would be no restraint on the sale of the products of their labor within the State, but, as has been said, those products could not be sold beyond the State. Of course the practical effect of the bill would be to 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 them 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 emancipate very young children from the mills in those States which permit this industrial 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 commerce that falls well within the contemplations of the Constitution.

[Beaumont (Tex.) Enterprise, Feb. 7, 1916.]

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 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 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 unfortunately true," as the Meridian 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 villifiers who decry 'rotten industrial conditions'; 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 Government can discourage a form of child slavery, whether it happens to be in Georgia or Alabama or Pennsylvania or New Jersey, we should support it."

[New Orleans (La.) Picayune, Jan. 21, 1916.]

But while there has 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 campaign against child labor has been 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 were secured on this subject. The contest in Louisiana during Gov. Sanders's administration will be remembered, and it gave us far better legislation than had been previously in force. A conference of the Southern States was held to consider the question and assure cooperation, but it was found impossible to reach an agreement, those States operating 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 impossible 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-commerce provision. This gave new life to the child-labor bill now before Congress and which 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 steadily stronger against child labor as not at all necessary to the success of any industry, and the argument of cheaper labor becomes weaker every day as we 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

cotton fields themselves, can not compete with those 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, 1916.]

DEFENDS 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 Carolina 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 Mr. Kitchin said, that child labor is an economic necessity in his Commonwealth. Now, Mr. Kitchin did not use exactly those words, but that is what he meant when he defended the employment of children in the cotton mills of North Carolina. He was "ably backed in his statements by David Clark, who edits a journal at Charlotte devoted to the textile industry. We take it that Mr. Clark is devoted to the business that brings him his bread. Not to be wondered at, of course, but it is not quite so comprehensible that a man would lend himself to the enslavement of helpless children in such a behalf.

Mr. Kitchin told the committee, which had under consideration the KeatingOwen 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 good 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 the question whether mothers' pensions would not remove this alleged necessity, Mr. Kitchin made this remarkable 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 who 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 profit of their own pockets. A sin? Yes, and more. They need to be set aside, and if legislation such as that contemplated in the Keating-Owen bill be necessary to set them aside, the quicker it is passed the better.

Thank heavens the Kitchins are not representative of the good people of the South. They are merely an undesirable class; the Scrooges, as it were, who have not yet awakened to the rights of the Tiny Tims of the land!

[Tampa (Fla.) Times, Jan. 27, 1916.]

STATES' RIGHTS, COTTON MILLS, AND CHILD LABOR.

The question of States' rights has been injected into the fight against the Keating child-labor bill, now before Congress, and warfare on the measure, led by some southern Senators and Representatives, will be bitter.

The southerners who present strongest opposition to the measure represent 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 capitalists. It seems almost impossible to place a decent child-labor law on the statute books of these States, which is anything but creditable to their 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 representatives of which positively refuse to "see the light."

[Meridian (Miss.) Star, Jan. 4, 1916.]

CHILD-LABOR BILL NOT SECTIONAL MEASURE.

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 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 Carolina, 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" 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 unfortunately true. We of the South can not sympathize with our critics in the North who behold not the beam in their own eyes; our villifiers who decry "rotten industrial conditions"; 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 Government can discourage a form of child slavery, whether it happens to be in Georgia or Alabama or Pennsylvania or New Jersey, we should support it.

[The Journal of Labor, Atlanta, Feb., 1916.]

TRAFFICKING IN CHILDREN.

It was a brave thing for William 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 majority. 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 pathos about helpless and necessitous widows, and old Joe Cannon, who was resurrected 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 went to work early enough. However, those old stock 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 plunderbund a law prohibiting the trafficking of children would never have passed, and by the same token a Louis D. Brandeis 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 the days of 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 strongholds 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.) Manufacturer are appended without comment :

[Charlotte (N. C.) Observer, Jan. 29, 1916.]

THE POINT.

The New York Sun's information is to the effect that the Keating child labor bill has been given precedence over all other measures on the calendar until a vote is taken. At the same time we are informed that the efforts to tack amendments 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 the South, were unavailing. It would be all right to shut down on the southern cotton mills, but the canneries and fish-packing plants of the North and New England must not be interfered with. Catch that? At least we hope the Senate will when the bill comes up for a vote.

[Charlotte (N. C.) Manufacturer, Jan. 13, 1916.]

CHILD LABOR HEARING.

Last Monday the House Labor Committee heard arguments in Washington on child labor in southern cotton mills. A delegate of southern mill men, headed by former Gov. W. W. Kitchin, of North Carolina, presented the objections of textile manufacturers of the South to the Keating-Owen bill, which would prevent the interstate shipment of goods manufactured by aid of minors.

Mr. Kitchin attacked the bill from an economic point, declaring it was unconstitutional and unwise. Others followed, showing the advantages to the It was clearly brought out that child labor in

youth employed in the mills.

the South differs in every way from child labor in the North and East. New England is backing the fight for the bill, and apparently solely for financial reasons-New England mills can not compete with 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. Money was used lavishly, it is claimed, and the ones who furnished that money had a financial object 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. Mill 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 is 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 South is in favor of this reform 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 people; that is, that they have not advanced so fast as the people have. We had a very instructive instance of that from Arkansas. Arkansas 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 that 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 injury of some industry. I remember reading in 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).

Dickens says:

The 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 they fell to pieces with such ease that you might suspect them of having been flawed before. They were ruined when they were 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 the 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 limit as a standard. The main objection is to the eighthour day for children under 16. The cotton-mill industry is organized 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 to how difficult it would be to adopt an eight-hour day for children under 16. In the first place, Massachusetts is the greatest textile State in the Union-the greatest cotton-mill 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 smaller 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-I have been unable to find it as to how many operatives between 14 and 16 there are in the Massachusetts mills? What he read yesterday included the mechanical operations and not the factories.

Mr. McKELWAY. I have 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, making 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. That is for the whole country. That embraces cotton mills and silk mills.

The 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 number of children, according to the census of 1910, who might be affected by this measure, disregarding the fact that some of the States have improved their legislation since 1910, notably Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina.