances are able to protect themselves against this handicap, which falls more seycrely therefore upon the whites INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OF CIITLD LABOR. 89 in poorer circumstances, namely, the rural tenant whites. Thii) class of people, which does not exist in the North, is the direct product of competition for generations with negro labor plus the effects of these two great anemia-producing discaees (hook- worm disease and malaria), which have been spread among them by the negro. It is almost exclusively from this class of people that the cotton rcills recruit their labor, and when thev bring from the soil-polluted farms into the ni ills fan ilies of rural tenant whites they naturally bring with these families the diseases already existing in them. The ane nia or the cotton mill, it must be concluded, is therefore much more the prod- uct of soil pollution on the tenant farms than it is the product of working in the mills. and as a matter of fact these aneTiic children improve in condition after coming to the mills, for the simple reason that in the mill villages they are brought to live under improved sanitary conditions. The child labor of the mills is found chiefly in the- spinning room, and the product of the other rooms in the mills is dependent upon the product of the spinning room. If, now, any sudden change is made in child labor in the South, this will nece.=isarily result in cutting do.wn the labor of the mills, and for many of the families in question the only thing which will remain open to them will be a return to the soil-polluted small farms. Considering the mill from this point of view, it is seen that the southern cotton mill is an important sanitary uplifting influence for these people, and this important point must be borne in mind and must be balanced against any detrimental physical effects which mill life may have upon them. Since the foregoing conditions do not exist in the North, it is evident that the ques- tion of child labor in the South contains elements which are not involved in the same question in the North. The complete report and, the statistics quoted above em- phasize the importance of hookworm disease from the public health standj)oint, and show that it is very prevalent throughout a certain section of our country, where it causes many deaths and a serious amount of invalidism. The relation of soil pollution to this disease has been clearly demonstrated, and the means necessary for its prevention and ciu'e are well known. The necessity is apparent of undertaking measures for the eradication of hookworm disease, and to this end a campaign of education is essential. Communications have been received requesting- the cooperation of the service in the improvement of the public health in this direction. In a letter dated February 11, 1908, the secretary of the State Board of Health of North Carolina requested the detail of an officer to cooperate and assist his board in efforts to eradicate the disease from the State. It was recognized that assistance of this character on the part of the National Government should be given upon request of State health authorities, and that such cooperation would be of mutual advantage to the National and Slate public-health agencies. Upon looking into the matter, however, it was toQnd impossible to make the detail requested, as there is no provision tor incurring expenses incident to such field inves- tigations and cooperation with State and local healtTi authorities. The same question has arisen before in field investigations, and the prevention of other diseases which affect the health and prosperity of the country at large, and steps were taken with a view to having Congress provide*for investigations and cooperation of this character. There is no more fertile field in preventive medicine at the present time than the suppression of hookworm disease, and it is of importance to the people of a large area of this country that the Public Health Service should take part in this work. Should the bill introduced in Congi'ess to further protect the public health permit of the carry- ing on of this work and provide means for the diriilsion of information relative to its pre^ ention and suppression, steps would be taken to inaugurate further studies, and particularly a campaign of education in cooperation with State health authorities. Senator Brandegee. Will you allow me to ask you a question ? Mr. RuFFix. Yes, sir. Senator Brandegee. When he states that the product of the mill, or the weaving room, depends upon the output of the spinning de- partment, docs it mean that the output of the spinning department is supplic'niatters not whether the injury may affect a group of persons here or a group of persons there, the important question is, "Do the transactions or conditions here or there affect the public safety, the public health, the public morals, or the public welfare?" And if they do, Congress has the power to intervene to prevent them. I want to read a quotation from the lottery case, in which I have taken the liberty of inserting the words "child labor or its products" in place of "lotteries." Otherwise the quotation is just as it appears in the opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, except that the italicized words are substituted for words referring to lotteries. If a State, when considering legislation for the suppression of child labor within its own limits, 'may properly take into view the evils that inhere in mining or manu- facturing in that mode why may not Congress, invested with the power, to regulate commerce among the several States, provide that such commerce shall not be polluted by the carrying of the products of such labor from one State to another, * * * As a State may, for the purpose of guarding the morals of its own people, forbid all child labor within its limits, so Congress, for the purpose of guarding the people of the United States against the widespread pestilence of child labor and to protect the commerce which concerns all the States, may prohibit the carrying of the products of sudi labor from one State to another. * * * We should hbsitate long before adjudging that an evil of such appalling character, carried on through interstate commerce, can not 126 ISTTERSTATE COMMEECE IN PEODXjfilS OP CHILD LABOB. be met and crushed by the only power competent to that end. We say competent to that end, because Congress alone has the power to occupy, by legislation, the whole field of interstate commerce. * * * if the carrying of the products of child labor from one State to another be interstate commerce, and if Congress is of opinion that an effective regulation for the suppression of the sale of such products carried on through such commerce is to make it a cri;iiinal offense to cause such products to be shipped from one State to another, we know of no authority iji the courts to hold that the means thus devised are not appropriate and necessary to protect the country at large against a species of interstate commerce * * * which has grown into disrepute and has become offensive to the entire people of the Nation. That is the language used by the Supreme Court in upholding the lottery act. I have substituted for "lotteries," "child labor." I have made no other change, and if child labor conditions in this country have become such that though the States interpose to pro- hibit such labor, this prohibition is ineffective to suppress child labor because users of child labor find a market for their products in inter- state commerce, this statement of the Supreme Court applies as well to child labor as it does to lotteries. The States could intervene to prohibit lotteries, but not effectively. States can intervene to pro- hibit child labor but not effectively. The only power competent to that end, as Mr. Justice Harlan says, is };he Federal Government. Summing up, then, we believe tliat this power of Congress over commerce includes prohibition; that it includes prohibition in the interest of the general welfare as well as in the interest of the instru- mentalities of commerce; that this power is not arbitrary but must be exercised consistently with the fifth amendment, and must not constitute a deprivation of life, liberty^ or property without due process of law, but that it may be exercised reasonably to regulate conditions for the protection of the public health, morals, safety, and welfare ; and that it does not make any difference whether the individuals who are primarily affected by the regulation happen to be at the one end of the journey in interstate commerce or at the other. I thank you, gentlemen. The Acting Chairman. Your proposition, in brief, is that it is as detrimental to public morals to produce and sell a lottery ticket as it is to buy and use it. Prof. Parkinson. Not quite. Senator,, but that the buying and the using by some individuals in the community is a violation of the standard of pubhc morals and public welfare which it is desirable for the Government to maintain. It is not a question whether the one act or the other is more or less immoral, but it is the relationship between the good of the individual and the good of the community, and it is the fact that there is a good of the community at issue which justifies the regulation. In other words, the regulation would never be upheld, whether it was made by the Federal Government or made by the State government, unless it could be shown that the regulation in the interest of some individuals was intimately connected with the good of the general public. Senator Brandbgee. In the lottery case the whole system and its paraphernalia were conceded by every)iody to be immoral, the things that were prohibited from transportation were a part of the paraphernaha of the business, and the advertisement of an admit- tedly illegal business and immoral, although it had been legalized in the States where it existed. Now the thing prohibited by Congress INTERSTATE COMMEBCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 12Y in this bill is, per se, a perfectly innocuous, legitimate and desirable article. Do you see no difference between those two cases? Prof. Parkinson. Lottery tickets were not always rt>garded as immoral. Senator Brandegee. No, but at the time of the decision, I mean. Prof. Parkinson. I have no doubt there were a number of people then who thought them, not immoral. Senator Brandegee. Assuming that there had not been a con- sensus of opinion as to the immorality and the court found it was an immoral, and as you say a gambling device, and the whole thing tending to corrupt public morals. Now, ^child labor of itself is not immoral nor corrupting unless the child is working at too young a period, and it can not be branded as an infamy that a child shall try to earn its living. The whole institution was not immoral. There is nothing immoral about the transportation of cotton, certainly. As I say m the lottery case, the lottery de.vices themselves were pro- hibited from being sent to one State from the other. In this case the child labor is not attempted to be regulated, but the product of the labor is barred from commerce and the product of the labor is a perfectly innocent article, and is only a parcel of the labor, if it is a complicated article manufactured in a mill where only a certain number of children are employed. Do you think those two cases are on a perfectly parallel ground so the court would be compelled if it stands by its lottery decision, to sustain the constitutionality of this child-labor act? Prof. Parkinson. Senator, the lottery act prohibited the trans- portation in interstate commerce of the article which enabled the lottery gamblers to carry on their trade. Without that transporta- tion they could not carry on their trade. There was nothing im- moral about carrying the lottery tickets across the State line in the mails or in express cars. It was the using of an instrumentality sub- ject to the Federal control for making effective the lottery scheme, the gambling scheme, that was withdrawn, and here we merely withdraw from the man who is producing goods with the labor of young children the instrumentaUties undgr the Federal control by which he seeks to find a market. The lottery gambler when he shipped his tickets in interstate commerce was seeking his market, and that is what the Federal Government withdrew from him, and that is what we seek to withdraw from thd User of child labor. Senator Brandegee. You see no distinction at all between the two ? Prof. Parkinson. I see no distinction whatever between these two cases so far as the question of withdrawing the Federal instrumen- tality from the use of those persons who are carrying on practices which are to the detriment of the general welfare. Now, Senator, I should like to come back to the first part of your question, which involves the question of morals. You, I think, admit that it may be immoral to employ very young children, because I noticed in your question a limitation as to age, therefore it is a matter of degree as to where the point is to be established at which evil emplojrment becomes immoral. Senator Brandegee. You think so, but as I follow your very inge- nious and entertaining argument, it occurs to me if it is practically so that under the commerce clause of the Constitution Congress can 128 INTEKSTATB COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. prohibit in commerco among the States all articles that are not pro- duced in such ways and surrounded by such influences as in the judgment of Congress may be for the best interest of the people at large, what is there left for the States to do about regulating their own affairs ? Prof. Parkinson. Senator, that again brings up the question. What is to be the general application of this rule-in the future ? It is impos- "^sible to say. We can only discuss the particular case that is now before us. There is an element of publio good and of public morals in this case, and therefore Congress can reach out to regulate ■ Senator Beandegee. I agree to that, and I think there is no man in Congress, or if there is he ought not to be, who would not like to alleviate any wrong conditions that exist in the country. But when I asked what is going to become of the powers of the States to manage their own local affairs if it is so that the General Government, when- ever in the opinion of Congress the public welfare demands, may, through the commerce clause, compel all the States to act as the General Government wants them to, irrespective of the way they want to act themselves, what becomes of local self-government in thia country ? Prof. Parkinson. In the first place, Senator, the power of Congress will always be subject to this general rule, that there must be con- ditions which justify the regmation in the interest of the public health, morals, safety, and welfare. In the second place, the States have transferred this power to Congress, ,and it is not only a power, but it is the duty of Congress to use the power in the interest of national safety, welfare, and morals. Take, for example, the right of a State to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A few States had the due process provision in their constitutions prior to the adoption of the fourteenth amend- ment. The adoption of the fourteenth amendment was merely a compidsion on all the States not to exercise any of their powers to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And as the power of the Federal Government advances by its proper development, it will gradually extend to fields which it has not hitherto entered, and it is true that it will compel States to do in the intere.st of the welfare of the Illation what perhaps one or two States are now unwilling to do. This is not the first time that Congress has been asked to reach out an4 regulate local matters, and it wUl not establish Senator Beandegee. It will not be the last either. Senator Clapp. I hope not. Prof. Parkinson. And, Senator, it doea not matter in the shghtest what this committee or what this Congress may do with this bill so far as future requests and future demands for the extension of the Federal power are concerned. You can not hold up that demand by any action which you may take on this bill. You were told yesterday that if you recommended or pa'ssed this bill you would be flooded with demands to extend the Federal power. You wiU be flooded with those demands whatever yoii do with this bUl, and you will be flooded with them until the limitations of the congressional power are more definitely prescribed by the Supreme Court. Senator Brandegee. I think that is very Ukely. INTERSTATE COMMEBCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 129 The Acting Chairman. Let me ask you this question, Professor: I assume that the State governments would have the right to adopt certam sanitary regulations with respect to the building of factories, with reference to light, to heat, and pertaining generally to the com- forts of the employees. Now assuming that to be so, and I do not think there is any doubt about it, do you believe that the Federal Government under this com,merce clause of the Constitution would have the right to adopt those sam.e regulations with respect to fac- tories in which goods were made for sale and transportation m inter- state commerce? Prof. Parkinson. Senator, there is wherethe judgm.ent of Congress becomes important. That is for the Congress to say. If conditions at the time that it passes such legislation justify it, ifin other words — here is the general test, and you can not make it more specific — if you should pass that regulation now I think the average m.an would be shocked by it, and if the average man would be shocked by it the chances are that the Supreme Court of the United States would be shocked by it. And the question whether that kind of legislation is going to be constitutional or unconstitutional is one of conditions existing at the time that the Cong:ress steps in to act, and the judg- ment of Congress, unless it be arbitrary, is going to be very largeh'- adopted by the Supreme Court. The Suprem.e Court has said in all o"f these cases that it will only intervene to hold unconstitutional such legislation where the legisJative body has obviously acted arbitrarily and with the result of confiscation. In other words, unreasonably. You can not — no one can undertake to answer such questions without all of the facts and the conditions before him., because of necessity the facts and conditions are the necessary basis for judgment. And I say again the only answer I can make to your question is that if the conditions in the country are such that a regulation to that effect can reasonably be interpreted to be beneficial to the public health or welfare, it will not shock the average man, just as this legislation will not shock the average man. The average nlan is readj^ for this child- labor legislation, is ready for the suppression of child labor and is ready for the use of the Federal power to accomplish it effectively, The Acting Chairman. Let me ask you another question. You speak of the conditions as controlling, and to some extent that is true. We have possession of the Philippine Islands and we legislate with respect to the Philippine Islands. It js said that the youths in the Philippine Islands mature there two or three years earlier than they do in this climate. Suppose we were to assume that children should not be permitted to wors in the factories in this country under 16 years of age, but that the children in the' Philippine Islands are as mature at 13 or 14 years as our children here are at 16. Would the conditions sustain legislation in both localities in the same way ? Prof. Parkinson. It would depend upan whether the different conditions were such that a fair regulation as to the one would be felt to be a shockingly unfair regulation as to the other. Whether that is so, I do not know. The Acting Chairman. That is, it might be constitutional with reference to the States here but unconstitutional with reference to the Philippines. 27896—16 9 130 INTEESTATE COMMEECE IN PEODTTCTS OF CHILD LABOB. Prof. Parkinson. I think a child-labor bill enacted for the United States might be constitutional, and one enacted for the Philippines might be unconstitutional. Senator Braxdegee. In other words, all these things are constitu- tional or unconstitutional according as the Supreme Court says. Prof. Parkinson. There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that where the constitutionality of a regulation by the States or by the Nation is opposed wholly on the ground that it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the fundamental tost of its constitutionality is its reasonableness, and the Supreme Court will hold it constitutional unless it is so unreasonable as to shock the average man as an arbitrary confiscatory and unreasonable action of government. We may quarrel with that test, but there is no doubt about the fact that it is the test under the due process clause. The Acting CHAiRirAN. Let me ask you a question along that line. It has been suggested to me here* Do you think that the Congress would have the power to prohibit the transportation of goods in interstate commerce which are made by women who are employed more than eight hours per day ? Prof. Parkinson. It wotild not help dt all. Senator, for me to answer that question. What I think about that would throw abso- lutely no light on the constitutionality of this bill. The Acting Chairman. We may be of a different opinion. Prof. Parkinson. It would throw absolutely no light upon the general question of the constitutionality of this bill; but I should say this, my own personal opinion is that it has been so well demonstrated in various parts of the country that excessive hours of work for women are so detrimental to the public health and the public wel- fare, it has become so well accepted that the Government has the p wer to interfere and prevent excessive hours of work for women, that I do not believe the Supreme Court of the United States would interfere to set aside the judgment of Congress if Congress should deliberately enact the bill suggested. The Acting Chairman. Is there anything further ? Prof. Parkinson. Mr. Chairman, if you+ desire, I will send a copy of my complete brief on the subject to the clerk of the committee to bo filed. (The bri( f was subsequently submitted to the clerk of the com- mittee and is here ordered printed in full as foUows:) A BRIEF DISCUSSING THE CONSTITUTION-ALITY OF THE KEATING- OWEN CHILD-LABOR BILL. [By Thomas I. Parkinson, ol tho legislative drafting bureau, Columbia University.] Th? Palmer-Owen bill prohibitina; shipment in interstate commerce of the products of child labor passed the House of R' prcscntatives ip the last Congress and a eimilar bill ("now known as the Keating-Owen billl has been rpported favorably by the House Committee on Tjabor. This brief undertakes to consider the various aspects of the constitutional power of Congi-ess to regulate interstaje commerce for the accomplish- ment of the pui pases of these bills. The conclusions of the brief may be summarized a| follows: I. The power of Congress over interstate commerce is complete and exclusive. II. The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, as stated in the com- merce clause of the Federal Constitution, includes power to prohibit absolutely the shipment or transportation in interstate commerce of specified persons or property. INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 131 III. The power of Congress over interstate commerce may be exercised in the in- terest of the pubho health, morals, safety, and welfafe as well as in the interest of that commerce and its instrumentalities. IV. Whatever its incidental effects, a Congressional regulation of interstate com- merce is never a violation of the reserved rights of Ihe States. V. The power of Congress to prohibit shipment or transportation in interstate com- merce is limited only by the requirement of the fiflh amendment that such prohibi- tion shall not constitute a deprivation of individual rights without due process of law; i. e., that such prchibition shall not be an arbitrary or unreasonable interference with the individual's rights of property or liberty of contract. VI. The prohibition of shipment in interstate commerce of the products of child labor is a reasonable exercise of the congressional commerce power in the interest of the public welfare. I. The Power of Congress over Interstate Commerce is Complete and Exclusive. Congress has supreme and plenary power over interstate commerce. Article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the Federal Constitution provides: "That Congress shall have power * * * to rejiulate commerce with foreign nations among the several States and with the Indian tribes." Under the .A.rticle3 of Confederation each State had complete control over its own commerce. The exercise of this control resulted in embarrassing and destructive con- sequences and led to an oppressed and degraded state.of commerce. (Brown v. Mary- land, 12, Wheat., 419, 445 [1827].) The prevailing motive for the adoption of the present Constitution was to "rescue it from the * * * perpetual jarring and hos- tility of commercial regulation, * * * The entire purpose for which the delegates assembled at Annapolis was to devise means for the uniform regulation of trade. They found no means but in a general government; ahd they recommended a convention to accomplish that purpose. * * * We do not find in the history of the formation and adoption of the Constitution that any man speaks of a general concurrent power in the regulation of foreign and domestic trade as still residing in the States. _ The very object intended, more than any other, was to take away such power. If it had not so provided, the Constitution would not have been worth accepting." (Chief Justice .\larshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., 1, 11, 12 [1824].) It is no longer necessary to cite cases to support the declaration that the commerce clause has vested in Congress a broad, complete., and exclusive power over interstate and foreign commerce; but the following from one of Qhief Justice Marshall's opinions is worth repeating here : "It may be doubted whether any of the evils proceeding from the feebleness of the Federal (jovernment contributed more to that great revolution which introduced the pre.=!ent system than the deep and general con\dctibn that commerce ought to be regulated by Congress. It is not, therefore, a matter of surprise that the grant should be as extensive as the mischief, and should comprehend all foreign commerce and all commerce among the States. To construe the power so as to impair its efficacy would tend to defeat an object in the attainment of Which the American public took, and iustlv took, that strong interest which arose from a;^ ull conviction of its necessity." (Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat., 419, 446 [1827].) Whatever may have been the primary reason for the insertion of this clause in the Constitution it is now definitely settled that it has vested in Congress a broad, complete, and exclusive power over interstate commerce. In the early case of Gibbons v. Ogden (supra 196), Chief Justice Marshall discusses the congressional power over interstate commerce as follows: "What is this power? It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limita- tions other than are pres:ribed in the Constitution. * * * If as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations and among the several States is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government havino- in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the°Constitution of the United States, The- wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections are in this as in many other instances, as that for example of de daring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied to secure them from its abuse, " (Quoted with approved in the Lottery Case [1902], 188 U. S,, 321, 353.) 132 INTEBSTATE COMMEBCE IN PEODUGTS OP CHILD LABOR. This view of the commerce power was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the late case of Hoke V. United States (227 U: S., 308 320 [1913]), where it is said: "The power is direct; there is no word of limitation in it, and it broad and universal scope has been BO oftea de:-lared as to make repetition unnecessary ?" In the exercise of the power thus broadly granted and interpreted Gongress has a wide discretion. A regulation of interstate commerce is not subject to attack in the courts on the ground that it is not the most advisable which Congress might have adopted under the circumstances. Thus in the Lottery Case (188 U. S., 321 353 [19031), the court said: "They (prior decisions) also show * * * that in determining the character of the regulatirins to be adopted Congress has a large discretion which is not to be controlled by the courts simply because in their opinion such regulations may not be the best or most effective that could be employed." The fact that an act of Congress regulating interstate commerce has the incidental effect of affecting or regulating intranstate commerce* does not render it invalid. In a recent case Mr. Justice Hughes, citing numerous authoritative precedents, said: "The completely internal commerce of a State, theli, may be considered as reserved for the State itself. This reservation to the States njanifestly is only of that authority which is consistent with and not opposed to the grtpt to Congress. There is no room in our scheme of government for the assertion of State power in hostility to the author- ized exercise of Federal power. The authority of Congress extends to every part of interstate commerce and to every instrumentality of agency by which it Is earned on; and the full control by Congress of the subjects committed to its regulation is not to be denied or thwarted by the commingling of interstate and intrastate operations. This is not to say that the Nation may deal with the internal concerns of the State as such, but that the execution by Congress of its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce is not limited by the fact that intrastate transactions may have become so interwoven therewith that the effective government of the former incidentally con- trols the latter. This conclusion necessarily results from a supremacy of the national power within its appointed sphere," (Minn, Rate Cases, 230 U. S,, 352, 398 [1913].) These cases establish in our constitutional law the principle that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce is a broad and complete power acknowledging no limitations except those contained in the Federal' Constitution, This power, says Chief Justice Marshall, "is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution," In a very late case, Mr, Justice McKenna said: "The power is direct; there is no word of limitation in it and its broad and universal scop§*has been so often declared as to make repstition unnecessary." In a similar case Mr. Justice Harlan said that "in determining the character of the regulations to be adopted Congress has a large discre- tion which IS not to be controlled by the courts " ; and in a very recent case Mr. Justice Hughes said: "The full control by Congress of the subjects committed to its regulation is not to be denied or thwarted by the commingling of interstate and intrastate operations. "_ These declarations by the Supreme Court ought to be kept promi- nently in mind in approaching the consideration of the constitutionality of the pro- posed Federal child-labor legislation, and pirticularly they ought to be kept con- stantly before us when consideraing the validity of objections to its constitutionality based upon such general assertions as that the trainers of the Constitution did not intend such extensive use of the Federal power; that there are other means by which ■ the desired result can be more effectively or expsfiitiouely accomplished; that the commingling of interstate and intrastate business makes such legislation in effect a regulation of manufacture tor the intrastate trade; that the proposed legislation would be an interference with the reserved powers of the States, and similar contentions. II. The Power of Congress to Regulate Interstate Commerce, as Stated IN the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution, Includes Power to Prohibit Absolutely the Shipment or Transportation in Interstate Com- merce or Specified Persons or Property. The States, by adopting the Federal Constitution, delegated to Congress 'the power "to regulate commerce * * * among the several States," We are, for the mo- ment, concerned only with the interpretation of the word "regulate" and the deter- mination of the question whether it should be interpreted to include power to prohibit. The answer must be found in the provisions of the Constitution itself as interpreted by the practice of Congress and the decisions of the Supreme Court, That the power under the commerce clause to regulate includes the. power to prohibit is shown b9th by the application of general principles of interpretation and by authoritative precedent. INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 133 A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP INTERPRETATION JUSTIEY THE CONCLUSION THAT THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE INCLUDES POWER TO PROHIBIT IT. 1, The power of Congress over interstate commerce is the same as that enjoyed by the individual States prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State had complete control over its com- merce with the other States and could prevent the importation of the products of another State. The exercise of the power to regulate commerce most familiar to the framers of the Federal Constitution was the total or partial prohibition of traffic in particular articles. _ Several of the States had adoptra such prohibitions. The only clause in the Constitution which took from the Individual States any of their power over commerce is that which placed the power to regulate interstate commerce m the Federal Congress. The Supreme Court has decided that the power of Congress under this clause is exclusive; no residuum of power over insteratate commerce has been left to the States. If the individual States prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution possessed power to prohibit imports from other States, and if the entire power of the States over interstate cominerce was transferred to and vested in the Federal Governinent, what has become of the power to prohibit transportation, across State lines if it was not included in the grant to Congress of power to regulate cominerce between the States? It may be argued that when the individual States surrendered this power to prohibit imports it thereupon ceased to exist in either the Federal or State tiovernmenta, but that the framers of the Constitution intended to transfer to Congress this power to prohibit transportation across State lines is demonstrated by_ article I, section 9, of the ConsLitution, which is quoted and discussed in the following section of this bri( f . Further argument along these lines would seem to be unnecessary and academic. Unquestionably the States possessed the power to prohibit. It is equally certain that they gave up that power on the adoption of the Federal Constitution. It is, however, important that tho only provision in the Constitution which vests in Con- gress the power over commerce previously exercised by the States is the clause which authorizes Congress to "regulate" interstate commerre. Many learned reasons may be advanced to prove that "regulate" does not mean "prohibit" but the fact is that "regulate" was selected as the word to transfer to Congress the full power previously poaser-ed by independent States, and that of course ihcludtd lower to prohibit. 2. That the power to regulate was intfnded to include the power to prohibit is indicati^d by othor provisions of the Constitution. Article 1, section 9, of the Federal Constitution provides: "The migration or impor- tation of such p'^rsons as any of the States now existing shall think prop' r to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808." A prohibition by Congress of the migration or importation of such persans could be has d only on the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, ahd if the framers did not intend the power to regulate to include the power to prohibit, this express restriction on the power to prohibit migration or importation ol certain persons was entirely unneces- sary and superfluous. It must be assumed that the framers of the Constitution beheved that there was necessity for this provision, and that they so believed indi- cates that they intended that the pow^r granted to Congress to regulate commerce in an earlier section of the Constitution should include the power to prohibit the migra- tion or importation of these persons. This claus'' can not be waved aside as relating only to importation from foreign countries into this country. It is perfectly definite and relates as well to "the migration * * * of such persons as any of the States * * * shall think proper to admit." Referring to this section, Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden (9 Wheat., 1, 216 [18241), said: ■ , .^ "(This section) has always been considered as an exception from the power to regulate commerce and * * * so far as an exception from a power proves its existence this section proves that the power to regulate commerce applies equally to the regulation of vessels employed in transporting men, who pass from place to place voluntarily, and to those who pass involuntarily." 3 The power of Congress over interstate commerce is as extensive as the power over foreign commerce and it is established that the power to regulate foreign com- merce includes the power to prohibit. j, ... i ^ Congress derives its power to regulate interstate commerce from the same clause of the Constitution from which is derived its power over foreign commerce. The power over interstate and foreign commerce is granted in precisely the same words and the Supreme Court has repeatedlv declared that these powers are identical. In Bowman rEgo & Northwestern Railway Co. (125 U. S., 465, 482 [18881\ the court said: . "The power conferred upon Congress to regulate commerce among the States is indeed contained in the same clause of the Constitution which confers upon it power 134 INTEESTATE COMMEBOE IN PEODTJCTS OE CHILD LABOE, to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The grant is conceived in the same terms and the two powers are undoubtedly of the same class and character and equally extensive. " And again, in Crutcher v. Kentucky, (141 U. S., 47, 57 [1891]) the court said: "It has frequently been laid down by this court that the pawer of Congress over interstate commerce is as absolute as it is over foreign commerce." Similar statements by the court, to the effect that the pDwer granted to Congress over interstate commerce is as extensive as the power over foreign commerce, may be found in Gibbons v. Ogden (9 Wheat., 1, 194, 228 [18241); License Cases (5 Howard, 504, 5:78 [18471); Brown v. Houston (114 U. S., 622, 630 [18851): Pittsburg & Southern Coal Co. V. Bates (156 U. S„ 577, 587 [1895]); Lottery Case8,(188 U. S., 321, 361 [1903]),, The regulation of foreign commerce by Congress^ has frequently assumed the form of prohibition. The nonimp-irtation and embargo* acts, which were upheld by the Supreme Court, are striking illustrations of the exercise of this power. In the case of Gibbons v. Ogden (9 Wlieat., 1, 192 11824]), Chief Justice Marshall, referring to the argument that embargoes are an instrument of wdr depending for their validity on the war-making power, said : "They are sometimes resorted to without a view to war and with a single view to commerce. * * * "When Congress imposed that embargo which for a time engaged the attention of every man in the United States, the avowed object of the law was the protection of commerce and the avoiding of war." Again, in United States v. Marigold (9 Howard, 560, 566 [1850]), the court said: "Since the passage of the embargo and nonintercourse laws, and the rep3ated judicial sanctions those statutes have received, it can scarcely, at this day, be op^n to doubt that every subject falling wilhin the legitimate sphsre of commercial regu- lation may be partially or wholly excluded, when either measure shall be demanded by the safety or by the important interests of the entire Nstisn." In United States v. William (28 Fed., 614 11808]), the then recent embargo act was sustained as a valid regulation of foreign commerce. In the more recent case of Butterfield -y. Stranahan (192 U. S., 470 [1904]), an act of Congress prohibiting the importation of inferior grades of_tea was held constitutional. In Oceanic Navigation Go. v. Stranahan (214 U. S.,.820 [1909]), an act excluding aliens was sustained, and in The Abby Dodge (223 U. S., 166 [1912]), a conservation measure excluding deep-sea sponges taken by divers was upheld. No more effective argument in favor of the power'can be advanced than a statement of the frequent use of the power particularly in reaent tariff acts. Among the recent prohibitions may be mentioned that against foreign couAict-made articles; that against importation into the United States of fur-seal skins taken in violation of law; and that against the importation of the eggs of game birds. This power of Congress to prohibit importation as a part of the power to regulate foreign commerce has become so well established that the references to it in the latter cas?s are hardly more than a statement recognizing the existence of the power. Thi-s in Weber v. Freed (Case No. 644, Dec. IS, 1915), the court, in upholding the consti- tutionality of the act prohibiting the introduction of piize-fight films into the United States, said that Congress possesses a complete power over foreign commerce and "its atithority to prohibit the introduction of foreign articles " is "recognized and enforced by many previous decisions of this court." Since the power to regulate foreign commerce may be exercised to the extent ol absolute prohibition, and since the power over interstate commerce is equally exten- sive, it, too, may be exercised to the extent of prohibition. So far. therefore, as the commerce clause itself is concerned and without considering for the moment other clauses of the Constitution which affect the question, it may be stated with confidence that the power over interstate commerce may be exercised by prohibitive measures to the same extent as in the case of foreign commerce. This is not to assert that in dealing with interstate traffic Congress possesses the same unrestricted and arbitrary power of prohibition which it may exercise over foreign commerce. The reason for the difference, however, is found not in the commerce clause, but in the due process clause of the Constitution, which restrains Congrfess from arbitrarily depriving the individual of vested, property rights. We have detached the restrictive effect of the due process clause from our present consideration J)ecauge of the desirability of first obtaining a clear view of the power delegated to Congress by the commerce clause. AVhether the power to regulate commerce includes power to prohibit commerce in specified articles is one question, and whether Con^tress D ay prohibit commerce in a specified article is another. The former involves the question of Federal and State jurisdiction over commerce; the latter involves the totally different question as to the extent of the right of the individual under the fifth amendment to insist that Congress shall not exercise its otherwise admitted power over commerce in such man- ner as to deprive the individual of his property or liberty without due process. The INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOE. 135 former raises the issue between Nation and State under the commerce clause and the reserved powers clause; the latter raises the issue between the Nation and the indi- vidual under the commerce clause and the fifth amendment. B. PRECEDENT JUSTIFIES THE CONCLUSION THAT THE POWER TO REGULATE INCLUDES THE POWER TO PROHIBIT INTERSTATE COMMERCE. The foregoing theories of interpretation of the commerce clause and the precedents derived from its exercise over foreign commerce standing alone, compel the conclu- sion that the power to regulate includes the power to prohibit in interstate as well aa foreign commerce: but fortunately we have additional and more specific authority to the same effect in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court in which prohibi- tions of transportation or shipment in interstate commerce of specified persons or things have been sustained. It is sufficient to list the prohibited persons and things and cite the cases sustaining their exclusion from interstate commerce. 1. Prohibition of transportation of lottery tickets or advertising matter relating to lotteries. The act of Congress of 1895 (28 Stat. L., 903, ch. 19i:i forbade, under penalty of criminal punishment, the bringing into the United States for the purpose of disposing thereof, or the carrying from one State to another of any lottery ticket. or advertise- inent relating to lotteries. The Supreme Court hejd that lottery tickets and adver- tising matter were subjects of commerce, that th^ regulation of their carriage from State to State was a regulation of interstate commerce, and that Congress had the power to prohibit their carriage in such commerce. (Lottery cases, 188 U. S., 321 [1903], 1 2. Obscene literature and articles designed for immoral and indecent use. Theactof February 8, 1897 (29 Stat. L., 512, ch. 172), and March 4, 1909 (37 Stat. L., sec. 249), prohibiting the carrying of such literatuire and articles from one State to another was held constitutional in United States v. Popper (98 Fed. Rep. , 423 [1899]). This act was cited with approval in Hoke v. United States (227 U. S., 308 [1913]). 3. Adulterated or misbranded food and drugs. The act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. L,, 768, ch. 3915), prohibits the shipment or de- livery for shipment in interstate commerce of any adulterated or misbranded food or dnig under penalty of criminal punishment. This act has been interpreted and its renalties enforced bv the Supreme Court in the case of Hipolite Egg Co. i). United States (220 U. S., 45" [191111. and in United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co. (232 U.S., 399 [1914]). These cases are authority fc* the right of Congress to condemn when found in interstate commerce, the articles whose shipment La prohibited, and they are generally accepted as authority for the cobstitutionality of the prohibition. In Seven Csses v. United States (Nos. 50 and 5J, Jan. 10, 191fi), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an amendment to this act which provided that mis- branding includes any statement regarding the curative or therapeutic value of the article or ingredients which is false and fraudulent. 4. Transportation of women from one State to another for immoral purposes. The act of Congress of June 25, 1910 (35 Stat. L., 825, ch. 395), prohibited the trans- portation in interstate commerce, for immoral purposes, of women and girls. This act was held constitutional in Hoke v. United States (227 U. S., 308 [1913]). ' 5. Transportation in interstate commerce of a commodity in-which the ca.'rier thereof has a legal interest. The act of Congress of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. L.,^584, ch. 3591), commonly known as the Hepburn Act, prohibited the carriage in interstate commerce of comroodities in which at the time of such transportation the carrier had a legal interest direct or indirect This prohibition was held constitutional in United States v. Delaware & Hudson Railroad Co. (213 U. S., 366, [1909]). ..,.-.. 6. Indirect prohibition of the transportation of mtoxicatmg liquors m interstate commerce. ^ ... , „„„s ,. , ■, , ■ In 1890 Congress passed the Wilson Act (26 Stat..L., 313, ch. 728), which provided that upon arrival within a State intoxicating liquors should become subject to the police reo-ulations of the State and should not be exempt therefrom under the rules protecting original packages shipped in intersta'e commerce, even after their arrival in the State to which they were consigned. The Wilson Act was a declaration by Congress that despite the exclusive power of Congress over such original packages in fhcir transit to the point of destination, they should become subject to the State police regulations as soon as they reached the consignee. In In re Bahrer (140 U. S., 545 [1891]) this act was held constitutional and a^ State law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor in the original package was held to apply to a sale in the original 136 IITTEHSTATE COMMEECE IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. package of liquor brought from another Slate. The pover of Congyesa thus to subject a legitimate article of commerce to laws which practically prohibittid its traneporla- tion into a State, implies a power on the part of CotigreBs directly to prohibit such transportation. And Congress has prohibited by the Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913 (37 Stat. L., 699, ch. 90) the shipment into a Slate of intoxicating liquor intended to be used in such State contrary to the laws thereof. The constitutionality of this latter act, like that of the pure food and drugs act, has not been questioned, but the Supreme Court by implication has sustained its constitutionality. 1 AdamS Express Co. v. Ken- tucky (238 (J. S., 190 [i914|) the court was compelled to interpret and apply the Webb-Kenyon Act in a case involving the power of Kentucky to exclude shipments of intoxicating liquors from that State when they were not intended to be used in viola^ tion cf the State laws. The Kentucky statute was hejd to be a regulation of interstate commerce and unconstitutional because it did not conle within the terms of the con- gressianal act. There can be no doubt, considering the attitude of the court toward the Wilson Act and in the case cited, that the Webb-Kenyon bill would be sustained as cooBtitutijnal. 7 . Fr jhibi' ion of shipment or transportation of meats which have not been inepected . The meat-icspeclion act of 1906 prohibits the shiianent or transportation in inter- state commerce of meat "which has not been inspected, examined, and marked 'Inspectsd and piEsed.'" Violation of the proviiions of this act is penalized irrespec- tive of the knowledge on the part of the shipper or carrier. 8. Prohibition of the shipment or transportation of cattle in interstate commerce except under regulations established by the Secretary of Agriculture. The cattle quarantine acts of 1903 and 1905 authoipze the Secretary to make rules an8 regulations and to establish a cattle quarantine and provide a penalty for viola- tion thereof. The enforcement of these acts is secured through the refiisal of carriers to accept shipments ot.cattle unless accompanied by the certificate of the Department of Agriculture. 9. Prohibition of the shipment or transportation in interstate commerce of unmarked imported nursery stock or quarantined nursery stock. The nursery stock act of 1912, prohibiting such shiplnent or transportation, imposes a penalty for violation, which is enforced against the shipper even in the absence of knowledge on his part of his violation. 10. Prohibition of the shipment or transportation of game in interstate commerce. The Lacey Act (sec. 242 of the Criminal Code of the United States) prohibits the sliipment or transportation in interstate commerce of (1) "foreign animals or birds the importation of which is prohibited" and (2) "dead bodies or parts thereof" of "wild animals or birds" killed or shipped in violation of the laws of the State where killed or from which shipped. Violation is punished in the case of the shipper irre- spective of his knowledge. 11. Prohibition of the shipment or transportation in interstate commerce of reno- vatf^d butter. The act of 1902 prohibits shipment or transportation in interstate commerce of renovated butter unirss marked in the way specified in the act. Violations are pun- ished irrc-sp-^ctive of knowledge. 12. Prohibition of shipmont in interstate commerce of specified virus, serum, etc. The act of 1913 prohibits shipment of "worthlpss, contaminated, dangerous or harmful viru.^i, s^rum, etc., " for domestic animals, or the shipping of any virus, serum, etc., unless prepared under regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture at an estabhsh- ment holding a licensi from the Secretary of Agriculture. 13. Prohibition of importation and interstate transportation of prize-fight picture films. The act of Jijly 31, 1912 (37 Stats. L., 240), makes it unlawful to bring into the United States or to ship or transport in interstate commerce |)icture films representing prize fights designed to be us d or capable of us^ for public exhibition. This act was held constitutional in its application to importations in the case of Weber v Freed (No. 644, Oct. term, 1915, Opinion Dec. 13, 1915). In view of thesi decisions it is unquestionable that, so far as the commerce clause ia concerned, a regulation of interstate commerce may take the form of an absolute pro- hibition of shipment or transportation in such commerce. As the Supreme Court has said: "It can scarcely, at this day, be open to doubt that every subject falling within the legitimate sphere of commercial regulation may be partially or wholly excluded when either measure shall be demanded by the safety or by the important interests of the entire nation." (U. S. v. Marigold, supra.) IITTEESTATE COMMEECE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOE. 137 in. The Power op Congress Over Interstate Commerce May Be Exercised IN THE Interest op the Public Health, Mor-als, Safety, and Welfare as Well as in the Interest op that Commerce and Its Instrumentalities. It is frequently stated in the opinions of the Supreme Court that Congrefs poEsesses a police power under the commerce clause. This means in effect that Congress may exerci:e its express powers-of which the commerce power is one-for the purpose of protecting and furthering the general welfare ot the people. 1 he use of its powers liberties contained in our constitutions. In the case of Congress, which possessea no inherent power, T)ut is limited to powers expressly granted by the Federal Con- stitution, this Bo-called police power is merely a right to make use of its express powers to pro\i:Ie for the public welfare. In both: cases the purpoto of exercising the power is the same andf it is, therefore, convenient, as it has tecome usual — to refer to the exercise of the commerce and other exprSss powers in the interest of the general^ welfare as the police power of Congress, ^his jrhraee will not prove con- fusing ifwe remember that by it we mean simply that use of the commerce power which aims not at benefiting or advancing commerbe itself or its instrumentalities, but at advancing the general welfare through regulation of commerce. Thus it has been held that under the power to establish postoffices and post roads Congress may prohibit the transportation throvgh the mails of all letters or circulars concerning lotteries. (Ex parte Jackson [18771 96 U. S., 727; in re llatier [18S21 14311. S., 110.) - Similarly, the use of the mails may be denied to any person or company engaged in conducting any lottery or device for obtaining money or property by means of false pretenses. (Public Clearing House v. Coyne [1904] 194 U. S., 497.) From the earliest days of our Nation it has been regarded as within the power of Congress in regulating foreign commerce to enact laws, not for the exclufive benefit or advancement of that commerce, but for the protection of the interests of the country . The embargo and nonintercourse laws are examples of such legi lation. Thus, in United States v. Marigold (1850), (9 Howard, 560, 566), the court said: "Since the passage of the embargo and nonintercourse laws, and the repeated judicial sanctions those statutes have received, it can scarcely, at this day, be open to doubt that every subject falling within the li-gitimate sphere of commercial regu- lation may be partially or wholly excluded, when either measure shall be demanded by the safety or by the important interests of the entire nation." In Unitecl States v. Williams (1808), (28 Fed. Cases, 614, 621) Judge Davis, in sus- taining the constitutionality of the then recent embargo act, said directly: "Further, the power to regulate commerce is not to be confined to the adoption of measures exclusively beneficial to commerce itself, or tending to its advancement ; but in our national system, as in all modern sovereignties, it is also to be considered as an instrument for other purposes of general policy and interest," In an essay on the commercial power of Congress, Mr. David Walter Brown, of the New York bar, thus summarizes the early exercise of the commerce power: "The policy of restriction included measures of two kinds: (1) The prohibition of the importation of foreign commodities and of the entry of foreign vessels into our ports, and (2) embargoes upon commerce. They illustrate, upoa a grand scale and m a drastic manner, the application of the commercial power of Congress to the attain- ment of great national ends through restrictions placed upon various branches of trade, and extending even to total prohibition; and in so far as the precedents furnished by them are authoritative, they indicate the unsoundness of the view that the power of Congress to regulate commerce is restricted to the passing of measures to advance it, but stops short of the power to prohibit it." . , , . That this conclusion is correct is shown by the following quotation from the case of Buttfield V. Stranahan (1904) (192 U. S., 470), wherethe Supreme Court, m holding constitutional an act of Congress which prohibited the importation of inferior teas, Baid (p. 493): "Coigress haa also, in other than tariff legislation, exerted a police power oyer foreign commerce by provisions which in and of themselves amounted to the assertion of the right to exclude merchandise at discretion. This is illustrated by statutory provisions which have been in force for more than 50 years, regulating the decree of strength of drugs, medicines, and chemicals entitled to admissioa into the United States and excluding such as did not equal the standards adopted." 138 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. If the power of Congress over foreign commerce mray be used as "an instrument foi the purposes of general-policy" and if the power over foreign commerce is the same as that over interstate commerce, it would be fair to conclude from these cases alone that the power over interstate commerce might likewise be used as "an instrument for purposes of general policy." We have, however, decisions in the Supreme Court directly afErmirg the existence in Congress of a police power which may be exercised thrm gh its power over inter- state commerce. The hrst important decision on this subject was the Lottery Case (1903) (188 U. S., 321), in which it was held that Oorgress has power to prohibit the interstate transportation of lottery tickets. In deli'vferirg the opinion of the court, Mr. Justice Harlan said: "If a State, when considerirg legislation for the Buj)preEsion of lotteries within its own limits, may properly take into view the e^"il8 that inhere in the raisirg of money, in that mode, why may not Corgress, invested with the power to regulate commerce amorg the several States, provide that such comm'erce shall not be polluted by the carryirg of lottery tickets from one State to another (p. 856). * * * As a State may, for the purpose of gv.ardirg the morals of its own people, forbid all sales of lottery tickets within its limits, so Corgress, for the purpQ.='e of guardirg the people of the United States against the 'widespread pestilence of lotteries' and to protect the com- merce which concerns all the States, may prohibit the carrvirg of lottery tickets from one State to another. * * * We shoxild hesitate lor g before ad judgirg that an evil of such appallirg character, carried on throi gh interstate commerce, can not be met and crushed by the only power com petent to that end . We say com petent to that end, becaree Corgress alone has the power to occvpy, by legiilation, the whole field of interstate commerce (p. 357). * * * if the carryirg of lottery tickets from one State to another be interstate commerce, and if Corgress is of opinion that an effective regulation for the suppression of lotteries carried on throi gh such commerce, is to make it a criminal offence, to canse lottery tickets to be carried from one State to another, we know of no authority in the courts to hold that the means thus devised are not appro- priate and necessary to protect the country at large against a species of inter.- tate commerce * * * which has grown into disrepiLte and has become offensive to the entire people of the nation" (p. 3f8). This ca'e definitely decides that Congress may exercise its power over interstate commerce for the protection of the morals and general welfare of the people. Lottery tickets, as specific articles of commerce, were harmless in themselves, and the legis- lation in qrestion was not enacted for the benefit of interstate commerce itself, or tending to its advancement. The p'rpose, as appears -from the forrgoirg Quotation, was the suppression of lotteries . Cor gress had no power to prohibit directly the raiting of money by lotteries, bi t under the power to regulate commerce it could deny to such business the privilege of usirg the facilities of interstate commerce. In the pure food and dn ga act (June 30, 1906, 24 Stat. L., 7G8) Corgress prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce of adulterate.d or misbranded food and drugs. The constitutionality of such legislation as a regulation of commerce has been affirmed expressly by the lower courts and impliedly by the- Supreme Court. (Hipolite Egg Co. V. U. S. [1911], 220 U. S. ^5; U. S. v. Johnson [Ml], 221 U. S., ''88; U. S. v. Lex- ington Mill Co. [1914], 2.32 U. S. 399; Seven Cases v. U.S. Nos. 50 and 51, Jan. 10, 1916; U. S. V. Heinle Spec. Co. [1910], 175 Fed. 299: ShaWnee Millirg Co. v. Temple [1910], 179 Fed. 517; U. S. v. Sacks of Flour [1910], 180 Fed. 518; U. S. v. Seventy-four Cases [1910], 181 Fed. 629.) In the ca-e of McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U. S: 115 [1912] the court in declsr'ng a St-ate statute to be in conflict with the Federal pure food and drugs act, said (p. 128) ; "That Congress has ample power in this connection is no longer cpen to qrestion. That body has the right not onlv to pass laws which shall regulate legitimate com- merce among the States and with foreign nations", but has full power to keep the channels of such commerce free from the transportation of illicit or harmful articles, to m.ake such as are iniuriovs to the public health outlaws of such coram.erce, and to bar them from the fariUties and privileges thereof." The most recent illustration cf the exercise of this police power of Congress which has been sustained by the Supreme Court is to be found in the act known as the white-s'ave traffic act '(June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. L., 825, ch. 395), by which Congress made it a criminal offense to transport women in interstate com.m,erce for im.raoral purposes. This act was held constitutional in Hoke v. United States [1913] (227 J. S., 308) and in Wilson v. United States [1914] (232 U. S., 563). In the first case the court said : "There is unquestionably a control in the States over the morals of their citizens, and, it mav be admitted, it extends to making prostitution a crime. It is a control, however, which can be exercised only within the jurisdiction of the States, but there INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PKODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. 139 is a domain which the States can not reach and over which Congress alone has power- and if such power be exerted to control what the States can not, it is an argument for— not against— Its legality. Its exertion dcea not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the States. We have cited examples; others may be adduced. The pure food and drugs act IS a conspicuous instance. In all of the instances a clash of national legislation with the power of the States was urged, and in all rejected." ' ' Our dual form of government has its perplexities. State and Nation having different spheres of jurisdiction, as we have said, but it must be kept in m.ind that we are one people; and the powers reserved to the States and those conferred on the Nation are adapted to be exercised, whether independently or concurrently, to promote the general welfare, material and moral. * * * Surely if the facility of interstate transportation caii be taken away from the demoralization of lotteries, the debase- ment of obscene literature, thecontagion of difea.sed cattle or persons, the im.purity of food and'drug?, the like facility can be taken away from the system.atic enticem.ent to and the enslavement in pro?titution and debauchery of women (p. 322). * * * The principle established by the cases is the sim.ple one, when rid of confusing and distracting considerations, that Congress has power over transportation 'among the several States'; that the power is complete in itself j and that Congress, as an inci- dent to it, may adopt not only means necessary but convenient to its exorcise, and the m.eans may have the quality of police regulatiort" (p. 323). In the Wilson case it was said : "As has already been decided, it (the act in question) has the quality of a police regulation, although enacted in the exercise of the power to regulate interstate com- merce" (p. 567). Although Congress can not directly prohibit prostitution within a State, it can contitutionallji attempt to suppress prostitution by prohibiting the transportation of women in interstate commerce for that purpose. The cases cited, it is submitted, definitely and necessarily establish the principle that Congress can regulate interstate commerce in the interest of public health, safety, mora's, or welfare; in other words, Congress may regulate interstate commerce in such manner as to prevent its being used to maintain or to further conditions which are detrimental to the general welfare of the com.mtinity. Mr. Justice Hughes, in the recent case of Seven Cases v. United States (Nos. 50 and 51, October term, 1915, opiri m January 10, 1916), referring to the decision in the white-slave case, said: "The court concluded with the reassertion of the simple principle that Congress is not to be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority over interstate com- merce, and its power to adopt not only means necessary but convenient to its exercise, because these means may have the quality of police regulations." IV. Whatever its Incidental Effects, a Conghessional Regulation op Inter- state Commerce is Never a Violation de the Reserved Rights oe the States. We have seen that Congress under the commerce clause possesses a broad, complete, and exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce; that this power to regulate in- cludes power to prohibit the shipment or transportation of specified persons or prop- erty; and that in the exercise of its power to regulate interstate commerce Congress is not confined to measures which have for their purpose the good of interstate com- merce and its instrumentalities, but may, in additioii to such measures, regulate such commerce in the interest of promoting t;he public health, safety, morals, and welfare. From these established principles, it is apparent that Federal legislation prohibiting the shipment in interstate commerce of the products of child labor is within the juris- diction over commerce transferred by the States to the Federal Government and vested in Congress by the Federal Constitution. There can be no doubt that such legislation regulates interstate commerce within the interpretation which the Supreme Court has uniformly given to the commerce clause. As a regulation of interstate commerce, it is unquestionablv within the jurisdiction of the Federal control over commerce. It is idle to say that it interferes with the reserved powers of the States. It is true, the Federal Constitution in Article X of the amendments provides that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people." This provision becomes important, however, only after it has been determined that the power to do that which is proposed has not been delegated to Congress. The very essence of the argument in favor of the constitutionality of Federal cliild labor-legislation is that it is included within the power of Congress to regulate 'Commerce. If it is within the congressional power, which by the Constitution was delegated to the exclusive con- trol of Congress, then it can not fall within that realm of powers not delegated but 140 IKTEESTATE COMMEKCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. reserved to the States. In the consideration of objections of this sort it must be remembered that Congress is not making the employment of children illegal but is merely excluding from interstate commerce the products of child labor. The fact that the congressional regulation may prevent or restrict the employment of children in the manufacture of goods within the State does not affect the constitutionality of the congressional action. So long as it is a regulation of commerce and so long as it does not constitute a deprivation of property without due process, the power of Con- gress is supreme. Prof. Goodnow, now president of Johns Hopkins University, in his Social Eeform and the Constitution (p. 91), says: "Men's minds are peculiarly twisted -when they argue under a Constitution containing such aprovision (the com- merce clause) that a regulation purporting to be a regulation of interstate commerce is not such because it will necessarily have the incidental effect of regulating condi- tions of "manufacture. The only reason why it will have this incidental effect is because in the economic conditions of the present day, manufacturing has ceased to be a State and hi,s become an interstate matter." In the Northern Securities case [1903] (193 U. S., 197, 342), the court asked: "Is there, then, any escape from the conclusion that, subject only to such restric- tions, the power of Congress over interstate and interifational commerce is as full and complete as is the power of any State over its domestite commerce?" Only after we have determined the limit of the congressional power can we ascer- tain under the tenth amendment what other and additional power has been reserved either to the States or to the people. In determining the respective jiuisdictions of Congress and the States over the subject of comniercp, we are confined to the inter- pretation of the provisions of the Federal Constitution aiid in that instrument the only provisions which relate to the subject are the commerce clause and the provision of Article I, section 9, hereinbefore quoted which forbade congressional prohibition prior to 1808 of the migration or importation of such persons as any State might see fit to admit. We are, therefore, practically confined to the commerce clause and its in- terpretation in the determination of the limits of the jJower of Congress and the extent of the power of the States over commerce. The fifth amendment has no application in the determination of the respective spheres of jurisdiction of the Nation and the State. The effect of that amendment in giving to individuals the right to protest against the exercise "by Congress of any of its powers in such manner as to deprive the individual of life, liberty, or property without due process of laW; is considered in the following subdivisions of this brief. The poiiit which we desire to make here is that that amend- ment throws no light on the question of the extent to which the congressional power over interstate commerce may be expanded into fields which the Federal Government has not heretofore occupied. That Congress may reach conditions of manufacture and other acts which take place prior to transportation in interstate commerce is illustrated by the meat-inspec- tion act (34 Stat. L., pp. 675 and 1260) and section 9 of the pure food and drugs act. The meat-inspection act provides that no meat may be shipped in inters'ate com- merce ulneas labeled in accordance with the provisions of the act and that inspectors may enter the establishments for the purpose of such inspection. The constitution- ality of this act has never been questioned. Section 9 of the pure food and drugs act provides that no dealer who ships in interstate commerce adulterated or misbranded articles shall be prosecuted if he can establish a guarantee from the manufacturer from whom he purchased the article that the same Is not adulterated or misbranded, and that in such case the party making the guarantee shall be amenable to prosecu- tions. In United States v. Heinle Specialty Co. (175 Fed., 299 [1910]), a manufac- turer was prosecuted for selling adulterated food with a guarantee to a dealer in the same State, the dealer having subsequently shipped the food in interstate commerce. It was contended on behalf of the manufacturer that' his connection with the food— that is, its manufacture and sale— was entirely an intrastate matter, and that the niath section of the pure-food act was therefore unconstitutional in that it attempted to penalize acts wholly intrastate. The court refused to accept this argument, and in holding the section constitutional said: "There is nothing in the act to indicate that there is an effort on the part of Con- gress to regulate the manufacturing, selling, or delivering of any articles of food within the States. The act is intended to prevent adulterated and misbranded foods from being sold in interstate commerce — nothing more; and in order that this may be accomplished it prohibits the party who makes or manufactures the food and who knows what it contains from falsely assuring an innocent purchaser that its quality and dregs lawfully entitles him to sell the conimodityan interstate commerce." In like manner the proposed child-labor legislation does not attempt to regulate either manufacture within a State or intrastate sales, but simply attempts to prevent the products of child labor from being sold in interstate commerce. As was said in the Hoke case (227 U. S., 308, 322): INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OE CHILD LABOR. 141 Stl'll* Tm^VhtS^^^^r^"^ '=°''^'^ ''^^ P^'^^'^i* ^'^^ manufacture of the article in a w^hln /stTp^ hn. p Congress could not prohibit in all of its conditions its sale bv^St me^ns dpyplte'^'t"^^ P'^"^'*'- * '^f te^sportation between the States, and by tuat means defeat the motive and evils of its manufacture " In the lottery and white slave cases it was argued that Congress was invading the Wnn,M>nti!^' ^"^^^^ ^""^ "?' attempting to enact police reflations XrhTider the Constitution were reserved to the States exclusively. The court, in the Hoke contention^"'" ^°^^'' ^^^ ^'*'°^ ^'^^''' ''' ^'^^^' effectually disposed of this '■The power of Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution is the ulti- mate determining question. . If the statute be a valid exercise of that power how it may affect persons or States is not material to be considered. It is the supreme law ol tne land and persons and States are subject to it." (Hoke v. U. S. [1913], 227 U. S. Mr. Justice Hughes, in replying to this same contention, ur?ed against the Sherlev amendment to the pure food and drugs act (Seven C^ses v. United States, Kos. 50 and 51, Jan. 10, 1916), said: ''So far as it is objected that this measure, though relating to articles transported in interstate commerce, is an encroachment upon the i*eserved powers of the States the objection is not to be distinguished in substance from that whii h was overruled in sus- taining the white slave act. There, after stating that if the facility of interstate trans- portation can be denied in the case of lotteries, obscene literature, diseased cattle and persons, and impure food and drugs, the like facility could be taken away from 'the systematic enticement of and the enslavement in prostitution and debauchery of women,' the court concluded with the reasssrtion of the simple principle that Con- gress is not to be d-enied the exercise of its constitutional authority over interstate com- merce, and its power to adopt not only means necessiry but convenient to its exercise, because these means may have the quality of po'ice regulations." ■These cases establish the right of Congress to exercise a complete power in the regu- lation of interstate commerce limited only by the due.process clause. Argument to the effect that this power is also limited by an inherent right of the States is academic and untenable because wholly contrary to the precedents. The power is granted to Congress in plain and unmistakable terms, without limitation and with the express purpose of ameliorating unsatisfactory and injurious results occasioned by State control. In its exercise of this delegated power, Congress is absolutely unrestrained notwithstanding any indirect economic effects that its regulation njay have upon the States. As long as it is regulating articles of interstate commerce and is not arbitrarily depriving persons of liberty or property by arbitrary regiilation. Congress is authorized to exercise unlimited power. In the words of Mr. Justice Hughes (address before the New York State Bar Association, J^n. 14, 1916): "Thus it is recognized that within its sphere, as defined by the Constitution, the Nation is supreme. The question is simply of the extent of the Federal power as granted; where there is authorized exercise of that power there is no reserved power to nullify it — a principle obviously essential to the maintenance of national integrity, yet continually calling for new applications. Thus, regulations required in the exercise of the judgment committed to Congress for the protection of interstate com- merce can not be made nugatory by the mere commingling of interstate and intrastate transactions. To illustrate. Congress has taken accoint of the practical exigencies of traffic, and of the interdependence of train movements, and has insisted that cars moving on railroads that are highways of interstate commerce shall be sidtably equipped tc the end that interstate traffic shall not be exposed to unnecessary danger. Again, Congress has assarted its authority to compel interstate carriers to give to inter- state traffic reasonable rates without unjust discrimination; and the question whether interstate trade was left to be destroyed by hostile discrimination under the authority of local governments was decisively answered when the Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation." So far as the respective jurisdictions of State and nation over commerce are con- cerned, can there be any doubt under the congressional practice and the judicial decisions which have been discussed in the preceding sactions of this brief that the proposed prohibition of shipments of products of child labor in interstate commerce is within the Federal jurisdiction? However much, we may think that such power ought not to be within the Federal jurisdiction, whatever may be our individual opinions as to the desirable balance of powers between the Federal Government and the States in this matter, the simple fact is that the Federal Constitution as now worded gives Congress power to regulate interstate commerce and gives the whole of this power to Congress to the entire exclusion of the States. The question is not what the Con- stitution ought to provide, but what it does provide. The constitutionality of the 142 INTEESTATE COMMEECE IK PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. proposed legislation is not to be determined by our ideas as to bow the commerce clause ought to be interpreted but by the congressional practice and judicial decisions which stand as precedents for its proper intervention. On this basis the proposed Federal child-labor bill is clearly within the Federal. jurisdiction, and if it is uncon- stitutional it must be for reasons other than its interference with the powers of the States. This brings us to the consideration of the most important problem involved in the constitutionality of the proposed legislation, namely. What is the extent of the right of the individual under the fifth amendment to say to the Federal Government: "You can not exercisa even the powers expressly delegated to you in such manner as to deprive me of my property or liberty without due |)rocess of law?" V. The Power op Congress to Prohibit Shipment^or Transportation in Inter. STATE Commerce Is Limited Only by the RbqiJirbmbnt op thb Fipth Amend- ment THAT Such Prohibition Shall not Constitute a Deprivation op Indi- vidual Rights Without Due Process op Law; i. e., That Such Prohibition Shall not Be an Arbitrary or Unreasonable Interperenoe ^^^ITH the Indi- vidual's Rights op Property oh Liberty op Contract. The preceding sections of this brief point out that aside from the provision of article 1, section 9, respecting congressional prohibition of the migration of slaves and the commerce clause itself, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution which in any way limits or affects the congressional power over ipterstate commerce except the fifth article of the amendments which provides: ''No person shall be 'deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.* " This amendment, ifhas ako been pointed out, does not affect theissuewhich arises between the Nation and the State in regard to their respective jurisdictions over commerce, but is simply a guar- antee to the individual of protection against the arbitrary action of the Federal Gov- ernment-, The fifth amendment protects the individual against Federal action depriv- ing him of life, liberty or property without due process of law in pricisely the same way that the fourteenth amendment protects him against State action depriving him of life, liberty or property without due process of law. It neither limits the Federal power in the interest of State power nor gives to the State any right to object to the extent or the manner in which the Federal Government exercises its powers. This amendment limits the Federal Government in the exercise of its express powers in precisely the same way that the fourteenth amendment limits the State government in the exercise of those inherent powers which are ordinarily described by the courts aa the State's police power. In the Lottery Case (188 U. S. 321, 3fi2 [1!)03]V it was 'argued that the principle which would justify the exclusion of lottery tickets from interstate commerce would lead necessarily to the conclusion that any article of whatever kind or nature could be be excluded by Congress regardless of the motive or purpose of such exclusion. Re- plying tn this contention, Mr. Justice Harlan said: " It will be time enough to consider the constitutionality of such legislation when we must do so. The present case does not require the court to declare the full extent of the power that Congress may exercise in the regulation of commerce among the States. We may, however, repeat, in this connection, whalf the court has heretofore said, that the power of Congress, to regulate commerce among the States, although plenary, can not be deemed arbitrary, since it is subject to such limitations or restrictions as are prescribed by- the Constitution. This power, therefore, may not be exercised so as to infringe rights secured or protected by that instrument." Obviously, Mr. .lustice Harlan's reference is to the fifth amendment for that is the only other clause of the Constitution which limits the congressional commerce power. Whether the fifth amendment limits the power of Congress to prohibit the trans- portation of particular property in interstate commwce depends on the question whether such prohibition amounts to a deprivation of property without due process. This brings up the questions: to what sphere has the individual a right to ship goods in interstate commerce and what amounts to deprivation without due process? The exact meaning of this ' ' due process' ' clause like Similar clauses in the fourteenth amendment and in the State constitutions has never been definitely settled. Com- paratively few casf 8 have arisen which involve the meaning of this clause in the fifth amendment. Numerous cas's, however, have been decided involving the p.fiBct of the similar due process clause in the fourteenth amendment. These cas':'3 indicate that the duo process limitation is intended to protect the individual from an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, from I'-gislation which interferes with private rights or interests to an extent that shocks existing conceptions of what is fundamen- tally fair and just under the circumstances to which it applies. INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 143 The following definitions have been pronounced by the Supreme Court: "Due process of law within the meaning of the (fourteenth) amendment is secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government." Gioxzar. Tiernan (148U. S., 657, 662 [1893] ) To the same effect see Yick Wo i). Hopkins (118 D.'S.. 356, 367 ri8861); Leeper v. Texas (139 U. S., 462 and 468 [1891]); \csler v. Commissioners (146 U. S., 646, 655 [1892]); Duncan v. Missouri (152 U. S., 377, 382 [1894]). The words "due process of law," "were intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributive justice." Bank v. Okely (4 Wheat 235, 244 [1819]); Twining v. N. J. (211 U. S., 78, 101 [1908].) "The great purpose of the requirement is to exclude everything that is arbitrary and capricious in legislalion affecting the rights of the citizen." Dent ■!) W Va (129 U. S., 114, 124 [1889]). The due process clause in the fifth amendment is identical with that in the four- teenth amendment. This pledge of individual rights and liberties is in the Consti- tution in a two-fold sense; in the fifth amendment it is a Umitafion upon the powers of the National Government; in the fourteenth amendment it is a limitation upon the powers of the States. Davidson v. New Orleans (96 U. S., 97, 101 [1878]); Bal- Unger v. Davis (146 U. S., 314, 319 [1892]). Indeed, the Supreme Court has said that these two clauses bear the same construction in regard to the meaning of the phrase "due process of law." Slaughter House Cases (16 Wallace, 26, 80 [18721); Tonawanda V. Lion (181 y. S., 389, 391 [1901]); Twiiiing v. N. J. (supra). Therefore it may be argued, though it has never been directly decided, that an act of Congress which excludes an article frcm interstate commerce without apparent reason violates the requirements of the "due process" clause. As.9uming that pro- hibition without any reason would be a violation of due process, the question becomes one of reasonableness of the prohibition or transportation of a particular article. This restriction on prohibition is implied by the Supreme Court's language in United States V. Marigold (9 Howard 560 [1850|), where it wf\s said that any article of com- merce "may be partially or whoUjr excluded when either measure shall be demanded by the safety or by the important interests of the entire nation." It has always been an established constitutional principle that all rights of life, liberty, and property are held subject to regulation by the sovereign in the interests of the public welfare. The interests of the individual must yield to th? higher interests of the community. So long as such regulations are reasonable they may interfere with private property without violating the due process clause. It is now well settled, so well that citation of cases is unnecessary, that a State statute containing reasonable police regulation, though it interferes with personal or property rights, does not constitute a deprivation thereof without due process and is therefore consti- tutional, despite the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In Chicago Railroad Co. v. McGuire (219 U. S., 549, 567 [1911]), it is said: "Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity, from reasonable regiilations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of the community." The scope of tnis power to regulate in the interests of the public good, commonly called the police power, has never been definitely determined. For many years the decisions of the Supreme Court seemed to restrict it to laws passed for the protection of the health, morals, or safety of the public. But later decisions have given it a broader scope and, at the present time, it may properly be said to include all matters which are immediately necessary or advantageous to the welfare of the community. In the case of McLean v. Arkansas (211 U. S., 539 [1909]), the court held constitu- tional a State statute requiring coal to be weishtd before screening, as a basis for determining miners' wages. In the opinion in this case, the principles which underlie the validity of legislation passed presumably in the exercise of the police power were stated as follows (p. 547): "It is then the established doctrine of this court that the liberty of contract is not universal, and is subject to restrictions passed by the legislative branch of the Govern- ment in the exercise of its power to protect the safety, health, and welfare of the people. . . . , . "it is also true that the police power of the State is not unlimited and is subject to judicial review and, when exerted in an arbitrary or oppressive manner, such laws may be annulled as violative of rights protected t^y the Constitution, 'ft hile the courts can set aside le.^islative enactments upon this ground, the principles upon which such interference is warranted are as well settled as is the right of judicial interference itself. The lerislature being familiar with local conditions is primarily the judge of the necessity of such enactments. The mere fact that a court may_ differ with the legislature in its views of public policy, or that judges may hold views mcon- 144 INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCflS OF CHILD LABOR. sistent with the propriety of the legislation in question affords no grounds for judicial interference unless the act in question is unmistakably and palpably in excess of legis- ative power." In jacobson v. Massachusetts (197 U. S., 11 [1905]), in which a State compulsory vaccination law was held const'tutional, the court said (p. 31): "If there is any such power in the judiciary to review legislative action in respect of a matter affecting the general welfare, it can only be when that which the legisla- ture has done comes within the rule, that if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is beyond all question a plain palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge and thereby give effect to the constitution." In Chicago Railroad Co. v. McGuire (supra), in which it was decided that a State may define the liability of a railroad company to its employee for negligence and may constitutionally prohibit contracts limiting liability for injuries made in advance of the injury, the court said (p. 569): "The ajope of judicial inquiry in deciding the question of power is not to be con- fused with the scope of legislative considerations in dealing with the matter of policy, Whether the enactment is wise or unwise, whether it is based on sound economic theory, whether it is the best means to aclieve the desired result, whether, in short, the legislative discretion within its prescribed limits should be exercised in a particular manner are matters for the judgment of the legislature and the earnest conflict of serious opinion does not suffice to bring them within the range of judicial cognizance." In the recent case of Noble State Bank v. Haskell (219 U. S., 104 [1911]), in which the bank depositors' guaranty fund act of Oklahoma was held constitutional as an exercise of the State's police power, Mr. Justice Hollnes defines the scope of the police power as follows (p. Ill): "It may be said in a general way that the police power extends to all the great public needs. It may be put forth in aid of what is sanctioned by usage, or held by the prevailing morality or strong and preponderant opinion to be greatly and imme- diitely necessary to the public welfare."" A reasonable police regulation is, therefore, not a violation of the due process clause in the fourteenth amendtnent. A police regulation will not be held to be unreason- able and therefore unconstitutional unless it is an arbitrary and oppressive interference with personal or property rights without that justification which arises from existing coaditions detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare to the better- ment of ■frhirh it boars some substantial relation. If;this be the test which determines the constitutionality of an exercise of the State's poljice power to legislate for the com- mon good, notwithstandiig the guaranty of due prpcess contained in the fourteenth amendment, we may confidently assert that a tesi not less favorable to its coi^stitu- tionality will be applied to a congressional exercise of the commerce power in the interest of the common good notwithstanding the duo process clause of the fifth amend- ment. In other words, the test to be applied to determine what is due process under the fifth amendment is no more strict than that applied to the determination of the same question when it arises under the f6urteenth amendment. The police power of the State is either a general inherent power of the soverei9;n government without expression in the State constitution or it is an exception to the limitation contained in the due process clause engrafted on that limitation by judicial decision. TLo power of Congress to re,gulate interstate commerce in :the interest of the public welfare, if a police power at all, is part of the express poweridelegated by the Constitution to Congress. In th'3 dBtsrmination of the effect of the due process clause on the exercise of this power to legislate for the public good, it is not to be expected that the courts will confine the power of Congress, which is express within more narrow limits than the power of the States, which is general, inherent, or the result of an exception engrafted by judi ill den^ion upon a constitutional limitation. _ Further, Congress in the exercise of the power to regulate interstate commerce may eiiher regulate or prohibit that commerce not arbitrarily or uiu-easonably, but never- thele.ss' freely and effectively when conditions detrimental to the public welfare rea- sonably ca^l for some regulation. The cor.g-essional action in such case will be set aside as unconstitutional only when clearly unrefisonabie and arbitrary. As the Supreme Court has said with reference to the exercise of the State's police power: "The mere fact that court may differ from the legislature in its views of public policy or that judges may hold views inconsistent ivith the propriety of the legislation in question affords no ground for judicial interferenfie unless the act in question is un.Tiistakably and palpably in excess of legislative power." The effect, therefore, of the fifth amendment on the congressional commerce power is simply to authorise the individual to assert his constitutional guarantee of due INIEKSTATE COMMEKCE IN PEODXJCTS OF CHILD LABOK. 145 process, to rcKtrain the enforcement of regulations of interstate commerce which are wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. It does not affect the validity of reasonable regulations substantially related to the betterment Of evil conditions" existing in the nation. It is impossible to lay down in advance aiiy fixed rules whi;h ^vili enable us in all future eases to separate the reasonable from the unreasonable regulation. Every regulation must stand or fall on its relation to the common welfare under all the circumstances existing at the time of its enactment. To him who asks for the application of this general argument to suppositious cases, as, for example, whether Congress could prohibit the passage of sound wheat fi-om Minnesota to Wisconsin, we can ouljr reply m the words of Mr. Justice Harlaa in the I^ottery Case: "It will be time enough to consider the constitutionality of such legislation when we must do so." Its constitutionality will depend upon its reasonableness and its reasonableness will depend on the existence or nonexistence of conditions whirh justify this interference by Congress with the individual's right to find for his product a market in interstate commerce. It remains to apply this general principle to the proposed prohibition of interstate commerce in the products of child labor. Does such a prohibition bear such sub5tan- tial relation to the public health, the public safety, the public morals, or the p\iblic welfare as to make it a reasonable regulation of interstate commerce in the interest of the common good, or is it an unreasonable, arbitrary interference with the right to find and use an interstate market, without that justification which arises from existing evil conditions toward the betterment of which it may reasonably be expscted to contribute? VI. The Prohibition of Shipment in Interstate Commerce of the Products or CniLn Laboe Is a Reasonable Exercise of the Congressional Commerce Power in the Intebest of the Public Welfare. The preceding sections of this memorandum establish the pvcppsition that the com- merce clause of the Constitution authorizes Congress to prohibit the traneportation in interstate commerce of fpscifled persons or things; that Congress possesses power similar to the State's police power to regulate or prohibit commerce in the interest of public health, safety, welfare, or morals; that in the exercise of this police power under the commerce clause Congress is limited only by the provision of the fifth amend- ment to the Federal Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property or liberty without due process of law; and that despite the fifth amendment Congress may enact valid police regulations if they be reasonably necessa,ry to remedy existing conditions detrimental to the public good. The Keating-Owenibill, as introduced by Congress- man Keating on January 7, 1916, provides that no producer, manufacturer, or dealer shall ship or deliver for shipment in interstate commerce the product of any mine or quarry situated in the United States which has been produced, in whole or in part, by the labor of children under the age of 16 years; or the product of any mill, cannery, workshcp, factory, or manufacturing establishment situated in the United States which has been produced, in whole or in pwt, by the labor of children under the age of 14 years or by the labor of children between the age of 14 years and 16 years who work more than eight hours in any one day or more than six days in any week or before the hour of 7 a. m. or after the hour of 7 p. ra. Congress, by enacting this 1 ill would prohil it the shipment in interstate rora- merce of certain products of child la! or. That Congress, under its power to regulate interstate commerce, may prohibit shipment in that commerce, has been proved. In order to sustain the constitutionality of the Keating-Owen 1 ill it is, therefore, only necessary to show that the prohi' ition of shipment of these chJd-labor products tears such a relation to the public health, safety, welfare, of morals as to bring it within that class of police legislation which Congress may pass under the commerce clause despite the fifth amendment. ... , y. The Supreme Court has held that a regulation of interstate commerce by Congress may have the quality of a police regulation; that the jDowers "conferred on the Nation are adapted to be eiercised * * * to promote the general welfare, material and moral "^ As we have seen Congress will not be held to a stricter test under the fifth, amendment as to the validity of police regulations of commerce than that applied under tha fourteenth amendment to police legislation of the States, btate legislation directly prohiliting the employment of children in the occupations ^ind uniier the circunitances stated in the pending bill has been held valid police legislation under the fourteenth amendment. The employment of c^hildren of tender years in dan- gerous or confining occupations has long 1 een recognized as a serious evil and a menaco to the future of thi race As early as 1879, 21Stateshad laws regulating orprohibiting 27896—16 ^10 146 INTEKSIAXB COMMEHCE IN PEODTJCTS OF CHILD LABOE. it and this nrnnher has constantly increased. (See Progress and Uniformity in Child Labor Legislation, by William F. Ogburn, Columl-fa LIniversity Studies in Eistory, Economifs, and Piil'lic Law, vol. 48, No. 2, 1012.) The courts of last resort in a majority of the States have hold that State legislatures may, under the police power, fix an age limit below which children may not be employed, the minimum age limit upheld by these de; isions ranging from 12 years upward. (See note in U. S. Supreme Courtrep., 53 L. ed., 245, 24tj.) The preponderant moral sentiment of the commun- ity is against child labor. It is inconceival le that any ccurt would hold that such legislation has no real or substantial relation to the protection of the health and morals of the people. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has recently held that State child-labor legislation is a valid exercise of the State police power. (Sturges Mfg. Co, V. Beauchamp (1913), 231 U. S. 820, 325.) In the opinion in that case Mr. Justice Hughes said : "As it was competent for the State in securing the safety of the young to prohibit such employment altogether, it could select the means appropriate to make its pro- hibition effective and could compel employers at their peril to ascertain whether those they employed were in fact under the age specified. The imposition of abso- lute requirements of this sort is a familiar exercise of the protective power of govern- ment.". Thp Supreme Court will talce notice of the fact that in the greater part of this country child-labor legislation has already been enacted and upheld as a reasonable exercise of the police power. In the Goppage v. Kansas case the Supreme Court, in holding unconstitutional legislation forbidding discharge of union men, referred to the fact that such laws had been generally condemned as unconstitutional in the several States. These State child-labor statutes are ineffective to prevent interstate commerce in products of child labor, but their universal approval as valid police regulations is persuasive evidence that they are reasonable regulations of rights of property and of liberty of contract. A State in the exercise of its police power may prohibit the employment of child labor in the manufacture of goods within the State, but it has not the power to com- plete its policy by prohibiting the importation from other States of the products of child labor. It is well established that a State is powerless to exclude the Latroduc- tion and sale within its borders, in original packages, of recognized articles of inter- state commerce (Brown v. Maryland (1827), 12 Wheat., 419; Leisy v. Hardin (1890), 135 IT. S., 100). Such a regulation interferes with interstate commerce and, conse- quently, is unconstitutional. It is true that in the exercise of the police power ia protecti-ig citizens against fraud a State has been permitted to make certain regula- tions which place no burden upon commerce among the States (Plumley v. Massacha^ setts (1894), 155 U. S., 461 (proliibition of the sale of oleomargarine which is ia imitation of yellow butter); Grossman v. Furman (1904), 192 U. S., 129 (artificially colored coffee beans); Compagnie Francaise v. LouiAiana Board of Health (1902), 186 U. S., 380 (persons coming from districts infected *ith contagious or infectious dis- eases); but as child-labor products are not inherently dangerous to the citizens of the State, a direct prohibition by a State of the right to sell them within its borders would be an interference with interstate commerce, and consequently void. (People v. Hawkins (1898), 157 N. Y., 1; People v. Haynes (ISIO), 198 N. Y., 622; Opinion of the Justices (1912), 211 Mass., 605.) In each one of these cases the State statute provided that goods manufactured by convict labor should be stamped so as to indicate the same. These laws applied alike to goods manufactured within and without the State. The courts in each case held the statute unDonstitutioaal as an unlawful interference with interstate commerce. In People t).- Hawkins the court said (p. 17): _ "A citizen of this State who happens to buy goods-made in a prison in Ohi j has the right to put them upon the market here on their own merits, and if this right is re- stricted by a penal law, while the same goods madain factories are untouched, such a law is a restriction upon the freedom of commerce, and the objection to it is not removed by the fact that it may have been enacted in the guise of a police regulation. The validity of such a law is to be tested by its purpose and practical operation with-; out regard to the name or classification that may have been given to it." In Opinion of the Justices (supra) the court declares (p. 606): "The present bill, in our opinion, goes beyond a Istwful exercise of the police power in its direct effects upon interstate commerce. Protection of domestic laborers,; manufacturers or merchants against the lawful competition from other States by mpans of discriminating regulations upon goods manufactured in other State's, is an immcdiato interference with interstate commerce. * * * One who purcha3"3 prison made goods in other States has a right as complete and extensive to aA\ them upon thrir own merits as he has to s'll private-made goods of like nature." The same objections would be successfully urged against a statute prohibiting the Bale within the State of child labor products imported from another State. The pro- INTERSTATE COMMERCE IK PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. 14*7 hibition of the sale of such products of child labor would not further the interests of the citizens of the State except as regards competition and such legislation has been held, in a ]ong line of decisions, to amount to an unlawful interference with interstate commerce. (Welden v. MissDuri (1875), 91 U. S., 275: Walling v. Michigan (1886), 116 U. S,, 446; Minnesata v. Barber (1890) 13G U. S. 313: Brimmer v. Rebman (1891) 13S U. S. 78: Voight v. Wright (1891). 141 U. S., 62; Collins v. New Hampshire (1897), 171 U. S., 30: Doaier v. Alabama (1910), 218 U. S., 124.) In Railroad v. Husen (1878), 95 U. S., 465, 472) it is said: ' ' \^Tiile we imhesitatingly admit that a State may pass sanitary laws, and laws for the protection of life, liberty, health, or property within its borders; while it may prevent persons and animals suffering under contagious or infectious diseases, or convicts, etc., entering the State; while for the purpose of self-protection it may establish quarantine and reasonable inspection laws, it may not interfere with transportation into or through the State beyond what is absolutely necessary for its self-protection." It may be contended that a State might prohibit the sale of all products of child labor by a lawful exercise of the taxing power. While it is true that the original package rule does not apply where there is a general tax laid upon property which has reached its destination (Brown v. Houston (1885), 114 U. S., 622), or a tax upon the sale of articles within the State which were not brought from a foreign country (Wood- ruff V. Parham (1869), 8 Wall,, 123), nevertheless such a tax must be for a public purpose (Loan Association v. Topeka (1875), 20 Wall'., 655; Lowell v. Boston (1873), 111 Mass., 454). Thus in the exercise of its taxing power the State is limited by the due process clause in so tar as the tax must be for the benefit of the community. A prohibitory tax on the products of child labor would not be valid, therefore, unless a direct prohibition of the sale of such products could be sustained, and it has been shown that such a prohibition as applied to goods imported from other States would constitute an interference with interstate commerce because not being for a public purpose it is not within the police powers of the State (People v. Hawkins and cases cited above). Even though it be conceded that the State, by the exercise of its police power, could prohibit the sale of child-labor products after such products are no longer part of interstate commerce, or could, under the power to levy a general property tax, place a prohibitory tax upon them, such measures would be absolutely unenforceable. The State has no method of determining what imports from other States are manu- factured by child labor, because the goods themselves show no traces or marks of it. In order to effectively enforce such a law it would be neressiry for each State to plare an inspector in every mine, quarry, and manufacturing establishment in the United States. This method is both impracticable and illegal. No State could afford to employ the necessary number of inspectors, and even if this were done the act authorizing th° inspection in other States would be of doubtful constitution- ality, as it is settled that State laws have no extraterritorial effect, each State being supremo within its sphere (Buckner v. Finley (1829), 2 Pet., 586; Bank of Augusta I). Sarle (1839), 13 Pet., 519; O. & M. By. v. Wheeler (1862), 1 Black., 286). There- fore it is obviously impossible for one State to prohibit the importation from other States of the products of child labor. Every means of effectively stamping out this national evil has been taken from the States, and the only possible method of effecting: the complete prohibition of child labor is by national control. In prohibiting the iateratate shipment of such products Congress is exercising its power over interstate commerce to advanee the public welfare by supplementing and making effective tha police legislation of the States. As hae been pointed out in an earlier part of this brief, the Constitutional Conven- tion took from the individual States the power to prohibit importations and must have intended to lodge that important power in the only a.gency to which power over inter- state commerce was given, viz. Congress. It is not unfair to say that the Convention intended that Congress should protect by uniform regulation the States which were thus rendered impotent to protect themselves. A$ a matter of fact, considerable opposition to effective child labor legislation in the various States has been founded on this very fact— that the State can not exclude the products of child labor manufac- tured in another State. The manufacturers of a State which has enacted advanced child labor legislation are at a disadvantage in competition with manufacturers of adjoining States having no such legislation because of the latter's unrestricted privi- lege of shipping their products in interstate commerce. Hence, there can be no effective prohibition of child labor and the necessity of congressional regulation be- comes apparaent. , , . ^ . , -i i i i i * Fortunately the reasonableness of a prohibition of shipment 9f child labor product^ does not depend solely on general argument. Similair prohibitions have been upheld by the Supreme Court as reasonable exercises of the commerce power m the interest of 148 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. the public welfare. In the Lottery cases the Supreme Court held constitutional the act of Congress prohibitina; shipment in interstate commerce of lottery tickets and literature. In the White Slave cases the court held constitutional the act of Congress prohibiting transportation in interstate commerce of women and girls, or inducino them to travel therein, for immoral purposes. Admitting the force of all these precedents for police regulations affecting interstate commerce, the opponents of the pending bill will seek to distinguish them by painting out that in every previous instance the prohibition, of transportation has had for its purpose the protection of the consumer, has aimed to prevent the carrying through interstate commerce of the objectionable person or thing to the place or the person where its harmful effects are to be accomplished. 'V^ hereas in the case of the pending legislation the prohibition is aimed not at the protection of the consumer but at the protection of the producer, not the community which uses the products of the labor of children but the community in which such children reside. The fact that much of our previous legislation under the commerce clause has been confined to protection of commerce for the consumer, is merely accidental. Even the pending legislation may have the ultimate effect of protecting the consumer. The amount of benefit of protection to the consumer is immaterial; the very fact that there is any such benefit or protection i.'s sufficient. The prohibition of transportation in interstate commerce of the products of child labor may well be expected to improve the quality of the goods sold in interstate commerce. It is reasonable to presume — at least the courts can not override a determination by Congress that it is reasonable to presunie— that goods manufactured by persons of more mature age will be of higher quality and more substantial value than if manufactured by children under fourteen! If Congress believes that the prohibition of transportation of the products of child labor will tend to improve the quaUty of articles sold in interstate commerce as well as to protect the health, morals, and welfare of the public, surely this is not such a culpable abuse of the congressional discretion as to warrant the court's setting aside of the congressional action. A bill introduced in the present Congress by Congressman Adamsan, chairman of the House Committee on Interstate Commerce, illustrates the relation of this kind of regulation of commerce to the protection of the consumer. Congressman Adamson's bill prohibits shipment in interstate commerce for purposes of slaughter of bull calves less than 2 years old or of heifers less than 7 years old. Obviously this is not a health measure. These ages have no relation to the value of the meat as food. The only relation of this legislation to the protection of the consumer is that it protects the ultimate supply. It protects the ultimate supply of bulls and heifers; while the pending child labor bill protects the ultimate supply of men and women. The distinction between protection to consumer and producer is founded upon the narrow view of the police pawer which would make it depend upon, net the benefit to the_ general public, but the benefit of individuals, resulting from such legislaticn. This is an erroneous view of the power. Prohibition of transportaticn of lottery tickets was upheld by the Supreme Court, not on the ground of the benefit done to the individual who might be affected to his detriment by the purchase of lottery tickets, but on the ground that the public welfare is benefited to the extent that these in- individuals are protected agxinst the temptation to lottery gambling. In the same manner legislation limi.ing hours of labor has been sustained under the police power, not because of the benefit accruing to the individuals whose effort is affected, but because of the benefit derived by the general public from a decrease in the burden- some toil of a large body of its citizens. The important p;int is that no such legislation would be supported under the police power because a hundred or a himdred thousand individuals were to be protected from some harmful consequence if that harmful con- sequence did not involve detriment to the public welfare. It is the public welfare, not the welfare of a large number of individuals, which justifies the legislation. Now, if this be true it matters not a bit whether the legislation affects persons to whom ^oods are carried or persons from whom those goods are carried, provided only that in either case the carriage is incidental to the continuance or the furtherance of conditions which are to the detriment of the public welfare. Take f^r example the white slave legis- lation. It is true it prohibits transportation which will protect the morals of indi- viduals who might be affected after transportation ; but it is not in the interest of these individuals that such legislation is enacted and upheld. The real justification for such legislation is the establishment of a high standard of morals and the maintenance of that standard by the prevention of a continuance of such transportation. It is idle to talk about such legislation as aimed to protect the consumer. It is idle to attempt to distinguish it from legislation aimed to protect children from exploita- tion by greedy employers. The simple fact is that'in both instances the legislation is justifiable, if at all, in the interest of developing and sustaining ideals of public INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. 149 morality and standards of public health and welfare. The prohibition is aimed at the use of interstate commerce to further practices which violate those h^her ideals, the realization of which is sought by the community in its law. What essential difference is there between legislation protecting a few iadividuals from the harm which may follow their transportation from one State to another when that harm will be detrimental to the public morals, and legislation which will prevent the employment of children of tender years when such employment will be detri- mental to the public health and welfare? What is there in the fact that in one case the public welfare is affected by practices which follow transportation and in the other case is affected by conditions which precede transportation, which would justify holding the one prohibition a reasonable exercise of the police power in the public interest and the other an arbitrary exercise of the commerce power? The argument for the distinction between the consumer and the producer as a test of the constitutionality of congressional police legislation under the commerce clause is not founded on any decision or any language of the Supreme Court. Although the lottery, the pure-food, and the white-slave acts may, as a matter of fact, operate to prevent evil condiions after interstate transportation, the cases holding them con- stitutional were not decided on any principle or theory either expressly or impliedly 60 limited. On the contrary, these cases establish a principle which is equally appli- cable to conditions arising before or after transportation, namely, that Congress for the purpose of protecting the public health, morals, and welfare may regulate inter- state commerce to the extent- of prohibiting transportation of specified persons or things. In short, the regulations of interstate commerce, as was said in Hoke v. United States (227 U. S_., 308, 323), "may have the quality of police legislation." In that case it is also said: "It may be that Congress could not pro.hibit the manufacture of the article in a State, it may be that Congress could not prohibit in all of its conditions its sale within a State, but Congress may prohibit its ti'aneportation between the States and by that means defeat the motives and evils of the manufacture." To "defeat the motives and evils of the manufacture" is the very purpose of the pending bill. The evils of the manufacture, namely, the labor of very young children, can be de- feated by Congress by prohibidng interstate transportation of the product of that labor. In other words, the use in manufacturing of methods which are injurious to the health, morals, and welfare of the people justifies Congress in prohibiting interstate transpor- tation of the ariicle manufactured in an effort to prevent such evil methods or con- didons. It means that evil conditions will not be permitted to thrive by the unre- stricted use of the channels of interstate commerce. Congress, it must be remembered, has no direct regulative control over either the mode of consumption or method of production. The prohibition of transportation of lottery tickets, adulterated or misbranded food and drugs, and of women, was based not on a desire to protect or advance inserstate commerce itself, nor was it in- tended to protect particular individuals from particular harm, but as expressly stated by the Supreme Court, it was an exercise of the commerce power for the protec- tion and advancement of the health, morals, and welfare of the country. If it be trae as declared in the Hoke case that the power over commerce conferred on the Nation may be exercised "to promote the general welfare, -material and moral, "what possible justification can there be for placing the consumer in a peculiar class and granting him the privilege of police protection from the National Government, while denying that protection to the unfortunate producer-? It is submitted that from the cases when the regulation of commerce is not for the protection or adv3,ncement of that commerce itself (as in the casa of transportation of explosive or combustible materials) the only test of constitutionality of the prohibition is this: la the regulation reasonably designed for the protection of the health, iporals, safety, or general welfare of the pub Lie? If the law in question survives that test it is within the constitutional power of Congress and it matters not whether the regulation is in the interest of pro- ducer or consumer. In a recent unpublished article Prof. W. W. Willoughby, of Johns Hopkins University, one of the leading authorities on the constitutional law of this country, thus expresses his opinion of the soundness of the suggested distinction : This distinction between conditions of production and purposes or methods of use, of commodities, though a real one, will probably not be held controlling. In neither case has Congress a direct regulative f ower— over neither the conditions of production nor the mode or use of consumption. If, therefore, in either case the proliibition can be construed to be, in fact, a regulation of interstate or of foreign commerce, neither the ultimate effect nor the legislative intent embodied in the law may be inquired into by the courts. In result, then, it is to be admitted that the lottery case is author- ity for the doctrine that interstate carriers may be prohibited from carrying, or ship- pers or manufacturers from sending, from State to State, and to foreign countries commodities produced under conditions so objectionable as to be subject to control 150 INTEESTATE COMMEECE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOE. as to their manufacture by the States under an exercise of their police power or of a character designed or appropriate for use which might similarly be forbidden by law." If Congi-ess passes the Keating-Owen bill its very enactment will constitute a Con- gressional declaration that child labor is a national nuisance, that its evil effects on the public health and welfare can not be eEectively prevented by individual State action so long as one State refuses to enact the necessary legislation, and Ihat Congres- sional regulation under the power to regulate interstate commerce is demanded in the interest of the public morals, health, and welfare. What can the supreme court say to such a declaration? Would that court undertake to refute it? And without refutation would it not entirely justify a regulation of commerce to prevent the evils? Summarizing the previous decisions Mr. Justice McKonna in the Hoke case said: "Surely if the facility of interstate transportation caii be taken away fiom the demoralization of lotteries, the debasement of obscene literature, the contagion of diseased cattle or persons, the impurity of food and drugs, the like facility can be taken away from the systematic enticement to and the enslaving in prostitution and debauchery of women." And to this we may add that if for these purposes the facility of interstate com- merce can be taken away, then it can likewise be ttiken away from the exploitation of children of tender vears, to the detriment of our future citizenship. It may be objected'that the case of Adair v. United States (208 U. S., 161 [1907]) is authority against the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. In the A dair cKe the Supreme Court held unconstitutional an act of Congress prohibiting certain cor- porations engaged in interstate commerce from disoriminating against members of trades-unions in the employment or discharge of men. The basis of thie decifion was that the act constituted a deprivation of the liberty of contract without due process of law. The court discussed in great detail the lirnitations upon congressional con- trol over interstate commerce imposed by the fifth amendment and concluded that the regulation in this act violated the due process clause. That this coDclusion is justified and proper is declared by the same court in Goppage v. Kansas (236 U. S., 1 [1914l\ where a similar statute of the State of Kansas was held to be a deprivation of the liberty to contract without due process of law. In this case the court said (p. 21) "The decision in the Adair case is in accord with the almost unbroken current of authorities in the State courts. * * * It is not too much to say that such laws have by common consent been treated as unconstitutional." For decisions of State courts holding similar statutes not within the scope, of State police power see note, volume 52, Lawyers United States Supreme Coui-t Report, page 436. Mr. Justice Harlan, in the course of the opinion iri the Adair case, said that such a regulation of the contract of employment was not a regulation of interstate comirerce, asthere was no "possible legal or logical connection * * * between an employee's membership in a labor organization and the carrying on of interstate commerce.'' because the relation "can not have, in itself and irr the eye of the law, ai^iy tearing upon the commerce with which the employee is connected by his labor and services." A careful analysis of the Adair case shows that this statement is not the real basis of the court's decision. The decision in the case was based solely on the fact that the act of Congress constituted a deprivation of the liberty of contract without due process of law. In the subsequent case of Coppage v. Kansas, where a State statute identical in effect with that involved in the Adair case was declared unconstitutional, the court, discussing the decision in the Adair case, said: "The court held that portion of the act upon which the conviction rested to b^ an invasion of the personal liberty as well as of the right of property guaranteed by the fifth amendment." Many cases in the Federal courts interpreting the effect of the Adair decision put upon it the same construction as that just quoted from the Coppage case. (X'cLean v. Arkansas, 211 U. S., 545 [1909]; Chicago, Burlington & Quincv R. R. Co. v. FcGuire, 219 U. S., 549 [1911]; Goldfield Consol. Mines Co. v. Goldfield, M. IT. No. 220. 159 Fed., 500 [1907]; Ilitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchel, 172 Fed., 9G3 [1909]; Zikcs V. Ore R. & Navigation Co., 179 Fed., 893 [1910]; Irving v. Joint Dist. Council U. B. of Carpenters, 180 Fed., 890 [1910].) But even if this statement of Mr. Justice ITarlail in the Adair case be given au- thoritative effect as a precedent, it must be remembered that in this portion of his opinion the learned judge was dealing not with the limiting effect of the fifth amend- ment oh the power of the courts to interfere with personal or property rights, but with the question what is interstate commerce. In other words, what are the limits of the Federal jurisdiction as distinguished from the State jurisdiction over commerce? That portion of the opinion in which the statement just quoted is contained, is in- troduced by the following language: "Let us inquire what is commerce, the power to regulate which is given to Congress." Tne general language made use of by the INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOB. 151 learned justice in answsring this queation is of impsrtance if at all not in a case in- volving the restrictive effect on the exercise by Cfopgress of a power over interstate commerce which is clearly -within the Federal jurisdiction, but only in cases like the employer's habihty case where the question is what is interstate commerce and where does the Federal jurisdiction over commerce end and the State jurisdiction begin. Mr. Justice Harlan's general statement is to the effect that the Federal juris- diction does not run to the point of the making or the terminating of a contract of employment between an interstate carrier and its 'employee. Even on this point his statement must be regarded as having been qualified by the subsequent cases. But in any event, Mr. Justice Harlan's statement has relation not to the effect of the due process clause in the fifth amendment on an'undoubted exercise by Congress of its power over interstate commerce, but to the relationship between the powers of the Nation and the State under the Federal Constitution. This question has been thoroughly discussed under subdivision 4 of this biiaf. It is important, however, to note that in the proposed child-labor legislation Con- gress is not attempting to regulate contracts of employment by virture of its control over the instrumentalities or agencies of interstate commerce. It does not seek to extend its jurisidiction by directly regulating contracts of employment as was done in the Adair case. So far as the proposed legislation is concerned" the employer is free to conduct his business with or without child labor. All that Congress dees if it enacts the child-labor bill is to say to the emplgyer that if he chooses to employ children he shall not have the facilities of interstate commerce for the distribution and sale of his product. This is not a regulation of conditions of employment. It is a regulation of the subject matter of interstate commerce with the incidental efl'ect on the conditions of employment. But as has been said, the fact that it has such incidental effect is not material, provided it be established that it is a regulation of interstate commerce. It was argued in the first employers' liability case (Howard v. Illinois E.. Co , 207 V. S., 463, 502) that one who engages in- interstate commerce thereby subjects all of his business concerns, including his intrastate business, to the regulating power of Con- gress. This argument was refuted by Mr. Justice White, now Chief Justice, in the sweeping and vigorous language which such a broad claim of congressional power might be expected to ins-pire. He says: "To state the proposition is to refute it. It assumes thatbecause one engages in interstate commerce he thereby endows Congress with power not delegated to it by the Constitution; in other words, -with the right to legislate concerning matters of purely State concern. It rests upon the conception that the Constitution destroyed that free- dom of commerce which it was its purpose to preserve, since it treats the right to engage in interstate commerce as a privilege 'which can not belavailed of except upon such con- ditions as Congress may prescribe, even although the conditions would be otherwise beyond the power of Congress. It is apparent that if the contention were well founded it would extsnd the power of Congress to every conceivable subject, however inherently local, would obliterate all the limitations of power imposed by the Constitution, and would destroy the authority of the State as to all conceivable matters which from the beginning have been, and must continue to be, under their control as long as the Constitution endures," This is the language usually quoted by opponents fo the child labor and similar legislation. It must be remembered, however, that Mr. Justice White is here (liaruss- ing the question, What is interstate commerce? and is considering the relationship between the National Government and the States. The legislation under considera- tion and the arguments pertaining thereto involved congressional regulation of the instrumentalities or agencies of interstate commerce and legislative po-vver to directly control those agencies. The question involved wa? identical to that raised by the language in the Adair case which has just been discussed. The court declares that direct control of intrastate commerce by Congress is an unconstitutional assumption of power The rebuff to the exponents of any other doctrine was well merited. The constitutionality of Federal child-labor legislation is not based on any such broad assumption of congressional power. The prop^osed legislation does not depend on the doctrine that one who engages in interstate commerce thereby subjects hia entire business to the regulation of commerce. Rather it depends on the oft-applied principle that the power to regulate the subject matter of commerce includes the power to pass police regulations to promote the health, safety, welfare and morals of the country. If Congress were proposing to forbid the employment of children m the mini-ng and manufacturing establishments of the country the language of ( uef Justice \^T?ite in the above case would be applicable, but as Congress is only excluding certain articles from the channels of that commerce oyer which it has undoubted control this language is of no import. As stated above m the discussion of the Adair 152 INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. case, the fact that a regulation of interstate commerce in products of child labor may have the incidental eKect of discouraging the employment of children in the mining and maaufacturing establishments of the States does not affect the question of its constitutionality. As long as Congress is regulating interstate commerce the only limitation upon such regulation is the "due process" clause " and not the "interstate commerce clause." To those who fear to take the step proposed in the Federal child-labor bill because of its possible unconstitutionality, i t should be pointed out that no one knows the limits of the power of Congress over interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has from time to time extended the limits of that power beyond preconceived notions of its limitations. If this legislation is desirable, if thep exist evils detrimental to the public welfare which it will tend to correct, its enactment by Congress certainly ought not to be delayed merely because of the possibility of its being held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. No one can say that it is unconstitutional. And if the mers fear of an adverse decision by the Supreme Court were to prevent the passage of legis- lation by Congress there would be no development of our constitutional law. ■ft'ho could have said, prior to the lottery cases, that the policy of the lottery legislation would be upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States? Who could have said, prior to the Hoke case, that the antiwhite-slave legislation would be held constitu- tional? Yet if these acts had not been passed merely because there was a possibility that the Supreme Court would declare them unconstitutional, individual States might still pass drastic laws and yet be helpless to prevent the flourishing of lotteries and the white-slave trade. This brief began by asking the question, Can Corigress use its power to regulate interstate commerce to stamp out child labor in mines and factories? It contluded with the answer, first, Yes; in the same manner that Congress can use the same power to stamp out lotteries, impure foods, prostitution, etc'.-; and, second, Yes; to the extent that Congress can close the channels of interstate commerce to the products of child labor and thereby prevent the exploiters of child labor finding an interstate market for its products. The argument in support of these conclusions can not be better summed up than by repeating the language of Mr. Justice Harlan in the lottery cases, changed only by substituting the underscored words for words referring to lotteries: "If a State, when considering legislation for the suppression of child labor within its own limits, may properly take into view the evils that inhere in mining or manu- facluring, in that mode, why may not Congress, invested with the powerto regulate commerce among the several States, provide that such commerce shall not be pol- luted by the carrying of the products of such labor from one State to another (p. 356). * * * As a State may, for the purpose of guarding the morals of its own people, forbid all child labor within its limits, so Congress, for the purpose of guardmg the people of the United States against the 'widespread pestilence of child labor' and to protect that commerce which concerns all the States, may prohibit the carrying of the products of such labor from one State to another. * * * We should hesitate long before adjudging that an evil of such appalling character, carried on through interstate commerce, can not be met and crushed by the only power competent to that end. We say competent to that end because Congress alone has the power to occupy, by legislation, the whole field of interstate commerce (p. 357). * * * If the carrying of the products of child labor from one State to another be interstate commerce, and if Congress is of opinion that an effective regulation for the suppres- sion of the sale of such products, carried on through such commerce, is to make it a criminal offense, to cause such products to be shipped from one State to another, we know of no authority in the courts to hold that the means thus dev sed are not appro- priate and necessary to protect the country at large against a species of interstate commerce * * * which has grown into disrepute and has become offensive to the entire people of the Nation" (p. 358). The Acting Chairman. Is there anyonp else to be heard ? STATEMENT OF MR. W. H. SWIFT, OF GREENSBORO, N. C Mr. Swift. Mr. Chairman, I am secretary of the North Carolina Child Labor Committee and of the South Carolina committee, and I am in the employment of the National Child Labor Committee, and have spent three years in studying and investigating this question. INTEESTATB COMMEECE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOE. 153 The Acting Chairman. Let me ask you, by way of investigation, are these two associations in North Carolina and South CaroUna part of the State government or purely voluntary ? Mr. Swift. Purely voluntary, personal organizations, made up of about a dozen people, men and women, in each State who are in- terested in the subject. The Acting Chairman, You may proceed. _ Mr. Swift. My work has been done more largely in North Caro- lina than in South Carolina. I desire to offer to the committee, .if they care to look at it, a resolution adopted by the North Carolina Society for Social Service, which is a representative social organiza- tion in our State. I will hand it to the reporter. The resolution is as follows : North Carolina Conference for Social Service. [Raleigh, Feb. 13-15, 191t] DECLARATION ON CHILD LABOR. We deplore the exploitation of childhood and the fact that in the employment of young children as wage earners our StRte is one of the cliief offenders. We indorse the uniform child-labor law, and in particular we demand and will seek for the enactment of such laws as will — 1. Forbid the employment of children under 14 years of age in mills, factories, workshops, stores, hotels, and other similar places. 2. Forbid the working of any child under 16 years of age for more than eight hours in any one day, or on Sunday, or later than 7 p. m. or earlier than 7 a. m. at those places named in No. 1. 3. Forbid the employment of any child under 16 years of ago to be worked at any Coe or occupation declared by the State board of health to be dangerous to life or b or injurious to health. 4. Forbid the employment of any child under 14 at any work during the hours when the public school is in session. 5. Forbid the employment of any child under l4 as messenger boy in cities and towns of more than 5,000 inhabitants, and forbid the- employment of any cliild under 16, preferably 18, a'3 messenger boy alter 10 p. m. or before 7 a. m. in cities and to^vn3 of more than 5,000 inhabitants. 6. Forbid the employment of any child under 16 at any of the places named in No. 1, except with a permit issued in a regular way after evidence of age has been offered. 7. We favor the passing of such laws as will place the enforcement of our child-labor legislation under the department of labor and printing and will specifically charge the commissioner of labor and printing with the duty of enforcing these laws, and of making all necessary rules and regulations, of keeping a record and reporting all children under 16 years of age who are at work, and of making full and accurate reports upon industrial conditions. In order that the commissioner of labor and printing may do this work we shall ask that he be provided with sufficient money for the employment of as many inspectors as shall be found to be necessary for the enforcement of all laws to the employment ii children, and such other laws as shall be found necessary for the protection of the health and the life of all workers. We recommend that the compulsory educational law be raised to 14 with careful enforcement. Mr. Swift, I also desire to call the attention of this committee to the hours of labor in both North Carohna and South Carolina, In both States the hours of labor are 60. Senator Pomerene. Per week ? Mr. Swift. Per week. In each State ihis means, so far as my observation has gone, with one or two exceptions, 11 hours a day for five days in the week, with a short Saturday. There is now 154 INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. pending in the Legislature of South CaroUna a bill somewhat modify- ing the hours of labor, but still leaving it at 11. The last Assembly of North Carolina enacted a bill permitting the employment of persons 11 hours a day. I have not investigated this side of it for nearly a year, but when I did investigate it about a year ago, or a little more than a year ago, there was night work in the textile miUs in which women and chhdrcji are generally employed. The custom was to make 60 hours in five nights, which meant 12 hours work per night. I have no information that that custom* has been departed from. In North Carolina a child under 16 can not be employed at night work. Mr. Patterson. Mr. Chairman, I was a witness on yesterday, and I would like to ask the gentleman one question. Mr. Swift. I will be glad to answer it. Mr. Patterson. I would like to ask whether where the hours were five nights of 12 hours, whether it is equally so that the wages were for a whole week in the night work ? I do not use night work. Mr. Swift. That is true. My information is that the wages were the same. I found a case or two in which the wages for the night work are a little higher, but the general rule was to make as much in five nights as you would in six days. Mr. Patterson. In my State no child under 16 years of age can be employed at night work. Senator Poindexter. When was that law enacted? Mr. Patterson. That law was enacted in 1911. Senator Robinson. What State is that? Mr. Patterson. North Carolina. vSenator Lippitt. Are those laws enforced ? Mr. Swift. If you will pardon me, maybe Mr. Patterson knows that we have the same law for night work in North Carolina. In South Carolina, from our investigations ard from my observation, the laws are pretty weU enforced; at least, there has been a great re- duction in the number of children ur der 12 years of age employed in the mills, as is shown by the report of Commisjior.er TV atson. There are two inspectors whose business it is to travel over the State and look to the enforcement of the law. They are enforcing it better and better each year. I want to say, too, that it may be that right now South Carohna may have a 14-yea,r-old law instead of a 12-year-old law. Senator Smith. Is not that bill pending now? Mr. Swift. That was the bill that was per ding. It was out of the house and went to the senate when I loft there Saturday night. That simply raised the age limit from 12 to 14. Senator Poindexter. Will that prevent the employment of children under 14? Mr. Swift. Yes, sir. Senator Smith of South Carolina. Under 14 during the day. Mr. Swift. And under 16 during the niS;ht. Senator Smith. We want to raise the limit by State legislation to 16 and have inspectors to see that the law i^ rigidly enforced. The Acting Ciiaiktiian. What is the minimum age in your State? Mr. Swnn\ It never has at all been clear what the minimum age is. The law says that no child under 12 years o^ age shall be employed, with a proviso that no child under 13 shall be employed INTERSTATE COMMEECE IN PKODUCIS OF CHILD LABOR. 155 except in an apprenticeship capacity, and then only after having attended school lour months of the year previous. Up to IS months ago it was generally accepted that that law meant 12, provided the child went to school; that children who went to school were working in an apprenticeship capacity. I talked with a very large number of mill superintendents and mill directors, and the ride wf.s with them at that time to show by the rgo certificates, where they had age certifcates, that the child W£,s 12 yetixs of age. A great many of them did not have the certificates at all, and unless they have taken them up within the last year, they have not them now. The ege certificate showed that eaclx child was 12 j'-ears of age. I think that Wfcs generally accepted. Lately, however, I wish to say that there seems to have come an understanding that 13 is the Ege limit for employment. None of these children are apprentices under our code procedure. I know that two of three of our leading manu- facturers have given me information that they are now employing no child imder 13. I know that also in another mill where I have made inspection, I found no child under 13. I have seen it stated with authority during the past month that 13 is the age limit; so I think within these three years it is coming to be accepted that a child who goes to work s:s do£er or spinner is not an apprentice, but is a work hand, and, in some cf ses, in some of our better mills, they are not now hired until they be come 13. Now, I will return to your question. In North Carolina there is fractically no enforcement, and so far as I know, has never been any. have seen very many children under 12 years of age at work in our mills. I have walked through more than a score of mills with a superintendent or a boss, in a very friendly way, and have children pointed out to me from time to time, and we wo'ild frequently find three or four or five under 12 years of age, depending somewhat upon the size of the mill. We have no inspector for the enforcement of the law in our State. Our commissioner of labor is an inspector of mines, but wo have very few mines. When it comes to the mills, no. authority has been given to him. The Acting Chairman. Has your association made any effort to have inspectors appointed ? Mr. Swift. We have. At the legislature, just prior to the legis- lature of 1911, I had spent several months traveling over the State and most of my business was in a very friendly conference with the manufacturers, and I thought I was getting along nicely, and we came to a sort of agreement between the manufacturers and this associa- tion upon what should be done and a bill was drawn which provided for inspection under certain State officers, who were to select the inspector. We introduced that bill, but we could not make progress with it. Senator La Follette. It stuck somewhere ? Mr. Swift. Yes, sir; it stuck. The Acting Chairman. Is there any objection to your filing affi- davits against those mills or other persons that you came in contact with ? • Mr. Swift. No, sir; I have not filed the affidavits for the reason that i was working as a private citizen. The State officials are there. We have sent certam reports that we have made to the commissioner 156 INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PKODXJCXS OF CHILD LABOR. of labor and he has sent them in turn to the different solicitors. That is as far as we have gone. In 1913 another bill was introduced, known as the Weaver child-labor bill which is practically the same as the standard set up in the bill now pending in Congress. Mr. KiTCHiN. I do not want to interrupt you. Have you finished your explanation about the instructions ? Mr. Swift. No ; I want to go a little further. This bill was offered, and we failed in getting it along. Then Senator Nash, of Oregon County, made a motion on the floor of the Senate for the appoint- ment of inspectors to enforce the law and discover the facts. That did not get along either. Under our present law the county super- intendent of pubhe instruction is charged with the duty of reporting to the solicitors of each district violations of the law. I have heard of only two or three reports. I did hear the State superintendent of public instruction say that the county superintendents could not and would not do that work. Mr. KiTCHiN. That is what I want to show, that the superintendent of public instruction is charged with the duty of reporting. Mr. Swift. The superintendent is charged with the duty of report- ing, but he is not. charged with the duty of looking into the mill and see how things are going. The report must come to him before he sends it oiit. That is the status of the law, as far as I remember, and I would Uke any question to be asked me on that subject. The Acting Chairman. Do you mean, to say that the law has been so construed that it is his duty to report and not his duty to get information? Mr. Swift. There has been no construction of the law at all. Senator La Follette. Is that the way he construes the law? Mr. Swift. My understanding is, that it is. Sanator La Follette. Is that the superintendent of instruction? Mr. Swift. The county superintendent. Senator Smith of South CaroHna. Without investigation, but who is to report to him? Mr. Swift. Nobody is to report to him. He would have heard of it in passing. The Acting Chairman. He had better get a legal adviser. Senator Poindexter. The whole system seems to have the hook- worm. [Laughter.] Mr. Swift. That is a httle embarrassing to a citizen of that State. Now, on the other side of it, I want to say to the committee that in lookiilg over this field I have seen a great deal of very good work done in the way of schoolhouses, in the way of erecting Young Men's Christian Associations, and in the way of employment of teachers. Senator Lippitt. By whom ? Mr. Swift. By the mills. My observation is that those who do the work do not constitute the large percehtage of the more than 300 mills in the State. The Acting Chairman. What proportion of them do it ? Mr. Swift. I should say not 50 per cent; I do not think it is 40 per cent. Senator Lippitt. Do you mean 50 per cent of the mills or 50 per cent of the helpers ? It is mostly the larger nulls. INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOB. 157 Mr. Swift. Most of the larger mills are doing some betterment work. Senator Lippitt. So if the large mills wbmd do it, it should be a very much larger per cent that got the benefit of it ? Mr. Swift. Yes, sir ; but I do not think the large per cent of mills do it. Now, whenever you find a mill in a city or town they have school advantages and whatever advantages come to the city. I am speaking of mills that are not located in a city or town. I do not know of very many or not a large number of Young Men's Christian Associations or with very many district mirses. I have made some examination of the educational opportunities offered the children who would come in from the country, and it has led me to the con- clusion that the movement from the country to the mill for education does not work that way. As far as I have studied the reports, and if it is desired I will file them later — the family or child of a family that moves from the country to the miU district does not stand as good a chance to get an education as if it had stayed in the country. Senator Lippitt. Why do they move from the country to the mill district? Mr. Swift. This is one reason: It is mighty attractive to them — to the people living on the farm, who have been working hard— to know that they can get money; that every two weeks it passes into their hands. Senator Lippitt. You say "working hard." Do you know of a child working harder on the farm than it does in the mills ? Mr. Swift. I do not think so. It would depend upon what you mean by hard work. Senator Lippitt. You employed the expression. You said work- ing hard." Mr. Swift. They are not rich people; they are very poor folks. Senator Lippitt. They come in because they are better paid ? Mr. Swift. They think they are. For the time being I think they are. The better pay comes this way: You can not use children very profitably on a farm except for about three months when you are raismg cotton or corn and about a month when you are gathering cotton or corn. They can not be used profitably. When a man would carry those to a mill, all the children— say, from the age of 12— would become wage earners, and I think they would get 50 cents or more for the youngest, or may be 75 cents. So the family income looks large. Senator Lippitt, And the family gets a larger living, I suppose, as a whole ? . , -n Mr Swift. I doubt that, because m tM mill — — Senator Lippitt. I thought you just said their hvmg depended on Mr Swift. No; I do not mean to say that their living would depend on this. They could keep a cow in the country. They gf - erally can not in the mill town; and m the country they could ra^se a garden, in the mill town they do not. StiU, there is not so much difference. I would not say they might not wear better clothes and have better food. Senator Lippitt. Better clothes ? Mr. Swift. Yes, sir. Senator Lippitt. Better houses i 158 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. Mr. Swift. I think so. Senator Poindexter. But they do hot have better sanitary conditions? Mr. Swift. In some cases they do, in some they do not. Not nearly all the mill towns arc equipped with water-closets; they have surface closets. Some are cared for better than others, but where so many people are gathered together I doubt whether there would be so much advantage in that respect. Senator Lippitt. Has there not been in North Carolina and South Carolina, and in the South generally, a very pronounced movement from the farm to the mUl districts ? Mr. Swift. I think there has. Senator Lippitt. Has there been much movement from the miU districts back to the farm ? Mr. Swift. I think there has in some cases. In other cases I have found men who said they could not get back; that they would like to go ba?k, but could not. Senator Smith. Is it not your experience of the majority of the mill operators, both in my State and yours, that they come from the mountain section ? Mr. Swift. My remembrance is that the figures show that the m.ajority do not com.e from, the mountainous sections. Senator Smith. I do not mean from the m.ountains alone. In North and South Carolina, especially my State, we have very little mountainous district, but the contiguous States, Tennessee and North Carolina ? Mr. Swift. I know that very, m.any com.e from Tennessee, from Virginia, and from the m.ountains of North Carolina, but I think not this larger por cent. Senator Poindexter. You spoke a while ago of m.ills that were not ill a town or city — small miUs, What was the general condition of those mills and how m.any, proportionally, how many of them are there ? Those httle mills that are not in the villages ? Mr. Swift. Those m.ills would all be in a viUage. f am. not speak- ing of being in an incorporated town. Every mill constitutes a village. Senator Lippitt. But there are comparatively few miUs in the Carolinas not in large towns ? Mr. Swift. A few are near the larger towns. Senator Lippitt. They are most likely to be at the water power, where there are big villages around them;" is that not the condition? Mr. Swift. Yes, sir. Ssnator La Follette. Some of those are the largest miUs, are they not? Mr. Swift. Well, take Greenville ; that, is one of the big towns of South Carolina. They have some large mills surrounding that, and the same is true of Greensboro, and the same is true of Charlotte and Columbia. Senator Smith. Take your experience — take my State, for in- stance — aside from the question involved in this biU as to child labor, the years at which they labor, do you not^ think that the hours they are employed in an average mill viUage in South Carolina and the social conditions, if we might call them such, at least the oppor- tunity to associate with their fellows, is an improvement over the INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 159 average condition of the tenant farmer ? Now, as for the home he hves in, the facihties as to schools — I am not touching on the point of age at which the child goes to work — bu,t considering those things, is not the condition of life more tolerable ? Mr. Swift. Taking the poorer tenant farmer, the hours are better. The opportunity for minghng with his fellows, of course, is decidedly better in the rnill villages. I can not speak for South Carolina; I can only speak for North Carolina. The chances for going to school after the child gets to the age of 12 are not so good. Senator Lippitt. Why is that ? Mr. Swift. For this reason: It is the haijit in a mill village, while you have your schoolhouse, yet you take the children at 12 or 13 years of age and the whole population, the working population, goes into the mill, and the children do not go to school, in fact, as far as I have investigated it and have knowledge of the conditions, I have not seen enough schoolhouses to accommodate them. Senator Lippitt. There must be a great many families out in the sparsely settled commim^ities that have hard work getting to a school- house, anyway? Mr. Swift. We are building many scho9lhouse3 all over the State very rapidly. Senator Lippitt. I know you are. Senator Smith. Senator Lippitt, I will correct that, because I want to keep this record straight. Senator Lippitt. I was only asking for information. Senator Smith. I do not think there is a community in my State that has not got some school facilities. I shall not dwell on efficiency, but they have the opportunity to go to a school hearing, even if they do not go to a teacher. There is a distinction there. Mr. Swift. Permit me. Senator, I thin'k as a whole my State, too Senator Lippitt. Your schools would not quite equal the schools in the mill villages, however? Mr. Swift. They are not so good; the buildings are not so good, but this is the difference. The small children may go to school, but the rule is they do not go to school after they get to about 12 or 13 years of age, and if they undertook to go there would not be any schoolhouse to hold them all. Senator Lippitt. How many children on the farms in the coun- try go to school in the farming season ? Mr. Swift. You mean go to high school ? Senator Lippitt. Any schools, during the time the farming season is on? Mr. Swift. I do not think many. Senator Lippitt. As a matter of fact, the employment of those children on the farm is for much longer hours than in the mills, is Mr Swift. I was raised on a farm and lived there all my life in the mountai-s. " I am thoroughly with poor people. My experience was exactly the other way. We did not go to work— I never remember going to work before daylight. The child in the mill necessarily does. Senator Lippitt. Did you ever know a mill hand to go to work before daylight? Mr. Swift. I have seen hundreds and thousands. 160 INTEKSTATE COMMEECE IN" PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOE. Senator Lipi'itt. In the winter time, though I Mr. Swift. Yes. Senator Lippitt. But in the summer time you went to work at dayhght on the farm ? Mr. Swift. Oh, no; we usually went to work after the dew got off. Senator Lippitt. About what time would that be ? I am not ac- quainted with the hours of the dew. Senator Clapp. I do not think you are famihar with farming down in that section. I can tell you something about the hours of work there. Senator Lippitt. What time does the dew dry off ? Mr. Swift. Between 7 and 8 o'clock. Senator Lippitt. You never went to work until 7 or 8 o'clock? Mr. vSwiFT. Very rarely. We milked the cows before then. Senator Lippitt. But that is not work? Mr. Swift. We did not count that; really it was not work, it was a pleasure and mighty good for me. Senator Lippitt. I suppose you started that at half past 5 or 61 Mr. Swift. No— we never got up until after 6. Senator Smith. I want to corroborate what he says. I have had pretty considerable experience in my State and I have a right good number of farms. I have superintended them myself or through an overseer and you are Correct. Scarcely one out of a hundred on a given farm except perhaps the one that tends the stock will get up a httle earlier to get them ready, but those who go to work in the fields come out after the sun is up and they quit about the time the sun is down, with two good long hours at noon. Mr. Swift. Yes, sir; we took those hours at noon. The Acting Chairman. Let me ask you a question which has been suggested to me here. You were speaking about school f acihties here in the vicinity of these mills. To what extent do the children avail themselves of those opportunities ? Mr. Swift. I think the rule is — we have a compulsory education law between 8 and 12 — the rule is for children to go to school, in fact, they have to go to school between those ages in the mill villages and equally so in' the country places. The Acting Chairman. For how long a period duriag the year ? Mr. Swift. We are trying to get a six-months school term. Our compulsory period, I think, is four months. The Acting Chairman. How long have: you had that? Mr. Swift. We have had that, this is three years. Senator La Follette. But that is only between the ages of 8 and 12? Mr. Swift. Yes, sir. Senator Lippitt. Is that law enforced ? Mr. Swift. I think it is, sir. I happen to have heard of one case in which it was not enforced. That case happens to be in a mill village. The Acting Chairman. This compulsory period then is below the age at which these children go to work in the mills ? Mr. Swift. Yes, sir. The Acting Chairman. And after they go to work in the mills do they attend school at all ? Mr. Swift. My observation is they do not. INTEESTATE COMMERCE TN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOE. 161 Senator La Follette. Have you investigated with respect to that? ^ Mr. Swift. I have in my hands a paper setting forth an investiga- tion I have made. Senator La Follette. It is very short. Let us have it. Mr. Swift. Yes, sir. This is an investigation made about what is considered the best mill villages in my State. It is the White Oak and Proximity. It is acknowledgedly one of the best. I also made a study for the county in which this mill vUlage is located of the rural- school attendance. This is Guilford County. I find that the per- centage of white rural-school enrollment in this county is 78. I find that th,e percentage of white school attenjlance is 57. Then I took the mill districts and studied them. I find that the per cent of rural- school enrollment in the mill district is 63 as against 78 for the rural. I have a report here, I think for the State the rural is 69. The average daily attendance for the mill village, the percentage was 44 as against 57. That does not mean that they do not have schools at that mUl village. They do have the schools; they have good schools. I know the teachers and I know they are good ones. It means that the children up to the age of 12 are practically all in school and after that practically none are in school. Senator Robinson. Did you devote you^ entire time to this work ? Mr. Swift. I am a lawyer and sometimes have a case in court, but very rarely. Senator Robinson. Most of your time is devoted to this ? Mr. Swift. Practically aU of it. Senator Robinson. You are employed, I suppose, by some organi- zation ? Mr. Swift. I am employed by the National ChUd Labor Organiza- tion. Senator Robinson. And you have been engaged in that work for three years ? Mr. Swift. Yes, sir. Senator Robinson. How many miE villages have you inspected during that time ? Mr. Swift. I could not tell you. I have not made any count of them. Senator Robinson. Do you not keep a record of the villages where you have made inspections ? Mr. Swift. I report. . Senator Robinson. But you do not recall now ? Mr. Swift. No, sir. Senator Robinson. Did I understand you to state that these fig- ures you have just presented are for what some call a show mdl, one of the best? .,, i. ^ i -n Mr. Swift. I should not like to say a show mfil, but a good rnilL Senator Robinson. I am not using the term offensively, but it has been used in this hearing. Mr. Swift. It is a good mUl vUlage. .,, i Senator Robinson. Have you inspected others with a lower standard than that? Mr. Swift. I have made studies for other mill villages. Senator Robinson. What do the lowest show ? 27896^16 11 162 IK-TERSTATE COMMEECE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOE. Mr. Swift. I have a study here made for Caldwell County and Catawba County which I will leave with the committee if it is desired. Senator Robinson. I should like to have it. It will not take you long. I understand it is only figures in comparison with those you have alreadv read? Mr. Swift. In Caldwell County I made a study of four mill dis- tricts in which I fmd the percentage of enrollment is 64, the percentage of attendance 36 — this was in 1912 and. 1913. I then asked the county superintendent to give me any rural districts in that county so I (;Ould make a study of them. I found the percontago of enroll- ment in the rural district was 88 and the percentage of attendance 59. Senator Robinson. In what rural district? Mr. Swift. In eight rural districts in that same county. Senator Robinson. How were they selected? Mr. Swift. The county superintendent named them; but after I had taken that I then went to the rural report for the county, took all the mill districts, and I found the percentage was 66 for the entire county and 44 average daily attendance. I then made a study for Catawba County. In four cotton mill districts I found that the percsntage of enrollment according to the school census was 62 and the percentage of attendance was 38. In 12 rural districts in that county I found the percentage of enrollment was 76 and tht percent- age of attendance was 50. Senator Clapp. Are those mountain couhties ? Mr, Swift. They are not mountain counties. They are in Pied- mont section at the foot of the mountains. One would be part mountain. Senator Robinson. Have you investigated any of the counties in which the percentage of the enrollment and attendance in the mill districts is greater than the rural districts ? Mr. Swift. I have not, sir. If you will pardon me, will you just ask that question again ? Senator Robinson. I asked if you had, investigated any counties in that State where the percentage of enrollment m the mill districts was greater than in the rural districts ? Mr. Swift. Where I have investigated the attendance in a mill district as compared with a county I find that the percentage of enrollment and attendance in the country is higher. Senator Robinson. In the county ? Mr. Swift. In the country. Mr. KiTCHiN. I suggest to Mr. Swift that he give the school ages to show what ages are included in the school population. Senator Robinson. Yes. Mr. Swift. The school age runs from 6 to 21. Mr. KiTCHiN. That is very important. Mr. Swift. That is important in this way. Out in the country where the children live on the farm they do crop work and they go to school on up to the ages of 18 or 21, but in the mill village, where they can be employed and become a part supporter of the family, they do not go to school. Senator La Follette. After about what age 1 Mr. Swift, After the age of 12, and these others I have pointed out, 13. INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. 163 Mr. KiTCHiN. Permit me to suggest just this question, if he has any statistics of average attendance and enrolhnent of the children under 16. Mr. Swift. Those statistics can not be had in my State. We have no record of them. I can not get them. Senator La Follette. I suggest that you leave those full reports with the reporter here, and I ask that they all be incorporated in the hearing. Mr. Swift. If I may, I have one more if I may offer it. This is a study which I have lately made, with the highest respect and friend- ship for my friend, Mr. Patterson, but it is about the mill village which he owns and has an interest in. I mp,de a study of that. That is Eoanoke Rapids. This is taken from the report of the county super- intendent of public instruction for 1913 and 1914. If I have made no mistake in my calculation — if I have I want to correct them — I find in that mill village the percentage of enrolhnent according to the school census was 51, the percentage of average attendance to the school population was 28. I find that the county in which this mill village is located the percentage of enrolhnent is 75 approximately — it may vary a little — and that the percentage of attendance is 47. Senator Robinson. That shows a very great difference in favor of the rural disjiricts, even as to the mill which Mr. Patterson represents. Mr. Swift. I do not think there can be any question about that. Senator Robinson. When did you begin to make these invesbiga- gations with reference to the percentage of enrollment and attendance m these schools ? Mr, Swift. I made the investigation on the first one — I made it twice — rthis is the second one I made — I m^de this study of these two counties twice — no, only once. I made this investigation after the hearing before the House committee. Senator Robinson. Quite recently ? Mr. Swift. Yes, sir; I just wanted to see how that was, and I went back and studied; got it from the report of the State super- intendent of public instruction; this book, for the years 1913 and 1914. The Acting Chairman. Is there anything further ? Mr. Swift. I should like to add this: I believe from what I have heard that perhaps you have a better report now, Mr. Patterson, than this shows. Mr. Patterson. I think so. Senator Robinson. When was that report made ? Afr. Swift. For 1913 and 1914. If I may add a little further — there were two other mountain counties suggested in the hearing. I made a study of those counties. One is bevond the Blue Ridge and one is lying up against the foothUls. Alleghanv County was mentioned as a county from which children might well move to the mUl villages to be educated. I find the percentage of enrollment is 89 in that county, and the percentage bf attendance is 62. The other county mentioned was Stokes. That adjoins my county. Some of my wife's people live up there, so I investigated that. I found the percentage of enrollment was 82 and the percentage of attendance was 46. I find further that the percentage of enroll- ment for the whole of rural North Carolina, is 79, mountain, lowlands, and all. The percentage of attendance is 54. 164 liS^TEESTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. Senator Robinson. Have you taken the trouble to verify the accuracy of those reports m any way except just to take them from the book ? ' Mr. Swift. I have checked them ovej and calculated the per- centages. I may have made a mistake in the calculation. Senator Robinson. But what I mean to ask, you do not get your figures at first hand; that is, you do not gO into to see yourself and get the figures ? You get them from reports of officers ? Mr. Swift. No, sir; I get them frorrf the only source I could possibly get them, the report of the State superintendent of public instruction, I beg your pardon, I might go to the county super- intendent. Senator Robinson. You might go to the mill district yourself and examine the subject there, and, b}^ taking sufficient length of time, filthough of course it would be a difficult matter, you might make a very personal investigation. The point I am trying to get at in that connection is this, that school officers, within my knowledge, ia many localities frequently swell or diminish their figures in order to make a good showing for the service that is being rendered by the schools, and that might be done by a mill man or by the county superintendent of education. For instance, I have in mind now one school in the Indian service that some of my friends m the Senate and I had occasion to investigate where the rolls were actually padded in order to make it appear that there was a much better attendance than actually was the fact. Mr. Swift. I appreciate that, but there is not the slightest reason why these reports should not be correct, barring mistakes. vSenator Robinson. There have been things said during these hearings relative to the sanitary conditions in rural districts and in m.ill districts, and the subject is quite an interesting one to me, and one I have no personal knowledge of, and I presume that is true of a good m.any other Senators here. The statement has been made that sanitary conditions in the rural districts* in these States are very bad, especially among the tenant class, the white people, that they are poorly housed, poorly fed and overworked, and that for this reason they are m_oving to the miU districts, where they get more regular pay, better houses to live in, and better food to eat, and not only better educational facilities, but better reUgious opportunities. Have you made any investigation along that line ? Mr. Swift. I have looked at that question and studied it in a broad way. Senator Robinson. I think you answered a question or two about it a while ago by the Senator from Rhode Island ? Mr. Swift. Yes, sir. Senator Robinson. As to the reasons -^hy so many moved from the country to the towns to engage in m.illwork. Of course, the percentage of enrollment in the schools and the percentage of the average daily attendance may be accoun'ted for — the falling off in the m.iU districts — by the fact that the pupils above the working- age lim.it, the mill-age lim.it, are engaged actually in working in the mills practically all the time. Mr. Swift. 1 think that does account for it. Senator Robinson. But what do you say about the general sani- tary conditions that prevail about the mills that you have investi- gated :? INTEESTATE COMMEECE IN PBODUCT^ OF CHILD LABOR'. 165 Mr. Swift. Some are very good; some afe very bad, but no worse, I should say, though, than you might find in a home in a rural com- munity. The only difference is this, that where you have the tenant living on a farm the sanitary conditions do not amount to so much, because there is but one family there, but you have them massed into one village, and then with open closets and many other things you might have, of course, that could become a serious matter, and I have seen the places where it looked very serious to me. Senator Eobinson. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Miss MoKRiLL. May I ask the witness one or two questions, Mr. Chairman ? The Chairman. You may. Miss Morrill. Mr. Swift spoke about the educational advantages offered by miU owners. I want to know the percentage of the children that took advantage of that education. Is it not true that after the children have worked 11 hours in the mills that they are too tired to take advantage of that education ? Is it not true that after working 11 hours a day in the miUs that really all they are fit for is to go to bed ? Is it not also true that Senator Clapp. You had better give him a chance to answer. Mr. Swift. You have given me so many questions that I can not carry them in my mind. I think I see what -you are driving at, and I perhaps should have said I do know of many places where there are night schools. My observation is that no child who stays shut up in a room 11 hours a day under 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 years of age ought even be permitted to go to school and study, much less to be encouraged to do so. He ought not to go, and I do not think he gets very much good out of it if he does go. Miss Morrill. You think it weakens them physically, morally, and mentally? Mr. Swift. I am not a physician, but I. would not have my boy do that. Mr. KiTCHiN. Those statements did not include any attendance in night schools, but only in the public schools ? Mr. Swift. No; this is only for public schools. Mr. Kitchin. It does nor include the night schools ? Mr. Swift. No, sir. Pardon me if I say this, though. Senator Robinson. I did not understand that. Mr. Kitchin. It did not include smj night schools. Mr. Swift. The report I gave on this best mill had no night school. Miss Morrill. Is it not also true that colored children inNorth and South Carolina get a better education than white children ? Is it not true that the white children are employed in the mills and that the colored children go to school? Mr. Swift. That is my observation, and a study of the report seems to bear that out. , i -u Miss Morrill. They often pass each other, the colored children going to school and the white children going to the factory, gomg to the mills. . „ Senator La Follette. WiU you file your- report covering all your studies, and I ask that it be incorporated. Mr Swift Yes; if I may incorporate them all m one paper. (Thereupon, at 5 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until Friday, February 18, 1916, at 3 o'clock p. m.) PRODUCTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE Of CHILD LABOR. FRIDAY, FEBBX7ABY 18, 1916. Committee on Interstate Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. The committee met a 3 o'clock p. m., pursuant to adjournment. Present: Senators Pomerene (chairman) and Clapp. The Acting Chairman (Senator Pomerene). Mr. Swift, I under- stand you desire to be heard. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF W. H. SWIFT, OF GREENSBORO, N. C— Resumed. Mr, Swift. Mr. Chairman, referring to the tabulation of figures which I read yesterday and as bearing on the educational question, I have in this paper added a fact which came out in that study, which is as follows: A STUDY FROM REPORTS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, GUILFORD COUNTY, N. C, FOR THE YEAR 1914-15. Percentage of white rviral school enrollment to white rural school census, 78. Percentage of white rural Bchool average daily attendance to white rural-school census, 57. The above is for the entire rural county. Reports from the school districts, including the three cotton-mill villages. Prox- imity, Revolution, and White Oak: Percentage of school enrollment to school census ih these three mill villages, 63. Percentage of average daily attendance to school census in these three mill vil- lages, 44. Added: In the rural schools of Guilford County 18 per cent of the white rural-school population are enrolled above the fifth grade. In the three mill villages, out of a school cersus of 1,622, 47 children are enrolled above the fifth grade. This is approx- imately 3 per cent of the school census in these three^mill villages. In the three mill villages there were 14 children enrolled in the seventh, grade. There is no grade above the seventh in these mill villages. A STUDY FROM SCHOOL REPORTS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF CALDWELL COUNTY, N. C, FOR THE YEAR 1912-13. In four cotton-mill districts in Caldwell County the percentage of white school enrollment to the white school census was 64. The percentage of average daily attendance to the white school census for the same districts was 36. , « „ ^ ^ ,i In eight rural districts in Caldwell County the percentage of enrollment to the white school census was 88. 168 INTERSTATE COMMEBOE IN PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. The percentage of average daily school attendjlJi e to the white school census was 59. For the year 1911-12 the percentage of white rural enrollment for the entire county of Caldwell to the white Bchool census was 66. , For the year 1911-12 the per^ientage of average daily attendance to the white rural school census of Caldwell County, N. C, was 44. CATAWBA COUNTY, N. C. — FROM SCHOOL REPORTS, 1912-13. Study of four cotton-mill districts in Eickory Township, Catawba County, N. C. Percentage of white school enrollment to white sghool census in the four mill dis- tricts, 62. Percentage of average daily attendance to white school census in mill districts, 38. Percentage of white school enrollment to white school census in 12 rural districts in Catawba County, 76. Percentage of average daily attendance to white school census in the same 12 dis- tricts ill Catawba County, 50. Percentage of rural white school enrollment to rura;i white school census in Catawba County for the year 1911-12, 68. Percentage of rural white average daily attendance to rural white school census in Catawba County for the year 1911-12, 54. STUDY OF SCHOOL REPORTS Of ROANOKE RAPIDS, ITALIFAX COL'NTY, K. C, FOR THE THE rEAB 1913-14. Roanoke Rapids is a cotton-mill town. Percentage of white school enrollment to white school census in Roanoke Rapids, 51. Percentage of white average daily attendance to white school census, 28. Percentage of rural white school enrollment to rural white school census in Halifax County, 75. Percentage of rural white average daily attendance to rural white school popula- tion in Halifax County, 47. RURAL NORTn CAROLINA. Percentage of rural white school enrollment to rural white school census of North Carolina, 79. Percentage of rural white average daily attendance to rural white school census in North Carolina, 54. Alleghany County, N. C, — This is a mountain county. Percentage of rural white school enrollment to rural white school census, Alleghany County, 89. Percentage of rural white average daily attendance to rural white school census, Alleghany County, 62. Stokes County, N. C. — This is a semimountain county, being located at the eastern slope of the mountains. It is strictly rural. Percentage of rural white school enrollment to rural white census, Stokes County, 82. Percentage of rural white average daily attendance to rural white school census, Stokes County, 46. Mr. Swift. As further bearing upon this question — and I am stating this to make this clear — so far us my investigation goes, the movement to the mill village does not make for general education. In my opinion It works just exactly the Ojther way. Mr. Hickerson, the county superintendent of ]5ublic instruction of Rockingham County, told mo less than a month ago, that at Mayodan, Mr. W. C. Rufhn's mill, the educational facilities in the schools were not nofiriy so good, and thc^ children were not attending school nearly so well as m Rockingham County. I give this* explanation: We already have in those mill villages, frequently some very good schoolhouses. [•'requently th(>y are })uUt largely, or in part, from fimds contributed by the mill corporation or by individuals connected with the mill. Our country people are building their school houses by local taxation, and I think, while I have not made any detailed study of this, that the sum of the taxation on the mUl village would ]iractically amount INTEKSTATE COMMEECE IH PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 169 to the same tis the local taxation for the buildina; of school houses and running the mill schools'in the country district. It is a fact in one mOl, which I recall, that the mill contributed ,1140 to pay the expenses of the teacher. They were opposed to a local tax to extend the school. That mill was, according to my information, at Wliitnell, in Caldwell County, N. C. A question was asked here yesterdav as to -the church facilities of our people. I do not think it hps ever been suggested that we do not have plenty of churches all over North Carolina, and I am quite sure that the same is true with respect to South Carolina. In fact I know that the strength of our religious life lies in the country districts and not in the A'Ulages or in the cities. That is well recognized. The Acting Chairman. You mean that the churches that are there now are not usually filled ? Mr. Swift. Do you mean in the mill visages or in the country ? The Acting Chairman. Well, anywhere. Mr. Swift. I think the attendance at the churches in the country is better than in either the mill villages or* cities. That is my obser- vation from some years of study. I made no study as to the poverty of the mill people except in one place. More than a year ago I studied a chart prepared by the secretary of the Associated Charities of the city of Columbia, S. C, in which he designated the points from which came the principal demands for charity. Except immediately around the city hall, which condition arose through the transients, the mill villages were the places from which most calls for charity came, even including the colored districts which form a part of the city. This is my opinion formed after what study I have given the subject, and what facilities I have had. If it should be the opinion of this committee and of the Congress that children under 14 years of age ought not to be permitted to be employed in our manufacturing establishments, it is my opinion that so far as North Carolina is concerned it will be a good many years before such prohibition will be written into the law. I do not think it wiU be at all possible to get that enacted at any very early date. If it should be the opinion of this committee that there should be a strict enforcement of any child-labor legis- lation by special inspectors under a designated department, accord- ing to recommendations made by Gov. Kitchin and our other gov- ernors, it is my opinion from observation that that can not be had in North Carolina for many years. The Acting Chairman. Why ? Mr. Swift. The gentlemen here who are opposing this biU have always opposed it there — opposed that side of it — and I do not think there wifi be any change m that attitude. That is, of course, an opinion based upon experience with legislatures in that State; thirdly, if^it should be the opinion that there should be a limitation of hours of labor to eight for children under 16, 1 have no sort of idea, I do not believe, that it can be enacted into law, or that it will be enforced in my State. , , , • utm ±^ ■ I think it was Senator Clapp who asked the question, Why this discussion with reference to the cotton mill?" Now, this has been my experience: When we come to the legislature seeking laws, or the 170 INTKESTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. enactment of laws relating to the employment of children, we meet only one well-defined opposition. That arises from the cotton mills- some in the hosiery mills and others in the spinning and weaving mills. As Mr. Rumn has said, "We do have some children in the tobacco factories." So far as I know, in two years with the legis- lature, I have seen no active and have heard of no active opposition on the part of the tobacco manufacturers on this question. I have looked over and studied one tobacco factory. I saw no large number of very small children. I saw two small white boys who appeared to be under 13, and I think five colored children of about the same size. The others were 14 years and over. If I may be permitted to state on the matter of the widows, Mr. HoUis last year in South Carolina made a study of the number of orphan children and widows in 16 South Carolina mills. He found in those 16 South Carohna miUs 5,000 operatives. He found a mill population of 15,000. He found the namber of children between 12 and 14, 233. Of these, 52 were the children of widows. Mr. KiTCHiN. What county is that ? Mr. Swift. I think it is in the Rock Hill section. The mills are not designated. He has only sent me the abstract. Seventeen were the children of disabled parents. Seven w.ere orphans. The number of families dependent upon the aid of children between 12 and 14 was 72; that is, they were not orphans, but the families were somewhat dependent upon the children. I will ask to have this paper inserted in the record. (The paper referred to is as follows:) Report of 16 cotton mills, 5,000 operatives, a mill jiopulation of 15,000, taken to b« report of Mr. Hollis, of Greenville, S. 0.; facts obtained from Judge Joseph A. Mc- Cullough, of Greenville, S. C: Number of mills 16 Number of operatives 5, 000 Mill population 15, 000 Number of children between 12 and 14 233 Of these: Children of widows 52 Children of totally disabled parents , 17 Orphans , , 7 Number of families dependent upon the aid of children between the ages of 12 and 14 77 Mr. Swift. There is, besides the widow, another person in these cotton mill districts that demands attention, and that is the man who has lived out on a farm and who has a family of children growing up. Somehow the word gets to him that he can make more money, or do better, and he comes to believe it, by moving into the mills. It is not rare for that man to go into the mill village, put his children at work, and then become what we know as a "mill secretary" ; that is, he is the man who draws the wages and lives ofi^ the labor of some older and some younger children. He does practically nothing. There are a great many of those. My observation, however, is that it is becoming not quite so good caste as it was once. But still the law against vagrancy has not been enforced so as to cut out all of these people. Last year, when we were studying this question I submitted to the physicians in my State six questions, and if I may, I will read the interstate' commekce m pkoductH nr child labor. 171 questions and answers. The first question submitted to the physi- cians of the State was: la it probable that the employment of children under 14 years of age in the mills, factories, stores, and other public or private buildings for 11 hours a day will be in- ■jurious either to the race or to the children? I had 320 replies. Two hundred and ninety said yes; 16 said no; 5 said yes, conditionally; and 9 did not reply. I asked the second question: Is there any reason why it should be more injurious for girls than to boys? I asked that question for this reason, that there is a distinction in some States. In my State the girls are admitted to employment at the same age as boys. In answer to that question, out of 320, 264 answered yes; 45 answered no; 3 answered, conditionally; and 8 did not reply. The third question was: In your opinion would it be mae to forbid the employment of any child under 14 in any mill, factory, store, or other simUur place? To that there were 211 answering yes; 61 answering no; 39, yes, conditionaUy; and 9 did not reply. The fourth question was : In your opinion would it be wise to forbid by law ithe employment of any children under 16 years of age in any mill, factory, store, or other similar place for more than eight hours a day? In answer to that question 247 said yes; 48, no; 16 answered conditionally; and 9 did not reply. The fifth question was: In your opinion would it be wise to forbid by law the employment of any children under 16 in any occupation declared by the State board of health to be dangerous? In answer to that question there were, yes, 263; no, 28; yes, con- ditionally, 13; and 16 did not reply. The sixth question was: Should the State empower the commissioner of labor to enforce the child-labor laws and inspectors be given him for this purpose? Answering that there were yes, 264; no, 16; conditionally, 5; not replying, 35. The Acting Chairman. How did you select you physicians ? To whom would you address that inquiry ? Mr. Swift. I took the list from the report of the State medical society for the year 1912. When this question came on for hearing, as I remember, one Physician came before the committee and stated his opposition to the tate legislation which we were attempting to get through. He came from one of the principal cotton-manufacturing towns in the State. There may have been another person whom I do not re- member; I do not think there was. Mr. Chairman, so far as I now know, that is all I have to say. (Mr. Swift was thereupon excused.) STATEMENT OF MISS EUNICE SINCLAIR, OF FAYETTEVILIE, N. C. Miss Sinclair. Gentlemen, my report for this afternoon is not in regard to health conditions and social conditions in the mills, but 172 INTERSTATE COMMEBGB IN PKODUOTS OE CHILD LABOB. simply as to the number of children who; in the past few months I have found at work in North Carolina. This report was made from material gathered by going from house to house. The information in all cases was given by the parents of the children, and I frequently- had reference to the family Bible or famUy record. I visited 28 mills. Some of those mills were good and some of them were poor, but I think the average represents very well the conditions in Nortli Carolina. My report was for those children I found under 14 years of age at work in the mills. In case I found a chUd' of 14 who liad been work- ing over a year, I reported him also. I found some chUdren 14 years of ageVho had been working as long as six years. I possibly missed some of the children in those mills owing to my inexperience. I do not think I would miss any in a mill to-day. I have been em^ ployed by the Child I^abor Committee for the last six months. Senator Clapp. Where is your home ? Miss Sinclair. Fayettevide, N. C, ir^, the eastern part of the State. The first mill I visited was the Holt-Williamson Mills in Fayette- ville. There I found two children of 14, one of whom had been working three years; three, 13; and one, 12, a total of seven children in that miU. The Acting Chairman. Out of how many ? Miss Sinclair. You mean the number of employees in the mill ? The Acting Chairman. How many children employed in that mill ? Miss Sinclair. I found 7 children under the age, but did not count the number under 16. The Acting Chairman. Well, have you the number of children that were employed in the mill under 16 ? Miss Sinclair. I have no record except what I made myself in the mill. I went through the mill. Mr. Kitchin. Pemaps it would help if she would give the total number of employees in the mill as well as the number of children. The Acting Chairman. Can you give the number of people in the mill ? Miss Sinclair. I think I can get that. The next mill I visited was the Cumberland Mills, near Fayette- ville, and I read what I have in my report : Cumberland Mills village made a rather interesting study. Being segregated as it is, it has developed a positive monarchy, and yet owing to the excellent Bituation it might be a model mill community. The children under 10 years were allowed to "play" in the factory. "Play" I found to mean assisting the father, brother, or sister. While they were not receiving wages they were permitted to work. James Lovickj whom you find mentioned in the report, was one of these frivolous characters up to a few years ago, when he was indiscreet enough to become caught in a band and narrowly escaped death. Here I found 2 children of 12, 5 of 15, 12 of 11, 3 of 10, and 2 of 9, making a total of 16 children. The next mill was the Kaeford Power & Manufacturing Co., Rae- ford, N. C. Here there were 8 children of 14, 1 who had been work- ing as long as a year, 4 children who had worked for 2 years, 2 for 3 years, and 8 for 4 years; maldng a total of 15 children in that mill. The next mill was Sanford Cotton Milk, at Sanford, N. C. Here there were .3 children aged 14, 9 of 13, and 3 of 12, making a total of 15 children. INTEBSTATK OOMMEBOE IN PBODTJOTS OF CHILD LABOR. 173 The next laiill was the Vass Mill, at Vass, N. C. Here there were 3 children aged 14 who had worked over a year, and 2 aged 13—5 chil- dren in that mill. The next was at Randleman, N, C, the Deep River Manufacturing Co. I spent a half a day there and found 1 child aged 13 and 1 aged 12. The next was the Ivanhoe Mills, at Smithfield, N. C. One child aged 14, who had worked three and a half years ; two children aged 12, one of whom had worked three and a half years and 1 one year; three children at Ivanhoe. The next was at Smithfield, N. C, the Smithfield MiU. One child aged 14, who had worked two years, and three aged 13, two of whom had worked two years and one three years, making a total of three children at that mUl. The next was the Ethel Mill, at Selma, N. C. Here I found two children aged 14 who had worked two years, one aged 14 who had worked three years, one aged 13, and twQ aged 12; six children in that mill. Senator Pomerene. Have you tabulated those figures ? Miss Sinclair. Do you mean have I them in another form ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. We do not care to have you go into all of the details of this matter. We would like you to give the result, which wUl servo the same purpose. Miss Sinclair. In the 28 mills I found 67 children 14 years of age who had been worked over a year; 102 such children 13 years of age; 53 children 12 years of age; and children under 12 years of age, 19. Does that give you the information? Senator Pomerene. That gives us the itiformation, and whatever merit there is in it we will get that from the sum totals, without going into the details of each. If you care to. furnish us a table to be incorporated in your testimony showing the number in each mill, that you can do, and it will serve our time^as well. Miss Sinclair. I would like to speak of.- this mill that I visited at Salisbury, because it brings out the fact that we were discussing, the attendance officer. The attendance officer was the State superin- tendent and the mill authority wa;^, of course, under his supervision. I went to him and talked to him about tfhe matter and he said he never had occasion to prosecute anybody for not sending a child to school, although there were cases which he refused to give me, or even give me access into the mill. I might explain that one of the mill manufacturers was one of his school committee managers. The Acting Chairman. Now, can you tell us the number of em- ployees in these mills, and the number of children below 14 and below 16? Miss Sinclair. I can not tell you those below 16, because I have not made that investigation. I can give you those below 14 for the 28 mills I visited. ' Senator Pomerene. You do not know the number of operatives in all of those mills ? Miss Sinclair. I can give that to you. It is not in these reports, but I can make that out. n i i i The Acting Chairman. If you care to do that, we will be glad to have it. 174 INTERSTATE COMMEKCE IN PEODUGTS OF CHILD LABOE. (The report referred to is as follows.) Figures taken from report of commissioner of labor and printing, North Carolina, for IQig for the ^8 cotton mills investigated by Miss Eunice Sinclair, to which is added the numln of children found by Miss Sinclair in each mill who were or had been illegally employed. Name ot mill. Holt- Williamson Necronset Hope Mills Raeford Power & Manufacturing Co. Banford Cotton Mills Vass Cotton Mills Deep River Manufacturing Co Ivanhoe Mill Smlthfleld Mill Ethel Cotton MUl Lizzie Cotton Mill Selma Cotton Mill Erwin Cotton Mill No. 2 Oxford Cotton MUl St. Pauls Cotton Mill Bladenboro Dixon Cotton MiU Scotland Mill Waverley Mill Springfield Ida Mill National Mill Dresden Mill - Lumberton Mill Jennings Mill High Shoals Kesler Manufacturing Co Richmoiid Mill Number of operatives. 150 294 160 80 225 Number of children employed. Children illegally employed, as found by Miss Sinclair. 77 115 70 146 176 137 90 168 45 55 m 300 165 275 45 ] P) 0) (') (') 12 26 136 40 50 29 21 23 10 16 4 U 3 11 5 1 1 6 7 10 12 1 2 S 11 3 9 i 9 15 6 7 I No report to the commissioner ot labor. Mr. KiTCHiN. I would be glad to ask One or two questions that may perhaps throw some light upon the subject. Miss Sinclair, it is lawful in North Carolina to employ children under 13 at the present time, is it not ? Miss Sinclair. Yes, sir. Mr. KiTCHiN. Now you have, boys, 11 under 11 years of age. Miss Sinclair. Yes, sir; that means 11. Mr. KiTCHiN. Do you know what mills they were in? Miss Sinclair. Yes, sir. Mr. KiTCHiN. How many mills had those 11 1 Miss Sinclair. I could not tell you that. Mr. KiTCHiN. I wish you would give us a statement as to that. Miss Sinclair. I will give that statement. Mr. KiTCHiN. Could you give the names of the mills ? Miss Sinclair. Yes, sir. Mr. Kitchin. And you say that there were six under 10 years of age? Miss Sinclair. Yes, sir. Mr. Kitchin. But you do not remember where? Miss Sinclair. No, sir; I will make that out. Mr. Kitchin. And there were some, too, that you said were 9 ? Miss Sinclair . Yes, sir. INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 175 Mr.-KiTCHiN. You do not know whether or not those who were 12 years worked as apprentices to some one else« Miss Sinclair. They were being paid. Mr. KiTcniN. But you do not know whether they were given em- ployment as helper to some one else or as independent workers « • ® jj^j"^^^" ^^ ^^^^ °^®^^ ■'■ ^°' "^^^^ *^®y SO in as helpers their pay is added to that of their sisters or brothers, or whomever they The Chairman. When did you make this investigation ? Miss Sinclair. In the past six months. Mr. KiTCHiN. And you visited 28 mills and found 19 that appeared contrary to law; that is, under any construction of our law? Miss Sinclair. Yes, sir; I mean under 14. Mr. KiTCHiN. Under 14, of course, it was lawful in North Carolina and under 13 it was lawful ? Miss Sinclair. Yes, sir. Mr. KiTOHiN. Provided they were 12 years of age and in an ap- prenticeship capacity? Miss Sinclair. Yes, sir. Mr. KiTCHiN. So you found in visiting 28 mills 19 children, that it would be, according to your opinion, xmlawful to employ ? Miss Sinclair. Nineteen children under 12 years of age. (Miss Sinclair was thereupon excused.) The following reports were directed to be inserted in the record for the information of the committee. REPORTS. SUMMARY OF REPORT ON 28 NORTH CAROLINA COTTON MILLS. Total number of children under 14 found at work 174 Total number of children under 13 found at work 72 Total number of children under 12 found at work 19 Total number of children under 11 found at work 8 Total number of children under 10 found at work 2 Number of children now 14 employed before they were 13 51 Number of children now 13 employed before they were 12 22 Number of children now 14 employed before they were 12 24 Number of children who were or had been illegally employed 118 In 3 of the 28 mills no children were found illegally employed. .A-Ssuming that these 28 mills investigated present average conditions as to the illegal employment of children, in the 308 cotton mills of North OaroUna there would be eleven times as many such children, or 1,298. HOLT WTLLLAMSON MILLS. Belle Kinlaw, aged 14, has worked one year; appearance, tall, very slight, stoop shouldered, sallow faced. Lowena Reeves, aged 13; father, F. J. Reeves; worked two months. Hoyd Bailey, aged 12, has worked three months; father, W. Bailey. Stanley Tart, aged 10; father, J. A. Tart. Alex Stewart, aged 14, has worked three years; Morrison Stewart, aged 13; step- father, H. D. Jones. Lottie Tims, aged 13, has worked two years; father, Charles Tims. HOPE MILLS. Lola Langley, aged 13, has worked two years; mother, Mrs. Dora Langley. Kelly Deever, aged 12, has worked one year; father, Enoch Deever. Oliver Cameron aged 12, has worked three months; aunt, Mrs. Charlotte Autrey. 176 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN" PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. NECRONSET MILLS. Alice Autrey, aged 15, has worked three monthsi mother, Mrs. Charlotte Autrey. James Lovick, aged 9;' father, George Lovick. Willie Graham, aged 15, has worked two years; stepfather, John Morrison. Bertha Deed, aged 13, has worked one year; Clude Deed, aged 12;' Charlie Deed, aged 9;' father. Gentry Dees. Lee Davis, aged 13, has worked one year; Alice Davis, aged 11;' father, A. T. Davia. Walter L. McLeod, aged 13, has worked three years; Annie McLeod, aged 10;' fathei, Robert McLeod. Carl Poell, aged 13, has worked three years; Irving Poell, aged 10;' stepfather, J, W, Boone. Dewey Hall, aged 14, has worked one year; mother, Mrs. Mary Hall. Katie B. Creel, aged 13, has worked one year; Annie M. Creel, aged 11;' mother, Mrs. Annie Creel. John Guiton, aged 16, has worked tl^iee years; Lottie Guiton, aged 14, has worked one year; Annie V. Guiton, aged 12, has worked two months; Frank Guiton, aged 10.' Cumberland Mills village made a rather interesting study. Being segregated as it is, has developed a positve monarchy, and yet owing to the excellent situation it might be a model mill community. The children under 10 years were allowed "to play" in the factory. "Play" here defined I fouiid to mean assisting the father, brother, or sister. While they were not receiving wages they were permitted to work. James Lovick, whom you find mentioned in report, was one of these privi- leged characters up to a few weeks ago, when he was indiscreet enough to become caught in a band, and narrowly escaped death. RAEFORD POWER & MANUF^-CTURING CO. Joe Williams, aged 15, has worked six years; father, C. P. Williams. Baxter Pervatt, aged 16, has worked four years; farther, E. L. Pervatt. Luther Pervatt, aged 13, has worked three mouths^ father, E. Ij. Pervatt. Erie Blake, aged 16, has worked six years; father, J. T. Blake. Lena Blake, aged 14, has worked two years; fatheii, J. T. Blake. May Blake, aged 13, has worked two months; father, J. T. Blake. Mallie Holt, aged 14, has worked four years; father; M. H. Holt. Lauder Stedman, aged 16, has worked five years; father, J. J. Stedman. Willie Redwine, aged 14, has worked two years; father, Jesse Redwine. Annie Sanders, aged 14, has worked three years; father, A. D. Sanders. Vera Williams, aged 14, has worked one year; fath'er, T. R. Williams. Willie Norton, aged 13, has worked two months; mother, Mrs. Sallie Norton. Vera Campbell, aged 14, has worked two years; father, Dave Campbell. Clyde Camjsbell, aged 12, has worked three months; father, Dave Campbell. Lizzie Perkins, aged 12, has worked one year; father, W. L. Perkins. Dannie Price, aged 13, has worked one year; father, D. J. Price. Ida Lancaster, aged 13, has worked one year; mother, Mrs. W. L. Lancaster. SANPORD COTTON MILLS. Myrtle Lee Love, aged 13, has worked one year; mother, Mrs. Nannie Love. Cleatis Spivey, aged 12, has worked 1 month; grandmother, Mrs. Nancy Spivey. Lillie McCougal, aged 13, has worked three months; grandfather, D. J, Robinson. Eddie Stutts, aged 13, has worked six months; father, J. A. Stutta. Gladys Stone (boy), aged 13, has worked three months; father, Henry Stone. Nora Tally, aged 14, has worked six months; father, M. J. Tally. Forest McBryde, aged 13, has worked two months; father, N. J. McBryde. Leila Maynor, aged 14, has worked two years; father, Martin Maynor. Willie l\Taynor, aged 12, has worked six months; f^ither, Martin Maynor. Sadie Clark, aged 13, has worked four months; father, Oscar Clark. Lillio Clark, aged 12, has worked two weeks; father, Oscar Clark. Minnie Wilkie, aged 14, has worked four years; mother, Mrs. Artelia Wilkie. Arn Elalock, aged 13, has worked three months; mother, Mrs. J. S. Blalock. Lovey Hilliard, aged 14, has worked one year; mcfther, Mrs. Anna Hilliard. Lester Harden, aged 13, has worked two months; mother, Mrs. Annie Harden. Newton Davis, aged 13, has worked three months;; mother, Mrs. Delia Davis. ' Children allowed to work without wages. INTERSTATE COMMEECE IN PBODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 177 VASS COTTON MILL 00; Nettie Thomas, aged 13, has worked three months; father, J. R. Thomas. Harvey Blake, aged 14, has worked three years (three years in High Point and two months in Vass); father, J. R. Blake. Flossie Odom, aged 14, worked two years in Sanford and has worked six months in Vass; father, Deevy Odom. Paulino Dowdon, aged 13, has worked one year; father, J. B. Dowden. Annie Rooney McNeill, aged 14, has worked one year; father, M. J. McNeill. RANDLEMAN, N. C. Hope Comer, aged 13, has worked one year; mother, Mrs. Ida Corner (father de- serted; family unhealthy; struggle to live). Gertie Corner, aged 17, earns |5 to 16 per week; Lillie Corner, aged 15, earns $S to 14 per week; Jesse Corner, aged 11, in school. Charles D. McCaskill, aged 12, works in summer at 50 cents per day, goes to school in winter; father. Alec McCaskill, earns $1.50 per day. Other members of family: James McCaskill, aged 8, in school; Edna McCaskill, aged 6; Irene McCaskill, aged 3. House rent, 50 cents per week. Family apparently comfortable. IVANHOE MILL, SMITHFIELD, N. C. Maud Edwards, aged 15, has worked four years; receives 50 cents per day; father, John B. Edwards. Family in debt for grocery bill accumulated during three weeks while mill was closed. Mother states that it will require all winter to get rid of this debt while keeping up other expenses. Ornal Royalls, aged 15, has worked three and ooe-half years; receives 85 cents per day; Ollie Royalls, aged 14, has worked three and one-half years; receives 85 cents per day; Jessie Royalls, aged 12_, has worked three and one-half years; receives 75 cents per day; Mother, Mrs. Annie Roy^illS: Father killed in lumber mill four years ago. Family moved here shortly after and these three children were put in the mill. Nine in family. Maude Wallace, aged 12, has worked one year; receives 90 cents per day; mother, Mrs. Mary A. Wallace. Has two older sisters who also work, one receiving $7 and the other $6 per week. Gertie Parish, aged 15, has worked fouir years; father, Henry Parish. Gertie earns 75 cents per day; her father $1.25 per day. Seventy-five cents per week is deducted for rent, and there are four children younger than Gertie. James Monroe, aged 15, has worked three years^ earns 75 cents per day; Annie Monroe, aged 13, has worked two years; earns 45 cents per day. Father, J. E. Monroe, works at various trades and farms. Seven children in family; oldest girl and boy earning, respectively, 65 cents and $1 per day; next boy unable to work, and two children younger than James and Annie. Luther Hall, aged 14, has worked two years; earns 75 cents per day; Minnie Hall, aged 13, has worked two years; earns 60 cents per day. Father, W. C. Hall, earns $1.25 per day. Seven children; oldest boy and girl earning, respectively, |1 and .75 cents per day. (Note that girl 18 makes same wage as boy 14.) Three children younger than Minnie. Nettie Jones, aged 15, has worked three years; George Jones, aged 13, has worked three years; mother, Mrs. Rebecca Jones. Mothe? has a struggle to live. After father's death oldest boy ran away, but sends mother $1 per week. Four children younger than George. Mother works in mill several "days out of each week. ETHEL MILL, SELMA, N. C. Annie Creech, ao-ed 15, has worked five years; father, C. W. Creech. Father unable to work. Two older sisters, one working in telephone office and one m mill; also three children younger than Annie. ,, „ tt t tt * Nancy Jones, aged 14, has worked two years; mother, Mrs. S. H. Jones. Has two older sisters working in mill and one brother aged 10. Raymond Earp, aged 1 2, has worked — years ; mother, Mrs. Willie Earp. There are four children younger than Raymond. -, lo i i j + Lizzie Miller, aged 14, has worked two years; Lillie Miller, aged 13, has worked two years; father, Cha^rlie Miller. Father keeps store, and oldest brother, Wilhe, works in mill; is said to have worked since he was 9 years old. Three children younger than Lillie. 27896—16 12 178 INTERSTATE COMMEEOE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. Sallie Bass, aged 15, has worked five years; sister Mrs. Eddie Earp. Has younger sister aged 7. Mrs. Earp has one child a year old. Mr. Earp works in mill, Clarence Peden, aged 12, has worked one year; father, Arthur Peden. Father works at trade, older sister works in mill; three children younger than Clarence. Mabel Oorbit, aged 16, has worked five years; stepfather, E. G. Rose. Earl Rose, aged 16, has worked five years; father, E. G. Rose. Annie Mabel Rose, aged 14, has worked three years; father, E. G. Rose. Father farms; two boys older than Mabel work in mill, and there are four children younger than Annie Mabel. LIZZIE MILL, SELJIA, N. C. Novella Ivey, aged 15, has worked four years; McAllan Ivey, aged 14, has worked four yea,rs; Bertha Ivey, aged 12, ha.'i worked two years; Charles A. Ivey, aged 11, has worked two years; father, J. M. Tvey. Family very poor; -one brother victim of tuberculosis. Nine in family and two boarders living in four rooms. Vaida Stancil, aged 15, has worked four years; James H. Standi, aged 12, haa worked two months; father, Haywood Stancil. Five in family, and father and older sister work. Arnold Benson, aged 13, has worked one year; Anna Benson, aged 12, has worked one year; Lucy Benson, aged 11, has worked one y^ar; father, Arnold Benson. Six in family; one child younger than these. Father works in mill. John Micks, aged 13, has worked four years; father, Joe Micks. Only two chil- dren; older brother also works. Have three boarders. Effie. Worlcy, aged 13, has worked two years; father, N. W. Worley. Two chil- dren; other being boy aged 10. Father works, andthey have two boarders. Dolly Griffin, aged 12, has worked one year; Willie GrilBn, aged 11, has worked one year; father, Rute Griffin. Four children younger than' these. Father works in mill. SELMA COTTON MILLS. Ban Eatman, aged 12, has worked one year. Note.- — The community is unusually good; homes and social conditions above the average. The superintendent, Mr. Bnetz, gave me much assistance in the work. EEWIN COTTON MILL, DUKE, N. C. Bertha Hair, aged 13, worked two months during summer; earned 30 cents per day. Oldest of three children. Father, J. A. Hair, earns $1 per day. Rent, 75 cents per week; 3 room house. Delia Byrd, aged 13, worked one month during feummer; earned $1.62 per week. OldestDf four children. Father, Jim Byrd, earns $6.60 per week. One boarder. Rent, 75 cents per week. Jehu Steward, aged 14, has worked nine months in Sanford and two years in Duke. Second of three children. Mother, Tibatha Steward. Rent, 75 cents per week. Willie C. Moore, aged 14, has worked one year; earning $4.65 per week. Second of seven children. Oldest boy and father, J. 0. Moore, work; each earns $1.10 per day. Rent, 75 cents per week. Daisy Autrey, aged 14, has worked two years — 14 months in Fayetteville and 10 in Duke; earned 60 cents per day. Oldest of four children. Father, Chas. M. Autrey, . earns $1 per day. Rent, 75 cents per week. Evidently necessary for child to work. Ruth Ryals, aged 14, has worked two years; earns $1 per day. Oldest of five chil- dren. Father, A. D. Ryals. Rent, $1.10 per week;* 4-rooin house. Walter Page, aged 13, worked two months during summer. Second of six children. Two boarders. Father, P. T. Page, earns $2 per day. Rent, $1 per week. Kelly Rouse, aged 13, has worked two years; earns 65 cents per day. Younger of two children. Father, J. A. Rouse, earns $1 per day. Rent, $1 per week. Gervis Nordan, aged 14, has worked eight months. Alton Nordan, aged 13, has worked eight months. Second and third cfi seven children. Father, JT. E. Nordan, earns $1 per day. Caro Nordan, aged 18, earns 60 cents per day. Rent, $1 per week. Ada Whitman, aged 13, has worked two months; earns 30 cents per day. Second of four ..children. Father, J. D. Whitman, farms. Rents a 4-room house at $1 per week, jointly with another famUy, each occupying 2 rooms, (The following letter explains itself:) The Sbwin Cotton Mills Co., Dvhe, N. C, October ^S, 1915. Miss Eunice Sinclaik, ■J96 Claredon Street, Fayetteville, N. 0. Deak* Miss SiNCLAin: Your letter is recei-\-ed, indicating your desire to return to Duke next week. Before coming, howe^•er, will you not kindly write me and give INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PEODXTCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 179 me the substance of what your report to your committee shall be based on the inves- tigation you have already personally made at Duke? We would'be very glad to give you any reasonable assistance in arriving at facts to be properly treated by you per- taining to the condition of o\ir people, etc., and our mill village here; but we are sure you must know that we are naturally interested in the facts being correctly obtained to enable you to intelligently and fairly collaborate knd embody in the report that you make to your committee. Will you therefore kindly write me before resuming your work here what your report shall be from the facts already obtained at Duke. Awaiting your favor with great respect, yours, verytruly. The Sbwin Cotton Mllls Co. By Thos. H. Webb, Manager. (The reply:) RALEieiH, N. C, Novemher 4, 1915. Mr. Thos. H. Webb, Manager Erwin Cotton Mills Co., Duke, N. C. Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of October 23, I inclose y;ou herewith a copy of my report of my work at your mill. This, of course, speaks for itself. I should say, however, that there are one or two other matters which came under my observation which I will probably have mentioned in my report after completing my work at your mill. These are: First. The school facilities. It seems to me that these children ought to have a better building. Second. The crowded condition of the rooms demand attention. Third. I was impressed with the fact that in the village life the people seem to lack individual initiative, and whatever is done is done largely by the mill company. Fourth. Wages seem to be a little better than I havS generally found. Fifth. I found, however, that most families are not saving money to any extent. I found one family that appeared to be in want owing to prolonged sickness. Sixth. I covered about one-half of the mill village and should like very much to canvass the entire town. I trust, therefore, that upon reading this letter you^will write to me that this may be done with your permission. Yoii understand, of Qourse, that I can not tell what my report will be until after I have finished the worb. I do not know what I will find. Yours, very truly, Eunice Sinclair. Note. — I received no reply to this letter. OXFORD, N. c. General conditions in Oxford appeared good. The situation of homes is excellent; repairs are kept up and people appear well satisfied. I learned by chance that the mill authorities had been informed concerning my work in Duke and of my probable rounds in the State. It also happened that they knew of my arrival in town and that I was at work there, so I can not be altogether sure that I saw true conditions in the mill. I remarked upon the peculiar dearth of dofter boys and after considerable delay two were produced. I saw no very small children at work. However, it appears from all sources that the mill is exceptionali in its management. I do not consider the school facilities good. It is partially supported by the mill and held in a small building erected by them. It is crowded to some extent and they have only two teachers Mr. R. H. Lewis, secretary, took me over the mill and discussed various phaaea of the question. Mr. Lewis professes sympathy with the movement and assures us of his cooperation. I visited all the homes as usual and found no children under 13 at work. ST. PAULS, N. C. Walter Davis, aged 14 April, has worked one year; earns 50 cents per day. Haa two older brothers and one sister who work, and there are five children younger. Father, Edgar John Davis, earns $1 per day. .., • v,* niA-.^-o^u Susanna Robinson, aged 15, has worked four years;.eams tl a, night. Goldie Rob- inson, aged 13; earns $1 a night. Has worked four yea,rs Gertie Robinson, aged 11, worked lix months. Bell Robinson, aged 12, has worked six months; earns 60 cents a nieht These children have one oWer brother who works, earning $1 per night. He ii only 16 at present and has been at work for four years There are two children younger than Gertie and they have one boarder The father, B B. Robinson, is a paintlr. The children worked in Lumberton before moving here. The motiier takes much pride in the fact that all have worked at an extremely early age. She 180 INTEESTATB COMMEKCE IN PKO0UCTS OP CHILD LABOK. referred to Gertie as "help-hand"; I asked her how she was paid and she said: "Yes, ma'm; she is paid, but she aint on pay-roll. They let her pay go on her sister's for helping her." Johnnie Sawyer, aged 12 last March, has worked six months; earns 50 cents a day. He has two older sisters who work, and there are four children younger. Father, John Sawyer, earns $1.25 a night. Carrie May Stubbe, aged 12, has worked ten months; earns about 40 cents per day. Has two older sisters who work and there are four children younger. They have one boarder. Father, J. E .Stubbs, earns 12.50 per day. ST. PAULS, N. C. Note.— I counted three boys and four girls who gave every indication of being under age. Mr. McDonald, superintendent here, gave me all assistance possible and appeared in sympathy with the child-labor movement. In regard to the Keatkg bill Mr; McDonald said: "I am in favor of the bill and do not doubt that southern mills can afford to run under such law. I should be glad to see the bill passed," BLADENBORO, K. C* Minnie Pittman, age 12 last July, has worked thijee years; earns 70 cents per day. Riley Pittman, age 14 last March, has worked three years; earns 83 cents per night. These children have one older sister, 16 years old, who works. Their stepfather is an invalid, so the mother, Mrs. David Pait, is head of the family. The stepfather owns the home, so they pay no rent. The mother explained that after death of children's father she had to move to factory in order that the three oldest children might work, and in view of her circumstances the authorities had employed the children before they were of legal age. David Parker, age 12 last June, has worked one year; earns 60 cents per day. Oldest of four children. Father, J. B. Parker, earns $1.25 per day. Rent, 45 cents per week. Lether Bowen, age 12 last September, earns 30 cents per day. Lucy Bowen, age 14 last April, earns 50 cents per day. Father, B. R. Bowen, does not work, probably owing to fact that he has five children in the mill. There are two children younger than these and they have four boarders. Rent, 75 Cents per week. Charlie Guiton, age 12 last October, earns 25 cents per day. Youngest of five children, all of whom work. Mother, Mrs. Caroline Guiton, Hattie Hester, age 14 last January, has worked three years; earns $1,05 per week; second of three children; older sister works; father, B, A, Hester, works "off and on." Rent 45 cents per week, James Shoe, age 12 last May, has worked two weeks; earns 50 cents per day; third of four children. Has two older brothers at work. Father, J, H. Shoe, earns $2 per day. Zebulon Pait, age 14 last June, earns 50 cents per day; has worked two years. Robert Pait, age 13 last May, has worked two years; earns 46 cents per day. Lotta May Pait, age 1 1 last June, has worked ' ' off and on " ^ for two years . Worked last sum- mer, and though in school, now works on Friday nights; earns about 60 cents per night. There are two children younger than Lotta knd one older than Zebulon; the latter Works, earning 70 cents per day. Father, J. C- Pait, earns $1 per day, Theodore Thompson, age 13 last June, has worked three years ; has two older sisters and one brother at work. There are three children younger than Theodore. Father, B. O, Thompson, does not work. Grace BuUard, age 14 in November, has worked two years; earns 90 cents per day; has oldijr sister and brother at work. There are three children younger than Grace. Father, W. A. Bullard. Francis Britt, age 12 in November, has worked irregularly for three jrears; has older brother at work, and there are four younger children. Father, Joe Britt, earns $1.30 per night. Mary Dix, age 14 last June, has worked two years. John Dix, age 11 last June, has worked two years; earns 50 cents per night. 'There are two children older than these who work and two younger who are in school. Father, J. E. Dix. Ina Ivey, age 13 last July, has worked nine months; earns 60 cents per day. Waylon Ivey, age 11 last April, has worked nine months; earns 30 cents per day. Lloyd Ivey, age 10, has worked nine months; earns 30 c^nts per day. There are three children younger than those. Father, E. H. Ivey, earns 11.25 per day. Percy vause, age 14 in November, has worked eight months; earns 50 cents per day. Minnie Vause, age 13 last June, has worked eight months ; earns 60 cents per INTERSTATE COMMEECE IN PEODXJCTS OF CHILD LABOE. 181 day. Two older cMldren are at work, and there is one child younger than these Father, J. 1. Vauae, earns $1 per day. Note.— As seen by above report, this mill works' a number of young children, but I think this includes all, as I counted only six girls and seven boys under size in the mill at the time of my inspection. The school building is very poor and they have only onie teacher. Houses are in very good condition. DIXON MILL, LAURINBUHGi, N. C. Pearl Lockey, aged 14 in May, has worked two years; earns 75 cents a day. Ray Lockey, aged 12 in March, has worked one year; earn's 50 cents a day. These children have one older brother at work, and there are five younger. Father is a photographer. Rent, $3 a month. Johnnie Frazier, aged 13 in ilay, has worked three months; e.irus 50 cents a day. Has one younger brother. Father, Ed. Frazier, mends shoes. Family live with grandparents. Rent. $2 a month. Daniel McPayden, aged 12 in April, has worked one month; earns 50 cents aday. There are .three younger children and four older, three of the latter earning; $1 a day, and the other 60 cents. _ Father, Alec McFayden, earns $1 a day. Rent, |2 a month. Rosa RusB, aged 13 in November, has worked three years; earns 50 cents a day. Had two younger sisters, and there are three older children, two of whom earn, respect- ively, $1 and 50 cents. Father, J. A. Russ, is merchant. Rent, $2.50 a month. Note. — Here I observed only two girls and one boy who appeared under age. One of the former was distressingly small, however. Living conditions here are very good, and people appear contented. SCOTLAND MILL, LAUHINBUBG, N. C. Arthur Maness, aged 13 in March, has worked two years; earns 50 cents a day. Mother, Mrs. Flora Maness. Rogers McQueen, aged 13 in July, has worked one month; earns 20 cents a day. Older brother earns 70 cents a day, and there are three children younger than Rogers. The mother is Mrs. Freida .AIcQueen. They rent a three-room house at $2 a month, and have accumulated rather heavy debts. Naomi Fields, aged 13 in May, has worked six months; earns 50 cents a day. Three older children earn, respectively, 80 cents, $1, and 50 cents a day. There are four younger children. Father, Da\id Fields, earns fl.25 a day. Rent four-room house at $2.50 a month. Lillie May Sealey, aged 13 in November, has worked four weeks; has older brother who works, "and there are three younger children. F,^ther, Charles Sealey, is unable to work. Rent three-room house at $1.75 a month; have recently moved here. Bonnie Craven, aged 13, has worked three weekg. Walter Craven, aged 12, has worked three weeks here, having worked before in Rockingham Mills. There are two children older than these and three younger. Rent three-room house at $2 a month; have recently moved here. Belle Woodall, aged 14 in June, has worked three years here, and prior to that in mill at Raeford, N. C; earns 50 cents a day. Mother, Mrs. Maggie Woodall, asserts that her eldest daughter, Leila, aged 16, has worked over six years, first in Raeford, then here, Lelia now earns 80 cents a day. There is a younger sister who is mentally deficient. They rent a three-room house at $2 a month. Rosie Terry, aged 13 in December, has worked one year; earns 50 cents a day ; eldest of six children. Father, J . E. Terry, earns $1.50 a day. Rent three-room house at $2 a month. , k„ j. j Major Williamson, aged 13 in September, has worked one year; earns 50 cents a day. Has one younger brother and one older. The latter i^ married and lives here with his wife, helping to bear the family expenses. Mother is Mrs. H. C. Williamson. Rent three-room house at $2 a month. Eunice Brigman a^^ed 14 in November, has worked two years; earns 30 cents a day. Father R T Brit^man, is chronic invalid. Has one .younger brother in school and an older sister and brother who earn, respectively, 60 cents and 50 cents a day Mother says they fell so deeplv in debt this fall that she was forced to take the little 8-year-old boy into the cotton field, where by picking cotton the two of them earned enough to temporarily relieve the situation. They rent a four-room house at $2.25 a mocth, and it stands in great need of repair. , , . .t. . t i * -n Frances Simmons, aged 14 in September, worked nine months at Lumberton mill, and has been emtloyed here for something over a year; earns 50 cents a day. Has one 182 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCtTS OF CHILD LABOR. older sbter who works, and tliere are two younger children. Father, Pink Simmons. Rent three-room house at 92 a mouth. Raymond Brinkley, aged 13 in December, has worked "off and on" during past summer. Has three older brothers who earn, respectively, $1.10, 80 cents, and 70 cents a day. There are two younger children. Father, W. M. Brinkley, earns $1.25 a day. Kent three-room house at S2. Emma Core, aged 14, has worked two years. There are three older children and one younger than Emma. Father, Ellis Gore. Kent three-room house at $2 a nionth. N. B. ^'Information given by neighbor. Note. — Mill under same management as Waverly, but not so satisfactory in some respects. The new electric powqj- is the cause of much complaint among operatives, who say it is not properly regulated and that it causes them great trouble. (It has proven highly satisfactory in Waverly.) I counted'here six boys and ioiu ^rla who appeared under 13. The houses in this village leaked almost without exception, and great trouble was caused by falling plaster, etc., though the mill has repairing done every few months. The moral condition is very goo^, due to the strict surveilance of the authorities. WAVERLY COTTON MILLS, LAtmiNBTJRG, N. C. Ella Danford, aged 14 in January, has worked two years; earns 75 cents per day. Rosie Danford, a^ed 13 in October, has worked twq, years; earned 50 cents per day. Is now recuperating from typhoid, having been unable to work for several months. Father, A. T. Danford, earns $1.25 per day. There are two children younger than these, and one older sister who does not work. An older brother, his wife, and two young children also live with the family. They have a four-room house, which coats them $2.50 per month. Marviii Kues, aged 12 in January, has worked during summer months of past two years, attending school in winter; earned 50 cents per day. Father, John Rues, works for Standard Oil Co., earning $1.50 per day. There are foiu' children younger than Marvin, but he has an older brother and sister who earn, respectively, $1 and 75 cents a..day. They occupy a four-room house at ?2.50 per month. Rosamond Stanley, boy, aged 13 in March, has worked eight months; earns 80 cents per day. Robie Stanley, girl, aged 12 in December, worked during last summer, earning 25 cents per day. Father, J. B. Stanley, keeps a small store. There ate four children younger than Robie. Rent four-room house at ?2.50 per mcoith. Jonnie Collins, aged 13, has worked about two years. Father, S. D. Collins. N. B.— Inforu^.Lition given by neighboi'. Proter "Ward, aged 12, began work one week ago. There are nine children in family, four older and four younger than Porter. The older children all work, averaging about 50 cents a piece per day. Father, J. R. Ward, earns $1.25 per day. Family recently located here. Rent four-room house at |2.50 per month. Haynes Herring, aged 14, has worked two years,- earns 50 cents per day. There are two younger children, and one older boy who earns 75 cents per day. Father, N. E. Herring, earns J1.25. Rent three-room house at 12.00 per month. Joseph Carlysle, aged 13 in June, has worked one and one-half years; earns 80 cents per day. Curtis Carlysle, aged 12 in October, has worked one and one-half years; earns 80 cents per day. There are three children younger than these. Father, K. S. Carlysle, earns $1.25 per day, Rent three-room house at $2 per month. Maggie McDonald, aged 12 in March, has worked one year; earns 50 cents a day, Oldest of five children. Father, Fan McDonald, doea,hauling, etc. Rent three-room house at $2 per month. Ethel Walters, aged 12 in March, worked two months during summer; earned 25 cents a day. Has one younger sister. Grandmother also dependent upon family. Father^ Jack Walters, earns $1.35 per day. Rent three-room house at $2 per month. Carrie May Tatum, aged 13 in January, has worked one year; earns 60 cents per day. There are two younger children, and one older brother, who earns $1 per day. Father, J. H. Tatum, does shoe repairing. Rent three-room house at $2 per month. Ada Florence Cassion, aged 13, has worked one month; earns 60 cents per day. There are three younger children, and four older, earning as follows: Marvin, ?1 per day; Ruth, $1.05 pex day; Emma Iron, 80 cents a day; and Annie Eliza, 60 cents a day. Father, H. L. Cassion, earns $1 per day. Rent four-room liouse at $2.50 per month. Daisy Suggs, aged 13 in June, has worked one year; earns 40 cents per day. Father, D. B. Siiggs, works "here and yonder," according to mother. Rent three-room house at $2 per month. INTERSTATE COMMEEOE IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOK. 183 Mattic Clarke, aged 13 in December, has worked one year; earns 30 cents per day. Has pne younger sister, and a brother aged 15, who has worked three years and is now earning 30 cents per day. Father, Edmund Clarke, does hauling. Rent three-room house at $2 per month. Erbie Inman, girl, aged 13, has worked one year. Father, R. F. Inman, is a cripple and unable to work. Three older children earn, respectively, $1.05, 75 cents, and $1.25. There are three children younger than Erbie: They rent a three-room house at $2 a month. Note.— This is a thoroughly modern mill. The btiilding is large and light, with good floor space. The houses are comparatively new and in most excellent condition . The employees, almost to a man, declared themselves well satisfied. The mill works too many young children, though I was told by a number of the operators that none under 13 were allowed. In going through the mill I counted five girls and four boys whom I considered loss than 13, and it is apparent that 1 have secured the names and data concerning all these. RICHMOND MILL, LAUREL HILL, N. C. This mill has only about 25 operatives at present, and I saw no young children at work. It is a wooden frame building, very low-ceiled, dark, and crowded. The floor was filthy and so worn that I tripped several times in walking through. The homes are absolutely wretched, with roofs leaking, flpors falling in, and steps broken down. The people are miserable. I think none stay there who can possibly get away. There appears to be no scale of wages, and *hat they pay is very low. The immorality among the people is unspeakably gross. Illegitimacy is prevalent in almost every family, and about half of the people ar§ of mixed blood- — mulattoes and Groatians. There is no Sunday school, and church services only once a month, when a visiting clergyman comes from Charlotte. The school is 2^ miles away, consequently there is much illiteracy ; in fact, only six children from the village attend at all, and these very irregularly. It seems incredible that such conditions can prevail any- where. SPRINGPIBLD MILL, LAUREL HILL, N. C. Everett White, aged 13, has worked two weeks; earns 50 cents a day. Eldest of four children. Father, Jack White, earns |1 a day. Rent, $2.80 a month. John Bridgers, aged 14 in January, has worked Ifcree months here; prior to that three years at McCalls, S. C. Has three older stepbrothers who work, and one younger brother. Father, A. W. Bridgers, earns fl a day. Rent, $2.80 a month. Note. — ^The situation here is much as in Richmond mill, though not as intolerable. It is a wooden building also, and I was told it is so cold when they go in in the morn- ing that they can scarcely stand it. Houses are all in poor condition, and no one ap- peared satisfied with the living conditions. IDA MILL, LAUREL HILL, N. C. Ida Lavina, aged 12, worked some in Rockingham and Laurinburg before coming here; earns 40 cents a day. Has two older sisters who work, and there are four younger children. Father, John Lavina. Rent three-room house, at $3 a month. Ferman Strickland, aged 13 in April, has worked one year; earns 50 cents a day. Has two older brothers who work. There are two boarders in family, who each pay $3 a week. Father, W. S. Strickland, earns $1.25 a day. Rent four-room house at $3.20 a month. , „^ ^ j Nezzie Langley, aged 13 in April, has worked two years; earns 75 cents a day Has older sister who works, and there are four younger children. Mother, Mrs. Far rine Langley. Rent four-room house, at $3.20 a month. , -o- Melton Watts, aged 11, has worked about one year; earns 33i cents a day Has one younger brother. Mother works, earning 75 cents a day, and father, J. M. Watts, earns $1.25. , , , „n .>. j Harvev Wright, aged 13 in October, has worked one year; earns 30 cents a day. Has older brother earning $1 a day, and there are four younger children. Father, Zack Wright, earns $1.50 a day. Rent, $1.20 a month. Note —This being under same management, is in much the same condition as Richmond and Springfield. There is much mixed blood among the employees and laxity of authorities regarding either physical or moral wslfare of people. 184 INTERSTATE COMMEBOE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. NATIONAL MILL, LUMBEHTON, N. C. Furley Thompson, aged 14 in November, has worked two years; earns 75 cents a day. Attended school during part of that time. Edgar Thompson, aged 12 in August, has worked two years, with irregular intervals of school attendance. There is one boy older than these two, who does night -sfork, earning $1.40 a night, and there are three younger children. Father earns fl.40 a night. Rent three-room house at $1.80 a month. Alden Edwards, aged 13 in June, worked during.Jast summer, earning 60 cents a day. Has older brother and sister, who earn, respectively, $1.40 a night and 75 cents a day. One younger brother in school. One boarder, who pays $3 a week. Father is a carpenter. Rent three-room house at $1.80 a month. Lelia Parker, aged 14, has worked three years; e'arns $1 a day. William Parker, aged 13, has worked irregularly for three years; earns 75 cents a day. There is one child younggr than these two, and three older, who earn, respectively, $1.35, $1.15, and $1.50. Father, W. P. Parker, farms. Rents four-room house at $2.40 a month. Montgomery Clewis, aged 14 in November, worked last winter and during past summer; earned 75 cents a day. Had older brotller, who earns $1.25 a day, and there are three younger children. Rent three-room house at $1.80 a month. Homer Bodehamer, aged 12 in March, has worked one year. Has older brother who works, earning 90 cents a day, and there are four younger cliildren. Stepfather, Troy Brisson, earns $1.70 a day. Rent two-room house at $1.20 a mouth. Byrd Taylor, aged 15 in May, has worked five years; earns 75 cents a day. Has two older brothers, who each earn $1 a day. Married sister and her child live with them. Father, G. W. Taylor, is invalid from pellagra. Rent four-room house, at $2.40 a month. Homer Penny, aged 14 in July, has worked two years "off an' on "; earns 75 cents a day. Had older brother who works and one younger sister in school. Father, T. E. Penny, earns $1.25 a day. Foster West, aged 13 in November, has worked two years; earns 50 cents a day. There are three younger children, and three older who earn, respectively, $1.40, $1.10, and 75 cents. Father, W. P. West, "jest knocks about. " Rent three-room house at $1.80 a month. Allen Lambe, aged 14; earns 50 cents a day. Has two younger sisters in school, and three older brothers who earn, respectively, 90 cents, 75 cents, and 70 cents a day. Father, A..R. Lambe,. earns $1.40 a night. Freddie Brit, aged 14 in September, has worked one year; earns 50 cents a day. There are three younger children, and four older, two of whom work, each earning $1 a day. Father, P. M. Brit, earns $1 a day. Rents three-room house, at $1.80 a month. Joe Teedon, aged 13, has worked one and one-half years; earns 55 cents a day. Has one younger sister, and there are three older children who earn, respectively, $1.25, 54 cents, and 60 cents a day. Father, George Teedon, earns $1.10 a day. Note. — Found no cases of desperate poveirty here. Operatives speak very highly of mill authorities, and appear reasonably well satisfied, though some complain about low wages. Houses are reasonably good. Counted t;wo girls and five boys apparently under age in mill, two of the latter being extremely small, fairly babies; they did not come above my elbow. Am not sure they were on pay roll, but they were at work while r was in mill. DRESDEN MILL. Hadley Gilmore, aged 13 in December, has worked 7 months; earns 44 cents a day. Oldest of five children. Father, J. R. Gilmore, earns $1.10 a day. Rent, including doctor's salary, 60 cents a week. Fred Parrish, aged 14 in October; has worked two years; earns 44 cents a day. Marvin Farrish, aged 13 in August; has worked one year; earns 44 cents a day. These boys have one older sister. Father, A. Parrish; does.hauling. Rent, 60 cents a week. Edward Ellis, aged 14 in April; has worked two years; earns 66 cents a day. Fred Ellis, aged 13; has worked two years; earns 33 cents a day. Older sister and brother earn, respectively, 75 cents and 44 cents a day. Father, Stedman Ellis, earns $1.10 a day. Rent, CO cents a week. Claude Smith, aged 14 in February; has worked one year; earns 44 cents a day. Has older sister who earns about 66 cents a day. There are two younger chUdren. Mother, Mrs, Annie Smith. Rent, 80 cents a week. Wiley Owens, aged 11 in July, has worked two weeks here; prior to that in Lumber- ton Mill and elsewhere for some two years; earns 44 cents a day. Has older brother and sister who work, earning, respeotively, $1 and 75 cents a day. Take one boarder. INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OE CHILD LABOR. 185 who pays $2 a week. There are four younger children. Father, R. S. Owens, is a ' carpenter. Rent, 60 cents a week. Eobeft Duncan, aged 13 in June, has worked ninfe months; earns 75 cents a day. Has older sister who earns $1 a day, and there are throe younger children. Father, M. A. Duncan, keeps store. Rent, 80 cents a week. George Smith, aged 13 in June, has worked one year; earns 44 cents a day. Has two older sisters and one brother, who earn, respectively, $1, ?1, and 66 cents a day, Father, C. P. Smith, earns $1.10 a day. Rent, 60 cents a week. Tomniie Lewis, aged 14 in June; has worked thre^ months here, and prior to that one year in'Bladenboro; earns 75 cents a day. Has three older sisters who earn, respect'vely, $1, ^I.IS, and 80 cents a day. There are two younger children. Father, G. W. Lewis. Rent, 80 cents a week. Plumie Stankwych, aged 14 in March, has worked seven years here, in Lumberton mUl, and elsewhere; earns 75 cents a day. Has older sister who earns ?1 a day. There are two younger children. Father, Alex Stankwych, earns $1.90 a day. Rent, 60 cents a week. Retha Bullard, aged 13 in October, worked irregularly during last winter, three months during summer, and after attending school some weeks during fall, is again at work; earns 50 cents a day. Has two older brothers who each earn $1 a day. There are two younger children. Father, C. H. Bullard, "does first one thing and then another." Rent, 60 cents a week. Gladys Tyner, aged 14, has worked six years; earns 52 cents a day. Oldest of three children. Mother, Mrs. Richard Tyner. Robert Gore, aged 12 in December, works in mill. Has two older brothers and one sister who work. Has one younger brother. Take two boarders. Father, S. J. Gore, farms. Moved to mill only a few days ago. LUMBERTON MILL. James Graiager, aged 14 in November, has worked irregularly for one year; earns 40 cents a day. Mary Grainger, aged 11 in August,>as been " in and out" of mill since laslt December; earns 40 cents a day. There are two younger children. Father, D. B. Grainger, earns $1.10 a day. Rent, 60 cents a week. Angelo Wiggins, aged 12, worked in mill last winter, earning 25 cents a day; is now in school. Has older sister and brother, who each earn 50 cents a day. There are two younger children. Father, Vester Wiggins, earns $1 a day. Rent, 60 cents a week. EsSier McCallum, aged 13 in September, has worked one year; earns 75 cents a day. Has older sister, who earns 75 cents a day. There are five younger children. Mother, Mrs. Hattie McCallum. Rent, 60 cents a week. , , , Lloyd McOlure, aged 13 in February, has worked three months at Bladenboro and sis here; earns $1 a day. There are two younger children. Father, B. F. McClure, earns $2 a day. Rent, 60 cents a week. Minnie Clewis, aged 12 in February, has worked one year; earns 50 cents a day. Has older sister, who earns 50 cents a day. There are two younger childien. Father, W. W. Clewis, earns $1.21 a day. Rent, 60 cents a week. Dolar Kttman, aged 14 in September, has worked four years; earns 50 cents a day. Has two older sisters who each earn $1 a day. Ther6 is one younger child. Mother, Mrs. Eliza Pittman. Rent, 60 cents a week. ., t^ . Maude Perry, aged 15 in July, has worked one year here and six years at Dresden- earns 52 cents a day, Lena Perry, aged 12 in July, has worked one year; earns 32 cents a day. There are four younger children. Father, S. J. Perry, earns $1.35 a dav. Rent, 60 cents a week. , , . ■ -n ^.^ -u j Mary Frances Sewell, aged 13 in March, has worked six years m Fayettevi le and othe7nlace8 before comin| here. Father has deserted family several times before; S now he has been awly some six months. There are three younger children. Mother Mrs Tulia Sewell. Rent, 40 cents a week. „c .. """Sknch^ Pate aged 13 in September, has worked three months earns 35 cents a dav Has two older brothers, who earn, respectively, $1.02 and 50 cents a day. There Se thrle younger children. Father, Will H. Pate, eaxns 99 cents a day. Rent, ^^WiUie Orome aged 12 in July, worked three years at St. Pauls and has been em- ployed here tethrle months; earns 75 cents a day Has two older brothers who eS respectively, $1.25 and $1 a day.^ There are three younger children. Father, 186 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. Jimmy Taylor, aged 14 in December, has worked three years; earns 44. cents a day. Has an older brother, who is an invalid, and an oMer sister and brother, who earn, l-espectively, 50 cents and fiO cents a night. Has one younger lirother. Father, David Taylor, does hauling, etc. Rent, fiO cents a week. The Lumberton and Dresden Mills are owned and controlled by the same com- pany, the homes of employees being in same tillage. The houses are in unusually- good condition, repairs being kept up, so that there were no complaints about walla leaking:, etc. The Lumberton Hill is now installing a water and sewerage system in that village. As it seems by report these mills work too many jsoung children, and I understand that the authorities are not in sympathy with the movement to abohsh child laljor. In an interview with Mr. Jennings, secretary, found that he opposed the Federal bill on the grounds of being unconstitutional, and expressed the desire that the State should regulate the matter, but I also understand that he went personally to Raleigh in order to oppose the Weaver bill. "I feel that we are doing more for our people than the State is doing." said Mr. Jennings, remarking also that he knows nothing of conditions prevalent in other mill \dllages, and consequently will not say whether or not he considers new regulations advisable elsewhere. JENNINGS MILL, LUMBERTON, N. C. Oscar Home, aged 13, has worked four months; earns 35 cents per day. Father, N. E. JSorne, earns $1.25 a day. Two older brothers earn 75 cents apiece. One of these, aged 16, has been at work four years. Rent, three-room house, at 45 cents a week. (The doctor's salary is paid by adding 5 cents to room rent, so that real rent paid is 60 cents per week.) Altie Ward, aged 14, has worked two years; earns 60 cents a day. Gertrude Ward, aged 12, has worked two years; earns 35 cents a day. Father, W. P. Ward, earns $1.25, and older brother and sister, respectiveljr, 60 cents and 75 cents. There are four chil- dren younger than these. Rent, including doctor's salary, 60 cents a week. Lettie Boseman and Florrie Boseman, aged 14 in December, have worked 13 months; earn 55. cents each a day. There are three younger children. Older brother and sister earn, respectively, 75 cents and 55 cents a day. Father, Martin Boseman, is unable to work. This family has been afflicted with pellagra.* The oldest daughter died from that cause, and two of the younger children now have the disease. The father has somewhat recovered, but will never be strong enough to work again. They are very needy now, and could not have lived without aid given by neighbors. He says that groceries there are very high, and that as wood costs him $1 a week and his rent, in- cluding doctor's salary, $1,20 a week, it is almost impossible to buy medicine necessary for himself and his children. Mattie Pridgcn, aged 13 in February, has worked two years; earns 75 cents a day; youngest of five children. Father, W. P. Pridgeh, does not work, but four older brothers earn, respectively, $1.25, $1.40, $1.75, and $1.25 a day, so it diould not be necessary for this child to work. Soland Norris, aged 12 in November, has worked two months; earns 40 cents a day. Has older brother and sister who earn, respectively, $1.40 a night and 75 cents a day. There are two younger children and one boarder. Father, M. Morris, earns $1.35 a day. Bulah Sellers, aged 14 in December, has worked two years; earns 40 cents a day. Has one older brother, who earns $1.10, and two older sisters, one of whom earns $1.20. Father; W. A. Sellers, earns 99 cents a day. Jonnie White, aged 14 in August, has worked nine months; earns 60 cents a day, Has older brother, who earns $1.10 a day. Family take one boarder. Father, B. White, earns $1.21 a day. Carolina Warick, aged 13 in July, has worked two years; earns 80 cents a day. Has older brother, who earns $1.50 a day, and two sisters, earning, respectively, $1.10 and SI. There are four younger children. Mother, Mrs. Annie Warick. James Jolly, aged 13 in August, has worked two years; earns 30 cents a day. Has older brother and sister, who earn, respectively, SJ.40 a night and 50 cents a day. Has younger sister and brother. Father, D. J. Jolly) earns SI. 50 a night. Curtis Hickman, aged 13 in September, has worked one year; earns 50 cents a day. Has older sister and brother, who each earn §1.10. There are three younger children. Father, W. M. Hickman, earns $1.10 a day, Edgar Merritt, aged 14 in July, has worked two years; earns 66 cents a day. Has older brother and sister, who each earn )?1.25 a day. Father, E. M. Merritt, earns $1,38 a day. i:s-TEKSIATE COMMEKCE IN PKODUCIS OF CHILD LAUOK. 187 Ida Harrelson aged 14 in July, has worked three years, first in National Mill, Lum- berton JN . then Bladenboro, then here since last July; earns 54 cents a day Has two older sistera and one brother, who earn, respectively, 90 cents, 99 cents, and 66 cents a day, Ihere are two younger children. Father, N. M. Ilarrelson, earns 99 cents a day. ' Lilhe Baxley, aged 12 in May, has worked two months; earns 18 cents a day. Has three older brothers, who earn, respectively, SI. 10, SI. 50, and SI a day. There are two younger children. Father, Mac Baxley, earn.s SI. 10 a day. Jennings mill. Ada Jones aged 13, has worked one year; earns 54 cents a day. Has older sister and brother, the latter earning 54 cents a day . There are three younger children . Father Henry Jones, earns 60 rents a day ' Lawrence Wiggins, aged 14 in July, has worked threeyears; earns 66 cents a day. Wil- bur Wiggins, aged 13 in August, has worked one year; earns 66 cents a day. These chil- dren have an older sister and brother working who e4rn, respectively, 90 cents and 66 cents a day. There are five younger children. Father, M. B. Wiggins, earns $1.25 a day. Lizzie Smith, aged 14 in September, has worked six weeks in this mill; prior to that, two years at St. Pauls; earns 50 cents a day. Oider brother earns 60 cents a day. Has one younger brother. Father, Charlie Smith, works at some trade in town. Sallie Pridgen, aged 14 in March, has worked three weeks here; earns 30 cents a day. Worked before this in National Mill, Lumberton, N. C., and in mill at Bladen- boro. Has three older sisters who work, and one older brother, who is an invalid. Father, George Pridgen, Ruth Hayes, aged 14 in January, has worked four years; earns 40 cents a day. Has older sister, who earns 40 cents a day, and there are three younger children. B'ather, J. W. Hayes, earns 90 cents a day. Lonnie Fenters, aged 14 in January, has worked here eight months; prior to that nine months at Bladenboro. Has one ^'ounger brother. Father, D. T. Fenters, earns fl.lO a day. Mamie Ransom, aged 14 in December, has worked three years here and one year in Bladenboro; earns 54 cents a day. Has older sister and brother who work, earning, respectively 75 cents and 60 cents a day. There are five younger children. Father, . J. W. Ransom, earns $1 a day. Everett Hardee, aged 14 in January, has worked two years; earns 66 cents a day. Has two older brothers and one sister who work, averaging $1 a day each. There are five younger children. Father, T. D. Hardee, farms; Recently a representative of the mill company came to this Mr. Hardee and requested liim_ to find some person to care for a family named Simmons, three of whom had ty- phoid. This man assured Mr. Hardee that the company would pay for such services. Fearing to contract the disease, no one would consent to nurse the cases, so Mr. Hardee himself agreed to undertake the work, provided his pay should " go on his rent." This rent was for a tract of farm land some distance from the mill. Having arranged this to his satisfaction, he took charge of the family, and either he or his son stayed there day and night for 29 days doing the washing and all necessary services for the sick. Another child developed the disease and died duriiig time. When Mr. Hardee ren- dered a bill to the company for $30, saying he would pay the difference inthat and his rent, which was $40, his answer was: "Very welh^we will pay you, but will charge the $30 to Mr. Simmons." Hr. Hardee protested at this and then asked if he could "take around a paper for the Simmons," but this also was refused. This method of raising money for an unfortunate family is a frequent occurrence in a mill village, so the debt still stands against Mr. Simmons. This incident would probably have raised no comment but for the fact that the company sought and engaged the services of the nurse. HIGH SHOALS, N. C. Frank Reynolds, aged 14 in ^\.prLl, has worked two years; earns 78 cents a day. Has two older brothers and one sister who work. There are four younger children. Father, J. F. Reynolds, earns $1.10 a day. Rent, 50 cents a week. Jennie Revels, aged 13 in February, has worked one year; earns 90 cents a night. Bessie May Revels," aged 12 in February, has worked seven months; earns 75 cents a night. There are five younger children. Father, "\V, N. Revels, earns $1.25 a day. Rent, 50 cents a week. 188 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OE CHILD LABOE. Leafie Tyong, aged 13 in June, has worked one year; earns 50 cents a day. Has three older sisters and one brother who earn, respectively, |1, 90 cents, $1, and 70 cents. There are three younger children. Father, C. W. I.ong, does not work. Rent, 50 cents a week. Ardrey Straught, aged 14 in July, has worked two years; earns 75 cents a day. Haa' two older sisters, one of whom works, and one older brother. There is one younger child. Father, P. T. Straught, is unable to work. Rent, 50 cents a week. Gus Keener, aged 14 in December, has worked two years; earns 75 cents a day. Youngest of seven children; others earning, respectively, $1.30, $1.30, 92 cents, 78 cents, and 80 centti. Claude, aged 20, is in school. Mother, Mrs. Emma Keener. Rent, SO cents a week. Purvie McQueen, aged 12 in May, has worked twoJyears; earns 60 cents a day. Has two older sisters, who earn, respectively, $1.25 and 78 cents a day. There are four younger children. Mother, Mrs. J. M. McQueen. Rent, 60 cents^a week. Hall Fisher, aged 13 in February, has worked two years; earns 80 cents a day. Has three older sisters, two of whom Avork, and there are three younger children. Father, D. P. Fisher, earns |1.69 a day. Rent six-room house at 75 cents a week. Egbert Cloninger, aged 14, earns 60 cents a day. Has three older sisters who work. There are three younger children. Father, S. W. Cloninger, has done the housework since the death of the mother seven years ago. Note.' — The natural situation of this village is excellent. Most of the homes are grouped on the hillside, where the air and drainage are above reproach. This is evidenced by general good health. I remarked especially the good color of the faces, a most unusual occurrence among cotton-mill families. The school facilities are good, the houses are in good repair, and the mill authorities appear to have an active interest in the welfare of the people. They employ child labor, however, and are strongly opposed to any improved legislation >vith regard to labor conditions. KBSLER COTTON MILL, SALISBURY, N. C. Irvin Wilson, aged 14 in July, has worked two years; earns 75 cents a day as doffer. Roy Wilson, aged 12 in August, has worked six months; earns 50 cents a day. Father, Robert Wilson, is blacksmith. Older sister, Ethel Wilson, earns $1.25 a day. There is one younger child. Have two boarders, who pay $3.50 a week each. Noie Curlee, aged 14 in Maj., has worked two years; earns 75 cents a day; com- pleted third grade. Esther Otu-lee, aged 13 in August, has worked one year, with exception of two months in school, third grade; earns 45 cents a day. Father, Ben Curlee, sweeps in mill, earning $1 a day. There wee five younger children. Rent, $1 a week; insurance, 65 cents a week. Edna Sells, aged 13, has worked two years; earns $1 a day. Finished second grade. Has two older sisters, who earn $1 a day each. Father, Frank Sells, works in railroad shops, earning $2.75 a day. There are four younger, children. Daisy Kincaid, aged 12, at work. Father, George Kincaid. Mother refused further information. Bertha Deaton, aged 13, has worked four months; earns 90 cents a day. Com- pleted fifth grade (in .sixth). Has two older brothers and one sister who work, the two former earning, respectively, $1.40 a night and 75 cents a day. There are four younger children. Father, J. H. Deaton, clerks, earning $1 a day. Rent, $5 a month. Vanhoy Kepler, aged 13 in November, has worked one month; earns 50 cents a day. Older sister a cripple; older brother earns 75 cents a dd^. Father, John Kepler, Tvorks in engine room. Ruth Taylor, aged 13 in March, has worked one year. There are four youi^er children. Take two boarders, $3 a week. Father, John Taylor, does hauling for company. Claud'ie Blackwell, aged 13 in July, has worked one year; earns 75 cents a day. Completed fifth grade. Has two older brothers, who earn, respectively, $1 and 76 cents a. day. There is one younger child. Father, A. P. Blackwell, earns $1.35 a day. Ilent, $1 a week. Insurance, $1.15 a week. Elsie Brown, aged 13, has worked two years; earns 75 cents a day. There are four younger children. Father, Charles Brown, earns $1.35 a day. One boarder, $3 a week. Nora Stokley, aged 13 in August, has worked one year; earns 60 cents a day. Com- pleted first grade (in second). Two older brothers, each earn fl.90 a night. Father, C. A. Stokley, earns $1.25 a day. One younger child. Rent, 75 cents a week. In- surance. 90 cents a week, INTERSTATE COMMEECE IN PEODUC'Jji OF CHILD LABOR, 189 Carrie Torrence, aged 13 in July, has worked one mouth; earns 30 cents a day. Completed sixth grade (in seventh). Older sister earns 30 cents a day Two younger children. Father, E. M. Torrence, carpenter. Rent, 75 cents 'a week Insurance 62^ cents a week . Claude Emy, aged 12 in March, has worked two months; earns 75 cents a day Completed third grade (m fourth). Older sister earns $1.10 a day One younger child. Father, E. M. Emy, earns U a day. Rent, $1 a week. STATEMENT OF A. J. M'KEIWAY, SECRETARY SOUTHERBT STATES TTATIONAI CHILD LABOR COMMITTEE, WASH- INGTON, D. C. Mr. McKelwat. Mr. Chairman, the National Child Labor Com- mittee was organized about 12 years ago to accomplish what could be done in the way of arousing public sentiment against the evils of child labor and to secure legislative protection for working children in the various States of the Union, in the hope of following that program with a constructive program toward industrial education and vocational training. It has been very successful in State legis- lation. There is not a State in the Union! without some protection for working children. When we began there were a good many without any child-labor laws at all, some in the South; but progress has been made, of course, on the right line, with an occasional setback. We are emphatically in favor of State legislation. Child labor is a national problem. It exists in every State of the Union. Now, it happened that our general secretary,- Mr. 0. R. Lovejoy, could not be at this meeting. I hoped that Mr. Clopper, the secretary for the Northern States, could remain over to-day, that he might trj^ to lift away a little bit this sectional prejudice that the work of the National Child Labor Committee is in some way directed against the South, or in some way directed against a particulat- industry in the South. This is perfectly ridiculous. In the State of Pennsylvania we have just the same controversy with the glass manufacturers, the same in the State of Ohio, and the same conflict in Massachusetts with the textile milts that we have had in the Southern States. As I say, it is a national problem, and it takes a national committee representing aU the States to do som.ething. with it. My work has been in the Southern States. I am a Southern man and am fairly famihar with the Southern situation. I have been studying this problem for 12 years and I think I know something about it. It happens that in every Southern State — except one, Arizona, where they have no cotton mills, opposition to child-labor legislation has come from the cotton-mill indlistry and in most States this has been its only opposition. There was only one exception — I thought I had another — ^in Florida. There was an oyster packer down there who was very adroit; he was influential with the legis- lature, and finally I went on a tour of investigation to his oyster- mcMng plants and found that he had not been employmg anybody 'or a term of years. I found out that he was a large stockholder in a cotton mill in Georgia, and his object seemed to be to prevent Florida setting a good example to Georgia in passmg a good child- labor law. So this industry has been the one, and generally the only one, that has opposed child-labor legislation by the Southern States. ic 190 I^^TEESIATE COMMERCE IN PEODTJCTS OF CHILD LABOR. According to the census of 1900 "more than any other naechanical or manufacturing industry in this country the cotton mill is the employer of children." The figured for the census of 1910 show that this industry is still most conspicuous in the number of children employed. The first section of this bill relates to mines. It says that children under 16 years of age shall not be employed in mines. Nothing has been said about that here, and it is quite an important problem. For instance, in the United States now there are 2,208 children from 10 to 13 years of age — which means between 10 and 14, according to the census classification — employed in mines, and 15,403 from 14 to 15 — ^under 16. Now, I woidd like to put into the record, in case this question is raised anywhere, an editorial from the Outlook con- cerning the Cherry Mine disaster in Ilhnois some years ago, about which, perhaps, you gentlemen have heard. It is as follows: After the explosion in the mine at Cherry, 111., among the first of the dead bodies brought to the surface were those of boys under 16 years of age. Had the presence of such boys in the mine anything to do with the cause of the disaster? Those who have worked in coal mines and have intelligently thought about the matter are strongly convinced that lack of skill and proper training in the miners themselves is a fruitful cause of accidents. Boys under 16 years of age can not have the skill, the training, or the judgment of their elders. They take chances that a grown man would regard as foolhardy. They are often reckless and irresponsible. Such a law as that of Illinois which forbids the employment of boys under 16 years of age in the mines is a safeguard not only to the boys but also to all the 'mine workers. It has long been estabhshed that in all dangerous occupations accfdents to children form a much larger percentage than accidents to adults. It might almost be regarded as a corollary that accidents caused by children form a larger percentage than those caused by adults. There is thus good ground for raising the question whether this accident at Cherry, 111., might not be due to the employment of boys. At the coroner's inquest testimony was given which shows clearly that such a question is pertinent. A 15- year-old boy testified that he and another lad had pushed a car with hay on it up to a flaming torch. According to the Chicago Tribune, he was asked, "Did you ever see any burning oil dripping from these torches? " " Yes, " he replied : "the torch on the other side of us was dripping burning oil." "When you were working down there, did Rosenjack ever give you any orders what to do? " (Rosenjack is the miner who has assumed blame tor the accident.) "No," the boy replied; "he did not tell me any- thing to do, or anybody else that I know of." " You left the car of hay up against the torch?" "Yes." "You knew that it was standihg right up against the torch?" "It was pretty close to it." "Did you ever pay any attention to those open torches down there, or think that they were dangerous?"' "No." "When you first saw the fire, was the car of hay standing close to the* torch?" "Yes; just where we leftit." "How close?" "Xbout half a foot." The boy testified that Rosenjack tried to put out the fire with water that the two boys brought to him, and that all three were cut off by the fire from reaching the air-shaft cage.. Rosenjack has disappeared, to- gether with the other of these two boys, and it is understood that the mine officials have opposed any attempt to shift the blame from Rosenjack's shoulders. If the accident was due to a violation of the law in the employment of boys under the legal age limit, they have good reason for suppressing the testimony concerning it. We do not, however, wish to lay upon these mine officials any heavier burden than they are already bearing, for that in all conscience is heavy enough . These facts, however, emphasize the need not only of stricter laws regarding dangerous occupations but also of more vigorous and effective measures for their enforcement. The Outlook wishes to repeat what it has already said in connection with this disaster, that the law should permit only those men whose skill has been proved by adequate examina- tion to be employed in mining. The custom which has been followed by many mining concerns of employing unskilled foreign laibor because it is cheap has not only cdst many lives but has not even achieved its own purpose of economy. So, too, it seems clear that the employment of young bOys in the mines has been hurtful to mining property, as it has been also a menace to human life. (The Outlook, Dec. 25, 1909. 'I Now undoubtedly that great disaster was caused by a boy illegally employed. INTEKSTATE COMMERCE IN PEODTJCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 191 T}^^2^^^^^^^- ^^° i^ t^e writer of that article? Mr. McKelwat. This is an editorial ih the Outlook. I do not know who wrote it. I was in New Mexico during their constitutional convention to get somethmg into the constitution relating io the welfare of childrln. While i was there a terrible explosion occurred in the Trinidad fColo 1 mines and a man came from Trinidad to Santa Fe who told me it was caused by a boys strikmg a match to light a cigarette. The boys were searched every morning, or it was attempted to search them, but It was tound impossible to prevent their carrying matches into the mmes. bo it is not only for the boys iinder 16 but for the older miners that we ask that this 16-year limit for coal mines bo adopted Ihe Chairman. Do you want us to iafer if that were adopted all accidents of this kind would be ended ? Mr. McKelway. No; I do not think I am quite so illogical. 1 think It would tend to the ehmination of accidents now occasioned by reckless, immature boys, under 16 years, in the coal mines. The other standards of this bill you are 1 amiUar with; the 14 year age limit for children working in factories, canneries, etc., and for children between 12 and 14 the 8-hour day and no night work. Perhaps it would be of interest to you to know how generally these standards have been adopted. In the first place they are the standards recognized by the American Bar Association in the uniform child-labor law, which was unani- mously adopted by that distinguished body and recommended to all of the States for adoption. The General Federation of Women's Clubs, through its executive board, has recently indorsed this measure. According to the House report in this bill: The Farmers' Educational and Cooperative Unioil, representing all the States of the South, in national convention assembled, unanimously adopted the following resolution: "Whereas the National Farmers' Union believes in properly protecting the physical mental, and moral welfare of the child in order that its younger years may be devoted to the securing of that degree of education which befits American citizens and enables the child to be properly prepared foi!the duties of Ufe; "Whereas there is now pending m the National Congress H. R. No. 12292, known as the Palmer-Owen bill, which prohibits manufactiired goods from being admitted to interstste commerce which have been made in factories which employ children under the age of 14 years, or which work children under the age of 16 years more than eight hours per day, or at night; Therefore Ije it "Resolved, That we indorse this bill and demand its passage by the present Congress, and that copies of this resolution be sent to the Clerks of the House and Senate, the chairman of the Committee on Labor, and the President of the United States. ("Unanimously adopted and recommended by the committee on resolutions, and unanimously adopted by the Farmers' National Congress. Fort Worth convention. Sept. 2, 1914.)" The American Federation of Labor is another orgailLzation which has indorsed this measure: and the organizations favoring it contain a great number of State child labor committees, women's clubs, and humane organization's of all kinds. Evidence of popular sentiment. — The States whose age limit for the employment of children in factories is below 14, in all cases, have a population of only 4,244,952, while the States that have adopted the 14-year age limit with* or without exemptions have a population of 87,727,314. The States that have refused to adopt a law prohibiting night work for children under 16 have a population of 11,475,572, as compared with a population of 80,496,694 who have said through State legislation that they desire the protection of childjen under 16 years of age from the^vils of night work. As to the 16-year age standard for children employed in mines, taking the States recognized as mining States, those having a population of 41,837,431 have laws prohibiting the 192 IlfTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCES OF CHILD LABOR. employment of children under 16 in mines, aa comparsd with those having a popu- lation of 11,728,486 which have not yet reached this standard in State legisalation. In this connection it should be noted that Texas has an age limit of 17 years for the employment of boys in mines. With regard to the 8-hour day for the employment of children under 16 in factories, while many of the largest industrial States of the Union, such as Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania (wherever the provisions for vocational education are put into effect), Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsuij etc., the population of all the States making this provision for the protection of children is 52,551,796, while the population of the States not having this provision is 39,420,470. No objection has been manifested before our comrnittee to the establishment of the 8-hour day except by the cotton manufacturers before mentioned. And while it affects a good many other industries, the objection vanishes when it is realized that the Federal law will mean an equal, just, and nation-wide enforcement, so that there will be.no possibility of putting one State at a disadvantage as compared with another. Tables showing State legislation. — ^The tables showing the States which have and have not attained the standards provided in the pending bill are printed below. It will be seen from these tables that only one southern State has not reached the 14-year age limit for the employment of children in factories; that only three of them have not reached the 16-year age limit for night work in factories; that Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma are among the States that have reached the 8hour- day for the employment of children under 16 in factories; that Alabama, Arkansas, Kentuclcy, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and .Texas have reached the 16-year age limit for the employment of children in mines and quarries. It seems, therefore, that the attempt to make this measure for the protection of the working children of the Nation a sectional measure aimed at the South is groundless. Table I. — States having standard provisions without exemptions. (a) Fourteen-year limit in factories and canneries : Alabama. Maine. New York. Arizona. Massachusetts. North Dakota. Arkansas. Michigan (15 years; 14, Ohio (16, girls; 15, boys). Connecticut. canneries). Oklahoma. Florida, Minnesota. Oregon. Illinois: Missouri. Pennsylvania. Iowa. Montana (16 years). Rhode Island. Kansas. Nebraska. South Carolina. Kentucky. New Hampshire. Wisconsin, Louisiana. New Jersey. (6) Sixteen-year limit for night work in factories and canneries: All States listed under I (a) except Maine, and, in addition — California. Idaho. South Carolina. Delaware, Indiana. Vermont. District of Columbia. North Carolina. (c) Eight-hour day under 16 in factories and canneries: Arizona. Kentucky. New York. Arkansas. Massachusetts. North Dakota. California. Minnesota. Ohio. District of Columbia. Missouri. Oklahoma. Illinois. Nebraska. Wisconsin. Iowa. Nevada. Kansas . New Jersey . (Note. — Montana forbids the employment of children under 16 in factories.) (d) Sixteen-year limit in mines and quarries: Alabama. Kentucky. Oklahoma. Arizona, Maryland. Tennessee. Arkansas. Nevada. Texas (17 years). California. New York. Wisconsin (18 years). Connecticut. Ohio. (c) Sixteen-year limit in mines but not in quarries: Colorado. Montana. Washington. Illinois, Pennsylvania. INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 193 Tennessee, canneries. Texas, IS-year limit applies only to fac- tories with "dangerous machinery." Utah, 14-year limit applies only to to- bacco fatories and those making gooda for inimoral purposes. Vermont, exempts places employing less than 10 persons, Virginia, (1) canneries; (2) special permit. Washington, poverty. West Virginia, special permit. Table II. — States weakening or nullifying standard provisions by exemptions. (a) 14-year limit in factories with exemptions specified : California, weekly school holidays and South Dakota, poverty vacation. ~ Colorado, vacation. Delaware, (1) canneries; (2) poverty. District, poverty. Georgia, poverty. Idaho, vacation. Indiana, canneries. Maryland, canneries. Mississippi, 14-year limit only for girls law applies only to textile mills. Nevada, special permit. (b) 16-year limit for night work in factories with exemptions specified: Colorado, (1) vacation; (2) special permit. Tennessee, canneries. Maine, "perishable products." Virginia, (1) canneries; (2) special permit Mississippi, l<)-year limit applies only to girls, (c) 8-hour day under 16 in factories with exemptions specified: Colorado, (1) vacation; (2) special permit. Mississippi, applies only to girls. Indiana, consent of parents. Washington, applies only to girls. (d) 16-year limit in mines with exemptions specified: Iowa, vacation. West Virginia, vacation. Vermont, (1) outside of school hours; (2) completed elementary school. Table III. — States without standard provisions . (a) Mo 14-year limit in factories: New Mexico. North Carolina. (6) No 16-year limit for night work in factories: Georgia. South Dakota. Maryland. Texas. Nevada. ■ Utah. New Mexico. Wyoming. Washington. West Virginia. Wyoming. (c) No 8-hour d Alabama. Connecticut. Delaware. Florida. Georgia. Idaho. Louisiana. Maine. Maryland ly under 16 in factories: Michigan. New Hampshire. New Mexico. North Carolina. Oregon. Pennsylvania. Rhode Island. South Carolina. South Dakota. Tennessee. Texas. Utah. Vermont. Virginia. West Virginia. Wyoming. (d) No 16-year limit in mines or quarries Delaware. District of Columbia Florida.i Georgia.' Indiana.' Idaho.' Massachusetts.' North Carohna. Michigan.' North Dakota. Minnesota.' Oregon. Mississippi. Rhode Island. Missouri.' South Carolina. Nebraska. South Dakota.' New Hampshire. Utah.' Louisiana.' New Jersey.' Virginia.' Maine. New Mexico.' Wyoming.' 1 Reported by the Census of 1910 as having mine products valued at S2,500,000 a year or more. So we claim that a clear majority of the people of this country have akeady said, through State legislation, that thpsp standards are reasonable and just for the protection of children. 27896—16 13 194 INTRhyiATE COMMEBCIS IN PRODUCTS OH' CHILD LABOK. Mr. Chainnan, perhaps you may have wondered why there has been this opposition from one industry to this measure. It was not brought out clearly in the testimony, merely being hinted at by the first witness, Capt. Smyth. It is pretty generally agreed that the 14-year age limit would not make any diflerence. North Carolina, since South Carolina enacted this day a new child-labor law, is now the last manufacturing State in the Union which permits children under 14 to be employed in factories. Mississippi haslialfway stopped it; they make it 14 jfor boys and 12 for girls. What is the opposition to this bill baseji upon ? Why does Capt. Smyth object so strenuously to interference by Federal inspectors with ''our internal affairs" ? It is because, Mr. Chairman, a Federal law would be effective. It is because this law would mean the en- forcement of child-labor legislation throughout the United States. If every State in the Union had adopted legislative standards pro- posed in this bill still there would be 48 different standards of law enforcement. The southern cotton manufacturers, whom Gov. Kitchin represents, do not come with clean hands asking that Con- gress do not pass a Federal law, because, first, they have resisted in every State of the South, except Arizona, where there was no cotton factory, the passage of adequate State legislation for the protection of children; and, second, because they resisted even more strenuously efforts to enforce State legislation through factory inspection and ade- quate appropriations for State factory inspection. Two of the gen- tlemen who have appeared as witnesses before this committee, Mr. Patterson and Mr. Ruffin, I have met before in the manufacturers' lobby before committees of the North Carolina Legislature. They were in Raleigh a year ago opposing the adoption of these very standards in the Weaver bill, and when the Weaver bill was unfavor- ably reported by the committee a bill introduced by Senator Nash to provide for factory inspection was also defeated. They claim that the present law of North Carolina, inadequate as it is for the protection of childhood, with its nominal 13-year age limit, with the mipossibility of prosecuting manufacturers who do not knowingly and willfully violate the law — that is, who do not take the pains to learn the age of another man's child — with its 11-hour day for 12-year old children and its 12-hour night for five days in the week, from which recently by statute children under 16 were protected, is not violated. Every governor of North Carolina — Gov. Grlenn, Gov. Kitchin, Gov. Craig — have all urged factory inspection. Gov. Kitchin in his mes- sage to the North Carolina Legislature in 1913, his third message on this subject, said: Factory inspection is absolutely essential to the enforcement of our child-labor laws — not that all manufacturers fail to obey them, b^it that some violate them. You should provide ample inspection. Nevertheless, in spite of Gov. Kitchin's great influence with the legislature, the manufacturers' lobby was more powerful than he was, and up to this day they have no factory inspection in North Carolina, except a provision that anyone may report violations to the county superintendent of education. It would be only reasonable to expect therefore to find violations of the child-labor law in North Carolina. I call yotir attention to the Bureau of Labor report, volume 1, page 186, INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 195 Mr. Chairman, there is a pecuhar obsession about this Federal Btireau of Labor report corcernirg tlioi condition of women and child wage earners in the United States, namely, that Senator Beveridge's speech in the Senate on child labor caused the investigation, costing the Government $300,000. This was mentioned by one of the witnesses from Alabama, a day or two ago. As a matter of fact, Senator Beveridge was opposed to the investigation, beUeving that the time had come for action, and as to his speech being the moving cause for the passage of the bill, the following dates are significant: The biU authorizing the investigation was introduced in the Senate April 2, 1906. It passed the Senate December 18, 1906, and passed the House January 21, 190^, Senator Beveridge began his speech on January 23, 1907, resumed it on January 28, and finished it on January 29. I know the Senator to be a very capable man, but I have never been able to figure out how he could have caused the passage of a bill by a speech which was delivered after the bill was passed. The report resulting is in 19 volumes, devoted to the cotton industry, the glass industry, the clothing industry, etc., and the only part ever disputed is that relating to Southern cotton mills. Taking up again the question of the violations of law, the report says, on page 186, volume 1, concerning South Carolina, which then had the poorest child-labor law of any manufacturing State in the South and no enforcement, both the law and its enforcement having been greatly improved since: The meat extensive violation of the age-limit law was found in South Carolina. In addition to 42 children under 12 years of age who were orjjhans, children of widows, etc., and who were therefore legally employed, 405 other children under 12 were found working in the es'abliahments investigated in that State. As shown by the table on page 171, such children constituted 12.3 per cent oft the total children employed in the 36 establishments investigated, and 2.8 per cenfof the total number of employees. Children under the age of 12 years were employed in 34 of the 36 establishments investigated in the State, and 33, or 91.7 per cent of these 36 establishments employed such children illegally. In 7 of these 33 establishnients less than 1 per cent of the employees were children under the legal age and not legally excepted from the pro- visions of the law. In 20 establishments between 1 and 5 per cent were thus illegally- employed. In 3 establishments between 5 and 10 per cent and in 3 others over 10 per cent of all employees were children under 12 years of age who were not legally excepted from the provisions of the law. Now, the report goes on to say: In North Carolina the law was only slightly less flagrantly violated. Of the 59 establishments canvassed, 44, or 74.6 per cent, were found to employ children under the legal age. In 13 of these establishments less than 1 per cent of the employees were children under 12 years of age, in 19 establishments from 1 to 5 per cent, and in 11 establishments between 5 and 10 per cent. In 1 establishment m North Carolina (No. 44) 12.05 per cent of all employees— a higher percentage than in any other cotton mill investigated in the South outside of Mississippi, which had no child -laborlaw — were under 12 years of age. In the 44 establishments illegally employing children a total of 1,751 children were employed, 202 of whom, or 11.5 per cent, were under the legal age. These constituted 8.6 JDer cent of all the children in the mills invesigated in North Carolina, 2.61 per cent of all employees in the establishments illegally employ- ing children, and 1.77 per cent of all the employees at work in all establishments investigated in the State. In Georgia 20 of the 31 establishments investiga'ted, or 64.5 per cent, employed children under the legal age. Two other establishments employed children under 12, but all were employed under legal exceptions. A total of 107 children under 12 years of age were found at work, and of these, 41 were under legal exceptions, the remaining 66 were illegally employed. These 66 constituted 5.8 per cent of the children and 1.05 per cent of all employees in the 20 mills illegally employing children. Of all the children employed in the mills investigated in the State, these 66 children consti- tuted 3 6 per cent and of all employees m these mills 0.58 per cent. This is a much 196 INTEESTATE OOMMEKOE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOB. lower percentage of illegally employed children than in any other southern State except Virginia. In 1 establishment more than 5 per cent of the employees were under the legal age, and 9 establishments less than 1 per cent were under 12 years and not legally excepted from the provisions of the law. In Alabama 8 of the 13 establishments investigated employed children under the legal age. This is a smaller proportion of establishmerits than were found thus violat- ing the law in Georgia, but a much higher proportion of children were illegally employed, although this proportion was lower than iij either North Carolina or South Carolina. A total of 71 children were found to be under the age of 12 years! This was 7.5 per cent of all children and 1.59 per cent of all employees m the establishments niegally employing children under 12 years of age; it was 6.1 per cent of all children under 16 years of age and 1.27 per cent of all employees in the 13 establishments inves- tigated. Of the 71 children under the legal age, 48 were at work in one mill. This was the only establishment in which more than 5 per cent of all employees were under the legal age, as against 1 in Georgia, 6 in South Carolina, and 12 in North Carolina. Alabama uow has a fairly good factory inspection, although two or three inspector are unable to cover the whole field. Georgia has practically no factory inspection. The last legislature refused to provide for it. Mr. KiTCHiN. Doctor, suppose you put in the date of this investi- gation, Mr. MoKelway. Yts. During the last six months Miss Eunice Sinclair, of Fayetteville, N. C, made an investigation — of course an incomplete one — and I would like to correct an impression that was made on the committee by Gov. Kitchin's questions to her. The children she reported upon were or had all been illegally employed when she found them. There were some 14 years of age employed more than a year, and there were some at -12 years of age, but all of those that were employed had been iUegally employed, whether they were illegally employed at the time she found them or not. This Bureau of Labor report was mada in 1908. Every State iu the Union has advanced some in child-labor legislation since that time. North Carolina has not made any provision for enforcement by factory inspection. So the conditions, in that vState, while they have improved, have improved because o^ public sentiment. They have improved because Mr. Swift has shown that the age limit was 13 instead of 12. But stiU here are the ©fficial returns from North Carolina in the last report that we have on the subject, in 1908. As a Southern man I have been resenting a little the idea that the South was opposed to child-labor reform, or that the South was op- posed to the Keating bill which is before you. I have a pocket full of clippings here from Southern newspapers, although I do not know that I ought to cumber up the record with them. Some of them are very instructive, however, as representing tlie sentiments of the South. If there is no objection, I will put these in. with mj^ remarks. The Chairman. I think you may put in a few of the more impor- tant ones. (The clippings ref( irt d to are as follows f) EXTKACTS. I Frum lioiirins ber'oi-p House t'ommittee on Labor.] STATlSiMl;iN 1 (>!■ .Ml!. DW'l'iN 11. J.l)Via.;i)V, .SECUBXAKY OF THE NATIONAL CHILD LABOB rOMMITTEB. Mr. LovEJov. .Ml-. CUainnan iiiul 4;entlemen of the committee, I am here rep- resenting the national cliild labor committee, a- volunteer organlKation which has been in existence nearly 10 years, and has for its purpose the studying of INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOB. 197 child-labor conditions in various parts of the country, the drafting of bills, conferring with different State committees and organizations, campaigning to get these bills through in the different States, cooperation with the departments of factory inspection, labor commission, educational authorities, and others in the effort to get the laws enforced when they are enacted. The national child labor committee is interested in this bill because, after 10 years' experience in helping to get better laws in the various Commonwealths, we have found that it is difficult, if not impossible, to get uniformity of action in the different States. In many instances we And that the interests opposed to the legislation sought are opposed, not because they would be opposed on their own ground, but because they feel If they passed laws that would be more stringent within their Commonwealth they would be handicapped in com- petition with the same interests in other States. To some extent we believe that opposition on this ground is not warranted. We take the position that child labor Is the most extravagant form of labor to be employed ordinarily, and that the industries that are managed with reduced child labor, or that eliminate it, are working on more economical lines than the industries that em- ploy child labor extensively and for long hours. But opposition to enacting laws In the States is just as vigorous from that point of view as though it were not sometimes founded on a fallacy. Now, Mr. Chairman, the points I want to suggest to the committee are the following: First, assuming that Congi-ess Is able to pass such legislation as this, assuming it to be constitutional, I want to present to the committee the suggestion tliat the bill we are arguing for Is not an unreasonable, drastic piece of legislation. That Is the objection that has already been raised against the measure by those who do not wish this kind' of legislation enacted. It has been said that we are asking the Federal Government to establish a standard that is entirely unique and does not exist to any extent, and therefore that It is unreasonable to ask Congress to take action ^hich would not be upheld, or has not been upheld by the standards of any fair number of the people of a Commonwealth. I wish to meet that argument with data that I have to present to the com- mittee, but which I shall present now only In summary and which I will leave with the committee. The first standard is the prohibition of child labor under ]4 years of age In the ordinary manufacturing occupations. There are at present 44 States that have enacted legislation of this liind, either relating to a large number of in- dustries or to certain specific Industries. In addition, the law exists In the District of Columbia and Porto Rico. The bill next seeks to forbid the em- ployment of children under 16 years of age in mines and quarries. In addition to the 15 States that prohibit such work by children there are 6 States that have such small mining and quarrying interests that .there are less than a thousand people altogether engaged in the industry in any- one of these 6 States. There- fore there are 21 States that either have the standard or have such slight Indus- trial Interests In the matter as to prevent any so-called practical objection to this legislation. The third is the prohibition of child labor under 16 years of ago for more than eight hours a dav. The attitude of the American Commonwealths and of the Federal Government on the subject of the eight-hour day is Interesting In Its present form and In its history. There are now 19 States that prohibit the employment of children under 16 years of age for more than eight hours a day. This of itself presents a strong argument for making it a national standard, that 19 States have taken this position. But it is not as strong as the cor- related facts that out of the 26 States that prohibit the employment of adults on State contracts for more than eight hours a day 13 of these States do not appear in the list of the 19 States to which I referred. That is to say, whereas 26 States forbid the employment of adults for more than eight hours a day on State contracts, only 13 of those are in the list of 19 States that forbid such employ- ment of children undner 16 years of age. In addition, there are 13 States that forbid the employment of convicts in our penitentiaries or other penal mstitu- tions for more than eight hours a day. Two of t.hem imit the hours of work to six a day. Besides this, the Federal Government, after having for some years forbidden the employment of labor for more than eight hours a day on Govern- men contracts at the last Congress went even further and provided that no StfcoStor doing Government work should be permitted to employ labor fOTmorrthan eight hours a day on private contracts or Government work W^fa!keaeposMon that If eight hours a day are considered by 26 States longenough for every able-bodied adult man to work on State contracts, if eight 198 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. hours a day are long enough for people nearly all adults, probably all adults, to work on Federal contract work, either for the Government itself or for private contractors, if eight hours a day constitute a long enougli day for convicts in our penitentiaries. If these hours are lojig enough for Government and State employees and con- victs, we submit to you gentlemen that eight hours a day constitute a- long enough day for children between 14 and 16 years of age who have just come out of school, who are in the very midst of that radical change that comes to every child at that time of life, going through the adolescent period, when they need protection and care, not only for theii' education and morals but for their physical health. Tbe fourth standard refers to night \'\'ork, and there are at present 33 States and the District of Columbia and Porto Rico that forbid the employment of any children under 16 years of age at night — a majority of the States. A question at this point might reasonably be asked : If so many States have taken this stand — if within tlie past 10 years so many States have made such advances toward the standard sought in this bill — why, then, this relief from the Federal Government in accomplishing ^^'hat seems to be a foregone conclu- sion in the future by State legislatures? The fact is, in a number of these States I have mentioned the law refers only to specific* industries, and I am mention- ing them here simply to establisli a principle as a standard and not as ailording the protection that i.s sought. The sentiment in many of these States where the hiws are more sweeping ifi that while they would not fear prote<-'ting the children against these conditions, yet, as a matter of fact, the laws are ignored. In some of the States the de- partments of factory inspection are entirely lackfng. The State will pass a law, but make no provision for the machinery to enforce the law. In other States the inspection departments are either so limited by small appropriations or such n small force or so tied down by other conflicting influences that their efficiency is greatly impaired. Extracts. [From report of House Committee on Labor.] STATEMENT OF .\LISS .lUl.IA C. LATHBOP, OF THE CIIILDBEN'S BUREAU, DEPAKTMENT OF r.ABOR, WASHINGTON. D. 0. Miss Latheop. Directly the bureau was organised its correspondence revealed afresh a country-wide desire to get rid of child, labor, a conviction that there must be abolished any condition which defrauds the child of his right to educa- tion and a fair start in life. In addition to the correspondence which showed this very wide popular feeling, last year it was my duty to go much about the country stating as well as I could the purpose and scope of the bureau, and I found everywhere groups of people very deeply, interested in the question of preventing child labor, persuaded that it is the duty of the public, not merely negatively to abolish the pi'emature labor of children, but to provide those apportunities for the Just development of every child which the ideal of a sound democracy requires. These were people not always skilled in legislative wis- dom, but who were only waiting for the passage of such a measure as this to take hold of the task of substituting for the labor, of children the training which is their due, of putting child training in the place of child labor. The passage of such a measure as this would undoubtedly signalize a distinct and immediate advance in the provisions for the hygiene and education of children. The CHAntMAN. You are perhaps prepared to give an opinion upon a question like this: Do the medical authorities find it to be a fact that the stress of continuous labor, industrial labor, affects the growth of the child, the ordinary pliysical development of the child? Miss Lathrop. I think that all European and American authorities alike agree ui»on that. Of course the labor of children is very largely surrounded by sucli other disadvantageous conditions outside of the factory as go to mate the factory injury from impure air or overspeeding, even more disadvantageous to the child than if the child came from a happy and luxurious home, to which he or she returned, where health and comfort were preserved in every respect outside of tlie hours of labor. The Chaikiian. What age or period of the child's life has been indicated by the physicians as the appropriate age at which labor could safely begin? Jliss Lathrop. I am not aware that there is any uniform decision by the medical profession on this mattei;, but I notice that every year those who INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD l.ABOK. 199 Study most carefully the growth and developnient of America push that age further and further ahead, whetliei' they are ellucators or whether they are physicians, or whether they are interested in any form of civic improvement where the interests of the child are concerned. The Chairman. I do not know whether tliat indicates a general sympathy for childhood or whether it indicates a medical opinion as to the fact. .Aliss Latheop. I think it very emphatically indicates a medical opinion.. Such material as was gathered by .Josephine Goldmark in her book on Fatigue and Efficiency is teistimony in that particular. There are many medical opin- ions and brief studies scattered through the whole literature of child labor, but thus far, with the exception of the volume on Fatigue and Efficiency, I know of no general compilation. I should like to explain to this committee the attitude of the Cliildren's Bu- reau. The bureau was confronted by the field marked out for it by this com- mittee, namely, to investigate and report upon all matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life among all classes of our people, and at the same time by the fact that its staff consisted of 15 people and its appropriation X2.5,640. At the sauu! time the .$300,000 investigation by the Bureau of I.,abor Into the labor of women and children was still not entiYely published, and it seemed grossly absurd to put the two fiehl investigators provided by the law, for the Children's Bureau on this sub,1ect; so that we did not begin our field inquiries hy further investigation of child labor. The C'H\TR"NtAN. Is there not a publication of the Dei)artment of Labor on cliild labor forthcoming and ready for print? ; Miss L.ATHK0P. Of course they have published cjertain material on child labor. The full report on woman and child wage earners in the United States contains much material on child labor, and In the reports on the glass industry and textile mills there are special sections on the relation of labor to health. Thus on cages 385-386 in the report on the textile mills (Vol. I) the greater liability of children to accident is shown, and pages 47-59 of the report on the glass industry (Vol. Ill) describe the great physical strain of the work for boys, and pages 433-447 the relation to health of the work of girls in this industry. Vol- ume XIV, on the cau-ses of death among woman aiid child cotton-mill operatives, is suggestive in this connection. T have been told that it is intended to make a popular condensation of all the reports. I do no;t know ho\\ this is progressing. air. Hawley. May I ask a question. Mr. Chairman? The Chairman. Certainly. Mr. IIawley. There is in the world a growiifg sentiment in favor of voca- tional education. You have been interested in that? Miss Lathkop. Very greatly. Mr. H-Awi.EY. There is nothing in this bill that would interfere, you think, with the carrying out of that plan of vocational education? Jlis^ Lathkop. If I did not think the bill would greatly serve that end I should be absolutelv against it. There is appended hereto a statement pro- pared l)y Dr. Arthur Reed Perry, of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, under di- "rection of Dr. Roval Meeker, the commissioner of the bureau. I think this statement is unique and feel that I can greatly clarify my statement by add- ing it. "There is now being prepared by Arthur Keed Pp"/./^', I> tl\i;o"Sh ^h" United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, an extension of his 190S to 1907 study of factors that shorten lives of woman and child operatives in cotton manufac- turing cities (published as Vol. XIV of the mneteenth volume report upon woman and child wage earners, S. Doc. No. 645, 61st Cong., M sess.), tbat ^.i be based upon accompanying circumstances or phenomena Of the lives of all persons aged 10 to 64 years dying in Fall River. Mass., during th^ sem.dec.cle 1908 to 1912— the initial study (Fall River) in a, survey series of antilougevity causes in manufacturing cities of foremost rank in the several ludustnes. " Possibly the most conclusive argument against allowing chi dren under 10 to work is the showing, both in Volume XIV, page 72. and in this coming supple- mentary study of Dr. Perry's, that girl cotton operatives (most of whom even taNeTEngland pTior to 1912. began millwork before their flfteeiith birthd-y) after working in the mill only a few years have become very much more liable to die than holds true of the aggregate other girls "f tlie.r city o^fe same age " Table 84 page 400, of this Volume XIV shows that a sixth (16 pei cent) of the female operators dying from tuberculosis witbiu the cities included in that study began millwork before they were 13 years* of age. 200 INTERSTATE COMMEKCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. '• Tenacity of life is at Us zenith around the age of puberty. Conditions must be superlatively bad, therefore, in order to IjIII outright children either near the age of 14 or those on the threshold of youth In the post-puberty age period, 15 to 19. " Vitality cuiiservation quite as much as stature increase is the function of adolescence. " This is the period, therefore, during which should be jealously safeguarded for the child his inlierent right, perquisite, pleasure, and duty to accumulate and save from nature's gifts of vitality, lavishly bestowed upon him daily, a store that later drawn upon will predicate a favorable Issue over misfortune and accident, stress and disease. " Nevertheless advantage has been talien" of their tenacity of life to Impose upon children working days so long, tasks so uijsuitable, or workshops so un- hygienic that, barely to exist as he is the child is obliged each day to draw upon and use what nature Intended for present growth and for later emergency use to insure longevity. " For even In these childhood, post-puberty, and youthful years of designed vitality-plenty apparently for some operative girls the exigencies of daily liv- ing already had used up tJieir reserve strength, because in three cotton manu- facturing cities during a period of three years the numijer of deaths from tuber- culosis to each 1,000 girls of each designated occupation class of specified age Volume XIV shows (Table \1, p. 198) to have been as follows: I Mortality trom tuberculosis among I females of Fall Eiver, Mass., Man- chester, N. H., and Pawtuckst, R. I., in 1906-1907. Age groups. \ Cotton op- eratives. Death ratas: 10 to 14 1 2. 21 16 to 19 ! 2. 19 20 to 24 J...; 3.04 Per cent of excess in death hazard of operatives over nonoperatives: 10 to 14 ..!... 309 15 to 19 100 20 to 24 : . . . 145 All other (nonopera- •tives). 0.54 1.10 1.24 Total both classes. 0.69 1.51 1.93 " Operatives, thus, of the most youthful age group were four times, those of the post-puberty group were twice, and those of the young adult group — 20 to 24 — were about two and a half times as liable to die from tuberculosis as were, respectively, the girls of like age that did not work in cotton mills. It must be remembered that one-half of all female operatives are aged 15 to 24 and that, therefore, this group is a fair sample of the cotton industry. " It is scarcely less than obvious that the groups 15 to 19 and 20 to 24 to- gether comprise about the very earliest age period in which ' premature age at beginning wage earning,' or occupation, childbearing, or, in fact, any other life incident or accompanying circumstance, howevpr debilitating, could h'^ve so depleted a worker's native store of resistance and vitality as to have resulted in death. "And yet Volume XIV has shown, furthermore- (Table 52, p. 325), that thus early in life exercise even of the natural function of childbearing by Fall Blver operatives of 1905 "to 1907 was attended with an enormously greater hazard to life than it ^vas for nonoperatives similarly aged. (Operative rate from par- turition 0.56 per 1,000 of whole population aged 15 to 24 ; nonoperative rate from the same cause 0.06 per 1,000 of whole population aged 15 to 24.) " Moreover, the same table shows that the whole liability of female opera- tives aged 15 to 24 to die from any and all causes (5.30 per 1,000)' wa.s more than one and three-quarters times as great aSj obtained in the case of non- operative girls of the same age (2.96 per 1,000). " Obviously it may be objected that there Is an appreciable degree of In- equity in comparing the death rate of a class — the operatives — all of whom work, with the death rate of nonoperative girls of the same age, since some of the latter are not wageworkers. INTERSTATE COMMKRCR IN PBODUQTS OF CHILD LABOB.' 201 " TUe excess hazard of the operatives, however, is so euormous as more than to offset any uufairness iu the comparison. "To guard against even the possibility of misapprehension, perhaps it should be pointed out also that there is a considerable degree of probable unfairness in comparing, as respects their hazard from parturition, the whole class of opera- tives with that of nonoperatives, irrespective of conjugal condition. "Because, though at the age of 15 to 24, the female population of Fall Eiver, married and single together, is almost equally divided between operati\es and nonoperatives, it is extremely likely that operatives constitute a considerable ma.iority of the whole married population of this young-age group. Still the comparison, though admittedly inexact, can not mislead, because (all) opera- tives, as has been noted above, were ten times as liable to die from childbirth as were (all) nonoperatives of the same age, and there is no probability that married operatives were anything like ten times as numerous, even in age group 15 to 24, as were the married nonoperatives. "It is now becoming in some degree appreciated how much misery and in- efficiency result from long-unrecognized defective vision, and how large is the nuinber of deaths in middle and later life that basically are attributable to unidentified lesions caused in childhood by the so-called mild contagious diseases — as measles and whooping cough — as well as to the severer ones — scarlet fever, diphtheria, pneumonia, tonsillitis, and Influenza. "Hence, accompanying the crusade for a high age limit for beginning wage earning, and of no less value practically in conserving health through preventive measures, should be a demand for an ' employment physician ' with power, after a thorough physical examination of applicants, to refuse an employment permit to anyone until crippling defects of vision, nutj-itlon, or disease shall have been corrected, and to withhold from any applicant a permit to work in such industries as shall be deemed grossly inimical to the applicant's longevity. The applicant, for example, with incipient tuberculosis should be withheld from employment in inddor dusty occupations, and he witli a leaky heart valve should be kept out of the heavier and physically more strenuous trades. Moreover, whenever change of employment is sought it shduld be the physician's duty also to reexamine each such applicant and to grant or refuse a certificate for reem- ployment, whether in the same or in a new inc}ustry, wholly with reference to the applicant's physical condition at that time. Incidentally, through such reex- aminations ultimately there may be learned much respecting the effect of occu- pations upon the health. " (Respectfully submitted Mar. 18, 1914. l)y _%-thur Reed I'en-y, BI. D.) " THK EIGHT-HOUR UAY FOK CHILDEICX. [Article by Anna Uochcsfer, former special agent National Child-Labor Committee.] The eight-hour day has been so widely recognized as the normal working-day for adults that the advantages of such a limit for working children are almost beyond discussion. But to those who are weighing the merits of the eight-hour regulations contained in the proposed Federal child-labor bill and in child-labor bills now pending before State legislatures, we offer a brief review of existing Statutes, their reasons and advantages, together with the practical experience of Industrial States which have already restricted to eight hours the working- day of children. , ^ , The normal day.— In the majority of skilled trades, the eight-hour day has for years been the recognized standard, and " overtime " beyond this limit has received special compensation. In line with this tendency are the statutes of some half dozen States which provid, and others h^ to eight hours the worl;ing-dny of i.ersons ' claimed that it was being driven out of business. In New York State, whelre Ihe la^- went into effect in 1907, the census of 1910 shows a 30 pei- cent increase in the value of the products in the textile industries since 1904. ^, ^ , ^^ . , ^ , The geiier-il opinion of the manufacturers was that wlierever the ei.sjht-hour law had limited their capacity for production at all they have since made it up bv increasing the efficiency of the plant. In Ohio 15 out of 21 manufacturers in the textile Industry said that it had been no handicap ; likewise 8 out of shoe maufacturers, 7 out of 10 paper-box manufacturers, and 15 out of 16 em- pCeTrnXi industries; 18 out of 20 textile- manufacturers in Illinois de- ctaml that the law which was enacted in 1903 had been no handicap ; and out of 11 representatives of other industries only 1 thought the law had been troublesome NVw York shows similar results,, for only 1 manufacturer out 204 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. of 25 bad any cnniiilaint to oft'er, and that was because he objected to the way labor bills were inti-odiu'ed ahd not because he advocated child labor. Jlany eiujiloyers ha\e found shifts entirely practicable. The Julian & Kokenge Co., in Cincinnati, Ohio, liave three shifts, beginning at 7, 7.30, and 8 a. m., respectively, and leaving at coi-responding fitnes. The Cleveland Worsted Mills at Ravenna use two shifts, 7 — 1 and 9 — 6. Mr. Beaupre, of the Aurora Cotton Mills, where two shifts are in use, saya: "We have not been put to great inconvenience. It is easy enough to have shifts after you have once tried it. I should prefer not to have child labor at all if the laws were only uniform. All child labor could be eliminated in textile mills," In regard to the second method of adaptation, there has apparenty been little displacement of children as a result of the law. In 71 per cent of the textile mills in Ohio there has been no change in the numbers of children employed. The school records in Cincinnati. Cleveland, and Columbus show that more working certificates were issued each year following the enactment of the law than for the year immediately preceding the enactment of the law. In Cin- cinnati there were 2,S5fi issued in the tirst year and 3,348 in the second year, as against 2,0.53 during the year preceding enactment of the law. The factory Inspector of Ohio reports almost twice as many children in the textile mills in 1911 as were reported in 1908, when the law went Into effect. In Massachusetts after the aw of 1913 had been in operation three months 5,000 working certifi- cates had been issued in Lowell, New Bedford, and Fall River alone, while there are only .5,400 children under 16 in these cities. Medical Opinion ITpoN the Eigst-Houk Day. With the very dangerous results of mlUwork in mind, the American Medical Association at its meeting in Atlantic City in Jilne, 1914, which was attended by 6,000 physicians from all over the United States, adopted the following reso- lution without dissent : Whereas many thousands of children under 16 years of age are employed in the United States in gainful occupations, under improper conditions, resultinj; in the impairment of their health and future well-being; and Whereas 19 States and the Congress of the United States, for the Disti-ict of Columbia, have already enacted laws limiting the hours of labor for children under 16 to eight hours a day, and prohibiting such children from working at night or at dangerous occupations : Now, therefore. Be it Resolved by the American Medical Association, That we commend those States which have adopted legislation to protect children under 16 years of age from the disastrous consequences of unsuitable work and bad industrial conditions and urge all other States to establish for the benefit of such children a workday not to exceed eight hours and the prohibition of labor at night or In any hazard- ous employments ; and to this end we recommend that all State medical societies affiiliated with this association, and the medical profession generally, advocate the passage of such laws by the legislatures of their respective States. PHILADELPHIA COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY. The Philadelphia County Medical Society at its meeting, .April, 1914, adopted the following resolution : Whereas the Pennsylvania Child Labor Association is striving to limit the labors of all children under 16 years of age to not more than eight hours per day, for six days each week, for the purpose of securing to each child in the Commonwealth his or her right to normal development along physical, mental, and moral lines : Be it Resolved, That the Philadelphia County Medical Society, comprising a mem- bership of nearly 1,700 of the leading active physicians of the county, hereby indorses and commends the efforts of the Pennsylvania Child Labor Association to limit the hours of labor of all children under 16 to not more than eight hours per day for six days each week, and urges that sister societies and the medical profession generally throughout the State do everything in their power to accom- plish the desired end. Not only does this resolution carry with it the- indorsement of the 1,700 mem- bers of the society, comprising every man of influence and standing in the com- munity in Philadelphia, but many of them have written personal letters strongly expressing their feelings on the subject of child labor. Among the better known from whom letters have been received are the following: INTERSTATE COMMICKCK IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOK. 205 Samuel G. Dixon M. D Commissiunei- of Health of Pemi^iylvania : "I am very much m favor of anything that will permit the full normal development of our children. I indorse. your suggestion of their not working more than eight . hours a day under 16 years of age." John H. Girvin, M. D. : "I believe that 10 hours a -duv for children under 16 years is undoubtedly injurious from both mediral and physical standpoint in the vast majority of cases. Eight li/jurs st-enis to me the outside limit, and I believe even less than that would be of advantage to the race " Edward Martin, M. D. : " Prom a meears the American Nation has been struggling to break the shackles from the hands of children, to make life and opportunity for them brighter, and to put behind them the protective care of government. If the question of preventing child labor could be submitted to the citizens of Roanoke, it would pass by an overwhelming, if not unanimous, vote. We wish it were so that this fact could be made known to till the world. Roanoke stands in the forefront of the battle for the little ones,. and it hears with profoundest sorrow of its misrepresentation by southern Dem9cratic Congressmen. Roanoke is for the child first, last, and always, and it hangs lt« head in shame that men can sell the child's rights and the child's future for the perpetuation of material advantages. Roanoke is opposed to slavery of every sort, and It hates with uU its heart the slavery that would barter the lives of God's precious charges for the building up of gain. INTERSTATE COMMEECE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOK. 209 [Asheville fN. C.) ntlzen, Feb. 4, t9t6.] KKATING Bir.L'S FIBST BLOOD. The passage of the Keating bill by one of the biggest majorities every ac- (•orded a measure in the lower House of Congress is a signal triumph for the opponents of child labor, and certainly a stinging "rebuke to the Southern legis- lators who believe that their seats in Congress mijst be retained by the sacrilice of little children. It is rather a sad commentary on some of Dixie's Representa- tives that they stood out in painful comparison to more than 300 Congressmen from other sections of the United States, and it is no record to be proud of that historians of the future will write. Child labor, a marketable commodity ! Child labor, a sop lo )je thrown to the great manufacturing interests that congressional succession may be unin- terrupted and that the profits of the aforesaid interests may grow greater and wax fatter ! Evidently there are 337 Congressmen opposed to 46 Congressmen, taking the figures of the Keating vote as being correct, who are not troubled by the question of constitutionality, but who know and believe that when the United States Government engages in the work of protecting its wards, its citizens of the future, it has entered upon a mission Mhich the States of them- selves seem, unable to accomplish, mostly because they will not accomplish. If this great Government, which has reached out info so many questions involving State rights, will not protect its little ones from greed and oppression, who will protect them? It has been said that some parents must depend upon the labor of their children. This may be true in rare cases, but the number is remarkably small. In most cases the parents who feed on the strength and energy of their children, refusing to work themselves, are burdens upon the Nation, and they throw upon society of the future more wrecks of their own tyije. The question of child labor is not a political one, and he who vVould attempt to make it so Is unworthy of the respect and confidence of his fellow men. This is a national question, and ^^'hlle the public conscience has not yet been fully aroused to this danger which threatens the country, a danger far greater than the lack of armament, a day of accounting is coming, a day wherein a zeal for justice and fairness to helpless childhood will be kindled in the hearts of the people. For, after all, justice is a law of God, founded upon nothing less than His eternal wisdom. [Raleigh (N. C. i News and Observer,- Feb. 9. 1916.1 THE CHILD-I.ABOR EVIL. Just SO long as the North Carolina opponents of the Keating bill contented themselves with making objections to the bill based upon their belief that It Is unconstitutional, that it Is a bill which overrides State rights, that It Is a bill which is to be made the basis of conditions in which New England mills will be favored as against southern mills, they were on pretty safe ground to argue against that measure which has just passed the United States House of Representatives. But when the position is seriously taken that there are laws with relation to child labor in North Carolina which meet the nee.d or which are satisfactory to the people who want to see childhood protected, arguments against the Keating bill fall flat. It. is a well-known thing that bills with " teeth " in them for the ending of child-labor laws have been put to sleep in the State senate, and at the last session the modest bill for State Inspection was done to death by cotton mill manufacturers and the influence they had In the senate. In Its child-labor laws North Carolina, we believe, is classed at the bottom of the list of those looking out for its children, and in this is placed with South Carolina, New Mexico, and Wyoming. We can't say that we " point with pride" to any such comradeship. In fact, we wish we were well away from the three States to which we are linked In the lack of care we give to childhood which is forced Into the mills. And especially so when we recognize that it Is that position which Is said to have been largely the reason for the Keating bill, the purpose of which Is to lift the emphatic hand of the law against child labor. 27896—16 14 210 INTERSTATE COMAIKHCE IX FliODQCTS OF CHILD EABOK. r Greensboro (N. C.) Record, Feb. 15, 1916.] MB. SMYTHE. Mr. Siuylhe. cotton-null owner of South Carolina, was before a Senate coia- mlttee to-da>- opijosing the Keating child-labor bill, and he came near converting us, at any rate — to favor the measure which he opposes. This paper has been inclined to antagonism of the proposed law which would prohibit the interstate shipment of gooils made by child labor, believing that the laws on the subject might be handled best by the individual States, but the manner of the fight be- ing made upon the bill is very near to convincing us that the bill Is not only meritorious but that certain of the mills are more dependent upon the labor of chlldreii than we had ever supposed. From time to time the statement has reached our ears that none favors child-labor laws which relieve the manufac- turers of the demand that they employ children more than the average manu- facturer himself, and, believing this, we have been inclined to oppose yellow agitation for legislation in the matter. But there.are some views we have which are principles. We do not believe an industry which offers homes to families is justifiable in arguing that these families must work their 14 and 15 year old children to keep up the household, and therefore we can not see any good pur- pose in a mill owner presenting this phase of the case to the Congress. [Rdlelgh (N. C.) Progressive Farmer, Fi.'bruary. 1916.] .Since southern manufacturers with their vast yealth and influence have used their power to prevent suitable child-labor legislation by State action, nothing remains but for the National Government to handle this matter. [Winston-Salem (N. r.) Journal. Feb. 4. 191(i.l CHILD L.\B0R IS UP TO SE.NATE. It is now up to the United States Senate to sa,v whether or not the Supreme Court will face the necessity of passing on the constitutionality of a Federal law prohibiting the shipment of goods made by children from one State to anotheir. As was generally expected, the child-labor bill passed the House Wed- nesday by an overwhelming majority, which was, we have no doubt, a little more overwhelming than the friend.s of the measure had anticipated. There were few who thought that only 46 INIembers of the House would in the final test regisrer dissenting voices against the Keating bill*; but so it was. Coming from the House as it does with such a powerful majority in its favor, there is good reason to believe that tli.e Senate wijl also pass this bill. More and more tlie Senate is becoming mindful of the fact that the House is close to the people and is fresh from the people and as a usual thing knows what the people want in the way of legislation. And the Senator who is as much politician as statesman — and most Senators are that — nearly always keeps his ear close to the ground. Such Senators will think twice before flying directly in the face of a House majority of 337 to 46, Constitution or no Constitution. A^'hen the test comes we dare say he will find it much easier to shift the burden of safeguard- ing the Constitution from his own to the Supreme Court's shoulders than to take the responsibility himself. Of course there are a great many Senators who are first of all statesmen and who would be willing to sacrifice their seats to principle, who would rather lose their jobs than to vote for a measure which they. believe to be against the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Then there are not a few Senators who, like many IMembers of the House, honestly believe that Congress has a right under the Constitution to pass this child-labor bill. These last — the politician Senators and statesmen Senators who are honest, but, in our opinion, mistaken— will doubtless predominate when the vote is taken on the Keating bill. [Memphis (Tenn.) Commercial-Appeal, Jan. 4, 1916,] But tlie right to grind the hope and health and joy out of little chllOn-u by long lunns of hard labor in close factories or darlc mines belongs to no man and no corporMtioii of men. And it is against tlie greed of these would-be gi'inders that the child labor committee has formulated its bill. The mmnbers of this ciimniittee are not speaking from liearsay information. They have INTERSTATE COMMEBCE IK PEODUGTS OP CHILD LABOE. 211 personally inspected the mills, the sweatshops, and the mines where the blood and hope of the undeveloped children have been coined into factory products. It is in behalf of these children that they are seeking to arouse public sentiment, that Congress may be induced to pass a national law that will be efEective iind protective. [Hickory (N. C.) Daily Record, Jan. 15, 1916.] Tlvere are only a few defenders; of those who would stand for the system In North Carolina. A rich Commonwealth can not afford to be bacliward In the matter of child labor, and North Carolina manufacturers should let the world Ivnow that they are willing to go as far as any State in practical welfare legislation. Wholesome legislation is coming, and it would be much better if (he broad-minded men among the .manufacturers would take it upon themselves to see that good laws are made and then obeyed.- [ADdprson (f. C.i Farmers' Tribune, Jan. 11, 1916.] MlliS WORK OVBKTIME. Some operatives of the Anderson mills called at Farmers Tribune Saturday and asked that we call attention to the fact that that mill was daily violating the laws of the State by working the operatives overtime. " While we are not required to start work until 15 minutes after the ^wheels start, yet if we do not take up our work 15 minutes before the appointed time, the work is so torn up that it requires half a day to straighten out the- mess," said one of the oper- atives. " Of course," continued this operative, "we do not get pay for straightening up this work, and therefore rather than lose several hours straightening up what the machines have messed up, we go to work 15 minutes ahead of time in the morning and at noon, which allows us only 30 minutes to get home for dinner and back to the machines. Those who work by the day are also required to work overtime, which amount to about a half a day during the week." f <14rec'nv]lle (f^. r.) Home ('Ircle.] COBPOBATION, NOT STATE, OFFICEES, The other day we had an interview with a prominent attorney regarding the cotton mill deputy sheriffs in the State. He said,: " I don't believe in these mill village police being hired and paid by these mill corporations, as they are more bound to serve for the corporation than the general public, as their service Is better in the interest of where their salary comes from, than anywhere else. While these are supposed to be State officers, tliey don't serve the State, only in the Interest and by their commands of the corporations— he is not inde- pendent." He further stated, regarding the Freez riot : " The mill police, IVIr. Justice, seemed to stand around with his hands in his pockets, only doing what the mill management told him ; otherwise he would have prevented the riot if he had been acting independent." "Think the legislature could change this law, that all State officials should be paid by the State, and not some public corporation to pay and use them in the interest of their individual welfare." (Greenville ( P, ''.) Home Circle.] THf: kh;.\,s()N why,. Little babies thrown out into the streets, together with household effects. Can you imaeine the cause? Not for a crime ; not for lack of industry ; not for lack of effleiencv in work ; not for lack of morality, because the religious pic- tures that were 'hanging on the walls with this inscription: "Jesus is the Head of this House"; that proves the.se people were religious. Well, what? Why were thev thrown out into the street? Because the workers joined a labor union- and this is the punishment decreed and operated by capital. Just be- cause a man exercised his rights of citizenship— independence— he must be thrown out of a home, and tliese little babie.s must suffer. „,„„„_ „„h Thrown out l).v Judson mills just becmisc the>- -^vould not yield to slavery and ignorance, and domination of capital. 212 INTEKSTATF. COMMRRCK !>.' FEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. [Greenville (S. C.> Home Circle, Feb. 10, 1916.] The Keating eliild-labor bill meets with favor in Congress. It passed by a vote of 337 to 40. This bill prohibits the interstate shipment of the products of child labor, under a heavy penalty, but excepts boys and girls' clubs. If the bill passes the Senuate it then becomes a law. And it will be of a great benefit to all mill workers. It means better pay for the grown people that have children. It gives the children the benefit of education, while it don't prohibit childreu from work on the farms. And it don't prohibit children from working in cotton mills, but it does prohibit the shipping of child-labor products outside of the State on which it is produced. [Araericus (Ga.) Her.ilcf.] STATE WtLT. NOT ri!0\ JDK IfACTCJUY INSPECTOR TO ENFOGf]'. (.HILD-1..\H01! L.WV. There will lie no adequate enforcement of the Georgia i-hild-labor law for at least another year. At the extraordinary session of the legislature there was no mention of the bill to provide a factory inspector among the six sub- jects for legislative action. At present the commis.'^ioner of labor is charged with the enforcement of the child-labor law iu addition to the " collection, colla- tion, and dissemination of Information and statistics concerning labor in itn relation to capital ; location, capacity, and output of mills and factories ; quan- tity of raw material used by them annually ; locfition and horsepower of valu- able water powers," etc., for which work he is provided with two office assist- ants. The bill providing for an assistant factory inspector to enforce the child-labor law was favorably reported by both house and senate committees at the last session, and the governor was urged by the Department of Labor, the labor unions, and other friends of child-labor ref«ind cotton mills in the South would not begin to compensate for the life of one child, and we have good reason to blush that our Representatives see tlii.-^ matter from a different point of view. I Dallas (Tex.) News, Feb. 8^ 191(>.] THE Hor.SE VOTK.S y:i7 TO 411 FOR THJ.; KE.vrix<; nii.L. The Keating bill to exclude tlie products of child labor from the channels of interstate conunerce passed the House by a vote -of 337 to 4fi. The passage of the hill was clearly foreseen, but-an agreement so nearly unanimous was hardly to be expected. The measure now goes to the Senate. That body has been, in time past, something of a citadel for the opponents of child-lalior legislation. Defeated everywhere else, they have been able to retire into the Senate and hold out against public sentiment. Undoubtedly the Keating bill will encounter the same stubborn opposition in the Senate that its several predecessors have. But the Senate must be., somewhat impressed and persuaded by the size of the ma- jority in the House, made up as it is so largely of men who are shre\vd and un- remitting in their efforts to find out what is wanted of them. To the Senate this huge majority must signify that public opinion not only desires but demands the enactment of this niea.sure. If the bill shall f&\\ in the Senate, it is lilcely to be because its opponents filibuster, for the iiidiiations are they will not be able to muster a majority. Aside from the Impressiveness of the vote, the niyst interesting Int'ident in the House was the emergence of Mr. Cannon. Mr. Cannon bade the House take note of the circumstance that there are no child-labor laws in Canada. From that he advanced to the further proposition that American canners are in com- petition with Canadian canners. Thus fortified with premises, Mr. Cannon concluded, in the form of an amendment, that American canners ought to be exempted from the requirements of the law. From which one must infer that, in the estimation of ilv. Cannon, it is proper to conscript from the schoolhouses when only an' army of children can sa\e us from commercial invasion. Happily, the House did not concur In this view. [Galveston (Tex.) News, JaD. 28, 1916.1 PUBPOSE OF THE KEATING CHILD-LABOE BIIX. Representative Webb, of North Carolina, says the Keating labor bill is an attempt to violate the Constitution of the United States, and that the success of it " would mean that Congress could enter your State and take charge of Its factories." Just what the statement last qucfted means is not clear, nor is it likely that Jlr. Webb could give any very explicit definition of it. If it is intended to express the belief that the^assage of this bill would remove all limitations on the exercise of Federal power in thfe several States, the statement Is quite absurd. It ought not to be necessary to remind anyone that this bill, if enacted, would not forbid the employment of children, or even babies. In the mills of North Carolina or any other State. It would permit the working of children, since, indeed, no one pretends that Congress has the authority to forbid the working of them ; but it would declare that the products of the labor of children under 16 years of age shall not be admitted into* interstate commerce. Hence, It would result that the State would retain all of its present authority and de- termine whether it will permit the employment of children or not. There 218 INTEfiSTATE COMMERCE IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. would be no restraint on the sale of the proiUicts nt their labor witliin the Stiite, hnt, as has been sahl, those iiroducts could not be sold beyond the State. Of course the practical effect of the bill would be toi compel all manufacturers who care to engage in interstate commerce to observe the requirements of the act with respect to the employment of children. Manufacturers within the States would be under a constraint imposed on therq, by the Federal Government, and it is this circumstance which has probably incited Mr. Webb into making the statement quoted. One of the purposes of the bill is, of course, to emanci- pate very young children from the mills in those States which permit this in- dustrial serfdom. But another purpose of the bill is to protect manufacturers who employ adults and pay adult wages from the competition of manufacturers who employ children and pay children's wages. Certainly this is a regulation of interstate conmierce that falls well ^^•ithin the contemplations of the Constitu- tion. [Beaumont (Tex.) Enterprise, Feb. 7, ]916.] The fight made by southern Congressmen against the Keating antichild-labor bill which passed the House Wednesday was not creditable either to them or to the people whom they represent, for while the bill, if it passes the Senate and beromes a law, will not have the effect of . preventing child labor in the several States when the manufactured product is sold only within the State, It goes, probably, as far as the Federal Govej-nment can proceed against nii Industrial evil. Representative Webb, of North Carolina, opposed the measure on the ground that it was urged by New York women of the idle rich class " to strike against three or four States of the South," who " will probably next Sunday wear on their hats flowers made by tiny little children of New York's tenements that never see the sunlight." " This is unfortunatelji true," as the IMeridian Dispatch observes. " We of the South can not sympathize with our critics In the North who behold not the beam in their own eyes ; our vlUiflers who decry ' rotten industrial con- ditions ' ; and the blind who can not see that child labor in tenement houses Is not comparable with child labor In the cotton fields. "We have our own child-labor problems, however, and if the Federal Gov- ernment ciin discourage a form of child slavery^ whether it happens to be in Georgia or Alabama or Pennsylvania or New Jersey, we should support it." I Now Orleans (La.) Picayune, Ja^i. 21, 1916.] But while there lia.s been a great deal of opposition from the South to the passage of this law on the ground that it is an invasion of State rights it is getting more and more support every day from this section. The matter is being discussed at length and the public is better informed. Latterly the cam- paign against child labor has lieen conducted almost entirely on this side of the Ohio. The first demand was for State legislation and regulation and in nearly all of the States laws A\ere secureil on this subject. The contest in Louisiana during Gov. Sanders's administration will be i-emembered, and it gave us far better legislation than had been proAaously in force. A conference of the Southern States was held to consider th(| question and assure coopera- tion, but it was found impossible to reach an agreement, those States operat- ing most of the cotton factories refusing to make, concessions and insisting that the success of the Industry in this section as against the New England factories was largely based on cheap child labor. At the conference in this city It was announced, that it was hopeless and Im- possible to persuade those States which had not acted to do so, and that the only chance of success lay in Federal legislation based on the interstate-com- merce provision. This gave new life f* the child-lsibor bill now before Congress and ■^^•]^ich is being pushed more vigorously than ever. It would be absurd to venture any guesses as to whether or not the bill will pass Congress at this session, but all the Indications are that it will be placed on the statute book sooner or later, and probably at an early day. The sentiment of the country has been growing steadijy stronger against child labor as not at all necessary to the success of any ihdustry, and the argument of cheaper labor becomes weaker every day as \\o realize that good and fair wages are to the interest of the country as a whole. The argument as to the cotton mills is an argument against the South. If mills. in this section, situated in the INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 219 cotton fields themselves, can not compete wilh tliose a thousand miles away, then the industry is in a very discouraging condition. The assertion that southern mills can not handle a southern product without cheap child labor is incredible— a slander on this section. [Tampa (Fla.) Times, Jan. 10, IOIC.,1 nElfENDS CHILD LABOR. Former Gov. Kitchin, of North Carolina, told a -story to the Labor Committee of the House of Representatives at Washington the other day that should make the good people of North Carcjlina bow their heads with shame. It must be very humiliating to have one of the " biggest men " of a State go before a national body and say, as Jlr. Kitchiu said, tliat child labor is an economic necessity in his Commonwealth. Now, Mr. Kitchin did not use exactly thdfee words, but that is what he meant when he defended the employment of children in the cotton mills of North Carolina. He was " ably " baclied in his state- ments by David Clark, who edits a journal at Charlotte devoted to the textile industry. AA'o take it that Jlr. Clark is devoted to the business that brings liim his bread. Not to be wondered at, of course, but it is not quite so com- prehensible that a man would lend himself tn the enslavement of helpless children in such a behalf. Mr. Kitcliin told the committee, wiiich liad under consideration tlie Keating- Owen bill designed to prevent interstate shipment of goods manufactured with the aid of child labor, that, " We of the South oppose this measure because we believe our people who have to work should be permitted to do so. We have many of this class and the cotton mills afford them an opportunity to earn a f;ood living. I think it cruel to drive a 15-year old boy out of a mill if he has anyone to support.' ' In answer to tlie question whether mothers' pensions would not remove tliis "alleged necessity, Mr. Kitchin made this remarltable statement : " Our State is unable to take care of its poor." He could more truthfully have said : " Such men as myself in our State do not care to' assume the burden of aiding the unfortunate." It would have been much closer to the actual truth. But let it go at that. The fact is, it is the Kitchins of this world wlio are determined to wreak profit from the twisted, stunted bodies and undeveloped minds of the helpless young. They are willing to deprive the helpless, to the pi'ofit of their own pockets. A sin? Yes, and more. They need to l)e set aside, and if legislation such as that contemplated in the Keating-Owen bill be iieies- sary to set them aside, the quicker it is passed the better. Thank heavens the Kitchins are not representative of the good people of tlie South. They are merely an undesirable class ; the Scrooges, as it were, who have not yet awakened to the rights of the Tiny 5ims of the land ! [Tampa (Fla.1 Times, Jan. 27, 1916.] states' eights, cotton mills, and child labok. The question of States' ri.ghls has been in.iected into the fight a.^^iinst the Keating child-labor bill, now before Congress, jmd warfare on the measure, led by some southern Senators and Representatives, will be bitter. The southerners who present strongest opposition to the measure reprcseul States in which cotton mills are located, and therefore their fight is made in behalf of cotton-mill Interests, headed by New England and southern capital- ists. It seems almost impo.':sible to place a decent child-labor law on the statute books of these States, which Is anything but creditable to thoir political leaders and legislators. We object to Government interference with States' rights, but the spirit of protection demands that something be done in behalf of the' toiling children of Commonwealths, the political rep»esentativos of which positively refuse to " see the light." [Meridian (Miss.) Star, Jan. i; 1910.] child-labor iull not sectional measure. The fight made by southern Congressmen aj;ainst the Keating anticliild-labor bill which passed the House Wednesday was not creditable eitln-r to them or to the people whom they repre.sent ; for while thie bill, if it passes the F!<-nate 220 INTEBSTATK COMMKKCE IX FKODT-CTS OF CHILD LABOR. and becomes a law, will not have the effect of ' preventing child labor in the several States when the manufactured product is sold only within the State, it goes probably as far as the Federal Government can proceed against an Industrial evil. Representative Webb, of North Clarolinu, opposed the measure on the grounds that it was urged by New York women of the idle rich class " to strike against three or four States of the South " u'lio " will lirobably next Sunday wear on their hats flowers made by tiny little children of New York's tenements that never see the sunlight." This is unfortunately true. A\e of the South can not sympathize with our critics in the North who behold not the beam in their own eyes; our villiflers who decry " rotten industrial conditions " ; and the blind who can not see that child labor in tenement hou-ses is nf)t comparable with child labor in the cotton fields. We have our own child-labor problems, however : and if the Federal Govern- ment can discourage a form of child slavery, whether it happens to be in Georgia or Alabama or renns,\lvania or New .Jersey, we should .support it. ITIip .Touruiil of Liilior, Allantn, Feb., lOlfi.l Tll.MFICKIXC IX CHir.DliEX. It w!i>: a brave tliin;;- foi- AV'illiam Schley Howard to take the stand he did in the National House of Representatives when the bill to limit the product of child labor to the State of its production was up for consideration, and which passed the House with a splendid inii,ii>rity. Mr. Howard's championship of the child as against its exploiters represented the true spirit of the thoughtful South. There was, of course, the usual iiathos about helpless and necessitous widows, and old Joe Cannon, who was resurrectjed by his Illinois constituents last year, had his usual stock of replated platitudes about the possibilities of poverty-stricken youth being transformed into millionaires provided they wont to work early enough. However, those old stodl? arguments are not like the capitalization of child-exploiting corporations — they don't hold water. Despite the ranting of of the Cannon-Chadbands, social justice is a reality, and it is on the march. Under the rule of the plundei'bur.il a law prohibiting tlie trafficking of children would never have passed, and by the same token a Louis D. Braudeis would never be nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States — the final legislative arbiter in the land. And by a parity of reasoning tlie ilays (if the Joe Cannon will be ended when a social justice shall prevail. The national conscience is awake, the voice of organized labor insistent for years, but unheeded until labor stormed the strong- holds of the politicians and took many of them captives to obscurity. The South will soon step into the political arena prepared to " reward its friends and punish its enemies." The misapprehensions concerning the purposes of the bill are shown in the following extracts from editorials opposed to this legislative reform. These extracts from the Charlotte (N. C.) Observer and the Charlotte (N. C.) Manu- facturer are appended without comment : rChai-lottc IN. ('..) Obapi-vpi', .Tnm 20, 1916.] THE POINT. The New Y'ork Sun's infurmalion is (c Ihe effect that the Keating child labor bill has been given precedence over all otlii^r measures on the calendar until a vote is taken. At tlte same time we are informed that the efforts to tack amend- ments to it which would bar fish and canned goods, in the production of which children under 16 years of age were employed, from being shipped from one State to another, as well as the cotton goods of t^ie South, were unavailing. It would be all right to shut down on the southern ebtton mills, but the canneries and flsh-packing plants of the North and New England must not be interfered With. Catch that? At least we hope the Sennte will when the bill comes np for a vote. IJSTEESTATE OOMMEKCE IN PBODUOIS OF CHILD LAUUIi. 221 [Charlotte (N. C.) Manvifacturer, .T»n. 13, 1916.] fHII.n I.ABdR HEAKING. Last Monday the House Ijabor Comiiiitree heard argimieut.s in Washington ou child labor in southern cutton mills. A delegate of southern mill men, headed by former Gov. W. AV. Kitchin, of North Carolina, presented the objec- tions of textile manufacturers of the South to the Keating-Owen bill, which would prevent the interstate shipment of goods manufactured li,v aid of minors. Mr. Kitchin attacked the bill from an economic point, declaring- it was unconstitutional and unwi.'ie. Others followed, sho^\'ing the advantages to the youth employed in the mills. It was clearly brought out that child labor in the South differs in every way from child labor m the North and East. New England is backing the fight for the bill, and apparently solely for financial reasons — New England mills (an not fompele \Nith southern mills unless labor conditions in the South can be changed to suit New England manufacturers. Posing as philanthropists, humanitarians, and what not, the leaders in the movement for abolition of child labor in the South have misrepresented every condition and circumstance surrounding Southern mills. Who financed these agitators and extremists? An investigation might lead to some startling disclosures in connection with the passage of that bill by the Senate at its prior session, aioney was used lavishly, it is claimed, and the oni^s who furnished that money had a financial ob.1ect in view. The employment of children in southern mills Is developing those children into educated, self-sustaining individuals, and benefitting a race of people who would otherwise be handicapped in industrial training, Jlill villages are the opposite of very many in the North, and represent the highest regard for the health, happiness, comfort, and welfare of the employees. From the hearing conducted this week to get facts before Congress, it i» believed the Owen bill will be defeated in the lower House. Mr. McKelway. i suppose it is worth while for me to refer to a vote in the House on this same bill, in which out of 150 Members from the South only 45 voted in opposition to the bill. There was only one man north of Mason and Dixon line who voted against the bill, Mr. Parker of New Jersey. I claim that the SoutK is in favor of this j-eform just as the North and the West are in favor of the reform. I claim that the fact that southern legislatures have advanced in taking care of this problem is one evidence of that. In fact, the legislatures are behind the peo- ple; that is, that they have not advanced so fast as the people have. We had a very instructive instance of that from Arkansas. Arkan- sas has the initiative and referendum. We went to the legislature two or three times trying to persuade it to enact a child-labor law with these uniform standards. The legislature refused to do it, and at last we initiated the legislation. The law required us to get 13,000 names on our petition. We got 25,000, and when it was put to a vote of the people, 73,000 voted for it, as against 25,000 opposed to it. The law ran next to the governor in the number of votes cast. Now Arkansas is a pretty fair average Southern State; and tliat is what the people thought about child labor- the only State of the Union in which the child-labor law has been initiated. Now it is the very old story, Mr. Chairman, that the next restrictive act in legislation will lead to the ruin of some industry or the great iniurv o! some mdustry. I remember reading m Dickens s Hard Times a statement about Coketown, which is the town in which the story is located. I suppose this was written about 75 years ago (1854). 222 JNTEESTATK COMMEROE IN FBODUCTS OF CHILD ],ABOK. Dickens sa3^s : Tlie wonder was, it was there at all. That is, Coketown. It had been ruined so often, that it was amazing how it had borne so many shocks. Surely there was never such fragile chinaware as that of which the millers of Coketown were made. Handle them ever so lightly and theylell to pieces with such ease that you might suspect them of having been flawed bsfore; They were ruined when they wer3 required to send laboring children to school; they were ruined when inspectors were appointed to look after their works; they were ruined when such inspectors considered it doubtful whether they were quite justified in chopping people up with ' their machinery; they were utterly undone when it was hinted that perhaps they need not always make quite so much smoke. Another prevalent fiction was very popular there. It took the form of a threat. Whenever a Coketowner felt that he was ill-used, that is to say, whenever it was proposed to hold him accountable for the consequences of any of his acts, he was sure to come out with the awful menace, that he would "sooner pitch his property into the Atlantic." This had terrified ths home secretary within an inch of his life on several occasions. I think I have shown that there is no serious opposition to the 14-year age hmit as a standard. The main objection is to the e.ight- hour day for children under 16. The cotton-mill industry is organ- ized in a peculiar way as you have heard. The different departments of the mill must keep together, in the average well-organized mill, and there has been some testimony offered as 1?o how difficult it would be to adopt an eight-hour day for children untler 16. In the first place, Massachusetts is the greatest textUe State in tiie Union — the greatest cotton-miU State in the Union. I think South Carolina ranks next to Massachusetts in the number of spindles, and I think Rhode Island comes next to South Carolina. North Carolina has more mills, but they are sm.aiter mills on the average and they do not have as many spindles. I have here the statement of Richard K. Conant, who is secretary of the Massachusetts Child Labor Committee as to the operation of the eight-hour day and the effect upon the Massachusetts mills, which I think is very helpful. Mr. KiTCHiN. Have you the information — 1 have been unable to find it — as to how many operatives betwf^en 14 and 16 there are in the Massachusetts mills? What he read yesterday included the mechanical operations and not the factories. Mr. McKei.way. I liave not the information for the cotton mills. In the whole textile industry 14,642 children from 10 to 13 years of age; 65,000, from 14 to 15, makmg 80,000 in all under 16. That is from the census of the United States in 1910. The Acting Chairman. Is that for Massachusetts alone ? Mr. McKelway. Tliat is for the whole- country. That embraces cotton mills and silk mills. Tlie Acting Chairman. Are they divided into States? Mr. McKelway. They are not divided in this table. The number of children in the different States in mechanical operations are divided here and perhaps that table might with advantage be printed. The Acting Chairman. Very well. The table referred to is as follows: Table IV indicates the numlwr of children, according to the census of 1910, who might be affected by this meas.ure, disregarding the fact that some of the States have improved their legislation since 1910, notably Massachusetts, New Jersey, Penn- sylvania, .Vlabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. INTERSTATR COMMEKCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 223 Table IV. — The latest official figure,s on child labor. [Compiled from United States Census of Occupations, 1910.] Total.... Alabama Arizona Arl-ansas California Colorado Connecticut. .. Delaware Djst, Columbia Florida Georgia..: Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas ." Kentuclcy iKiuisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts . Michljran Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Manufacturing and mechanical (specified occu- pations), 10-13 years. 27,005 2,003 5 324 81 29 43 34 3 668 2,784 10 398 289 128 66 488 449 154 849 279 103 So 555 380 14-15 j'oars. 176,137 3,141 45 654 1,581 380 4,246 373 102 1,520 4,338 74 9,992 4,743 1,473 572 2,483 1, 736 1,996 4,028 18, 275 3,258 843 1,069 5,255 Extraction of minerals (speci- fied occupa- tions). 10-13 years. 26 28 29 17 168 2 2 45 14-15 years. 15,401 933 28 73 43 178 7 1 215 557 311 167 522 1 9 242 25 75 19 249 Montana Nebraska. ., Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey. New Mexico New York North Carolina. North Dakota.. Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania,., Rhode Island... South CaroliBa... South Dakota. Tennessee .g.... Texas [Itah Vermont Virginia Washin^n . . . West Virginia. Wisconsin W5'oming. .... Manufacturing and mechanical (specified occu- pations). Extraction of minerals (speci- fied occupa- tions). 10-13 years. 2,1)9 29 518 6,344 11 370 70 29 1,2(2 81 4,154 1 1.029 '734 IS 1,337 51 14-15 years. 78 313 2 2,067 10,020 80 18,502 8,475 .53 8,763 359 256 30,688 4,712 6,t5C6 72 2,289 2,204 04 259 3,568 586 1,317 3,670 17 10-13 years. 188 20 3 2 1.52 1 318 2 1 14-16 yearS. 9 1 9 3 4 9 3 26 10 42 3 47 15 27 47 793 9 47 1 529 7,695 4 6 663 87 18 36 469 31 1, 521 16 30 I Industries affected. — The census of 1910 shows a distribution of the children of the several States among the industries that will be more or less affected by the operation of this bill if enacted into law, according to the following table : Industry. Children reported. 10 to 13 14 to 15 Total Industry. Children reported. 10 to 13 14 to IS Total Quarries Liquor and beverage in- dustries Chemical and allied in- dustries Paper and pulp industries Metal industries (except iron and steel) Clay, glass, and stone in- dustries Cigar and tobacco fac- tories 224 115 187 164 252 1,234 1,843 1,120 1,327 3,132 4,662 6,971 9,161 8,723 1,344 1,442 3,319 4,808 7,223 10,395 10,566 Food and kindred indus- tries Leather industries Printing and bookbiud ing » Mines .- Iron and steel industries . Lumber and tumiture in dustries Clothing industries Miscellaneous industries. Textile industries 972 406 .622 2,241 951 4,367 1,113 2,064 14,642 10,245 11,592 11,482 14,877 19,618 17; 418 22, 158 28,093 65,888 11,217 11,998 12,104 17,118 20,460 21,785 23,271 30, 157 80,530 Mr. KiTCHiN, As I recollect it, that made 18,500 of those as'es i" Massachusetts. Mr. McKelway. Mr. Conant states — and. I will say. this was printed two years ago : In 1913 MassachusettiS took the advanced step of limiting the labor of cluldren between 14 and 16 to eight hours a day. Tlie liwv was enacted after most careful and thorough deliberation, after many rtebntes \yhich brought out all conceivaI)lo arguments for and against it. ^ ,» , ^, , Greatest Insistence was placed by the opposition upon the alleged fact that under the law the children would not get the benefit of the eight-hour day, but would be discharged entirely. It was pointeil out -that children could not be em- 224 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. ployed in a mill for 8 hours while the adults and=the machinery were working 10 hours. The result would be, said I lie manufacturers, that the children would spend their time in dangerous and unprofltrble idleness and be worse off than when at worlj; 10 hours a day, and that the wholesale hardship among families would be greater than public relief or private charity could alleviate. The test which the law has had since it went into effect last September proves that the law has not had any such results. The .biw has been successful and is working well. The fact is that very nearly all the children who were at work , when the law went into effect are to-day at work in the same occupations, that the small proportion who have lost employment have returned to school, and that th&e has been no perceptible increase in family Jiardship. When the bill went into effect it was subjected to a storm of protest and criti- cism, based on the misapprehension that the law prohibited the employment of children under 16. The newspapers estimated that about 25,000 children under 16 would be thrown out of employment. During {his period of newspaper agita- tion the special recess committee of the legislature on child labor made its in- vestigations, giving hearings from two to six weeks after the bill took effect, and asking manufacturers, by letter, how many children were discharged. Four thousand and twelve children were reported to the committee as discharged in the 10 principal manufacturing cities of the State. One hundred and seventy of the 2.50 employers who replied — 68 per cent — ad^ed that they had reemployed some of the children discharged. The rejiort of the committee stated, in De- cember: "Many employers who declared in September (hat it would be iin- possible for them to arrange their schedules so as to permit the emijloyment of boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16 for not more than eight hours a day have found that a little study will permit them to do so." A questionnaire sent by Deputy Commissioner Qf Education Small to all super- intendents of schools shows the situation in November, 1913. Two hundred and thirty-four cities and towns where there were industries which employed 14 to 16 year old children replied to the questionnaire ; 211 of the 234, nine-tenths, re- ported that the industries had adjusted themselves to the law and that the children were not thrown out of employment. Of the remaining 23 cities and towns, 10 were of slight importance. Of the 13 cities and towns which had not at that time adjusted themselves, Lawrence and Waltham were the only textile cities. Lynn and Worcester were the only other places where the problem was of any size. By March these places had adjusted their difficulties pretty com- pletely. The law required the reissuance of employment certificates, thereby affording an opportunity to count the children at work under the new law. An employ- ment certificate is issued only when the child has actually secured his job. On December 24, 1913, 28,011 dilferent children between 14 and 16 had been given employment certificates and were at work eight hours a day under the new law ; 28,011 children between 14 and ] 6 are enough to have at work in Massachusetts. Before the law went into effect statistics show that there were between 28,000 and 31,000 at work in the occupations for which children are required to have certificates. An investigation of the amount of hardship caused was made by the board of labor and industries by sending a blank to all known relief agencies in the State, public and private, on February 27, 1914. This investigation had revealed, on March 20, as the result of the eight-hour law, only 5 cases where permanent aid had been given and 11 cases of temporary aid. A study of cases of mothers applying for relief under the provisions of the mothers' aid law of 1918 showed that of 1,182 cases only 35 were cases where the child-labor law was apparently some part of the reason for the application. A further analysis of the 35 cases showed that by April 1, in 27 of the cases, this dause had been removed by the fact that the cliild had found work. The law has now been tried in Massachusetts and has been found practical. The children have not been displaced ; they are at work 8 hours instead of 10 hours. The investigations made by our committee show that under the law the children are happier, brighter, and more health.v.. They are getting more time for play, more time to read, and more time to rest. Those who are now at work are, for the most part, properly cared for in school. There is no perceptible Increase in idleness or crime. The cases of hardship caused by the law were few in number and of a temporary nature. The law has worked as well as any of us could possibly have hoped. It has accomplished just what It was intended to accbmplish, the lightening of the burden of over 20,000 children in the mills from 1i) hours a day to 8 hours a day, . INTEESTATE COMMEECE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOH. 225 Mr. Chairman, the spinning room makes the yarn for the weaving room, ^ow, a good many mills in North Carolina are small milK when there was insufficient capital, I suppose, to build, and some larger ones were organized on this basis; and that has been the reason 1 think for the cause of night work in North Carolina, there were only half enough spinning frames tq provide for the weaving room, so the spinning room was run night and day, the very room the children were employed in — in order to make enough yarn for the weaving room. Now, it may cost the employers something to put in some extra spindles for the spinning room and it Avould take more children between 14 and 16 years of age to run an eight-hour day than an eleven-hour day to do the same work. But that can be absolutely adjusted. I am not sufficiently familiar with the situation to know just how much it would cost, but it can be done, just as a good many of these mills in North Carolina have put in enough spindles to take care of the weaving room and have stopped night work. Mr. Swift read you some of the testimony concerning tuberculosis in the cotton mills and the mills that had been represented as having good ventilation, etc. One of the witnesses from Alabama referred to Dr. U. H. Gates, and quoted with approval from something he said. I would like to quote something from the same man. He is the chief factory inspector for Alabama and has been for some years — a very able man and a very superior man. He says: Picture a little child, a girl just 12 years of age — and the diita In this office show that in numerous cases they are started to work the day they reach the age of 12. Imagine this little girl, in the winter months, arising at 5 o'clock in the morning, eating a poorly cooked meal (and iu most Instances their food is hastily and improperly prepared) wending her way in the darkness to a mill, working not for one hour or two hours, but for six hours steadily at one continuous task (a task which does not in any way elevate), a monotonous, invariable, nearly incessant, grind before two or three machines, amid the rattle of spindles and the roar of pulleys ; surrounded by the incessant deafening noise and constant motion of machinery ; deprived' of the pleasure of conversa- tion on account of the noise and oftentimes breathing an atmosphere vitiated by lack of ventilation and by artificial humidity and the presence of dust and cotton fiber. Fancy this child, with only half an hour for dinner, continuing at her labor until the 11 hours of required toil are completed. Tired and worn out she goes home in the darkness to such a home as she has, rarely seeing the sunshine. This picture causes me to wonder, as a phylclan, what kind of a mother can this child make; what kind of offspring can she bring forth? Has this child no rights? Is It humane to make a machine (mt of this illiterate, ■ helpless, maltreated human? Is it not entitled to the same consideration the farmer gives his colt or his calf? The Idea of working a colt or a calf in har- ness would seem preposterous to the average farmer. Can we not put our children of the laboring classes in the same category as the farmer puts his beasts of burden? This is a plea for the children between the ages of 12 and 14 ; that vital period in a girl's life when she changes from girlhood to womanhood. Sixty hours' application a week at any vocatioi) is certainly not conducive to good health, particularly during this period of life, and I want to go un- qualifiedly on record as being heartily In favor of changing the age limit in Alabama 'to 14 In the case of boys and 16 In the case of girls. Ventilation, or rather lack of ventilation, is to me one of the most noticeable conditions in cotton mills. The architects have almost invariably ignored the rudimentary principles of ventilation. No means of ingress or egress of air is provided', other than the windows, and in a vast majority of cases these windows are closed and at times nailed down. . 27896—16 15 226 JNTEKSTATE COMMEKCE IN PBODXJOTS OF CHILD LABOS. 4.1. „,.o.ntr.rs freauently furnish nice houses, adequate In c.>tt cents' worth of medicine would do it. I have discussed this matter very thoroughly with Dr. Stiles, and with members of the Eockefeller Sanitary Commission, who agree with me on the subject. When I recently met Dr. Stiles at one of the clubs in Wn.shington, he told me he had thought there ought not to be any restricti\e legislation with respect to children in the cotton mills for a few years because he thought it was good to get them all together and ciire them before letting them go ba^k; that he had deliberately made opposition to such legislation for a period cov- criij '5. tii° fnm'^ns hookworm pxnert. thnt conditions of health are far better in the cotton mills than upon the temnt farm. A very thorough investifration of the health of iniu hoys is now being con- ducted by the United States Department of Health and the Massachusetts INTEKSTATE COMMEBCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 233 State Board of Health, and no advance information yet given out indicates that the mill boys \yHl not compare favorably witb those in other walks of life. The death rate in cotton-mill villages has not been higher than in other com- munities, and iu any mill village the men and "women who have grown up in mill work are healthier and better physical specimens than those who have moved in from the farm or from other vocations. Regular habits, good food and living conditions, together with the super- vision of health conditions by mill authorities, are all on the side of the mill operative. Many mills spend considerable upon their health departments, because healthy .operatives mean efficient operatives. The following are the results accomplished by the liealth department at one cotton-mill community : Year with health de- partment. Cases of— Typhoid fever Whooping cough Scarlet fever f)iphtheria Measles Cholera infantum P'-in diseases (miscellaneous).. Grippe Typhqia immunity treatment Visits by nurses It is easy to say that millwork ruins the health of young people, but it has yet to be proved. While the mills run an average of 10 hours per day it is estimated that boys under 16, who are employed almost exclusively as doft'er boys, work from five and one-half to sis hours. When bobbins become full the boys remove them, which is called doffing, and between doffs they areMt liberty, so that they really work not exceeding six hours per day. The girls under 16 are employed almost exclusively in the spinning room and while they are required to be in the room all the time, they are not constantly at work. Each girl has a certain number of sides (meaning one side of a spin- ning frame) to look after and replace the ends \vhen they break. When the ends are up the girl sits at the end of the sitnning frame and makes an occasional trip down the alley to see that everything is all right. There is no mental or physical strain in conne/'tion with the work, and the largest weight that the girl has to lift at any one; time is H pounds, and in the course of a day she will lift only a few of them. The work of a girl in a cotton mill can in no way be compared to the strain upon one bending over a sewing machine in a sweat shop. Dr. T. W. D. Long, of Roanoke Rapids, N. ()., testified before the House com- mittee that during five years' work in a mill population of 5,000 he had been able to see no injurious effects of the work performed by girls and had never known a ease of insanity or nervous prostration among the girls or young women. Dr. Long also testified that the ability of mill women to bring into the world strong, healthy children did not appear to be affected by the work they had performed in cotton mills when 14 years of age or less. .\ULI.WOEK DOES .XOT TAIISE TUHEECULOSIS. It is not unusual to hear the statement that worlj in cotton mills causes tuber- culosis, yet such a statement is ab,solutely unsupported by facts. There was a sensational amount of tuberculosis at the Wadesboro Silk Mill. ■\Vadesboro N O , and it was all charged to the millwork. Dr. L. B. McBrayer, the well-known expert of Sanatorium, N. C, was called into the case and made an maborate investigation, in which lie traced the history of every case, and found that not a single case has been caused by millwork or had even been caused by contact in the mill. 234 TWTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODXJCTS OF CHILD LABOE. Dr. McBrayer, in his testimony before the Labor Committee, said : " It is impossible for any trade or any occupation to produce tuberculosis without infection. The stonecutter's trade is a very dusty trade, and fine particles of stone are carried into the lung, intg the air cells, and on cutting the lung with a knife you can feel the particle^ of stone. Yet that does not produce tuberculosis, but it is apparently a frequent cause of pneumonia, trau- matic pneumonia. The same is true to a limited degree perhaps of coal dust, but tuberculosis can not be caused except by exposure to some other case." This testimony from an expert who has never had any connection with the cotton-mill industry ought to set at rest the popular illusion that work in cotton mills causes tuberculosis. Some experts have gone so far as to claim that the absorptive properties of cotton lint tend to prevent tuberculosis and the remarkable decrease of tubercu- losis in the large cotton mill towns of Massachusetts as compared with non- cotton manufacturing towns of that section tend to substantiate the claim. With the exception of the opening room, where men are exclusively em- ployed, there is very little lint or dust in a cotton mill, and if your committee goes South you will be surprised at the pure atmosphere you will find in the spinning rooms. The mortuary figures of the Metropolitan Insurance Co. show the per cent of deaths among the textile operatives from tuberculosis to be one of the lowest upon the list, and less than half as great as that among clerks and book- keepers. WOEli NOT DANGEKOUS. In the House debate one Congressman spoke of the blood of the children spattered upon the window panes, and voiced the irnprossion that has been Insiduously creating the effect that cotton njills injure and maim many children. Cotton-mill machinery, especially in the departments where young people work, is very harmless, and accidents are exceedingly rare. Dr. T. W. M. Xiong, who has charge of a free hospital in a village of 5,000 cotton-mill people, stated before the Labor Committee that he had known of no serious accident in the mills in five years, and during the past 12 months the total accidents in the mills were one or two cases of Ifcerated fingers, none of which required amputation. Companies that write employment liability insurance naturally base their rates upon the liability of accidents as found from the records of the past. The following are the rates charged in North Carolina for a policy covering $5,000 for injury to one person or $10,000 to several injured at the same time. The rate includes first medical aid and is the price charged per $100 of pay roll. Street car conductors > $4. 08 Planing mill 2. 47i Foundry and machine shops 1.36 Laundry work ^ 1. 22 Furniture factories 1. 09 Farm laborers . 68 Cotton mills . 49i The evidence, therefore, of the people tliat pay money for accidents is that there are fewer accidents and less risk in cotton mills than in any other line of work. They show the remarkable fact that there is more risk in working on a farm than there is in a cotton mill. MENTAL EFFECT OF WOKK. The x;laim that cottnn-mill work has a disastrous effect upon the minds of Children seems to be based upon nothing but supposition. The superintendents who are holding the highest positions and drawing the largest salaries in southern cotton mills are the boys who began work at early ages. Lincoln, Grant, and most of our really great men worked when they were boys ; and in his remarks in the House Congressman Joe Cannon said, " You will find, if your experience is lil , Pennsyl- vanfa imnois North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, California, the heaviest increase being in New England and the Middle Atlantic ^tates. During the 20 years from 1890 to 1910 the number of illiterates in Virginia, North Carolina, South 236 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OP CHILD L.ABOB. Carolina, Georgia, Kentuclty, and Elorida decreasod from 2,027,951 to 1,427,063. In Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania the increase was from 790,772 to 1,103,872." The statistics show that the States with advanced child-labor laws are increasing in illiteracy, while the Southern States, where such a great evil is alleged to exist, are actually making rai)id strides in eliminating illiteracy. The cotton mills of the South almost without exception have splendid schools for their employees and encourage them to attend. The cotton manufacturers of our section do not wish their mill operatives to remain ignorant, because they bplieve that education increases their efficiency. The mills have been the" greatest factors in decreasing illiteracy in the South. CHILDREN OF JtlLT, CHILBEBN. A favorite argument of supporters of the Keating-Owen bill is that by allow- ing boyS and girls to work «e are injuring the next generation. It is a plausible argument, but is absolutely unsupported by proof. In any mill village the strongest and healthiest children* are those of men and women who were formerly employed in the mills at early ages. They will average far above the children of those who recently moved to the mills from the farms. It is absurd to claim that the light work performed by a spinner should cause her future child to be defeitive, and proponents of such a theory have never been able to give proof. OBEYINO THE LAW. At the last meeting of the North Carolina Cotton Manufacturers' Association, .Tune, 1915, the following resolutions were adopted ; " Resolved, First. That this association pledge itself to encourage a faithful compliance A\itli the child-labor laws of the State. " Second. That we respectfully request every superior court judge in this State to instruct the grand jury in each of his courts to investigate and returii all violations of said laws coming within his knowledge. " Third. That we ask every county .superintendent of education to report, and every solicitor in this State to prosecute, all violations of said laws known or reported to him. " fi^ourth. That this association continues to sincerely recommend both schol- astic education and practical training, and condemns Idleness as the greatest curse of civilization. It regards with great pride the compulsory school at- tendance law, which this association unanimously recommended and sup- ported ; and ■this association again earnestly advises that the age limit of saio school law be raised to 13 years, and that it be rigidly enforced by the local authorities. " Fifth. That a copy of these resolutions be sent to every manufacturer and to every judge, solicitor, and county superintendent of education in this State." The words " child labor " are abhorrent to every mind, and it is easy for the public to accept the unsubstantiated and unproved statement that the cotton mills of the South are grinding the lives out of little children. The cotton manufacturers are sincere and honest in their contentions that they are not injuring children, and are willing to have unbiased persons in- vestigate at any time. If the Keating-Owen bill is enacted upon th& basis of rumors and misrep- resentations without the true facts being known, it will inflict an injustice upon an industry that has a clean record and clean hands. Mr. Swift. Mr. Patterson has a few words to say in the nature of rebuttal on things that were brought out, and if you Avill hear him I think it will take but a few minutes. STATEMENT OF ME. SAMUEL E. PATTERSON— Resumed. Mr. .PATiEiisor^. Gentlemen, I am going- to detain you but a few minutes. You heard what Mr. Swift had to say in regard to the comparison between mill villages and the' rural districts as to edu- cation. INTEBSTATE COMMBIiCB IN PEODUCIS OF CHILD LABOE. 237 I have a number of telegrams here from the superintendents of pubhc instruction at the different places in answer to an inquiry I sent them after the hearing closed last night, showing what the mill villages were doing and what their average attendance has been. The Acting Chairman. Let me suggest that you include in the record a copy of your telegram to them, with their replies. Mr. Patterson. The wording of the J. L. Patterson telegram is the same as that sent to all others who replied. The Acting Chairman. Well, then, insert the Patterson telegram only. (The Patterson telegram referred to and the replies thereto are as follows:) Washi,\gtoj<, D. C, Fcbrnriiji 17. Wl(i. J. L. Patteesox, ^Roanoke Rapids, N. C: Swift testified that ayerase daily school attendanc-e in lloanoke Rapids less tiian in remainder of Halifax County. Ascertain and wire Innnediately to Slioreham Hotel. Have mayor, board of commissioners, presidents of the banlis, merchants, etc., wire protest against passage of Keating bill to Senator E. D. Smith, of the Interstate Commerce Connriittee of the Senate. Hnrry. S. F. P.\TTEHSON. REPLIES. Greenwood, S. C, FebriKiry ].8, 1916. S. F. Pattebsok, Gliainiiiin, Care Shoivliam Hotel, Washinoton, D. C: The average daily attendance all miW school. Greenwood (S. C. ) territory, 90 per cent of enrollment. A. P. Mol^is.siCK. Henderson, N. C, February 18, 191G. Samuel F. Patterson, SKoreham Hotel, Washington, D. C: School buildings and equipment at Henderson and Harriet cotton mills far better than rural buildings, and equipment school lerms nine months against rural terms four and one-half to five months. Five grades taught at mill schools. Pupils then promoted to our central griimmar and high schools. All one system and under same superintendent. Copipulsory attendance in force from 8 to 13 years, one year more than the State requires. Conditions in these mill schools will compare favorably with any other public schools in the country. Average daily attendance, 90 per cent, .J. T. Alderman, Superintendent Henderson Graded Schools, Durham, N. C, February IS, 1916. S. F. Patterson, Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D. C: Official figures for session 1914-1.5 for Durham County show total enrollment in mill communities of county schools of l,3;i3 ; average attendance, 73.9 per cent. Total enrollment other rural schools, 1,944; average attendance, 60.9 per cent. Trying to obtain figures of Harnett and Davie Counties. W. A. Erwin, Treasurer. Roanoke Raptds, N. C, February 18, 1916. S. F. Patterson, Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D. C: Figures for last available period covering white and colored schools, Roanoke Rapids school district: Census, 1,412; enrollment 822, equals 58.2 per cent of census Average attendance 634, equals 77.1 per cent of enrollment and 45 per ceiit of census. Value of school property, $46,000. A. M. Proctor, Superintendent Boanoke Bapids Schools. 238 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. KoANOKE IlAPit)S, N. C, February IS,, WIG. S, F. Patterson, Shorehaiii Hotel, Washington, D. C: Figures for Inst available period covering white schools, Roanoke Rapids school clistrict: Census, 1,277; enrollment 732, equals 57.3 per cent of census. Average attendance 590, equals 80.6 of enrollment and 46.2 of census. De- cember attendance 92 per cent of enrollment. Value of district white-school property .'^4.5,000. Eight months school term. A. M, PfiOCTOR, Superintendent Roanoke Rapids Sclwols. Roanoke Rapius, N, C, February 18, 1916. S. F. Patterson, Slitircliam liotii, Washington, O. C: Figures for last available period covering white schools, Roanoke Rapids school district: Census, 1,257; enrollment 732, equals 57.3 per cent of census. Average attendance, 590, equals 80.6 of enrollment and 46.2 of census. Decem- ber, 43 per cent eniollment. Rural districts, 3,422. Average attendance, 59.1 per cent. W. A. Ebwin, Treasurer. Durham, N. C, February 18, 1916. S. P. Patterson, Chairman, Hotel Shoreliam, Washington, D. C: Only one mill community in each of Davie and Harnett Counties. Davie County ofRcial figures last year show enrollment, mill community, 453; average attendance, 62f per cent enrollment. Rural districts, 2,155 ; average attendance, 64^ per cent. Latest accurate Harnetf County figures obtainable are, session 1911-12, inill-ci immunity enrollment, 407; average attendance, 75 per cent. Over 1,500 scholars in Belton, Williamston, Glticli;, Pelser, Piedmont (all in Anderson County) mill schools. Average attendance, 66 per cent. Three rural schools in Andei'sou County, over 400 enrolled. Average attendance, 57 per cent. Ellison A. Smyth. GREENSBOiio, N. C, February 17, 1916. S. F. Patterson, Washington, D. C: Enrollment, Proximity and White Oak schools for .January, 863. Average daily attendance, 743; per cent attendance, 86. Bernard M. Cone, Treasurer. Roanoke Rapt^s, N. C, February IS, 1916. S. F. Patterson, Shorehaiii Hotel, Washington, D. C: Figures for last available period covering iUl rural schools, both races, Halifax County : (Census, 9,673 ; enrollment 6,624, equals 66.2 per cent of census. Average iittendance 3,400, equals 35.1 per cent of census and 51.3 per cent of enrollment. .School property, $39,300. A. E. Akers, County Superini elide at Publie Insirvclion. Roanoke Rawds, N. C, February 18, 1916. S. F. Pattiou.son, Shoreham Hotel, Wa'iliington, I). C: Figures for last available period covering, all rural white schools, Halifax County : Census 2,307 ; enrollment 1,698, equals 73.7 per cent of census. Average attendance 1,146, equals 67.5 per cent of enrollment and 49,5 per cent of census. Value of rural white school property, $27,000. Six months school term. A. E. Akers, County Supertntendent Public Tnstrurt ion. INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOH. 239 „ „ „ -, RoAxoKE Kapids, X. C, Fehnidi-y IS, lOld. Hon. E. D. Smith, Interstate Commerce Committee of Senate, ^y a.ih in r/ton D. C: Having been superintendent Roanoke . Rapids gradeil scliools for seven years ending June 30, 1915, now superintendent Halifax bounty scliools, I find" coii^ ditions and advantages mucli better in Roanoke Rapids tlian in rural com- munities. A. E. Akers, Superintendejit Halifax County Sehooln. Mr. Patterson. I should like to read thjs one. This is from Mr. A. M. Proctor, superintendent of Koanoke Jlapids School: Figures last available i)eriod, covering white and colored schools, Roanoke- Rapids School district census, 1,412; enrollment, 822; equals 58.2 per cent of census. Average attendance, 634;, equals 77.1 per cent of enrollment and 45 per cent of census. Value school property, ^46,000. They have an eight months' school term. Mr. SwirT. I simply rise to call attention to the fact that the telegram reports the average daily attendance as based on the enroll- ment. The figures I gave were the average daily attendance as based on the school census. I simply want to call attention to that difference. Mr. Patterson. I had a mass of these telegrams. My telegram to these different people was a request that they state the average daily attendance and the enrollment. I should like to file these with the committee. Dr. McKehvay read an article about the ventilation in the cotton mills. I am going to take but a very few minutes of your time on that subject. I wish to say, though, that the ventilation and the heating in the cotton mills at Roanoke Eapids are more scientifically controlled, both as to temperature and humidity, than the atmosphere in this room right now. Senator Clapp. Can you not give us a better comparison than that ? Mr. Patterson. I will say that it is automatically controlled, both as to humidity and moisture, and in the Avinter time hot air is blown through the rooms and in the summer time cold air. Now, in regard to the statement Mr. McKelway made as to the disposal of the sewage, I will say that in our town of Roanoke Eapids, both as to the people at the mills and the people who live outside of the mills, they have sanitary clqsets, such as designed by the Government, and made positively sanitary and fly proof in every respect. He also said that the child labor was employed because it is cheap labor. I want to disabuse your minds of that. Child labor is not cheap labor in any sense of the word. A child 15 years old is paid so much per side per hour, or so much per side per day, as the case may be. Tt is not cheap laboi:. It is simply that the child is doing 'work that is, suited for the child and not suited for adults. That sort of work is not suited for an adult any more than plowing is suited for a child. There is a difference. . , , In regard to what was said abont the violation of the law m North Carolina, I want to say truthfully ^hat I do not know of a single case of violation of law in North Carolina. Up to a few years ago I think probably there were some violations, and probably there are some now, but if there are. I do not -know them, and I know 240 TNTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PKODUCTS OF CBTLD LABOK. there are none at my place, because the youngest child is 13 years and 11 months old, and the next youngest -child was 14 years old the 16th of December. I know the children by name and I know exactly how old they are, so they are certainly not children working below the legal age limit. I do not think there is very much more ,to say, except that I want to renew the invitation for the committpe to come as our guests South and look at these mills. There is no use for me to take up your time. I do not think there is any special point to be answered. I should like, though, to add that Dr. McKelway is mistaken about the manufacturers in North Carolina, and the gentleman who appeared before you here, Mr. Euffian, was one who mentioned our name especially, stated we were opposing inspection. I wish to say that we went before Gov. Cregg at the last meeting of the legislature and said we would not oppose inspection if it were put under the charge of the superintendent of public instruction. We looked at in this way — that if a child is too young to labor, that is, to legally labor, it does not come under the Department of Labor at all; it comes under the superintendent of public instruction, espe- cially so if there is a compulsory education law. So we said if it was put under that department we would not object to it. I should also like to file — I think it has not been done — a copy of the resolutions that were passed at the last June meeting of the North Carolina Cotton Association. Mr. KiTCHiN. You might read that, Mr. Patterson. Mr. Patteeson (reading) : At tJie last meeting of tlie North Carolina Cotton Manufacturers' Associa- tion, June, 1915, tlie following resolutions were adopted : "Rcsblvrd, First. That this association pledge itself to encourage a faithful compliance with the child-labor laws of the State. " Second. That we respectfully request every superior court judge In this State to instruct the grand jury in each of liis courts to investigate and return all violations of said laws coming within his Ijnowledge. " Third, That we asl^ every councy superintendent of education to report, and every solicitor in this State to prosecute, all violations of said laws Isnown or reported to him. " Fourth. That this association continues to sincerely recommend both scholastic education and practical training, and condemns Idleness as the great- est curse of civilization. It regards with great pride the compulsory school attendance law which this association unanimously recommended and sup- ported ; and this association again earnestly advises that the age limit of said school law be raised to l.S years, and that it be rigidly enforced by the local authorities. " Fifth, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to every manufacturer, and to every judge, solicitor, and county superintendent of education in this State." The Acting Chairman. Is there anything further? Mr. Patterson. No ; I think not. (Thereupon, at 5 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until Monday, February 21, 1916, at 10 o'clock a. m.) INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1916. Committee on Interstate Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. G. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m. pursuant to adjournment. Present: Senators Newlands (chairman). Smith of South Caro- lina, Pomerene, Eobinson, Clapp, Cummins, Lippitt, Townsend, and Poindexter. The committee resumed the consideration of the bill S. 1083, to prevent interstate commerce in the products of child labor, and for other purposes. The Chairman. We will now hear Mr. Emery. STATEMENT OF JAMES A. EMERY, EStt., ATTORNEY, WASHING- TON, D. C. Mr. Emery. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I ap- pear on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, an or- ganization consisting of some 4,000 members operating manufactur- ing establishments in substantially 35 States of the Union. I realize in approaching the discussion of a subject of this charac- ter one is peculiarly liable to misconception, misapprehension, and even misrepresentation of one's position with respect to it. The membership of the National Association of Manufacturers, so far as we can ascertain, does not include, among the two and one- half million employees engaged in the establishments which its members operate, but comparatively few persons below 16. Our membership would be little affected by the provisions of this measure with respect to the age limit of children, but there is no member of the association, who, as a manufacturer, or as a citizen of the United States, does not believe he would be very seriously affected, especially in the future, by the principle of control here asserted and by the policy proposed, as well as by the form in which this measure is cast. I assume, in discussing the measure, that it is not predicated upon the theory that the mere employment of a child is an evil m itself. Otherwise it would— and the laws of all States would—properly exclude from employment all children; whereas not only does it permit the employment of children of any age at some occupations, examining the proposal from that angle, but among the occupations 27896—16 16 ^'^ 242 INTERSTATE COMMEKCE IN PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. obviously excepted are those in which the far greater number of children, who work at all in the United States, are employed. I assume that the evil of child labor lies in the employment of children of an improper age, or at improper occupations, or for too great a period of time, "or while in improper physical condition, or where the operation of such employment excludes opportunity for education and such other circumstances as evidence the judgment of the various States in the numerous statutes regulating this subject. In that connection I beg to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the regulation of child labor, like that of many other things to which the police power of the States has been and is con- stantly applied, is a subject necessitating familiarity with many con- ditions essentially local in their nature. This is demonstrated by the great number of exceptions and variations which appear in the legis- lation of all the States. Even Congress, when exei'cising its own dis- cretion in an unquestioned jurisdiction — the regulation of child labor in the District of Columbia — found it necessary to except from the operation of the age limit the children employed by itself in the Senate of the United States. The members of our association believe that the necessary effect of the principle of regulation proposed in this bill is, by virtue of the practical circumstances of commerce, to substantially substitute the commercial power of Congress for the police power of the States in dealing with all local circumstances of production. It is estimated by persons familiar with our industry and commerce that substan- tially somewhere between 80 and 90 per cent of the commodities pro- duced in this country are consumed outside of the States in which they are produced. If Congress, under -the commerce power, can regulate the conditions under which an article is to be produced that is to go into commerce, it substitutes its authority, practically speak- ing, not only for the police power of the various States themselves, but for the super\ising judgment of boards of aldermen in every industrial community, and by the policy and principle of control proposed " many an error, by the same example, may creep into the State." I do not question, and I am sure that no lawyer does, that there is a domain in which Congress can unquestionably exert complete con- trol over the regulation of all the conditions of labor. I refer not only to the Territories and the District of Columbia, the government of which is exclusively vested in it, but to those cases which clearly vindicate the powers of Congress under the commerce clause to regu- late the hours of labor of persons actually engaged in interstate com- merce while so engaged and operating instrumentalities of such commerce. That, of course, includes not only the whole field of interstate railroad operation, but telephone, telegraph, and such other interstate carriers while clearly within the operation of that prin- ciple. It seems to me very clear that a messenger boy, for instance, engaged in the delivery of an interstate telegraphic message from the office where it is received, is an instrumentality of commerce. No attemnt whatever is made in this measure to exert that unques- tioned power within that unquestioned jurisdiction. Now, if you will permit me, before proceeding to examine the prin- ciple of control itself, I beg to direct your attention to the terms of this measure. It is a highly penal statute; INTEESTATK COMMEKCE IM PKODUCrs OP CHILD LABOB. 243 I will ask at this point to have the bill inserted in the record that ttiejomnnttee may have before it the sections to which I address The Chairman. That will be done. (The bill referred to is as follows:) Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Hepresentativcs of the United htates of America m Congress assembled. That no producer, manufacturer or dealer shall ship or deliver for shipment in interstate commerce the product of any mine or quarry situated In the United States which has been produced tn whole or in part, by the labor of children under the age of sixteen yearai or the product of any mill, cannery, workshop, factory, or manufacturing establishment situated in the United States which has been produced, in whole or in part, by the labor of children under the age of fourteen years or by the labor of children between the ages of fourteen years and sixteen years who work more than eight hours in any one day, or more than six days in any one week, or after the hour of seven o'clock postmeridian, or before the hour of' seven o'clock antemeridian. Sec. 2. Proof of the employment within sixty days prior to the shipment of such product therefrom (first) in a mine or quarry of a child under the age of sixteen years, or (second) in a mill, cannery,* worltshop, factory, or manu- facturing establishment (a) of a child under the age of fourteen years, or (b) of a child between the ages of fourteen years and sixteen years for more than eight hours in any one day or more than six days in any one week, or after the hour of seven o'clock postmeridian, or before the hour of seven o'clock antemeridian shall be prima facie evidence that such product has been produced in whole or in part by the labor of such child. Sec. ,S. That the Attorney General, the Secretany of Commerce, and the Sec- retary of Labor shall constitute a board to make and publish from time to time uniform rules and regulations for carrying out the provisions of this act. Sec. 4. That for the purpose of securing proper enforcement of this act' the Secretary of Labor, or any person duly authorized by him, shall have authority to enter and inspect at any time mines, quarriesj mills, canneries, workshops, factories, manufacturing establishments and other places in which goods are produced or held for interstate commerce ; and the Secretary of Labor shall have authority to employ such assistance for the purposes of this act as may from time to time be authorized by ai)propriation or other law. Sec. 5. That it shall be the duty of each district attorney to whom the Secre- tary of Labor shall I'eport any violation of this act, or to wliom any State factory or mining or quarry inspector, commissioner of labor. State medical inspector, or school-attendance ofRcer, or any othfer person shall pre.ient satis- factory evidence of any such violation to cause appropriate proceedings to be commenced and prosecuted in the proper courts 6f the United States without delay for the enforcement of the penalties as in such cases herein provided: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to bona flde lioys' and girls' canning clubs recognized by the* Agricultural Department of the several States and of the United States. Sec. 6. That any person who violates any of the provisions of section one of this act, or who refuses or obstructs entry or inspection authorized by sec- tion four of this act, shall for the first oifense be punished by a fine of not more than $200 and for each subsequent offense shall be punished by a fine of not more than .$1,000 nor less than $100, or by imprisonment for not more than three months, or by both fine and imprisonment, in the discration of the court : Provided That no dealer shall be subject to convi,c'tion under the provisions of this act who shall establish a guaranty issued by the person by whom such goods \vere manufactured or produced, resident in the United States, to the effect that in the manufacture and production of such goods, neither in whole nor in part, had children been employed or per(pitted to work in any mine or quarry under the age of sixteen ^ears, or in any mill, cannei'y, workshop, factory 'or manufacturing establishment under the age of fourteen years, or betweeA the ages of fourteen years and sixteen years who worked more than eight hours in any one day or more than six days in any one week or after the hour of seven o'clock postmeridian or before the. hour of seven o clock ante- meridian, and in such event the guarantor shall be amenable to any prosecu- tion, fine, or penalty to which the person seeking the protection of such guaranty would otherwise have been subject under the provisions of this act. Said 244 TISTTERSTATE COMMEEGE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOE. guaranty, to afford the protection above provided, shall contain the name and address "of the person giving the same. Skc. 7. That the word " dealer " or the word " person " as used in this act shall be construed to include any individual or. corporation or the members of any partnership or other unlncorjiorated association. The term " ship or de- liver for shipment in interstate commerce" as used In this act means to ship or deliver for shipment from any State or Territory or the District of Columbia to or through any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia. Sec. 8. That in prosecutions under this act each shipment or delivery for Shipment shall constitute a separate offense. Skc. 9, That this act shall take effect from and after one year from the date of its passage. Passed the House of Representatives February* 2, 1916. Attest: South Tkimble, Clerk. By J- C. South, Chief Clerk. Mr. Emery. The measure proposes to make it unlawful for any producer, dealer, or manufacturer to offer for shipment or to ship m interstate ccmmerce any commodity produced in whole or in part by the labor of children below a certain age, or working for more than 8 hours of any calendar day, or more than 48 hours in any week. It establishes an administrative board consisting of the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Ccmmerce, and empowers them to enact such rules and regulations as maj^ be necessary for the administration of this bill. It further authorizes and directs the Secretary of Labor, for the purpose of enforcing this measure, to inspect all factories, workshops, mines, quarries, or canneries, or other places in which commodities are produced or held for shipment in interstate commerce. It obligates every district attorney of the United States upon the presentation of satisfactory^ evidence of various persons enumerated, or by any per- son, to proceed without delay to prosecute for violation of this act, and it makes each shipment a separate violation of the law. For the practical purpose of enforcing the bill it establishes a rule of evidence expressed in the second section of the bill which provides that proof of the employment of any child under the for- bidden conditions, or within the forbidden, age, within 60 days of the shipnient of any commodity in interstate commerce, shall be prima facie evidence that the commodity was produced in whole or in part by the labor of such child. Now, in the first place, gentlemen, I ask you to note the term " pro- duced in whole or in part by the labor of a child." The term is broader than the avowed object of the bill. As I understand it is the purpose of the proponents of this measure to regulate the employ- ment of children in " mechanical " operations. But there is no such limitation here. It applies to any child whose labor contributes in whole or in part to the resultant production. As it applies by name to " manufacturing establishments," it is obvious that any child in that establishment whose act or whose service contributes to produc- tion is within the terms of this measure. It would therefore apply as fully to an errand boy in a manufacturing establishment who car- ried an order to any foreman or superintendent in any part of that plant who directs, governs, or guides the operation therein as it would to a child actually engaged in the operation of a machine. Moreover, each separate shipment constitutes an offense, so that the volume of shipments and not the number of children employed meas- INTEKSTATE COMMERCE IN PKOOUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 245 Tires the penalty which may be incuned. An establishment milking 500 shipments per day and employing 1 child would incur 10 times as many penalties as an establishment employing 200 children within the forbidden age and making but 50 shipments per dav. The meas- ure is not aimed at production in which children are exclusively em- ployed. An establishment may have 10 or 12 or 20,000 operatives, but the employment of 1 child under 16 whose service may be said to contribute to the production of a commodity which is shipped in interstate commerce contaminates and penaiiz^es every shipment flowing from that plant, although each article is otherwise sound and wholesome. So it is apparent that the exclusive emjSloyer of children is to be penalized far less than the employer of a few children with a larger volume of shipments. Now, I ask you to observe that rule of evidence proposed here is not only perfectly consistent with the complete innocence of a per- son engaged in manufacturing production in any State, or of any dealer, but it sets up as prima facie evidence of the violation of the act the condition under which lawful production for domestic con- sumption may be carried on. If in any State a child under 16 years of age is employed in an establishment working for more than hours, as forbidden by this measure, but who, under the law of that State, may be lawfully employed in that particular occupation, that child while engaged in lawful production for domestic use only supplies prima facie evidence of the violation of this proposed statute by every shipment in interstate commerce that passes out of that plant during the period of his employment. So not only is the presump- tion created entirely consistent with the innocence of the accused but by the innocent exercise of his legitimate right of employment he provides the e^ddence of his guilt. Now, the " guaranty " provided in the- bill does not insure the dealer against prosecution. It secures him only against "convic- tion." It is therefore a defense which he may set up, but it pro- vides no immunity whatever against his arrest, prosecution, and the inconvenience, expense, and disgrace which may attend it. I think the committee will agree as a fundamental principle of law ■ that " due process of law " applies not less to immunity from arbitrary arrest and prosecution than to immunity from conviction and imprisonment. Indeed, in the twenty-ninth chapter of Magna Charta, in which " due process of law " had its birth, we read that "no freeman shall be taken" (that is, arrested) "or imprisoned or outlawed or banished or any ways destroyed, nor will the king pass upon him or commit him to prison unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land." Of course, it is needless to say the phrase " due process of law " is the equivalent of " the law of the land." , ,. ,. ,. ^, . , ^ In entering upon a discussion of the vahdity of this proposal, 1 trust I realize the distinction between the argument which I may make to you and the argument which may be addressed to any court before which the validity of these provisions is m dispute. No court may set aside an act of Congress until it is clearly shown that the Legislature has plainly exceeded its power, no matter how unwise orlven absurd the policy of the act may be. It is not m the power of any court to question the wisdom of any policy pursued, granted 246 IJSriERSTAIE COMMEECE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOB. that power to enact resides in the legislative body. On the other hand, I assume that Congress scrutinizes the nature and extent of any power under which it is urged to act whenever that power is seriously challenged, because it is a legislative body having its au- thority conferred and measured by the Constitution of the United States, possessing only limited enumerated powers which are in their turn conditioned by the express inhibitions of the Constitution. I must indeed disagree with the suggestion made by Mr. Parkin- son in the course of his argument that only the fifth amendment limited the exercise of the commerce powe'r. On the contrary, there are many provisions of the Constitution that not only may limit the exercise of the commerce power but which, in the course of many decisions, have been expressly held to do so- The nature and effect of these prohibitions I expect to consider; before doing so, however, I trust you will permit me to express what I assume to be the state of mind of the legislature toward a proposal of this character. I quote from Judge Cooley in his " Principles of Constitutional Law," a statement frequently approved by legisla- tors as truly descriptive of the position they will take when con- fronted with the necessity of determining their powers (Cooley " Principles of Constitutional Law " second edition, p. 150) : Legislators have their authority measured by, the Constitution ; they are chosen to do what it permits, and nothing more, and they talie solemn oath to obey and support It. When they disregard its provisions, they usurp authority, abuse their trust, and violate the promise they have confirmed by an oath. To pass an act when they are in doubt whether It does not violate the Constitution, is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume. A business agent wh6 would deal in that manner with his principal's business would be treated as untrustworthy ; a witness in court who would treat his oath thus lightly, and affirm things concerning which ho was in doubt, would be held a criminal. Indeed, it is because the legislature has applied the judgment of its members to the question of its authority to pass the proposed law, and has only* passed it after being satisfied of the authority, that the judiciary waive their own doubts, and give it their support. And Mr. Taft, a distinguished judge, when he vetoed the Webb- Kenyon Act referred to this matter, and I trust I may be permitted to read what he then said in affirmation oi the same principle, refer- ring to the legislative and executive duty of determining when an net was valid. He said : But it is said that this is a question with which the Executive or Members of Congress should not burden themselves to consider or decide. It is said that it should be left to the Supreme Court to say whether this proposed act violates the Constitution. I dissent utterly from this proposition. Senator Clapp. Will you permit me to interrupt you there ? Have you heard a legislator say that that was a matter with which he had no concern '( Mr. Emeey. No ; not that he had no concern. Senator Clapp. I am using the languag^ quoted there. Mr. Emery. I do not know what Mr. Taft had in mind, but I do know that in the committee of the Hipuse in which this matter .vas discussed, it was set up that the matter of constitutionality was not one upon which it was necessary for them to concern them- selves; that it was a matter to be decided by the Supreme Court, and if a legislator ever hesitated to act where he was in doubt whether he was vested with power or not, there would be no progress. INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 247 Senator Clapp. That is a very different siatement. Mr. Emeey. Yes, sir. He proceeds: The oath which the Chief Executive tals:es, and which each Member of Con- gress takes does riot bind him any less sacredly to observe the Constitution than the oaths which Justices of the Supreme Court take. It is questlonaDle whether the doubtful constitutionality of a bill ought not to furnish a greater reason for voting against the bill, or vetoing it, than for the court to hold it to be invalid. The court will only declare a law invalid where its constitutionality is clear, wliile the lawmaker may very well hesitate to vote for a bill of doubtful constitutionality because of the wisdom of keeping, clearly within the fundamen- tal law. The custom of legislators and executives having any legislative function to remit to the courts entire and ultimate re.sponslbility as to the constitu- tionality of the measures which they take part in passing is an abuse which tends to put the court constantly in opposition to the leu'islature and execu- tive, and, indeed, to the popular supporters of unconstitutional laws! If however, the legislators and the executives had attempted to do their duty this burden of popular disapproval would have .been lifted from the courts, or at least considerably lessened. I trust you will permit me at this point to say one word with respect to a matter that I will discuss more specifically at a later moment, that is the very great danger which lies in exciting collision between the respective powers of State and Nation. It touches a grave and delicate relationship, which, as you gentlemen well know, has been the subject of continuous debate and apprehension. I can recall no one who in recent years has expressed more strongly and clearly the peril that lies in the creation of any policy, the effect of which is to upset that delicate and essential balance of power, than Senator Eoot, who in the course of his address on " The Essentials of the Constitution," at Princeton University a year and a half ago, made this remarkable statement: If the power of the States were to override the power of the Nation, we should ultimately cease to have a Nation and become only a body of really separate, although confederated. State sovereignties, continually forced apart by diverse interests and ultimately quarreling with one another and separating altogether. On the other hand, if the power of the Nation were to override that of the States and usurp their functions, we should have this vast counti-y, with its great population, inhabiting widely separated regions, differing in climate, in production. In industrial and socal interests and ideas, governed in all its focal affairs by one all-iwwerful central government at Washington, imposing upon the home life and behavior of each community the opinions and ideas of propriety of distant majorities. Not only would this be intolerable aiid alien to the Idea of free self-government, but it would be beyond the power of a central government to do directly. Decentralization would be made neces- sary by the mass of Government business to be transacted, and so our separate localities would come to be governed by delegated authority — by proconsuls authorized from Washington to execute the will of the grent majority of the whole people. No one can doubt that this also would lead by its different route to the separation of our Union. Preservation of our dual system of Govern- ment, carefully restraine'd in each of its parts by the limitations of the Con- stitution, has made possible our growth in local self-government and national power in the past, and so far as we can see it Is essential to the continuance of that Government in the future. Senator Clapp. I do not want to interrupt you too often, but would you take that as maintaining that the Fedei:al Government ought not to do any of the things committed to it by the Constitution ? Mr. Emert. On the contrary, I should say it can do and ought to do all the things committed to it by the Constitution and no more. 248 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOJi. Senator Clapp. And that is determined in all cases first by Con- gress and finally by the Supreme Court o* the United States? Mr. Emery. Yes, sir ; but I have in mind particularly Senator Clapp. Then within the Constitution, as interpreted first by Congress and secondly by the Supreme Court, there can be no dangers as pointed out there. Mr. Emery. None whatever, unless the rights not only of the States, but of individuals to local self-government is denied. Self- government is not only an essential fundamental right of the States, but it is an essential fundamental right of the citizen, which existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It was not created by it, but is a right which the Constitution of the United States was brought into being to protect and perpetuate. Senator Clapp. But must be subordinate to whatever the Constitu- tion has said, as interpreted by Congress and then by the courts ? Mr. Emery. Yes. sir. But I have in mind particularly the argu- ment so often made to support a continuously larger use of so-called " inherent " national powers, which it is urged will secure " uni- formity" in legislation. I will show yoi^ presently that has been insistently presented in the Supreme Court to sustain what has been held to be unconstitutional legislation, and it is often said, too, that if we had a larger exercise of central legislative authority we would not have this collision of State laws, which is frequently incon- venient and exaspei'ating to the citizens oi the United States, but the price we should have to pay for uniformity thus obtained is the surrender of local self-government with its peculiar adaptability to immediate circumstance and condition. Mr. Justice Hughes, in his recent address to the New York Bar Association in January, reverting to that contention, said : But in the faee of tlie difficulties already before us, and destined to increase in number and gravity, we remain convinced of the necessity of autonomous local governments. An overcentralized government would break down of its own weight. It is almost impossible even now for Congress in well nigli continuous session to keep up with its duties, and we can readily imagine what the future may have in store in legislative concerns. If we did not have States we should speedily have to create them. To preserve the essenfial ele- ments Of this system, \vithout permitting necessary local autonomy to be de- stroyed by the unwarranted assertion of Federal power, and without allowing State action to throw otit of gear the requisite machinery for unity of control in national concerns, demands the most intelligent appreciation of all the facts of our interrelated affairs anil far more careful efforts in cooperation than we have hitherto put forth. Senator Poindexter. I would like to agk you one question. You have no objection to the passage of a law similar to this by the States, hare you ? Mr. Emery. Not at all. Senator Poindexter. The National Manufacturers' Association does not object to the regulation? You are basing your objection on the high ground of an invasion of the constitutional rights of the States? Mr. Emery. And of the individual who is entitled, as part of local self-government, to have the local regulatory authority pass fully upon the local conditions of manufacture as distinguished from conditions of commerce. Senator Clapp. Can the right of the Sjtate or the citizen be said to be invaded under our Constitution when Congress and the Su- INTEESTATE COMMEHCE IN PKODUCTS OF CIJILD LABOR. 249 [^tTe cZstiStS^'^'" ^^" '"'•^ ''''' *^^* "- -* - ™ted Mr. Emery. No, indeed. Senator Clapp Then it is simply a question of .n liether or not the condition warrants the act? dis^u^s^'"'''^" ^''' ''"■' ^^'''^^^- '^^^'^ ^' '^'''^* ^ ^"^ proceeding to Senator Clapp. But men outside discuss things that when \ou ;is utterly unable to enforce. The fourth article of the Confederation to which the court there referred read : ARTICLES OF CONFlCnEEATION. Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and inter- course among the people of the different States X)f the Union, the free inhabi- tants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from .iustice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall dijoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, sub,iect to the Same duties, impositions, and restric- tions as the inhabitants tliereof, respectively ; provided, that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also, that no imposition, duties, or restriction .shall be laid by any State on the property of the United States, or either of them. In the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, Justice Marshall pointed out the difference in nature between the exercise of those police powers peculiar to the State and the commerce f)ow€r conferred upon the National Legislature, and laid down the rule that has persisted to this day: (Gibbons v. O.cden, 9 'Wheat.:) We know of no rule for construing the extent of such power other than is given by the language of the instrument which confers them taken in connec- tion with the purpose for which they were eonfeured. * * * . But the inspection laws are said to be regulations of commerce, and are certainly recognized in the Constitution as being passed in the exercise of a power remaining with the States. That inspection laws may have a remote and considerable influence on com- merce will not be denied ; but that a power to regulate commerce is the source from which the right to pass them is derived can not be admitted. The ob.iect of inspection laws is to improve the quality of articles produced by the labor of a country; to fit them for exportation; or. It may be, for domestic use. INTEESTATE GOMMEECE IN PEODUCT^ OF CHILD LABOR. 251 They act upon the subject before it becomes an article of foreign commerce or of commerce among the States, and prepare It for that purpose They fom a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory, of a State not surrendered to the General Government al! which can be most advantageously exercised l,y the States themselves ' In- spection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of eVery description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, etc., are component parts 6f this mass No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress, and conse- quently they remain subject to State legislation. If the legislative power of the Union can reach them it must be for national purposes ; it must be where the power is expressly given for a special purpose, or is clearly Incidental to Bome power which is expressly given. Not many years later there occurred a case interpreting the com- merce power, -^vhich was the subject of not only strong argument and much public discussion but of a remarkable dissent by Mr. Justice Story which he refers to in his " Commentaries on the Constitution " and in which he relates the circumstances of his dissent, and points out as one of the strongest cases, which of course he accepted, the line of demarcation between the commerce power of the Nation and the police power of the respective States. I allude to the case of the city of New York v. Miln, to be found in 11 Peters, 102 : This act required the master of any ship arrifing from n foreign port, or from one of the other States, within 24 hours after its arrival, to report to the mayor in writing, on oath or afflrmation, the name, place of birth, last legal settlement, age, and occupation, of every passenger i)rought in such ship to the city of New York, or permitted to land at any place, or put on board any other ship with an intention of proceeding to the city, under a penalty of $75 for every passenger, to be paid by the master, own'er, or consignee. It further required each master to give bond to the mayor, with two sureties, in a sura not exceeding $300 for each passenger not a citizen of the United States, to save harmless the mayor, etc., and the overseers of the poor from all expenses and charges, which might be incurred in the maintenance and support of such passenger, under a penalty of $500. The court pointed out that in all these matters relating to the purely internal affairs of the State the fact that the exercise of the police power incidentally touched the commerce power itself did not invalidate the State's act, for its purpose was clearly to provide for the welfare of the State and its citizens by protecting them from the charge, through taxation, that would be laid upon them to support those who, by the circumstances of their condition, were likely to become public charges. The court said: We plant ourselves on what we consider impregnable positions. They are these: That a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That by virtue of this it is not only the right but the bounden and solemn duty of a State to advance the safety, happiness, and pros- perity of its people and to provide for its general welfare by any and every act of legislation which It may deem to be conclusive to these ends, where the power over the particular subject or thp manner of its exercise is not sur- rendered or restrained in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what {nay, perhaps, more properly • be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrainea ; and that, consequently, In relation to these the authority of'a State Is complete, unquali- fied, and exclusive. Now, they went on to say : AVe are aware that it is at all times difficult to define ^f^ ?^*-if '^^"^Xtfon precision and accuracy. If this be so in general, it is emphatically so in relation 252 INTERSTATE COMMEECE IK PRODUCTS OE CHILD LABOR. to a subject so divei'Sified and multifarious as the one wliieh we are now I'on- sideriug. If we ^^'ere to attempt it we should say — and this is the essential distinction between these powers — we should say that every law came within thl^ description whicli concerned the welfare of the whole people of the State or any individual within it, whether it related to their rights or their duties, whether it respected them as men or as citizens of the State, whether in their public or private relations, whether it related to the rights of person or of property of the whole people of a btate, or of any individual within it, and whose operation was within the territorial limits of the State and upon the persojis and things within its juris- diction. That case has been quoted again and ag^in by the Supreme Court with approval. There are many cases that I might call to your attention, but I realize that you are familiar with them and I do not desire to con- sume your time needlessly. But, as a striking instance again of the sharp line of distinction between police power and commercial power, let me call your attention to a decision written by Chief Justice Chase in 1868, the case of De Witt v. The United States; I think it is 9 Howard. Congress had enacted as part of revenue act a provision which, forbade the mixing of naphtha and benzine, and prescribed a flash test for illuminating oil. A citizen of Michigan was arrested for selling benzine which violated this statutJe. He contended the act was not a valid exercise of the regulatory .power of Congress, and it was defended on that ground; first, that it was an exercise of the tax- ing power in relation to internal revenue; secondly, that it "may" ha\e been passed to protect the commerce of which benzine so made was to be a part. The Chief Justice wiped that away by pointing out that in the first place the act was in its nature an exercise of the police power and confined to the States, and that, secondly, it bore no relation to commerce. Senator Pomebenb. Was this an act of Congress? Mr. Emert. Yes, sir; it was an act of Congress, and the court invalidated the act and dismissed the prisoner. A most striking case that seems to go to the very root of the ques- tion, whether this is a regulation of production or of commerce, is one that came from the State of the distinguished Senator from Iowa (Mr. Cummins), the case of Kidd v, Pearson, to be found in One hundred and twenty-eighth United States — I am reading from the law edition, United States Supreme Court Reports. The case is found on page 346 Senator Poixoexter. What volume of the law edition is that ? Mr. Emert. It is the thirty-second volume. The case was decided in 1888. The State of Iowa had passed a law prohibiting the manu- facture of alcoholic spirits except for medicinal, mechanical, culinary, or sacramental purposes, and the defendant, Pearson, continued to manufacture distilled spirits, but solely for export from the State. He was arrested and convicted under the statute, and the Supreme Court of Iowa sustained his conviction. The case came into the Supreme Court of the United States upon, a writ of error from that court. It was contended by counsel for the prisoner that where a subject is national in its character the power of Congress is exclusive of all INTEESTATF, COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 253 State regulations, and, secondly, that inasmuch as this was a recog- nized article of commerce the State had no power to prohibit the manufacture of it for export, and that under the commerce power the authority of Congress attached to it, even in the course of manu- facture, when it was manufactured even tvithin the boundaries of the State, but only for export purposes. The court disposed of the first point upon the ground that it gratuitously presumed that the liquor was manufactured lawfully, which it was not, because the State of Iowa possessed the exclusive power .under its police authority to determine whether alcoholic liquor could be manufactured or not, and as_ it was not manufactured for one of the four excepted pur- poses, it was unlawfully manufactured. Then, asked the court, does the fact that it was manufactured exclusively for commerce attach the commerce power to it? Why, no, they said, such a position is impossible, because if we took the position that because an article is manufactured even exclusively for export — and, mind you, that is the state of facts here — ^the commerce po!wer of Congress attached to it, then the power of Congress would exclusively attach to every- thing produced for export between the States. And what would be the result? This unanimous decision, written by Mr. Justice Lamar, goes to the very heart of the pending bill not only as a propo- sition of law, but as a remarkable exposition of the effect of its revo- lutionary policy. "We think," said the court, "the construction contended for by plaintiff in error would extend the words pf the grant to Congress, in the Constitution, beyond their obvious import and is inconsistent with its objects and scope." Then it goes on to quote the section «f the Constitution from which the commerce power is derived and some of the language in Gibbons v. Ogden. The court proceeds : No distinction is more popular to the common mind or more clearly expressed In economic and political literature than that between manufactures and com- merce. Manufacture is transformation — the fashioning of raw material into a change of form for use. The functions of commerce are different. The buying and selling and the transportation incidental thereto constitute commerce, and the regulation of commerce in the constitutional sense embraces the regulation at least of such transportation. Then it proceeds to quote from the case of the County of Mobile v. Kimball (102 U. S.), as follows: Commerce with foreign nations and among the States, strictly considered, consists in intercourse and traffic, including in tSese terms navigation and the transportation and transit of persons and property as well as the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities. ' Then this court proceeds : If it be held that the term includes the regulation of all such mannfactures as nre intended to be the subject of commercial transactions in the future, it is fmp^TsibTto 'L*ny' that' it luld also include f\^^^^J^^^Z^t mntpmnl-ite the same thing. The result would be that Cons,! ess wouia oe [nvestTl to the eSion of the States, with the power to regula e, not only manufStu?e but also agriculture horticulture^^ stpck ^'if ttTe'one of S pool, New York, and Chicago? -"-l^e power Demg%eMeu ^ j^ 'sj^jiTcoii^i sr..f ..rorsrieSi', s.£., i. «... 254 INTERSTATE COMMEKCE i.N PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOE. interests — interests which in tlieir nature are, and must be, local in all the details of their successful management. It is not necessary to enlarge on, but only to suggest, the impracticability of such a scheme when we regard the multitudiiwus affairs involved and the almost .Infinite variety of their minute details. It was said by Chief .Justice Marshall that it is a matter of public history that the object of vesting In Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States was to Insure uniformity of regu- lation against conflicting and discriminating State legislation. See also County of Mobile V. Kimball, supra, 697 (26: 240). This being true, how can it further that object so to Interpret the constitu- tional provision as to place upon Congress the obligation to e.\ercise the super- visory powers just indicated? The demands of such a supervision would require not uniform legislation generally applicable throughout the United States, but a swarm of statutes only locally applicable and utterly inconsistent. Any movement toward the establishment of rules of production In this vast country, with its many different climates and opportunities, could only be at the sacrifice of the peculiar advantages of a large part of the localities in it, if not of every one of them. On the other hand, any movement toward the local, detailed, and incongruous legislation required by; such an Interpretation would be about the widest pos.siblo departure from the declared object of the clause in question. Nor tliis alone. Even in the exercise of the power, contended for Congress would be confined to the regulation not* of certain branches of indus- try, however numerous, but to those Instances in each and every branch where the producer contemplated an interstate market. These Instances would be almost infinite, as we have seen, but still there would always remain the possi- bility, and often would be the case, that the producer contemplated a domestic market. In that case the supervisory power must be executed by the State; and the interminable trouble would be presented that whether the one power or the other sliould exercise the authority in quefetion would be determined not by any general or intelligible rule, but by the secret and changeable intention of the producer in each and every act of production. A situation more paralyz- ing to the State governments, and more provocative of conflicts between the General Government and the States, and less likely to have been what the framers of the Constitution intended, it would be difficult to imagine. Now, Senator Cummins referred the other day Senator Pomekene. Before going into that matter I am not quite sure that I catch the force of your argument. I do not quite see how the Iowa case is a parallel with the matter under consideration. If this were a question involving the validity of some State legislation in one of the Carolinas, for instance, on the subject of the hours of labor, and the question was before our Supreme Court — a case was before the Supreme Court involving the validity of that State legislation — ^then I could see how that Iowa case would be parallel. But this is a question not of State legislation affecting manufac- turing but of Federal legislation affecting the power to regulate in- terstate commerce. So T do not quite see how your case is decisive of the case at bar. Mr. Emeet. I will endeavor to point it out as I see it. The ques- tion presented in the Kidd v. Pearson ca§e was, Did the commerce power attach to an article manufactured: wholly within the State and otherwise within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State to regu- late, because such article of manufacture was intended only for such commerce? The court answered, no, it did not; and that principler involves, if upheld, the right of Congress to say that because any commodity is produced to be exported to another State the commerce clause authorizes Congi'ess to control the manufacture of that article. The object of this bill, frankly stated, is to prevent the creation of an employment relation between children below a certain age and employers engaged in production. INTEBSTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCJCS OF CHILD LABOR. 255 Senator Smith of South Carolina. You are contending, in the citation of this case from Iowa, that the fcourt had decided that the Federal Government had no right under the commerce clause to do the veiT thing that this bill is contemplating trying to do« Mr. Emert. Exactly so. s j e ^^ ■ Senator Smith of South Carolina. And hare denied it the right to do m that decision? Mr Emeet. I think it is perfectly parallel in principle. I think indeed, it is strengthened by the fact ths^t the defense rested upon ]ust one proposition— that the commodity in question was made exclusively for export. The thing we are making, they said, is to go nowhere except into another State. It* is not to be sold or used in this State, and for that reason, because it is manufactured only for export, the commerce power attaches to protect its manufacture and prevent interference by the State, which otherwise would have the power to regulate it. Now, the object of this bill, frankly admitted, is to prohibit child employment. The means adopted to accomplish the regulation of that employment relation, existing wholly within a State and ante- cedent to any act of commerce, is to exclude the article produced from commerce between the States. Now, I assume that this committee agrees that when you proceed to exercise constitutional power, it must be not only for a constitu- tional purpose but by the use of constitutional means. -You may approve a purpose, yet object to the means by which it is to be ac- complished. We may approve, and indeed applaud, the man who undertakes to provide for his old mother's declining years by giving her the means wherewith to li\e, but we utterly repudiate the idea that this purpose justifies him in separating a citizen from his wallet. His purpose is laudable; his means objectionable. We approve the one and condemn the other. Now, I will ask you gentlemen to note that there is not only a dis- tinction but a difference in the very nature of things between the control of production and the control of commerce, between the con- trol of manufacture and the conti'ol of intercourse which the Supreme Court has said again and again is the meaning of the grant of that commerce power; that is, the right to regulate commerce is the right to prescribe the rules under which that commerce shall flow, and to regulate those engaged in it, but only while actually engaged in such commerce. I will presently show you that this court has invalidated legislation by Congress which undertook to regulate those who engaged in commerce when not actually engaged therein or when engaged in intrastate as distinguished from interstate commerce, and, mind you, the question there is only whether they were engaged in commerce between States or within the State. The proposition that you undertake to regulate here is not commerce between States as distinguished from commerce wholly within a State, but a con- dition of production within a State, not a circumstance of intercourse between States. Commerce and manufacture intercourse and pro- duction are two different and distinct things. One is completely ended before the other begins. One can not originate until the other is concluded. In a long line of decisions upon a variety of cases our courts have determined where the co)nmerce power attaches to and relinquishes commodities in transit between the States. 256 INTERSTATE COMMEECE IX PEODTJCIS OF CHILD LABOK. In the commodity clause cases I beg you to notice the position which the court took to save the statute, for, obviously, from that decision, the principle here demanding recognition would have been declared invalid. In the commodities act you will recall that Con- gress forbade transportation by a carrier of commodities manufac- tured, mined, or controlled in their origin by the carrier. In the language of the court the statute in part undertook to " divorce the dual relation of public carrier and private" transporter." There was no conflict in the mind of the court over the proposition that Con- gress could separate those two elements as a further means of pro- tecting the shipper against discrimination. This the court conceded. But, said the court, and I am reading from the United States v. Delaware & Hudson (213 U. S., 407) : With these concessions in mind, and despite their far-reaching effect, if the contentions of the Government as to the meaning of the commodity clause be well founded, nt least a majority of the court are of the opinion that we may not avoid the following grave constitutional questions : Mind you what the contention of the Government was in that case. " This is a radical measure," said, its counsel, and was in- tended to be such. We ask you to interpret this law to mean this: First, that a carrier who manufactures a commodity or mines coal not only can not transport it while it is t!he owner of it, but it can never transport that which it owned or mined, no matter who after- wards owns it ; and, secondly, we ask you to hold that a stock interest in a corporation held by a carrier prevents that carrier from carry- ing anything produced by the corporation in which it possesses a stock interest. That was the position of the Government. Now, to this the court said : If we are to take the position which the Government contends for, a ma- jority of the court are of the opinion that we may not avoid the following grave constitutional questions. ' Both questions are at issue here. I lay stress upon the word " con- trol " here as well as the question of " prohibiting," because the two go together. The court continues : 1. Whether tlie power of Congress to regulate commerce embraces the au- thoi'ity to control or prohibit the mining, manufacturing, production, or owner- ship of an article or commodity, not because of some inherent quality of the commodity, but simply because it may become "the subject of interstate commerce. 2. If the ri.u;ht to regulate commerce does not tj^us extend, can it be Impliedly made to embrace subjects which it does not control by forbidding a railroad company engaged in interstate commerce from carrying lawful articles or com- modities because at some time prior to the transportation it had manufatcured, mined, produced, or owned tliem, etc.? (U. S. v. Delaware & H. Co., 213 U. S., 406-7.) The court said, substantially, to approve the Government's con- tention ^ve are faced with these two propositions. But we do not pass upon them because we believe that We can so construe this act within its language and the intent of Congress as to keep it valid, and we believe that under the two permissible constructions here presented — one of which, that asked by^ the Government, invali- dates the legislation and the other of which sustains it — it is the duty of this court to give effect to the saving construction. The court then construes the act, not as the Government insisted, so as to nSTTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOB. 257 avoid approving either of the grave propositions, affirmative replies to which the court plainly intimated would compel it to annul the act. They looked squarely at the principle upon which this measure is predicated, and said, " We won't approve that, but we will, on the contrary, give a construction which saves the validity of the act." So I submit the Commodity Clause cases clearly fortify the posi- tion we take. Now, you gentlemen are familiar with the debates which took place on the Beveridge bill — I believe some members of this com- mittee were members of the Senate at that time — and you will recall that the only distinction, except with respect to the rule of evi- dence, between this bill and the Beveridge bill is that the Beveridge bill undertook to penalize the carrier who received the commodity for transportation, while this bill penalizes the manufacturer or producer who offers it for transportation. That bill was exten- tively debated, and you will recollect that Senator Spooner and Senator Knox, who had just retired as Attorney General and who had directed the famous lottery case that has been referred to here, and which I think, is clearly distinguishable from any proposition at bar, utterly denied that the lottery case was any authority for the proposal contained in the Beveridge bill, Senator Knox went so far as to say that the Government endeavored to get the Supreme Court to approve such a principle, but they declined to do it. You will find that in the debates of the Senate, I think, on January 29, 1907 or 1908. Mr. KiTCHiN. 1907. Mr. Emert. While this debate was proceeding in the Senate — and T know of no other Senator on the floor who ever supported the con- stitutional proposals set forth by Mr. Beveridge— the House had before it a proposed appropriation for the investigation of female and child labor, and Mr. Tawney, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, raised the question of what jurisdiction, if any, Congress possessed over the subject of female and child labor, and what power, if any, it possessed under the Constitution to ameliorate its conditions. That question was referred to the Judiciary Commit- tee of the House, and that committee reported February 7, 1907. It was a very able committee, and the report was unanimous. It was not a vague report. It deliberately took up and exatmined the very proposition here involved. Can Congress, under the commerce clause, regulate directly or indirectly the conditions of female and child labor engaged wholly within a State ? The answer was no. It Is not a debatable question. It would be a Reflection upon the intelligence of Congress to so legislate. It would be casting an unwelcome burden upon the Supreme Court to so legislate. That is the precise language. You will find in the report set forth at great length the reasoning of the committee. (Rept. No. 7304, 59th Cong., 2d sess.) ^ ,-. . • . ■ -, Now no commentator upon the Constitution, of recognized au- thority and who as examined this proposal, has given it approval. Mr Taft with a reputation as a jurist, has expressly declared in flat language that in his opinion it is a "usurpation" of the au- thority of the States. Mr. Watson, in his work on the Constitution, 27896—16 — -n 258 INTEKSTATE COMMEEOB IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. takes the same position. Mr. Willoughby took the same position, but I understand, from the statement of Mr. Parkinson here, that he has since modified his opinion. It does- not appear, I understand, in any later version of his works. Perhaps it will, but if you gen- tlemen are interested, I suggest that you examine the disapproving opinion in order that you may see if its reasoning is at all affected by the subsequent modification. All the weight of authority is against this proposal. Now we state, as a second contention, that the intention of the manufacturer to export in commerce can not be used as a basis upon which to predicate this power. Persons, firms, or corporations engaging in interstate commerce, or producing for shipment therein, are not subject to the commercial power of Congress save while actually engaged in interstate transac- tions or operating or using instrumentalities of commerce. Such persons, firms, and corporations, while producing commodities for interstate transportation, and before shipping them from the State of origin to the State of destination, are subject to and entitled to the local regulation of such production by the State. If this bill predicates its authority to regulate production upon the fact that the producer intends to, or ultimately does, ship" his commodity in interstate commerce, it is an invalid exercise of the commercial power. By the terms of the fourth section of the bill it does assert a right to regulate production jaecause the subject matter of regulation is prepared or held for shipment in interstate com- merce. Of course, if Congress possesses the power to exclude from com- merce the products of child labor, it unquestionably possesses the power to use such means as are necessary and appropi-iate to enforce its will; but the proposal contained in the fourth " section of this bill, that the Secretary of Labor shall provide for national factory inspection, by invading and scrutinizing all those places in which articles are produced or held for interstate commerce, obviously predicates the right to inspect or to regulate upon the fact that the article, while held in the territory and subject to the jurisdiction of the State of its origin, is intended to go into interstate commerce. You predicate your authority for inspection upon that proposi- tion Senator Poi^DExTER. All that is directed rather to the secondary matters of the enforcement of the law. Mr. Emert. Yes, sir. I do not see anything in that if you possess the primary power to exclude, for then your power to provide the means by which to execute your will can hot be questioned. Senator Poindbxtb:r. As to the main question of the power of Congress to interpose an objection to the shipment of an article out of the State, that is the principal question here, and you deny the constitutionality of that, I understand?. Mr. Emery. Yes, sir ; but I say this is part of the original propo- sition. If the original proposition is right, if it is a valid exercise of the commerce power, if this is a regulation of comjnerce and not of production, I do not question your right' to use appropriate means to enforce it. But I do say the very terms of the inspection system by which you undertake to enforce it is a declaration of your intent to predicate your authority upon the proposition that because an INTERSTATE COMMEECE IN PEODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. 259 article is destined or intended for interstate commerce but still within the State of its origin it is within reach of the commerce power, and I want to call your attention now to a case which meets that con- tention squarely. Senator Townsend. Let me ask you a question there. Do you deny that Congress would have any right to regulate the shipment of these goods in commerce if it did not apply ba6k to the manufacturer of them; for instance, could we put an imposition on the railroads, pre- venting .shipments in interstate commerce ? Mr. Emerx. I want to discuss that, if I may, under another head- ing, when I undertake to discuss contraband or outlawed articles. That is a distinct proposition. Senator Poindextee. Before you take tip that case, if it is not confusing, I want to ask something in regard to this Kidd case. The question there was not involved, was it, at all, as to the power of Congress to prohibit the shipment of liquors from one State into another? Mr. Emery. Are you sjieaking of the power of Congress to pro- hibit the shipment of liquors ? Senator Poindextee. Yes. Mr. Emeey. That question, of course, is not at issue anywhere. Senator Poindextee. Well, a similar question is the principal one in this bill — ^the power of Congress to prohibit the shipment of cer- tain articles from one State to another. That is the main question involved in this bill, and it was not involved at all in the Kidd case. Mr. Emeey. Pardon me; I think the Kidd case is the strongest case to be stated for the bill, for this reason: You are not undertak- ing in this bill to prohibit the shipment of -articles in interstate com- merce because of anything inherently bad in the article itself, but you' look back to conditions under which it was made, to a contract between the employer and the child, the employment relationship, and you say that because of that employment relationship these arti- cles, otlierwise good, shall be prohibited in commerce. In other words, you say — and I shall presently consider the rule of construc- tion if it be disputed — ^you say on the face of this bill that because you employ children in the production of an article under condi- tions which are in violation of the standard established by Con' gress, for that reason alone we exclude the goods from commerce. A lump of coal coming from a mine in which one child is employed below the prohibited age becomes an illicit article of commerce not because there is anything wron^ with that coal, or that it can be distinguished from any other piece of coal, but because upon in- specting that mine you find employed a child under age. By virtue of the fact that he is in the mine you assume through a rule of evi- dence, that he has contributed to the production of that commodity, and" you exclude it from commerce. Senator Poindextee. I see the point there, and I think that is an arguable question. I was only referring to the Kidd case because you quoted that as being a case applicable here. It seems to me it does not involve the point and does not touch the point that you are now arguing. You say that these articles manufactured by child labor in themselves are innocuous. The Kidd case was dealing with liquor — — 260 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. Mr. Emery. Yes, sir. , ni . i i i i. ■ j Senator Poin dexter. Which may be held to be deleterious, and, secondly, may be prohibited in commerce. So the Supreme Court, in deciding the Kidd case, did not lay down any rule whatever as to denying Congress the power in the matters that were involved m that case to do what the proponents of this bill are seeking to do. Mr. Emery. Let us see whether it did or not. The proposal in the Kidd case is this, assuming just what you say: Here is an article that may be declared contraband in cominerce. Assuming that to be true, if the power of Congress is not great enough to say that a contraband article or an article that may be declared contraband does not have attached to it the commerce power when it is made solely for export, how does that fortify the position of one who says that an article . which by its nature is not contraband can have the commerce power attached to it during its manufacture, not because ■ it is produced under conditions that affect the health of its pros- pective consumer, or because it is inherently bad in itself, but be- cause it is produced under an employment contract which is a recog- nized legal relationship in the State in which it is manufactured? Now, let me call your attention to the ease of Coe v. ErroU (116 U. S., 517), where a lumberman cut his logs and floated them down a stream in the State of New Hampshire. They were destined, I think, for the State of Maine. They flowed down the stream on the banks of which they had been cut to the town of Errol, and there they were tied up for some time. Tliere the county undertook to tax them, and the defense was set up that they were commodities intended for shipment and on their way to another State, and that the commerce power attached to them and protected them against taxation, because to impose a tax upon such an article of commerce was to burden that commerce, and therefore regulate it. The Su- preme Court on appeal rejected this contention and pointed out that logs had not become articles of commerce; that there was and must be a definite time at which the commerce power as distinguished from the police power, attached to an article, and that, said the court, was when the commodity in question had- in its state of origin been committed to a carrier for shipment to its destination in another State. Up to that time it was completely within the control of the State for regulatory purposes, and its status was entirely unaffected by the shipping intention of the producer. In this branch of the discussion I want to call your attention to another very important question. I know you gentlemen considered it when you had the trade commission bill before you. I remember it was referred to in the very interesting sirgument then made by the Senator from Ohio — and that is on this proposition. Does the fact that one engages in interstate commerce submit him wholly to the regulating power of commerce, and is there any distinction between such regulatory power over a person, a firm, or corporation? I contend that there is no distinction in the exercise of the commerce power over a person, firm, or corporation engaged in commerce, be- cause a corporation is a person within the meaning of the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments. The only distinction that has ever been made in applying the constitutional guarantees to a cor- poration as distinguished from a natural person, is that immunity from self-incrimination is a personal right, and an officer .of a cor- INTERSTATE COMMEECE IS PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. 261 poration may claim it for himself but not on behalf of his corpora- tion. Not only has the Supreme Court never held that because one en- gages in commerce, even as a carrier, chiefly engaged in commerce betweeA the States, he is submitted wholly to the regulation of Congress, but that court invalidated the first employer's liability act in which counsel for the Government asserted that theory. (Em- ployer's Liability cases, 207 U. S.) Senator Smith of South Carolina. While you are on this matter, I would like to know what is your opinion — if this is held consti- tutional, that the Federal Government has the right to take cog- nizance of and control the production within a State of an article which may become an article of export, or interstate — as to whether or not it would then have the right to say, for instance, in the cotton fields of the South, where the cotton which is gathered and ginned, which is a process of manufacture — that it may not be exported if certain classes of people are engaged in the picking and ginning of that cotton ? Why is that not a parallel to this case ? Mr. Emert. It seems to me it is exactly parallel. That is exactly why the principle is applied here to a subject matter which excites the sympathy of every well-intentioned man, appeals to one's own most natural human feelings, and confuses one's mind with respect to the effect of the principle of regulation proposed. Let us take, for instance, this serious question which Senator Smith has raised. Are we to take the position which Mr. Parkin- son suggested the other day, that the cominerce power can be used to meet every pending question of morals, health, or labor ? That Con- gress is to step back, as is proposed here, into any or every State where marriage or health or factory laws are not up to its standards and adjust them by denying the privilege of intercourse until they are accepted. Surely there are many more evils that you gentlemen recognize clearly that however impatient we become must be worked out by the States or reached by constitutional amendment. The first, I should say, is the evil of a lack of uniform marriage and divorce laws. Every civilized nation realizes that the marital relation is the very foundation of national morals and well-being, and yet here is a State — South Carolina — which has no divorce laws, and there is the State of Nevada which has many divorce laws. Many of our States decline to recognize divorces obtained in other States and persons divorced in one State remarry but live in immorality when they go to another. , ^^ n • . x, ^ Senator Pomeeene. You ought not to refer to Nevada m that way. Mr Emerx. Here is a recognized evil. Does any member of this committee think that because it is a recognized evil Congress can set up a standard of divorce and say that for 'the protection of national morality a person divorced in any State of the Union, for causes other than those declared in those standards, shall not en]oy the facilities of interstate commerce? .. n ,, ui. Senator Poindexter. Is that not ]ust a question of the reasonable- ness of the regulation? We have set up a statute, the so-called Mann Act dealing with morality under the interstate-commerce clause. Senktor Snuth mentioned the power with respect to a similar prm- ciple, to exclude cotton ginned under certain conditions. Ihere 262 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN FKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. again it seems to me to be a question of condition. If it was ginned under such conditions as would generate disease, for instance, or if it was infected cotton, manufactured or ginned under infected or diseased surroundings, and liable to promote disease, Congress could put an embargo on it. We have a question now before Con- gress, and I have not heard the constitutionality of it questioned, with respect to putting an embargo on arms and ammunition — not to regulate it, but prohibit it. ; Mr. Emery. That is another issue entirely. Senator Poindextbe. It comes under the power of commerce to regulate foreign commerce? Mr. Emery. Yes; foreign commerce. Senator Poindextek. And it has the same power to regulate inter- state commerce. Mr. Emery. Well, I must confess that I deny that, Senator.^ But I do not think it is at issue here. If you will permit me, I want to call your attention to the Employers' Liability case, because of the statement I made, if 1 get too far from- it I shall not be able to connect it with the proposition I laid down. You will recall that when Congress passed the first employers' liability law it went to the Supreme Court in the Employers' Liability cases (207 U. S., 463). The court said: Now, the rule which the statute establishes for the purpose of determining whether all the subjects to which it relates are to be controlled by its pro- visions, is that anyone who conducts such business be a " common carrier engaged in trade or commerce in the District of Columbia, or in any Territory of the United States, or between the several States." ■ That is, the subjects stated all come within the statute when the individual or corporation is a common carrier who engages in trade or commerce be- tween the States, etc. From this it follows that the statute deals with all the concerns of the individuals or corporations to which it relates if they engage as common carriers in trade or commerce as between the States, etc., and does not confine Itself to the interstate-comlnerce business which may be done by such persons. Stated in another form, the statute is addressed to the individuals or corpo- rations who are engaged in interstate, commerce and is not confined solely to regulating the interstate-commerce business which such persons may do — that is, it regulates the persons because th\,v engage in interstate commerce and does not alone regulate the business of i^ilerstate commerce. 3. It remains only to consider tl>5 (;ontention which we have previously quoted, that the act is constituttornil, although it embraces subjects not within the power of Congress to regulate commerce, because one who engages in in- terstate commerce thereby submits all his business concerns to the regulating power of Congress. To state the proposition is to refute it. It assumes that, because one engages in Interstate commerce, he thereby endows Congress with power not delegated to it by the Constitution ; in other words, with the right to legislate concerning matters of purely state concern. It rests upon the con- ception that the Constitution destroyed that freedom of conunerce which it was its purpose to preserve, since it treats the right to engage in interstate com- merce as a privilege which can not be availed of except upon such conditions as Congress may prescribe, even although the conditions would be otherwise beyond the power of Congress — That bites into the very heart of this measure — It is apparent that If the contention were well founded it would extend the power of Congress to every conceivable subject, however inherently local, would obliterate all the limitations of power imposed by the Constitution, and would destroy the authority of the States as to all conceivable matters which, from the beginning, have been, and must continue to be. under their control as long as the Constitution endures, (pp. 503-503. > INTEBSTATE COMMERCE IN PKODTJCTS OP CHILD LABOB. 263 Now I want to point out to the committee that every article ex- cluded from commerce by Congress has been inherently bad, danger- ous, unmerchantable, or not a subject of commerce. 'The origin and nature of the commerce power and the decisions of the courts thereon are to the effect that the power of Congress as to legitimate commerce is to regulate and not to prohibit or exclude it. The evil and abuse of child labor lies in its employment in pro- duction. It precedes and is unrelated to the transportation in inter- state commerce, and the arbitrary declaration of a relationship in production between a person and the article produced and trans- ported can not change the nature of the article or single it out for exclusion from commerce by that fact. Mr. Parkinson pointed out to you the other day, in the course of his very interesting argument, various articles which Congress had excluded, laying stress, first of all, on wild game. Congress has provided for its transportation in the Lacey Act, and we have also a migratory-bird law, which has not been judicially reviewed as yet and of which nothing can be said. Senator Poindextee. A case is now pending in court, I believe, involving that. Mr. Emery. Yes, sir. Let me point out the distinction between all these cases and the pending proposal. It is a very clear one. It was laid down very decisively in the case of Geer v. Connecticut (161 U. S., 519). The decision was written by Mr. Justice White. The facts were these: A statute of Connecticut prohibited the transpor- tation of wild game killed in that State to any other State — that is, game lawfully killed — and the Supreme Court held that by its nature wild game was the property in common of the people of each com- munity. That nobody could have any property right in it, except under such conditions as the State permitted, so that it could utterly forbid the killing of game or reducing it to ownership, or could per- mit anyone to have it in their possession during the open season and make its possession unlawful when the season was closed. The State could, therefore, forbid its transportation to any other State, as a condition that the State could attach to itS' ownership. The Lacey Act makes it unlawful for any carrier to receive for transportation any game which has been unlawfully killed in any State, and, of course, that statute rests upon the same principle as the case of Geer v. Connecticut. Here Congress excluded from com- merce an article which in itself and which by its nature was not the subject matter of commerce. This act was sustained in the case of Rupertt;. United States (181 Federal). . ^ Now, the right to engage in commerce b.etween the States is the right to do rightful things in thnt commerce, not to endanger or re- strain it, nor the right to use its facilities for immorality or fraud or swindling or to introduce disease or pestilence or contagion, or articles that in their nature are not objects of commerce. In all the long line of decisions in which these subjects have been adjudicated, there have been urged here but perhaps two cases that seem to me to require careful consideration and distinction— one is the case of Ch'ampion v. Ames (188 U. S., 372) , the " Lottery case "Pon^fich very much stress has been laid, and Hoke «. United States (227 U S 308), known as the "White Slave" case. In all these cases, from the very beginning, the court has always taken the position 264 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PBODTJCTS OF CHILD LABOE. that nobody has a right, natural or legal, and that no constitution ever created by man or God guaranteed to any man the right to do a ■wrongful, an immoral, or an obscene thing, or to introduce disease, contagion, or fraud, or impure or rotten food into anybody's house, much less into another State. In all the cases interpreting the pure-food law, from the first to the last expression of the Supreme Court of the United States on that subject in the case of the Seven Cases of Eckmans Alterative, de- cided by Mr. Justice Hughes on the 10th of January, 1916, the court held that articles and commodities under question were not " articles of commerce " ; by the common judgment and sense of mankind they were not and are not "merchantable" commodities. They are in themselves inherently bad, rotten, diseased, fraudulent, or illicit, and this court and Congress itself merely recognizes and identifies them for what they are, as everybody else does. It takes judicial notice of the fact of their inherent badness. But they are all bad in themselves and not because they are produced by a Chinaman, or a black man, or a white man, or a man with red hair, or a bald-headed man. They are bad because of their very nature. The Chairman. It is now the hour of 12 o'clock and the committee will have to adjourn. Do you care to finish this afternoon? Mr. Emekt. I shall not take, I think, longer than 15 or 20 minutes. Senator Smith of South Carolina. Mr. Emery's argument is very interesting to me, and I would like to be present when he resumes. (Thereupon the committee took a recess until 4 o'clock p. m.) AFTER RECESS. The committee resumed its session, pursuant to the taking of the recess, at 4 o'clock p. m.. Senator Francis G. Newlands (chairman) presiding. The Chairman. You may go on with your argument now, Mr. Emery. STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES A. EMERY— Resumed. Mr. Emery. If I may be permitted to summarize my discussion of this morning, I predicated our opposition, to this measure upon the form in which it was cast, which I thought wider than its express purpose ; the rule of evidence which it created, "making prima facie evidence of a violation of the act facts not only entirely consistent with the innocence of a shipper but essential to the innocent exercise of his right to manufacture under the laws of the State in which he operated. I further suggested that these provisions gave no protec- tion to but rather encouraged arbitrary arrest and prosecution, as though a citizen were not to be protected |rom this as a part of due process of law as well as from arbitrary conviction and imprison- ment. I called attention to the fact that the penalties incurred by the shipper under the bill were dependent on the volume of his ship- ments and not upon the number of children employed; that a large manufacturing establishment employing one child incurred infinitely greater penalties than a small establishment operated exclusively by children and with a proportionately smaller number of shipments. 1 then undertook to assert that the legislative policy proposed would INTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. 265 secure a legal uniformity at the expense oi a principle essential to the preservation of national integrity, the operation of a dual form of government in which the national authority operated directly upon the people and not merely upon the States, yet reserved to each of the States complete self-government in its internal and domestic affairs, a unique and essential characteristic of our system. I objected to the validity of the measure on the ground that it was,, by its avowed purpose, nature, and terms, a regulation of production under the guise of a regulation of commerce. That the commerce power operated upon persons, firms, and cor- portations, not while engaged in production nor because they engaged in commerce, but applied only to the transaction of the interstate- commerce business of such persons, and that the power of Congress did not attach either to a commodity because it was intended for commerce or to completed articles which were to be shipped in com- merce until they were actually delivered to a shipper in the State of origin for transmission to the State of destination. That, further, the power to exclude articles from comihcrce between the States rested upon an inherent defect in the article itself, its danger to such commerce while in it, or to articles that were not " subjects " of com- merce or were immoral or illicit in their nature to persons being transported for an immoral purpose and to the contracts of all per- sons when made for the purpose of obstructing or regulating that which Congress alone may regulate. At adjournment I was engaged in discussing the principle of the cases referred to by Mr. Parkinson, such as the Lottery case, the White Slave case, the Pure Food cases, and others predicated upon the same fundamentals, and I had asserted that every article ex- cluded from commerce was unmerchantable, illicit, or not a " subject " of commerce. It seemed, therefore, that the origin and nature of the commerce power and the character of its sustained exercise demon- strate that the power of Congress as to legitimate commerce is to regulate but not to prohibit or exclude. The evil and abuse of child labor lies in its employment in production which precedes and is unrelated to transportation in interstate commerce. The dec! n ration of an arbitrary relationship between production by selected persons and succeeding transportation can not justify singhng out such article for exclusion froin commerce. The class of articles upon which the commerce power has been most widely exercised has been misbranded, impure, diseased, poisonous, obscene, or injurious articles. I use " injurious in the sense of im- periling other articles of commerce in transit like explosives or loose hly, which expose other freight to destruction by fire. In a 1 these cases the decision of the court supporting the Po^er is predi- cated upon the inherent nature of the article itself I can not illus- trate this better than by citing two ca^es. One J^at o* Plumley v Massachusetts (155 U. S., 401), the other that of Schollenberger v. Pennsylvama ari YJliht^te of Massachusetts had forbidden by law the sX of misbranded butter and o^— Xr'ltat^ W Te involved a shipment of oleomargarine from another State by tne Silit' H?w:rarrestedandVosecuted,^b^^^^^^^^^^^ rine wns labeled as butter. The defendant retired behind tne com meLclauS claiming it protected him from interference by the 266 INTERSTATE COMMEKOE IN PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. State, and that Massachusetts by her statute was writing' a regulation of commerce. But the Supreme Court said, through Mr. Justice Harlan, " No man has a constitutional right to use the facilities of commerce to work a fraud' upon a person or a community." Oleo- margarine branded as butter was a fraud upon its face. On the contrary, in the case of SchoUenberger v, Pennsylvania, oleomargarine labeled as such was shipped into the State of Penn- sylvania, and that State, under a statute which forbade the sale of ' that product, undertook to prevent its delivery in the original pack- age and to punish the person who received it. The United States Supreme Court" again pointed out the distinction from the Massa- chusetts case, saying that oleomargarine is a legitimate and taxed article of commerce, and when labeled a*s such is not subject to exclusion. Every case of misbranding is subject to the same principle, because when the article is declared to be that Avhich it is not, it is an endeavor to work a fraud upon the comrnunity, which no man has a constitutional right to do. That same principle has been applied from the first case in which it was laid down to the last case in which it has been announced that of the seven cases Eckman's Alterative v. United States, decided by Mr. Justice Hughes in January of this year. In this case Eckman's Alterative was represented by a circular in each package shipped to be a " preventive " of pneumonia, and it was stated that it " would cure " and had been known to " cure " tuberculosis. So it was held liable to seizure under the pure food and drugs act on the ground that Congress could prevent the circulation through commerce of an article which in itself was a swindle and a fraud upon the public. In the Hipolyte Egg case (220 U. S., 45) we have a most striking definition of the power of Congress to prevent the interstate ship- ment of misbranded, poisonous, fraudulent, defective, and injurious products. In that case the Government undertook by libel to seize a great number of packages of eggs adulterated with boric acid. This was resisted not only on the ground that they were shipped by the manufacturer to himself for use and not sale, but that they had become mingled with the commerce of the State into which they were imported and were beyond the reach -of the Federal power, Mr. Justice McKenna, in writing the decision in that case, exem- plified the principle I have endeavored to express. He said; We are dealing, it must be renifniberecl, with illicit articles — articles which the law seeks to keep out of commerce because they are debased by adultera- tion, and which punishes thein (if \\'e may so express ourselves) and the ship- per of them. There is no denial that such is the purpose of the law, and the limitation of the power directed to such purpose which is urged is that the articles must be apprehended in transit, or before they have become a part of the general mass of property of the State, In other words, the contention attempts to apply to articles of illegitimate commerce the rule which marks the line between the exercise of Federsil power and State powers over articles of legitimate counuerce. The contention misses the question in the case. Thre is no conflict of national and State jurisdictions over property legally articles of trade. The question here is whether articles which are outlaws of commerce may be seized wherever found ; and it certainly will not be con- tended that they are outside of the jurisdiction of the National Government w;hen they are within the borders of a State. . The question in the case is, therefore, What power has the Congress over such articles? Can they escape the consequences of their illegal transportation by being mingled at the place of destination with other property? To giver INTEBSTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. 267 them such immunity would defent, in many cases, the provision for their confiscation, and their confiscation or destruction is the especial concern of the law. The power to do so is certainly appropriate to the right to bar them from interstate commerce, and complete this purpose, which is not to prevent merely the physical movement of adulterated articles, but the use of them, or rather to prevent trade in them between the States by denying to them the facilities of interstate commerce. And appropriate means to that end, which we have seen is legitimate, are the seizure and condemnation of the articles at their point of destination in the original, unbroken packages. Senator Cummins. May I interrupt? Mr. Emery. Certainly, Senator Cttmmins. Have you ever examined the power or author- ity of Congress to regulate the capitalization, we will say, of a State corporation engaged in interstate commerce by prohibiting it from so engaging unless it conformed to certain requirements about capi- talization? Mr. Emery. In other words, to make its engagement in interstate commerce dependent upon or conform to such license? Senator CtrMMiNs. Not necessarily licerise. It is a privilege, or a right you may call it, oif engaging in interstate commerce dependent upon a certain form of organization or certain conditions in organi- zations. Assuming that case— we have had that question before us a great many times Mr. Emery (interposing). Yes, sir. Senator Cummins (continuing). I wondered whether you would see any parallel between that and the question under consideration. Mr. Emery. It seems to me that the answer to that is fully con- tained in what are known as the Employers' Liability cases (207 U. S., 463), in which the court quite answers your question, if I understand what you mean. Senator Cummins. I might put it another way, so that you may not understand it. Mr. Emery. Yes. Senator Cum^nfins. Have we authority to say that a corporation shall not engage in interstate commerce organized under the laws of the State, of course, unless its capital stock was fully paid up ? Mr. Emery. I should think not. Senator, but if there could be es- tablished there a relation essential to the protection of commerce the answer might be yes. But if you undertake to predicate it upon the proposal that because the corporation was engaged in commerce it was therefore subject to regulation as a matter of course, or that the power of Congress over the corporatioin was greater or different in quality from that which it possessed oVer a person or a firm or a partnership, I should say no. I should think that the decision in tjie Employers' Liability cases, to which I have referred — I do not seem to have the quotation with me— completely meets that inquiry, because in that case it was contended that because an interstate car- rier was engaged almost exclusively in interstate commerce, there- fore that portion of its business which did not relate to interstate commerce was likewise subject to the power of Congress. The court stated it in this way (Employers' Liability cases, 207 U. h., 463) : It remains only to consider the contention which we have previously quoted— that the act is constitutional— although it embraces sub.1eets not withm the power of Congress to regulate commerce, because; one who engages in interstate commerce thereby ^.braits all its business conderns to the regulating power 268 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD- LABOR. of Congress. To state the proposition is to refute it. It assumes tliat, because one engages in interstate commerce, he thereby endows Congress with power not delegated to it by the Constitution ; in other words, with the right to legislate concerning matters of purely state concern. It rests upon the con-, ception that the Constitution destroyed, that freedom of commerce which it was its purpose to preserve, since it treats the right to engage in interstate commerce as a privilege which can not be availed of except upon such condi- tions as Congress may prescribe, even though the conditions would be otherwise beyond the power of Congress. It is apparent that if the contention were well founded it would extend the power of Congress to every conceivable subject, however inherently local, would obliterate all the limit;ations of power imposed by the Constitution, and would destroy the authority of the States as to all conceivable matters, which from the beginning have been and must continue to be under their control as long as the Constitution endures. Senator Cummins. What is the relation you had in mind when you suggested that if a relation between prohibition and interstate com- merce were established then such a law might be constitutional ? Mr. Emery. It is this, Senator, and it is the kind of cases that support all the decisions under the Sherman Act applying to prohi- bition of certain contracts and certain operations effecting an undue restraint or monopoly of commerce. Thus we have Addystone Pipe & Steel case, 175 U. S., in which the court points out that Congress possesses the power to prohibit contracts made by persons, firms, or corporations, the necessary or intended effect of which is to regu- late commerce. In other words, Congress having the exclusive power to regulate commerce or the right to prescribe the rules by which intercourse shall be governed, has the right to protect that intercourse from regulation or trespass by another, whether it be a State or a private citizen. Senator Lewis. May I interrupt for a question ? Mr. Emery. Cetrainly. Senator Lewis. Senator Cummins had the same thought in his mind as I have, but I do not think he quite expressed it. A circuit court of the United States down in Tennessee the other day held as unconstitutional an act of Congress, which we passed and which was presented by Senator Smith of South Carolina, in which case the court went so far as to hold that because Congress had assumed, among other things — they spoke about legislation carrying appro- priations, originating in the Senate, being a violation of the Consti- tution Senator EoBiNsoN (interposing). And legislation providing for the raising of revenue. Senator Lewis. Yes; they had that in there. Then the opinion proceeds to say, among other things, that Congress, in attempting to legislate upon a subject which in itself is executed solely and wholly within a State where it is undertaken, such subject is not within the power of Congress. Have you noticed the reason upon which they based that decision? Mr. Emery. I must confess I have not seen the opinion. Senator ; so I hesitate to discuss the matter. Senator Lewis. It has not been brought to your attention ? Mr. Emeey. No, sir. Senator Robinson. That provided for a tax, and dealt with the subject of cotton futures under the taxing power; and if I under- stand the decision correctly, it held that since the Constitution pro- vides that bills for raising revenues must originate in the House of INTEKSTATE OOMMEHOE IN PBODUCTS OP CHILD LABOK. 269 Eepresentatives, and this bill originated in the Senate, it was in vio- lation o± that provision of the Constitution. Senator Lewis. That is one feature, Sejiator, in which I am not particularly interested. It was the other. If the doctrine announced by that court is correct, Senator Cummins's suggestion is very appropriate. If that be truly the law then Congress can never do anything connected with interstate commerce where the act itself could be completed within a State. Here is a serious question, according to my way of thinking. Senator Robinson. May I interrupt for 9, question, Senator ? Senator Lewis. Certainly. Senator Eobinson. This bill provides that before goods can be shipped out of one State into another the shipper must obtain a certificate made in that State that the goods were not made by child labor and that child labor was not employed in their manufacture. Am I right about that ? Mr. Emert. It provides that it shall be unlawful for any pro- ducer, manufacturer, or dealer to ship or deliver for shipment in interstate commerce the product of any mine or quarry situated in any State, which has been produced in whole or in part by the labor of children under the age of 16 years, or the product of any mill, cannery, workshop, factory, or manufacturing establishment in the United States which has been produced in whole or in part by the labor of children under the age of 14 years, or by the labor of children between the ages of 14 years and 16 years who work more than 8 hours in any one day, or more than 6 days in any one week, or after the hour of 7 o'clock p. m., or befoi-e the hour of Y o'clock a. m. Senator Lewis. Have you not a provision in this law that a certificate must be required before the goods are shipped ? Mr. Emert. Not in this measure. We are discussing the bill as passed by the House. Senator Lewis. That is the one I am -referring to. I am dis- cussing a thing which does not exist. I apologize. Senator Cummins. You say it is your opinion that Congress could not require that corporations engaged in interstate commerce shall be organized under a law of the United States? Mr. Emert. I do not see at the moment, Senator, the relation between the commerce to be regulated and the purpose stated. Senator Robinson. Will you pardon me for going back to the question of Senator Lewis? Mr. Emert. Certainly. . , , . . ,. Senator Robinson. I think he had m mind the proviso m line 24, at the bottom of page 3. Mr. Emekt. With respect to guarantee? Senator Robinson. Yes. Mr. Emert. That is another matter. Senator Robinson. It has been urged that we ought to pass a law providing for no incorporation except under a Federal law, and that we could make it exclusive, compulsory. ^ a t.^ r Mr Emert. There are several bills of fhat character, Senator. I have heard them argued by very distinguished authorities with great interest; but I believe some of them went off on another phase 270 INTERSTATE COMMEECE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. of the law. I confess I do not see the parity between that and the provisions under discussion. Senator Eobinson. They are engaged in interstate commerce? Mr. Emery. Yes ; but I do not see the, relation. I do not know of any distinction made in any decision of the United States courts with reference to the right of corporations, persons, firms, and part- nerships to engage in interstate commerce — that is, with respect to constitutional guarantees — which holds that such guarantees apply only to natural persons. It is in the Constitution, and it has always been recognized by the courts, that there is no distinction between a natural person and a corporation, except the distinction with regard to the immunity clause. Senator Robinson. I am not making that distinction. If they chose that form of incorporation, then they must incorporate under the Federal statute, if one existed. Of course, we have none now. Mr. Emery. No. I think that is answered by the statement in the employers' liability cases, where it was said that to engage in interstate commerce was not a privilege which depended upon Con- gress, and which Congress could arbitrarily condition. Senator Robinson. Your proposition is that if the goods are themselves wholesome and sound, and tha.t their use shall be whole- some, we can not go back of that and look into the conditions of production or by whom they are produced ? Mr. Emery. I would not say you could not go back of that and inquire into the conditions of production or by whom they are pro- duced, because you do go back in the case of misbranded or adul- terated goods. But in this case you go back to examine the character of employment, the relationship existing between the manufacturer of the goods and those whom he hires to manufacture them. The employment contract, the relationship of employment, created and existing wholly within the territory of a State, is within the juris- diction of that State under its police pow^. Senator Robinson. Still, misbranded goods do not make an ex- ception from the suggestion I have just made. I am assuming now that the goods when offered for shipment are sound, wholesome, not fraudulent in any form. I understand your position to be that the person who owns them has a right that can not be- interfered with to put them in the course t)f an interstate shipment and that we can not go further back and inquire how or by whom they were produced. Mr. Emery. I do not believe it to be within the power of Con- gress to exclude wholesome meat or wholesome bread from interstate carriage between the States, because there was a child 10 years old in the kitchen where the bread was baked or where the meat was cooked. Senator Robinson. I was trying to get parallels, if I could. _Mr. Emery. Assuming, as I do, under the decisions, that the in- hibitions and the guarantees of the Constitution apply with equal force to corporations as they do to persong, then I know of nothing that would support a contention that would make a condition of en- gaging in commerce that the capital stock of the corporation had to be fully paid up, it being a State corporation. Now, 1 beg to turn your attention to two cases which are greatly relied upon in argument to support the validity of this proposal — the lottery case, and the Hoke case, commonly known as the white- mTEESTATB COMMERCI^ IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 271 slave case. The lottery case, as you gentlemen well know, was the subject o± a strong dissent, chiefly directed to a disagreement over whether or not a lottery ticket was an article of commerce, or whether it ought to be regarded as within the ternfs of those contracts which are held not subjects of commerce, like insurance policies or other contracts which merely establish a personal relation between parties thereto and were not, in themselves, articles of commerce. The court held that when a lottery ticket wa§ transported by an inde- pendent carrier it was an article of commerce, but the court very carefully limits its decision in the case. In sustaining the exclusion of lottery tickets from interstate com- merce by the act of ' 1895 the court illustrates the exercise of the power of prohibition by appeal, first of all, to the diseased cattle act of 1884, which forbids the transportation of live stock affected with an infectious or communicable disease and by appeal to the decisions affirming the Sherman Act, notablj^ the Addystone Pipe & Steel Co. '«. United States (175 U. S., 211), in which that court sustained the power of Congress to enact a law " prohibiting citizens from enter- ing into those private contracts which directly and substantially, and not merely indirectly, remotely, incidentally, and collaterally, regulate to a greater or less degree commerce among the States." The court denied that this decision led " necessarily to the conclu- sion that Congress may arbitrarily exclude from commerce among the States any article or commodity or thing, of whatever kind or nature or however useful or valuable, which it may choose, no matter with what motive, to declare shall not be carried from one State to another." The court further says: We may, however, repeat in, this connection what the court has heretofore said, that the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the States, although plenary, can not be deemed arbitrary, since it is subject to such limitations or restrictions as are prescribed by the Constitution. This power, therefore, may not be exercised so as to infringe rights secured or protected by that instrument. It would not be difficult to imagine legislation that would be justly liable to such an objection as that stated and be hostile to the objects for the accomplishment of which Congress was invested with the general power to regulate commerce among the several States. Senator Cummins. If you can imagine a. state of society in which gambling was not against public policy, with the Constitution as it IS now, would you have expected a different decision in the lottery case? Mr. Emery. I think in that case that Congress and the courts do not create but recognizes an inherent quality in the article which expresses the common judgment of the Natipn. Senator Cummins. Is it not true that it goes further, and that it recognizes an inherent immorality in the business of gambling? Mr. Emery. Lotteries had come into the Supreme Court of the United States 70 or 80 years before, and the courts had refused to recognize the validity of contracts predicated upon them or to pro- tect such contracts, and this was but a last step in regulating the traffic in lottery tickets, a thing bad in itself, " a traffic in which," the court said, " no man may engage as a matter of right." Senator Cummins. If child labor, the question mentioned in this bill, were generally recognized to be immoral, as gambling is, would you not consider them parallel ? 272 INTERSTATE COMMEECE IN PKODTJCTS OF CHILD LABOR. Mr. Emert. 1 would consider the regulation of the transportation of the child for that purpose or the reguUtion of the use of children in interstate commerce. I mean on any common carrier, like a mes- senger boy working for a telegraph or telephone company, where the carrier was within the clear jurisdiction of Congress. Senator Lewis. I argued the lottery case in the lower court and tried during that argument — in the higher court I tried to do the same thing — to get the court to adopt a theory of a lottery ticket the same as that which applies to a policy of insurance, they having pre- viously held that a policy of insurance was not an article of interstate comrnerce. The man had sent a ticket out and sent the money, actually in dollars and cents, which was the result of the lottery drawing ; and the question was whether or not that could be inhibited by the United States, more on the ground that it was passing be- tween States as the result of a thing that was contrary to good morals. The question as to this bill is : Is it within the power of Congress to say that child labor is immoral merely because a thing is done by a child ? Can Congress say that that thing per se is immoral when it violates any of the established doctrines which define it as im- morality? Mr. E31ERT. To what would you refer the exercise of that power? Senator Lewis. For instance, is it right, in your opinion, to say that child labor is immoral or illegal in itself, and, being such, that we could prohibit the results of it? Mr. Emerx. Congress, if it did that, would repudiate the position it took in enacting legislation in the District of Columbia for the regulation of child labor. I called attention this morning to the fact that I did not think that anyone contends that the employment of child labor per se is an evil. It is argued that the employment of child labor is an evil if such employment injures the health of= the child or prevents him from securing an education, or something of that sort. By except- ing agricultural occupations this bill argues that a child working on a farm is not injured, because he is working at an occupation that takes him out of doors and probably is calculated to better his health, rather than injure it. So this bill approves child work on the farm even under the age of 14 years, or if of the age of 14 and not over 16 it beliieves he may work over eight hours a day and not be injured- Senator Eobinson. If, for instance, the State of South Carolina had passed laws forbidding child labor in all cases under the age of 14, and for more than eight hours in any one day of children between the ages of 14 and 16, would this act be" valid? Suppose that the State of South Carolina had heretofore passed a labor law forbid- ding any child under the age of 14 to be employed, or any child between the ages of 14 and 16 to be employed more than eight hours in any one day, would Congress have the power to pass this act? Mr. Emert. If every State had ? Senator Eobinson. No; if the State of South Carolina had. Mr. Emery. You mean, if the act in South Carolina was in the identical terms with the act proposed here, would that affect the validity of the exercise of the power of Congress? Senator Eobinson. Yes. INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 273 Mr. Emery. I do not think so, for the reason that the State would have no less power to change its legislation than to enact it. If any one of the States adopted a rule with respect to marriage and divorce, and if Congress adopted the same rule and provided that persons who are divorced from the marital relations by any other standard could not ship their products— their children, in other words— in interstate commerce as passengers, would the congres- sional provision be strengthened by that fact? If a rule of com- merce applied to only one state and not to other states, it seems to me that it would be invalid for other reasons; that is, it would undertake to discriminate between States, Senator Robinson. That is a very proper question, of course. In order to eliminate that question, suppose that every State had passed laws forbidding child labor — ^forbidding the employment of child labor under the age of 14 years and the employment of chil- dren between the ages of 14 and 16 for more than eight hours in any one day; could Congress then, under those conditions, pass this act? Mr. Emery. If every State had laws like that? Senator Robinson. Yes; every State. Could Congress then pass this act, in your opinion ? Mr. Emery. I do not think so, because I do not see how that could change the power of Congress at all. to return to the discussion of the Lottery case, and I want to call your attention to the language of the majority of the court in re- sponse to the assertion that the conclusion there reached meant that Congress could exclude any commodity from commerce: We may, however, repeat, in this connectioD, what the court has before said, p^mt the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the States, although plenary, can not be deemed arbitrary, since it is subject to such limitations or restrictions as are prescribed by the Constitution. This power, therefore, may not be exercised so as to infringe rights secured or protected by that instru- ment. It would not be diflScult to imagine legislation that would be justly liable to such an objection as that stated and be,hostIle to the objects for the accomplishment of which Congress was invested with the general power to regulate commerce among the several States. As to the Hoke case, the white-slave case, you will recollect that the proposition presented and sustained in Justice McKenna's opin- ion was the power of Congress to prevent or forbid the transporta- tion of a person from one State to another for immoral purposes or to procure their transportation for that purpose. The court says : What the act condemns is the transportation obtained or aided, or trans- portation induced, in interstate commerce, for immoral purposes. No man has the right to transport a human being for immoral purposes. That is admitted. It is something inherently bad m •Itself, because the persons may be viewed in two ways, either from the purpose for which they are transported, or for what they are m themselves a commodity of — immorality. I do not want to call the attention of the committee to too many of these cases, but I want to mention a further point in relation to them Mr Parkinson during his argument again and again reit- erated that Congress possesses a national police power to protect 27896—16 18 274 INTEBSTATE COMMEBOB IN PSODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. public, morality, public health, and public morals. That is true, sub- ject to this limitation. I do not want to say it has that power, be- cause the courts have always said substantially that Congress pos- sesses no police power as such, but what they have said very clearly, which marks the distinction between Mr. Parkinson's declaration and the fact, is that a regulation of commerce is not invalid, because it partakes of the " quality " of police power. A " police quality " is generally applicable to all these exclusions from commerce to which I have called the committee's attention. I desire also to take marked exception to the frequent assertion in the course of this argument that the exercise of commerce power is limited only by the fifth amendment. According to the circum- stances of the regulation proposed, it would be limited by many other provisions of the Constitution, because, taking it as a whole, the Constitution is a remarkably prohibitive document. There are 115 negations in that instrument as against 79 alErmative grants of power. Section 8, paragraph 3, of the Constitution delegates to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes. Immediately thereafter, in section 9, paragraph 5, it is provided that no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or rev- enue to the ports of one State over those of another. That is a clear inhibition of exercise of commerce power. Article IV provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by affirmation, and par- ticularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. This provision appears to modify the use of the commerce power, as indicated notably in a case with which you are undoubtedly familiar, that of Harriman v. The Interstate Commerce Commission (211 U. S.) ; also the case of Hale v. Hinkel (201 U. S.) . Next there is the well-known provision of Article V of the Con- stitution, which provides that — No person shall be compelled in tiny criniiniil case to he a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without clue process of law. _ This article, which has been frequently referred to, lays its inhibi- tion upon Congress as the fourteenth amendment does upon State legislatures. It also provides that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself in any criminal cage ; and if Congress under- took to require such a condition in a regulation of commerce it would run up against this prohibition. There is also this further inhibition which is the essential source of distinction between State and Federal authority. That is Arti- cle X of the Constitution, which provides that the powers not dele- gated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. AU the powers of Congress are derived from delegated authority, and they are not defined, but enumerated powers. Every power not mTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PEODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 275 SO expressly delegated is reserved either to the States or to the peo- ple themselves. There has been no partitioning out of all the legis- lative power between the States and the Nation as was suggested here, because there are many powers that could be granted, but which the people have never delegated, although from time to time they do delegate additional powers, of which a recent instance is that of the income tax amendment. We amend the Constitution of the United States from time to time, and we also amend our State con- stitutions from time to time ; but the sovereign undelegated power is in the people themselves. The argument for this matter gains nothing by asserting that there is a great national evil to be regulated. Granting that there is great evil to be removed or regulated, the power to meet it must be expressly found in order that it may be authoritatively exercised. From these considerations and cases I desire now to present we sub- mit that any rule prescribed for the regulation of commerce must not be arbitrary, must have some real and substantial relation with the commerce to be regulated, and must not conflict with other prohibi- tions or guaranties of the Constitution. There is no such real and substantial relation between the shipment of a commodity in com- merce and the conditions governing the employment of children in an establishment in which it is produced. Such a rule, moreover, is in conflict with Article X of the Constitution of the United States. It was said, in the course of proponent's argument, and it was re- verted to by members of the committee, that there is a vast power in the nature of police authority that can be exercised by the Fed- eral Government through its legislative department to meet national evils. It may not be expressly found in the various articles and grants of power in the Constitution itself, but in the nature of things it must reside somewhere for the protection of national morals, national health, national safety, and it can be referred to the com- merce power. I call your attention to the fact that that proposition has been the express subject of a most elaborate character argument in the Supreme Court of the United States, because it was asserted very strongly by the Government in the famous case of Kansas v. Colorado. In disposing of that case the court fully met the conten- tion that has been made here. The Government's counsel insisted that all legislative power must be vested in either the State or the National Government; no legislative powers belong to a State gov- ernment other than those which affect solely the internal affairs of that State; consequently all powers which are national in their scope must be found vested in the Congress of the United States. In that case, as you gentlemen will remember, there was a ques- tion as to whether the State of Kansas or the State of Colorado was entitled to the flow of the waters of the Arkansas Eiver or whether it was the Federal Government which was entitled to fix the condi- tions under which the flow of that river was to be had. The court said: But the proposition tliat there are legislative powers affecting the Nution as a Whole which belong to, although not expressed in, the grant of powers is in direct conflict with the doctrine that this is a Government ot enumerated DOwers That this is such a Government clearly; appears from the Constitu- Uon, Independently of the amendments, for otherwise there would be an instru- ment granting certain specified things made operative to grant other and dis- 276 INTEESTATE COMMEECE IX PEODUCTS OP CHILD LABOE. tinct things. This natural construction of the original body of the Constitution is made absolutely certain by the tenth amendment. This amendment, which was seemingly adopted with prescience of just such contention as the present, disclosed the widespread fear that the National Government might, under the pressure of a supposed general welfare, attempt to exercise powers which have not beeri granted. With equal determination the framers intended that no such assumption should ever find justification in the organic act, and that if, In the future, further powers seemed necessary, they should be granted by the people in the manner they had provided for amending that act. It reads : " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." The argument of counsel ignores the principal facfor in this article, to wit, " the people." Its principal purpose was not the distribution of power between the United States and the States, but a reservation to the people of all powers not granted, The preamble of the Constitution declares who framed it — " we, the people of the United States," not the people of one State, but the people of all the States — and article 10 reserves to the-peopie of all the States the powers not delegated to the United States. The powers affecting the internal affairs of the States not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor pro- hibited by it to the States, are reserved to the , States, respectively, and all powers of a national character which are not delegated to the National Gov- ernment by the Constitution are reserved to the people of the United States. The people who adopted the Constitution knew that in the nature of things they could not foresee all the questions which might arise in the future, all the circumstances which might call for the exercise of further national powers than those granted to the United States, and, after making provision for an amendment to the Constitution, by which any needed additional jwwers would be granted, they reserved to themselves all powers not so delegated. This article 10 is not to be shorn of its meaning by any narrow or technical construction, but is to be considered fairly and liberally so as to give effect to its scope and meaning. (Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S., 90.) In the course of the argument made in support of this bill much time was spent in drawing distinctions between intrastate and inter- state commerce. We insist the issue is broader; it is a distinction between the power under which manufacture and production shall be regulated and that under which the rule for intercourse shall be made. In the nature of things, if a rule is to be prescribed, it must have a clear relation, a real and substantial relation, to the commerce which its proposes to regulate. You can not make anything a regu- lation of commerce by calling it such. It must be in its nature, on its face, a regulation of commerce. That is. the point brought out in case of Adair v. United States (208 IT.. S., 161), a prosecution brought under the so-called Erdman Act, which provided among other things that no common carrier should discharge or threaten to discharge any employee of the carrier because of his membership in a labor organization. The court decided two things. First,, that the provision was repugnant to the provisions of the fifth amendment, because it understood to deprive the employer or his agent of what was at once a personal or property right, the right to create, and the right to terminate a relation of employment with another; and secondly, it was not a " regulation " of commerce. The court said : Manifestly, any rule prescribed for the conduct of interstate commerce, in order to be within the competency of Congress under its power to regulate commerce among the States, must have some real x)r substantial relation to or connection with the commerce regulated. But what possible legal or logical connection is there between an employee's membwship in a labor organization and the carrying on of interstate commerce? Such relation to a labor organiza- INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. 277 tion can have in itself and in the eye of the Jaw no bearing upon the commerce with which the employee is connected by his labor and services. * * ' It results, on the whole case, that the provision of the statute under which the defendant was convicted must be held to be repugnant to the fifth amendment and as not embraced by nor within the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but under the guise of regulating interstate commerce and as applied to this case it arbitrarily sanctions an illegal Invasion of the personal libertv as well as the right of property of the defendant Adair. This case was reviewed again in Coppage-i). Kansas (236 U. S.), although there was before the court a Stat« statute and not an act of Congress. I call that case to your attention to observe the rule of construction laid down. It is most pertinent to this bill and is first well stated in Lochner v. New York (198 TJ. S., 45). The case of Lochner v. New York involved the so-called Baker's 10-hour law. The question was whether or not it was a " health law," and the court held it was not, saying: We are justified in saying so, when from the character of the law and the subject upon which it legislates, it is apparent that the public health or welfare bears but the most remote relation to the law. The purpose of the statute must be determined from the natural and legal effect of the language employed ; and whether it is or is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States must be determined from the natural effects of such statutes when put into operation, and not from their proclaimed purpose. Again said the court in Coppage v. Kansas (236 U. S.), page 1, in reference to the construction to be placed upon a Kansas statute, which was entitled "An act to provide a penalty for coercing or influencing or making demands upon or requirements of employees, servants, laborers, and persons seeking employment," the question being whiether or hot the thing which was done was " coercion " : When a party appeals to this court for the protection of rights secured to him by the Federal Constitution, the decision is not to depend upon the form of the State law, or even upon its declared purpose, but rather upon its opera- tion and effect, as applied and enforced by the State; and upon these matters this court can not, in the proper performance of itS duty, yield its judgment to that of the State court. After citing cases, the court says further : Now, it seems to us clear that a statutory provision which Is not a legitimate police regulation can not be made such by being placed in the same act with the police regulation or being enacted under a title that declares the purpose which would be the proper object for the exercise of that power. Mr. Justice Grier said, in the Passenger cases (7 How., 458), that " the true character of an act of legislation Can not be changed by its collocation," and that is most pertinent here. The question of whether or not this bill proposes a regulation of commerce or whether it proposes a regulation of employment en- tirely within the jurisdiction of the State where the parties are en- gaged in production, is to be determined, not by a declaration in its title that it is a regulation of commerce, but by its words, by its legal effect, and by its practical operation when it becomes a statute. It is plain that its purpose is to prevent the .employment ot children within the age limit fixed in this bill; and the means by which that object is to be attained are, I submit, not within the power ot Con- gress as a regulation of commerce. , , ^, „^ ^ , , I think the committee will admit that the State can not surrender its right to regulate domestic affairs except where there is concur- rent jurisdiction any more than Congress can grant a State the right 278 INTERSTATE COMMEKCE IN'PKODT/CTB OF CHILD LABOR. to enter its domain and legislate there. That would be amending the Constitution by an unconstitutional method. The proposition then is, apart from its relation to other prohibitions of the Constitution, Is this a regulation of commerce? Now, I have undertaken to point out that in all the cases in which an article has been excluded from commerce it has been excluded be- cause of something inherently bad in itself. Now, here is a bill that applies to every product in this country that is now manufactured, and declares the inherent nature of every such product is to be changed by its contact with a child. Everything in the way of food, everything in the way of manufactured articles of every kind, every product of our factories and other producing establishments is to have its character stamped upon it in interstate commerce, not by what it is in itself but by the fact of whether or not among hun- dreds of employees one child within a forbidden age is employed in the esta,blishment in which it is produced. Can Congress by legislative magic change the inherent nature of an article by associating it with the conditions of employment under which it is produced? Can Congress deny transportation to a child whose father was a convict or whose mother was a prostitute, on the ground that it was produced under conditions of immorality? Can it deny interstate transportation to either party or to the children of a marriage either of the parties to which had been previously divorced contrary to a standard established by Congress for the purpose of protecting national morals in the marital relation ? Can Congress establish for every State in the* Union factory laws, in- spection laws, hours of labor laws, minimum wage laws, efficiency methods in production, literacy tests for alien employees, all forms of admittedly local regulation, by denying the facilities of interstate commerce to commodities not produced under its standards? It is not enough to say that this power of Congress must depend upon so changeable a thing as popular opinion respecting the sub- ject matter of regulation, because it has been said by a great Justice, now dead, Mr. Justice Storey: The Constitution speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day. (19 Howard, 393). Senator Cummins. That is a little in conflict with some of the decisions of the Supreme Court. For instance, take intoxicating liquors. The Supreme Court once said, in regard to the law regulat- ing intoxicating liquors — I believe this was the law of a State — that at the time intoxicating liquors were a Ifegitimate subject of com- merce, and indicated very clearly that its transportation from one State to another could not be prohibited even by Congress; but it said, as I remember it — I have not read the decisions for a long time — ^that if there came a time when intoxicating liquors were looked upon generally^ universally, as bad by the civilized sense of man- kind, and condemned, as the lottery business had been condemned, that, then, intoxicating liquors should be outlawed, and that it could be provided that it would not be transported from one State to an- other. So public opinion does necessarily change the complexion and meaning of the Constitution of the United States. INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR, 279 Mr. Emery. That is judicial recognition of public judgment. Senator Cummins Congress has by its word declared tfe public sense m that way. It has to be an evolution of the people, and it is through their organized judgment, if you please, that the status is determined. ^ Mr. Emeet. The distinction there is that you are looking squarely into the nature, character and inherent essence of the article which IS the subject of judgment. Senator Cummins. I do not suggest that as a parallel case, but only suggest it as being a very obvious ponflict with the decisions you have just read from, by the Supreme Court. Mr. Emery. I do not think it is in conflict when it is understood that so far as the powers of Congress are concerned they can not be increased or changed in nature by the words of men. In other words, the powers of our Government are.not to be changed in their nature by passing expressions of public opinion. Senator Cummins. I understand that, af course. Mr. Emery. Yes. Now, it is said here that the States are unable to protect themselves against the evils of child labor or against combinations becoming the users of child labor, and that, therefore, is a reason for the enactment of this legislation, for the evil is one that the Nation alone can reach. Now, so far as the users of child labor are concerned, they can be reached in each of the States if the different States desire to reach them. But the trouble is that there is Hot everywhere apparently fublic opinion to demand such action in the local communities, f there were such public opinion, then, I say, steps would be taken to meet the situation locally. The reason for that must be that local opinion knows its own conditions. It can not be possible that any State of the Union is supporting conditions that are so revolting that they offend the moral sense of the Nation. But if there is anything that is produced in any State in this Union that is of a character to affect the morals or the health or the welfare of the people of any other State, the people of such State can utterly close their markets to it. They can utterly forbid its retail sale, as they have forbidden the retail sale of intoxicating liquors. There is not a State that can not forbid the retail sale of products of child labor, if that is something within the police power of the State. The reason why it is not attempted must be because the subject is not a valid exercise of the police power of the State. If that is so, then it is not a subject within the commerce power of Congress. There can not be two rules in regard to that. The Su- preme Court can not uphold the exercise of the commerce power for the purpose of excluding from interstate commerce a commodity on account of the immortlity which it produces or generates unless the power when exercised by and within a State could be sustained for the same reason. If gentlemen fear to gq into a State tribunal and submit this principle to its judgment, then, for the same reason, it can not be sustained as a protection of public morals within the domain of interstate commerce. i. j +v,„ „^„ Now, gentlemen, thanks to your courtesy, I have reached the con- clusion of what I have to say. I now desire to «""^/P bfefly what I have endeavored to present to the committee, and that is. lirst, that the objection urged to this measure is an objection directed to 280 INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OP CHILD LABOR. the policy upon which the Nation is asked to embark by the pro- ponents of this bill. We believe it is one that seriously menaces the integrity, the organic structure, of this Nation by authorizing an intrusion by Congress upon the reserved powers of the State, that deprives the individuals living in those States of the right of self- government in determining the domestic conditions under which they shall live and move and have theip being — one of the most essential principles of American Government for which our fathers from time immemorial have contended. In the second place, the form of the bill is bad. It is poorly drawn. It is ambiguous. It is far widei* in its terms than in the declared purposes for which it is proposed. The rule of evidence which it offers is a rule capable of and likely to tempt arbitrary use. It protects nobody, not even dealers possessed of the guaranty offered in this bill, from arrest or prosecution, but only from conviction when they have shown by affirmative defense that they have not em- ployed children under the conditions prohibited. The measure is invalid because, under the guise of regulating com- merce, it is intended to and does regulate conditions of manu:^cture in every State of the Union, and manufacture and commerce are in their nature two essentially distinct and separate things ruled by separate jurisdictions. It was the manifest intention of the framers of the Constitution and of the people of the United States to confer upon Congress the pOwer to regulate intercourse between the States, not the power to regulate production in each State of the American Union. We further contend that the mere intention to ship a com- modity in interstate commerce, or engaging in interstate commerce or production for that commerce, does not bring the production or the person so engaged within the commerce power. For the com- merce power lays its hand upon the article so produced only when it had been offered to an interstate carrier in the State of its origin for shipment to the State of its destination. Commerce begins where manufacture ends. By its nature it can not have being until the operations of production have been concluded. We contend that exclusion from commerce has never been applied nor contemplated by the Congress of the United States nor sus- tained by the courts, with respect to any article that was not bad in itself, nor to any acts of individuals that did not threaten the safety or the freedom of that commerce. We acknowledge that in protect- ing it Congress may remove any obstruction to its flow, moral, physi- cal, or economic ; a mob, a, monopoly, or a sand bank. We hold that any rule prescribed for the government of intercourse between the States must sustain a real and substantial relation to the commerce which it undertakes to regulate ; and that this proposal is character- ized by no real and substantial relation of that kind. The rules of construction consistently -applied by the courts of our country will determine whether or not a proposal to regulate commerce is such, not from its declared purpose, but by the language in which it is expressed, its legal effect, and its practical operation in the everyday affairs of the commercial world which it is to govern. This bill, measured by that standard, is not a valid regulation of commerce, but a prohibited regulation of production., INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 281 Let it be assumed, as is here declared, that the improper employ- ment of child labor, IS an evil that Congress should exert what- ever powers It possesses for the purpose of preventing. I agree that li ^^ ^f:, l^- -^^ National Government to undertake to protect the child withm Its jurisdiction against exploitation in industry but It remains ridiculous to say that because a purpose is laudable you are to usurp power to embark upon it, and imperil the true rela- tions between the States and the Nation. To hold that is to assert that any laudable purpose justifies the obliteration of constitutional restraint for the purpose of accomplishing a result desirable in itself, irrespective of the invalid means which may be employed for that end. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this proposal is so revolutionary in its terms, both as a principle of law and as a policy of regulation that it not only is capable of leading, but it unquestionably will lead, to the presentation of proposals equally justified, which will, by their necessary operation, deprive the States of their essential police pow- ers and reduce them to a condition of legislative impotence. For, if Congress can say_ that no commodity shall move in interstate com- merce because it objects to the character of the employment relations existing between the manufacturer who produced it and one child in his entire establishment, then it can say with equal right and it will be asked to say that no commodity shall be produced for shipment in interstate commerce that is the product in whole or in part of adult labor, man or woman, employed m6re than eight hours in any calendar day or more than 48 hours in any one week, because the necessities of the Nation for adequate defense require that every man and woman shall conserve their powers and thus insure the life, health, and strength, not only of possible military defenders, but of the parents of the Americans of the future. More than that, when- ever, in the opinion of a number of nonresidents, any State fails to protect the morals or health of welfare of its people Congress will be asked to prevent the interstate shipment of coihiliodities produced under the objectionable conditions existing in that State. Such a policy, gentlemen, will turn over the regulation of the internal affairs of all the States with respect to morals and health and wel- fare, and not to the judgment of local men who live in the com- munity and understand its domestic life and conditions, but to a majority in Congress who, by the very na,ture of things, can not and will not know or learn the peculiar physical and economic condi- tions that constitute the individual characteristics of each State. It seems to me that a proposal of such overwhelming legal and social importance, especially in view of the fact that it has once been disapproved by the Judiciary Committee of the House, that it has been debated in the Senate and disapproved by the ablest lawyers of that day— is deserving of the attention of the great Judicial Com- mittee of the Senate. So, with all deference, I venture to suggest that in view of the nature and importance of the bill, and without any reflection whatever upon the distinguished lawyers who sit around this table, it should have the judgment of the formal law body of the Senate, that authoritative committee upon whose legal judgment the Senate acts, before you ultimately determine the legal quality of this proposal. 282 IXTEESTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. I thank you. Mr. McKelway. I would like to insert a brief by Prof. Parkin- son discussing the bill itself, including the prima facie proof section. The Chairman. Very well. (The brief referred to is as follows:) SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OP KEATING-OWEN BILL TO EXCLUDE FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. By Thomas I. Parkinson. STANDARDS OF FEDERAL CHILD LABoJr LEGISLATION. Following the decision of the child-labor committee that Federal legislation to suppress child labor in the mining and manufacturing establishments of this country was desirable, the committee was confronted with the necessity of determining the exact nature of the standards which should be written into such legislation. The first essential of such legislation was the determination of the ages under which and the hours within or during which children should not be employed. Thereafter it had to be determined precisely what establish- ments or places of industry or employment the standards should affect. These standards were fixed by the committee as follows : (1) Children under 16 not to be employed in njines or quarries. (2) Children under 14 not to be employed in mills, canneries, workshops, factories, or manufacturing establishments. (3) Children between the ages of 14 and 16 not to be employed in mills, canneries, workshops, factories, or manufacturing establishments more than eight hours a day, or more than six days a week, or before 7 a. m. or after 7 p. m. These standards are in accord with, and in many cases lowei* than, the stand- ards established in States where effective child-labor. legislation Is in force. GENEKAL PURPOSE OF FEDERAL CHILD-LABOR LEGISLATION. This legislation seeks to discourage the employment of children under the ages prescribed or within the prescribed hours in the mining and manufacturing establishments of the country. On the assumption that Congress can not directly prohibit such employment the proposed bill seeks to accomplish this purpose indirectly. Indirection in the accomplishment of its purpose is not unusual in Federal legislation. Examination of recent bills pendng before or enacted by Congress suggest three possible methods by which the purpose of this and similar legislation may be accomplished by congressional action : (1) Taxation of etablishments using child labor at a rate making the use of such labor not only not profitable but possibly costly to Its employers. This Is the method adopted by Congress In the Esch match bill, levying a prohibitive tax on matches manufactured from poisonous phosphorus. It is also the method more recently used by Congress to tax out of existence undesirable future contracts for the sale of cotton. Perhaps the most important exercise of the taxing power for such a purpose is represented by the oleomargarine-tax law. (2) The prohibition of the use of the United States mails by employers of children under the specified ages or within the prescribed hours. This method of accomplishing such a purpose as that aimed at in the proposed legislation has never been Incorporated in an Act of Congress. Such a provision was contained in the original cotton-futures bill as If passed the Senate, but in the Ect finally adopted this principle was abandoned in favor of the taxing power. (3) The prohibition of the use of the channels of interstate commerce as a means of distributing the products of the labor of children under the ages or between the hours specified. In choosing between these available methods.it must be remembered that each is indirect and that the test of desirability of either method is, on the one hand, its constitutionality, and on the other hand, its enforceability. To a lesser degree there must also be considered indefinite objections to one or the other methods which would affect the possibilities of securing its enactment. The committee has endeavored, and It believes successfully, to select that method which from all points of view gives greatest reason to hope that It INTEESTATE COMMEBCE IN PKODUCTS OF CHILD LABOB. 288 The tax method has advantages from the point of view of enforcement l)ecause cf the existence of administrative organizations in the Internal Rovnm^f ^1 partment for the levying and collectln| of the tU The chtef obSns'to ?t are: (1) That the tax might be paid and the Children employed whereuoon the tax would simply become a license to employ child labor ; and (J) that aU Buch legislation may yet be subjected to the scrutiny of tl^e Supreme Court as to whether a law, which, while calling itself a tax measure, nevertheless by reason of the tax, destroys the thing or condition taxed, thereby preventing the possibility of revenue accruing under its terms, is in reality a tax measure Moreover, even though such a law is held to be an exercise of the taxing power' the question arises whether It is not subject to the "due-process clause" of the fifth amendment. It Is true the Supreme Court has upheld the oleomar- garine tax and Congress has not hesitated to pass the phosphorous-match tax and the cotton-futures tax, both of which were really aimed at regulation which Congress had no power to accomplish directly. But the prohibition of child labor by taxing it out of existence involves at least as great difficulty from the point of view of constitutionality as does prohibition of interstate com- merce In the products of child labor, and in addftion it involves the possibility of Federal license of the use of child labor by persons who may find it profitable to pay the tax. The committee has determined that on the whole it is not desirable to at- tempt to accomplish its purpose by the use of the taxing power. The prohibition of the use of the mails is similar to the prohibition of the use of the channels of interstate commerce. It is, however, of more doubtful constitutionality and has the disadvantage of never having been used in prac- tice. Furthermore, it is believed that it would not be the most effective method of reaching the desired end. It was, therefore, not deemed advisable to sug- gest it for the present purpose. When it was decided to found the present legislation on the commerce clause in the Federal Constitution there arose serious questions as to the details of the necessary legislative and administrative scheme. Such legislation may take one of several distinct forms or may involve a combination of any or all oj these forms. For example, it may : (1) Prohibit the shipment by producers or dealers of specified goods in interstate commerce; (2) prohibit the receipt and interstate delivery by dealers of specified goods still in the original pack- age which have been shipped to such dealers in interstate commerce; (3) pro- hibit the transportation by carriers of specified g(3ods in interstate commerce. Each of these forms is subject to the further possibility that the goods which are excluded from interstate commerce may be : (1) The product of child labor ; or (2) the product of plants or establishments in which child labor is em- ployed (a) when the goods were originally shipped from the plant, (6) within a specified time prior to such shipment, or (c) at the time the goods were manufactured or produced. It was early decided by the national child-labor committee not to under- take to prohibit the transportation of goods ; that is, not to put a liability on the carrier to refrain from transporting in interstate commerce goods produced in child-labor plants. Such a prohibition would probably be one of the most effective ways of enforcing the prohibition of shipment. The meat-inspection act is generally recognized as the best example of efficient enforcement of regula- tory laws, and that act is enforced by the refusal of the carrier to accept for transportation of any meat products unless they are certified as inspected and passed. It seems, however, almost Impossible to apply this device to the ship- ment of the products of child labor. To provide that the carrier is liable, although innocent of the nature of the article shipped, is so unjust as to be out of the question. In all of the Federal acts prohibiting transportation by the carrier only four (the meat-inspection act, the cattle-quarantine act, the renovated-butter act, and the prize-fight film act) make the carrier liable In the absence of knowledge. ^ ^ . ii. In all of those cases the practice of the department is not to prosecute the carrier, whose cooperation has in most instances^ been secured largely on ac- count of the highly centralized nature of the producer's business. It is hardly likely that the carriers would extend the same cooperation in the case of the child-labor bill which, it must be remembered, applies to every industry in the 284 INTKKSTATE COMMERCE ITST PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. country. The interstate carriers of the country would probably object to this great extension of the policy of requiring them to do police or inspection duty for the Government. The food and drugs act contains no prohibition of trans- portation by the carrier, although such a provision would be, in the opinion of the officers of the department, a great aid ift the enforcement of the law. But in that case, as in the case of child-labor products, the carrier has no means of telling whether the article offered for shipment is within the pro- hibition of the law, and it may well be that for this reason Congress did not In the food and drugs act impose any penalty on the carrier. To put the scheme into effect without injustice to the carrier would involve either a sys- tem of marking the articles shipped, which seems out of the question, for no carrier could take the time to examine each package presented to It for trans- portation, or a system of certificates or affidavits from the shipper. The cleri- cal labor imposed on the carrier by such a system would seem to make it im- possible Of successful application. The national child-labor committee, therefore, decided to put on the ship- per and the dealer the whole duty of compliance with the proposed Fe(Jeral law, and therefore decided to prohibit shipmeilt in interstate commerce of goods produced by child labor contrary to prescribed standards. In framing the substantive provisions of the bill the committee has carefully selected from the many alternative possibilities those which gave greatest hope of a favorable constitutional decision, effective enforcement without unneces- sary hardship, and the likelihood of reducing tb a minimum the reasonable objections to Its enactment by Congress. This will appear from the following explanation of the essential provisions of the pending bill : A. Shipment by " manufacturer, producer, or dealer " alone affeoted.-^'Tlxv: committee has deliberately limited the classes of persons who are prohibited from shipping to " manufacturers, producers, or dealers." This was substituted for the general language of the Palmer-Owen bill, viz, " It shall be unlawful to ship," because the latter, unless limited, might work grgat hardship and in- justice to innocent individuals shipping goods in interstate commerce in small quantities, e. g., the sender of a Christmas present. It is necessary to include, dealers, for otherwise the act could be evaded by the manufacturer selling only to a jobber within the State, or by the creation of a dummy corporation within the State to handle the entire output of the factory. The apparent hardship to dealers who have no knowledge of the conditions in the factory in which the goods originated is obviated by the guarantee provision In the bill, which ijs discussed later. B. Prohibition limited to interstate commerce. — ^The bill does not prohibit employment of children ; it does not prohibit mining or manufacturing by the use of child labor ; it does not prevent the sale or- other use within the State of the products of such child labor ; but it does prohibit the shipment of such products to other States. It simply withdraws from the employer of child labor those instrumentalities for the distribution of the products of child labor which are under the control of the Federal Government. If manufacturers and mine owners insist on employing young children they are siniply required by the bill to confine their markets of the labor of such children to their own States. C. Description of articles shipment of which in interstate commerce is pro- hibited.— T^he possible alternatives from which selection was made are: (1) Goods produced by child labor ; (2) goods produced while child labor was em- ployed In the plant; and (3) goods produced by a plant In which child labor was employed at a specified time or period. The most difficult problem In connection with the administrative detail of the act is as to the articles which are to be excluded from shipment in interstate commerce. The Palmer-Owen bill as reported by the House committee last year prohibited the shipment of the products of child labor. Our objection to this was that it would not be responsive to the purposes of the National Child Labor Committee, the desire of which is to prohibit the use of child labor, whether in the actual processes of manufacture or not. In the meat-packing plants there are boys who do nothing but open and close heavy doors all day long. Children are likewise employed to clean up rubbish, carry tools, shovel coal, drive mule teams in mines and quarries, and carry lamps or dynamite, and this work might not be held to constitute a part in the production of goods'. Moreover, this language in the Palmer-Owen bill makes enforcement more INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR. 285 tw "i*k I^■l^'■1^^**' ^^™'"'' '^ conviction It would be necessary to prove first that the child had participated in the production of a certain article ana second that that dentical article had been shipped in interstate commerce: or If the prosecution is on the false guarantee/that the guarantee^^faile as to the particular article shipped. In other words, that the partTculIr article shipped was produced by child labor. drucie The difficulties in the way of this proof might, of course, be overcome by sufficient force of inspectors and the cooperation of various Federal agencies, fcstate omcials, employees, and others coming into possession of evidence of violation of the act. In many cases detailed records kept by the manufacturer of the exact time of the manufacture of goods made by him, of the persons who performed labor upon them, and of the titae when and the persons to whom they were shipped might furnish some Of the details requisite to es- tablish a case against a person charged with violation of the act. In an en- deavor to reduce the difficulties of proof of violation and make more likely successful prosecutions against persons violating the act and thereby inspiring obedience to the provisions of the act even on the part of those opposed to it, the committee considered the possibilities of varying the provisions of the Palmer-Owen bill describing the goods whose shipment is prohibited. It has been suggested that instead of the language of the Palmer-Owen bill, the pro- hibition of shipment might be of goods from a factory where during the time of production child labor is used. This would seem to be but little easier of enforcement than the Palmer-Owen bill, for it .would be necessary to prove that the particular goods shipped In Interstate commerce were made at the time when child labor was being used. The difficulty of proof might be less if " production " were understood or defined to m&n the time of completion of the production and the turning over of the product to commerce. On the whole, it was decided that to change the Palmer-Owen bill to this effect would not materially affect its enforceability and therefore would serve no useful purpose. D. Presumptive evidence of violation. — The bill provides that the presence in p. mine or factory of a child under the ages specified or beyond the hours speci- fied or for a period longer than that specified, within 60 days prior to the ship- ment of a particular product from such mine or factory, shall constitute prima facie evidence that such product was produced in^ whole or in part by the labor of such child. The purpose of this provision is, of course, to reduce the difficul- ties of proof in a criminal proceeding to impose the penalty provided for viola- tion of the act. The act forbids shipment in interstate commerce of the products of the labor of children. "Violation of the act is punishable as a criminal offense. The act is aimed particularly at those employers who will not relinquish the opportunity to employ children unless they are made to do