University of Texas Bulletin No. 2529: August 1, 1925 THE CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT THE INTERSCHOLASTIC LEAGUE BUREAU Extension Division PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN Publications of the University of Texas Publications Committee: FREDERIC DUNCALF J. L. HENDERSON KlLLIS CAMPBELL E. J. MATHEWS F. W. GRAFF H.J. MULLER C. G. HAINES HAL C. WEAVER The University publishes bulletins four times a month, so numbered that the first two digits of the number show the year of issue, the last two the position in the yearly series. (For example, No. 2201 is the first bulletin of the year 1922.) These comprise the official publications of the University, publications on humanistic and scientific sub­jects, bulletins prepared by the Division of Extension, by the Bureau of Economic Geology, and other bulletins of general educational interest. With the exception of special num­bers, any bulletin will be sent to a citizen of Texas free on request. All communications about University publications should be addressed to University Publications, University of Texas, Austin. ~ ••IYIUtTY If TUAI fallS.-AWnt8 University of Texas Bulletin No. 2529: August 1, 1925 THE CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT THE INTERSCHOLASTIC LEAGUE BUREAU Extension Division ·'UBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY FOUR TIMES A MONTH, AND ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER AT THE POSTOFFICE AT AUSTIN, TEXAS, UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912 The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally diffused through a community, are essential to the preservation of a free govern­ment. Sam Houston Cultivated mind 1s the guardian genius of democracy. . It is the only dictator that freemen acknowl­edge and the only security that free• men desire. Mirabeau B. Lamar FOREWORD In accordance with its usual practice, the Interscholastic Leagne is issuing this bulletin for the help and convenience of students who wish to prepare themselves for entry into the debating contests of the League. Each member school is entitled to two free copies of this bulletin (upon request) and may obtain additional copies from thE: State Office of the League, University Station, Austin, for 20 cents per copy. The Extension Loan Library will furnish any school official who applies for the same a package library on the Child Labor Amendment, which he may keep for a period of two weeks. The League will inaugurate an information service on the Child Labor Amendment, which will undertake to furnish statistical infor­mation touching upon the proposed legislation, cite and quote authori­ties in connection with various points at issue; in short, place at the disposal of the debater or debating coach the resources of the Uni­versity of Texas Library. A small charge for information furnished will have to be made to cover the actual cost of supporting this service. The present bulletin was prepared by Marion A. Olson. The League expects, also, to issue a pamphlet entitled "How to Judge a Debate" for distribution to individuals who expect to serve as judges in Interscholastic League debates. Judges will be advised in this pamphlet to grade down the memorized speech, especially if it seems too mature for the individual delivering it, and will be directed, other things being equal, to favor the team that gives evidence of an ability to meet its opponents' arguments in intelligent, well-informed extemporaneous rebuttal over a team whose rebuttal seems cut and dried. The following footnote, which occurs on page 60 of the University of Oklahoma Bulletin, "Students' Manual Public Discussion and Debate," should be pondered by every debating coach: "The purpose of practice debating is to teach young men [and young women] to think, and to speak their thoughts effectively. De­baters who are so trained should be given precedence over those who recitP. vigorously memorized speeches. The college or high-school debater who declaims, in all probability has not written the speech himsE:Jf. Too much help by the coaches [and commercial bureaus] is doing much to bring disrepute upon all debating. If judges have the courage to distinguish between declamation and speaking from the floor, they can do much to raise the standard of school debating." ROY BEDICHEK, Chief, Interscholastic League Bureau, Extension Division, University of Texas. "The gods have given us speech-­the power which has civilized human life; and shall we not strive to make the best of it?" !SOCRATES. "Remark likewise two things: that such prize arguings were ever on su­perficial debatable questions; and then that they were argued generally by the fair laws of battle and logic­f ence, by one cunning in the same. If their purpose was excusable, their effect was harmless, perhaps benefi­cial: that of taming noisy mediocrity, and showing it another side of a de­batable matter; to see both sides of which was, for the first time, to see the truth of it." CARLYLE. BRIEF Resolved, That the Child Labor Amendment to the Federal Con.sti­tution Should be Adopted. INTRODUCTION I. The question of the Federal Child Labor Amendment is of par­ticular interest and importance to the American pe<>ple at the present time, for A. There has been constant agitation for Federal Child Labor legislation since 1906, at which time the first bill wa5 was introduced into Congress. B. This agitation culminated in the Federal Child Labor laws of 1916 and 1919. C. Upon these laws being declared unconstitutional, the peo-' pie were brought face to face with the fact that Con­gress, under the Constitution, does not now have the power to legislate in regard to Child Labor. D. Agitation immediately began for an amendment to the Constitution, and this agitation resulted in the Child Labor Amendment, which was submitted to the states and Senate, for ratification. II. An intelligent discussion of the question involves the accept­ance of the following definitions: A. By the Child Labor Amendment, we mean the amendmen~ which reads as follows: Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limi ­regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under 18 years of age. Section 2. The power of the several states is unim­paired by this article, except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by Congress. B. By "adoption" we mean the ratification of the amend­ment by the number of states necessary to place the amendment in the Constitution. III. Admitted matter. A. Both sides will admit that children should not be employed in any manner detrimental to their physical, mental, or moral well-being. B. Both sides, therefore, will admit that there is need for legislation regulating Child Labor. University of Texas Bulletin C. The clash of opinion will not be over the moral or eco­nomic need for Child Labor Legislation, but over the best method of regulation. IV. The discussion is based upon the following issues~ A. Does regulation of Child Labor come properly within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government? B. Have the states in the past, and can the states in the future, satisfactorily regulate Child Labor? C. Does the proposed amendment give Congress unreaso·nable power? D. Will Federal legislation effectively solve the Child Labor Problem? AFFIRMATIVE BRIEF DISCUSSION I. The states have not and can not satisfactorily regulate Child Labor, for A. The states in the past have not legislated in any degree consistent with the demand of Child Labor Conditions, for 1. Standards are today low in many states, for a. Nine states do not prohibit all children under 14 from working in both factories and stores. b. Nineteen states do not make physical fitness a condition for employment. c. Eleven states allow children under 16 to work nine to eleven hours a day. d. Thirty-nine states do not prohibit children 14 to 16 from working on railways. e. Thirty-four states do not prohibit children 14 to 16 from working around heavy explosives. f. Nineteen states do not prohibit children 14 to 16 from wiping and oiling heavy machinery. g. Only thirteen states come up to the Federal standard in all respects. 2. Laws that have been passed have been riddled with exemptions and exceptions, for a. Poverty exemption is often granted. b. Administrative machinery i' weak and inef­fective. c. Inspectors are limited and poorly paid. d. A great deal of the territory is never visited by the State inspectors. e. The State courts do not punish the violator> of the Child Labor laws. f. In many states work permits are issued ille­gally. B. The number of children gainfully employed today, testifies that the states are not handling the problem, for 1. According to the Federal census of 1920, 1,069,858 children between the ages of 10 and 15 a;e gain­fully employed in the United States. 2. Of these children, 378,063 are between the ages of 10 and 13. University of Te:ras Bulletin 3. One out of every twelve children in the country is gainfully employed today. 4. In Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia one-fourth of the children between 10 and 15 are gainfully employed. 5. Children 4 and 5 years of age are employed in the cotton ar.d beet fields, and in tenement work in New England. 6. Young children work late at night making flowers and laces, thus straining their eyes and blistering their hands. 7. Recent investigaticn by the Children's Bureau in­dicates that the employment of Child Labor is on the increase. C. Child labor is essentially an interstate problem, for 1. Migratory fam:Jies carry their children from Stat!! to State to work. 2. Manufacturers send their raw material into states with low Child Labor standards and have children put out the finished product. 3. Children work in their own homes, and avoid the State Child Labor laws. II. Regulation of Child Labor comes properly within the jurisdic­tion of the Federal Government, for A. The Federal Government should care for problems that affect the nation as a whole, for 1. That was the intention of the framers of the Con­stitution. 2. It is consistent with our ideal of government. 3. Our justices and statesmen hold this opinion. B. Child Labor is a national problem for 1. Conditions which exist all over the United States are of vital concern to the nation as a whole. 2. Competition between states prevents them from pass ing high standard laws, for a. Prohibition of child labor may mean the build­ing up of industry in a neighboring State. \:}. States are unwilling to sacrifice their industrial advantages accruing from Child Labor unless the other states sacrifice them likewise. 3. State laws are easily evaded, for a. Employers can send piece work across Stat!' lines. 4. A Federal law is the only means of setting a uni­form minimum standard, for The Ckild Labor Amendment a. The conditions pointed out above prevent joint State action. b. Federal laws and standards are wholesomely respected. 5. The Federal Government should have the power to see that those persons to whom it gives the power to cross State lines freely, should be fit to cross those State lines. C. The men who wrote the Constitution provided for a change from time to time to meet new conditions, for 1. They knew that conditions would change, that new conditions would arise. 2. When the Constitution was written there was no Child Labor problem. 3. The Child Labor problem, a national problem, de­mands an amendment to the Ccnstitut:on. III. The proposed amendment does not give Congress unreasonable power. A. It does not place any power in Congress that might be misconstrued or abused, for 1. Every amendment to the Constitution is framed in general terms, for a. An amendment does not legislate in itself. b. It gives a general power to Congress to legis­late specifically. 2. The 18-year limit is not too high, for a. It was put in the amendment to give Congres~ power to care for children in some industries in which it is dangerous for them to work under the age of 18. b. The framers of the amendment did not intend that no children under 18 shuold be per­mitted to work. 3. The states now possess much more power than the amendment will give Congress, for a. Some states have already passed laws prohibit­ing certain kinds of labor to children under 18. b. A few states have prohibited certain kinds of labor for persons under 21. 4. Congress has wisely used its power in the past, for a. Congress has not used its power contrary to the wishes or interest of the people, for (1). Under the power of taxtaion, Congress could tax away the individual's entire wealth. Uni'i·ersity of Texas Bulletin (2). Under the power of making treaties with a foreign nation, Congress could cede any State to a foreign nation. (3) . No one has feared the use of these powers in any abusive manner. B. There are checks on Congress which would prevent its passing any law not consistent with the wishes of the people, for 1. The representatives are elected every two years. 2. There is the presidential veto. 3. The referendum and recall might be used. 4. The Supreme Court will see that no unconstitutional laws are put upon the statute books. IV. Federal legislation will effectiYely handle the Child Labor prob­lem, for A. Past experience has shown that Federal legislation is ef­fective and successful, for i. Two Federal laws were in effect from 1917 to 1922. 2. The experience of these laws was satisfactory, for a. There was no conflict between State and Fed­eral authority, for (1). Every State gladly cooperated with the Federal Government. (2). State labor officials were commissioned, in many cases, to enforce the Federal law. (3). Child Labor was appreciably reduced, for (a). The Association of Government Labor Officials passed resolu­tions to the effect that the Fed­eral law brought about a re­duction in the number of em­ployed children, and that it made State enforcement easier and more effective. (b). Census return for the time the laws were in force shows an appreciable reduction. 3. The expense of enforcing the Federal laws was rela­tively small, for a. The cost of enforcing the first law for nine months was $111,000. b. The cost of enforcing· both laws was $150,000 a year. The Child Labor Amendment 4. The Federal laws stimulated State Child Labor leg­islation, for a. The greatest advance in State labor legislation in the history of the country came during this period, for (1). A large number of the states passed and strengthened minimum wage Jaws. (2). Nine states passed an eight-hour day law for children under 16. (3). Twenty-one states put a 16-year age minimum on employment in mines and quarries. ( 4) . A number of states passed compulsory school attendance laws. ( 5) . Part-time school attendance for em­ployed children was provided in many states. 5. The Federal government is more capable of caring for the situation, for a. A Federal law will be more respected than a State Child Labor law. b. Federal legislation will more quickly and more effectively solve a national problem. c. The Federal Government can set a standard below which the states can not fall. d. The Federal Government can efficiently enforce a nation-wide Child Labor law. CONCLUSION The affirmative has established its case, by showing that: I. The states have not and can not satisfactorily regulate child labor, for A. The states in the past have not legislated in any degree consistent with the demand of Child Labor conditions. B. The number of children gainfully employed today testifies that the states are not satisfactorily regulating Child Labor. C. Child Labor is essentially an interstate problem. II. Regulation of Child Labor comes properly within the jurisdic­tion of the Federal Government, for A. The Federal Government should care for problems that affect the nation as a whole. B. Child Labor is a national problem. University of Te:rns Bulleti~n C. The framers of the Constitution ]Drovided for its change from time to time. III. The proposed amendment does not give Congress unreasonable power. A. It does not place any power in Congress that might be misconstrued or abused. B. There are checks on Congress which would prevent its passing any law not consistent with the wishes of the people. IV. Federal legislation will effectively handle the Child Labor prom­lem, for A. Past experience has shown that Federal leg:slation is ef­fective and successful. NEGATIVE BRIEF DISCUSSION I. The states have regulated and can regulate Child Labor satis­factorily, for A. There has been a great advance in State legislation in recent years, for 1. State standards have been greatly raised since 1910, for a. Forty-six states prohibit certain kinds of child labor under 18 years of age. b. Thirty-six states have some regulation of em­ployme·nt of persons under 21 in certain oc­cupations. c. All but seven states prohibit night work for children under 16. d. All but sixteen states provide a maximum eight-hour working day for children under 16. e. Since 1910, twenty-one states have passed a minimum age law of 16 years for work in mines and quarries. f. Improvements have been made in compulsory school attendance. g. There are only five states that do not have a minimum age law of 14 in factories and canneries. h. At the present time State standards are al­most as high as the Federal standard, and in many cases they excell the Federal standard. i. The greatest increase came solely from State initiative before Federal law was passed. 2. State standards are still being raised through State action for a. A number of the legislatures meeting in 1923 and 1924 raised their child-labor standards. b. Texas raised its child-labor standards at the recent session. B. The extent of child labor is greatly exaggerated in the United States today, for 1. There are not as many children gainfully employed as reports indicate, for a. Out of the census report of 1920, 64'7 ,309 chil­dren, of the 1,060,858 between the ages of Uni1;ersity of Texas Bulletin 10 and 15 reported gainfully employed, were working in agriculture, forestry, or animal husbandry. b. Eighty-eight per cent of these children were helping their parents on the home farm. c. Only 17.5 per cent of these children, or 185,337 were employed in manufacturing industries. d. Only 10,000 children between the ages of 10 and 13 were employed in manufacturing in­dustries. 2. Since 1910 Child Labor in the United States has been greatly reduced, for a. While the population between the ages of 10 and 15 increased 15.5 per cent from 1910 to 1920, the number of working children between these ages decreased 46.7 per cent; in agricultural employment the number decreased 54.8 per cent. b. In 1910 the proportion of children working was 18.4 per cent; in 1920 the proportion was 8.5 per cent. c. The decrease in the states from 1910 to 1920 ranged from 40 per cent to 60 per cent, with the exception of five states. 3. Recent reports indicate further reduction in Child Labor, for a. Reports gathered from industrial cities indicate a falling off in Child Labor in 1924 over 1923. C. The states are capable of caring for their children, for 1. Their interest in the welfare of children is awakened, for a. Recent legislation in the states has shown this. 2. They possess all the power necessary to legislate for protection of working children. 3. Experience has shown that State laws can effectively handle the problem, for a. Effective enforcement is possible. b. Many states maintain high child-labor stand­ards through their State laws. II. Regulation of Child Labor does not come properly within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, for A. Child Labor is a local problem, for 1. Conditions vary in different parts of the country, for a. Different characteristics of some states alter the Child Labor problem. B. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that local and State problems should be handled by the State governments, for 1. This intention is specifically stated in the delegation of powers in the Constitution. 2. The Tenth Amendment states that "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." 3. The people have consistently upheld this intention by their hesitancy in bestowing new power in the Federal government. C. The states will cope successfully "·ith the problem, for 1. ImproYement in State laws have already been pointed out. 2. Public opinion is forcing the states to legislate for the protection of the children. D. There is no need for Federal action in a field that is being cared for by the states, and can be cared for in the future by them, for 1. All unnecessary legislation by the Federal govern­ment should be avoided, for a. Federal interference makes the problem more difficult to solve, since it brings about a con­flict in authority. III. The proposed amendment gives Congress unreasonable power. A. It places too much power in Congress, for 1. It gives Congress absolute control over persons un­der 18 years of age, for a. It gives control over "labor" and not over "em­ployment." b. It allows Congress to regulate and limit the labor of children. c. Under the amendment Congress can legislate so as to control every action of every person under 18 years of age. B. There is at present too great a tendency toward centrali­zation, for 1. Everyone who wants a reform takes the matter to National Congress. 2. It is inconsistent with our ideal of government, for a. The secret of our success in government lies in the balance of power between the State and FP.deral governments. 3. Continued centralization will result in a radical change in our form of government, for a. It will lay open the way for complete federali­zation, gradually destroying the power of the states. C. We have no assurance that Congress will wisely use the power the amendment will place in it, for 1. Promises mean little in regard to legislation, for a. Promises made willingly in order to secure a change are seldom strictly kept. 2. Congress, if the amendment is ratified, may prohibit the employment of all persons under 18 years of age, for many are advocating such a law at the present time. 3. We do not know the nature of the law that will be passed, but we can only conjecture what it will be. 4. Any law giving the Federal Government control over the actions of children will be an entering wedge for communism, for a. Some of the advocates of the Child Labor amendment are communists. b. Many of the advocates believe the Federal Gov­ernment should care for the education and training of the child. c. Under communism the Federal Government would rear and train the children of the nation, thus breaking up the home. IV. Federal legislation will not effectively solve the Child Labor problem, for A. A Federal law would require a large and efficient organi· zation for effective enforcement, for 1. The magnitude of the enforcement. task could be met only by a tremendous organization, for a. Federal inspedors would have to keep check on factories and industries all over the coun­country. b. Federal officials would virtually have to keep a record of every child in the country. B. The expense of enforcement would be prohibitive, for 1. Reports show the expenditures of tfie Children's Bureau and the Department of Labor have been constantly increasing. 2. The necessary large organization would require tre­mendous funds for salaries, traveling expenses, keeping necessary records. C. There would be lack of cooperation between the State and Federal governments that would make enforcement im­possible, for 1. The people w:Jl not respect Federal laws which they do not want, for a. This has been shown the past, for (1) New York refused to respect the Vol­setad act, and as a result the Federal law could not be enforced. 2. The only real reform must come from within, for a. The people must feel the need for reform and must make their own reforms locally before they are effective. b. People will not accept willingly reform forced upon them by an outside force or agency. c. People must be educated up to a standard be­fore they can live up to that standard. D. The only way to really solve the Child Labor problem is through action in the states, for 1. Child labor is essentially a State problem. 2. Evil conditions are not widespread enough to de­mand Federal action, for a. Only a few states have standards so low that they would be affected by Federal laws. 3. It would be unfair to force a Federal law upon every State simply to benefit a few states, for a. The reform in the backward states could be secured more easily by concentrating the cam­paign in those states. 4. Reform secured in the states themselves will be of more vital interest to the people. 5. Enforcement of State laws is easier, for a. The State officials are in closer touch with actual conditions. b. They have a selfish pride in maintaining their standards and in protecting their children. CONCLUSION The negative has established its case by showing that: I. The states have regulated and can regulate the Child Labor problem satisfactorily, for A. There has been a great advance in State legislation in recent years. University of Texas Bulletin B. Child Labor is greatly exaggerated in the United States today. C. The states are capable of caring for their children. II. Regulation of Child Labor does not come properly within thf jurisdiction of the Federal Government, for A. Child Labor is a local problem. B. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that local and State problems should be handled by the State governments. C. The states are already caring for the problem. D. There is no need for Federal action in a field that is being cared for l;>_y the states and can be cared for in the future by them. III. The proposed amendment is not safe, for A. It places too much power in Congress. B. There is at present too great a tendency toward centrali­zation. C. This centralization is dangerous. D. We have no assurance that Congress will wisely use the power the amendment will place in it. IV. Federal legislation will not effectively solve the Child Labor problem. A. A Federal law will require a large and efficient organi­zation for effective enforcement. B. The expense of enforcement would be prohibitive. C. There would be lack of cooperation between the State and Federal governments that would make enforcement impossible. D. The only way to really solve the Child Labor problem is through action in the states. BIBLIOGRAPHY ON CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT GENERAL REFERENCES. Bullock, Edna Dean. Child Labor-Selected Articles. H. W. Wilson Company. New York City. 1915. Bureau of Labor Statistics, San Francisco. Laws Pertaining to the Employment of Children. 25 p. 1924. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Woman's Division. Industrial Standards and Laws of Texas Affecting Women and Children in Industries. Capitol Building, Austin, Texas. Child, S. R. The Revolutionary Labor Amendment and the Constitu­tion. 28 p. Minneapolis, Minn. 1925. Clark, D. W. Child Labor and the Social Conscience. $1.00. Abing­don Press. 1924. Clopper, E. N. Child Labor in the Sugar-Beet Fields of Colorado. New York National Child Labor Committee. 1916. Clopper, Edward Nicholas. Child Labor in the Ci.ty Streets of New York. MacMillan Company. 1912. Culver, Mrs. D. H. Two Sides of the Child Labor Question. Market Growers' Journal, v. 35, p. 173. September 15, 1924. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. Occupation of Children. Dr. Alba M. Edwards. Government Printing Office. Washing­ton, D. C. 1922. Federal Board of Vocational Education. Child Labor. October, 1921. Folks, Gertrude H. Farm Labor vs. School Attendance. National Child Labor Committee, 105 E . Twenty-second Street, New York. January, 1922. Frank, Josette. State Laws and Minimum Standards for Child Pro­tection. National Child Labor Committee, 105 E. Twenty-second Street, New York. Fuller, R. G. Child Labor and the Constitution. Thomas Y. Crowell Company. New York. 1923. Great Debates in American History, Vol. 11.. Child Labor. Pp. 288-320. Jarvis, C. D. Work of School Children During Out-of-School Hours. Department of Interior, Bureau of Education. Bulletin No. 20. 1917. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. Johnson. Selected Articles on Child Labor... H. W. Wilson Company. New York City. 1925. Loughran, Miriam E. Child Labor Legislation in the United States. Washington, D. C. 1921. Merritt, E. A. Important Changes Made by Legislatures of 1921 and 1922, so jar as ai;ailable .Voi:ember 1, 1922, in Child Labor Stand­ards and in Compulsory School Attendance Standards Affecting the Employment of Jfinors. 43 pages. U. S. Children's Bureau. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. N'ational Child Labor Committee. Brass Tacks on the Pending Child Labor Amendment to the Fede;·al Constitution. 215 Fourth Ave­nue, Xew York. National Conference Social \\"ork. Is the r.:se of Children in Agri­rnltw·e a Child W elfm·e Problem? W. H. S"\\'ift. 1924. Xational Conference Social Work. Child L abo;-. E. :\I. :'.Iatthews and others. 1921. N'ew York City Conference of Charities and Correction. Twelfth annual conference, 1921. Ch ildren in Industry, g·ith Discussion. G. W. Alger. 1921. Kew York (State) Industrial Commission (Albany). Trend of Child La bo;· in .Ve1c Yo;·k State, 1910-1922. 1924. Phillips, :'.Iarion. Wom£r and Children in the T e,·,_-tile I ndusfl·ies: An h~ternational Sun.;ey of Ho1us of Work and ..J.ge of Entr'l.J. International F ederation of Trade 'C'nions. Publication Ko. 4. 1922. Skidmore, Harriett B. State LaE-.> and Jlininrnm Standards .for Child Protectivn. K ational Child Labor Committee, January, D22. The Consumers' League of Connecticut. Ch ild Labor Brief. Hart­ford, Conn. June, 1923. U. S. Bureau of Census. Children in Gainful Occupations at the Fourteenth Census of the r.:nited States. 276 pages. 1924. U. S. Department of Labor. Administration of the First Federal Child Labor Law. Publication Xo. 18, Series 6. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. 1921. lJ. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau. Physical Standards f r; r TVorking Children. Government Printing Office. Washing­ton, D. C. 1921. U. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau. The State.s crnd Child Labr;;-. Go,·ernment Printing Office. ·washington, D. C. 1919. U. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau. Adniinistrntio;1 oj Child Lr1bor Lau;s. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. 1915. U. S. Depanment of Labor, Children's Bureau. Ch i/dren of Trage Eu.ming .llothus. GoYernment Printing Office. \Vashington, D. C. 1921. D. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau. ffo;·k of Children on Truck and Srnall-Fruit Farms in S outhern New Jersey. Pub­lication Xo. 132. Government Printing Office. 1924. U. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau. Child L abor in the Un ited States. Go,·ernmrnt Printing Office. '.Vashington D. C. 1923. 21 The Child Labor Amendment U. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau. State Commissions for the Study and Revision of Child-Welfare Laws. E. O. Lund­berg. 156 pages. Bureau publication No. 131, 1924. U. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau. Child Labor: Out­lines for Study. 61 pages, bibliography, tables. Third Edition. (Separate No. 21, Child Care and Child W elfare. Bureau Pub­lication No. 93). Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. 1924. U. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau. Child Labor cmd Work of Mo.thers in, the Beet Fields of Colorado and Michigan. Washington, D. C. 1923. U. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau. Child Labor in North Dakota. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. 1923. U. S. Department of Labor. Child Labor and the Work of Mothers in Oyster and Shrimp Canning Communities on the Gulf Coast. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. 1922. U. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau. Child Labor and the Welfare of Children in an Anthracite Coal-Mining District. Gov­ernment Printing Office. Washington, D. C. 1922. U. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau. The Welfare of Chil­dren in the Cotton-Growing Areas of Texas. Government Print­ing Office. Washington, D. C. U. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau. Administration of Child Labor Laws; Standards Applicable to the Administration of Employment Certificate Systems. H. S. Woodburn. Publica­tion 133: 1-226. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. 1924. U. S. House Committee on the Judiciary. Proposed Child Labor Amen­ment to the Constitution of the United Sttaes. Hearings, Febru­ary 7, 15-16 27-March 1, 6-8, 1924. Apply to Congressmen. 1924, serial 16, 307 pages, tables. U. S. 68 Congress, First Session. U. S. House Committee on Judiciary. Child Labor Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Minority report (to accom­pany H. J. resolution 184). Apply to Congressmen 1924. 10 pages. U. S. Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session. House re­port 395, part 2. U. S. Senate Committee on Judiciary. Child Labor Amendment to the Constitution of the United Slates; report. (To accompany H. J. resolution 184). Apply to Congressmen. 1924. U. S. Six­ty-eighth Congress, First Session. U. S. Superintendent of Documents. Labor; Child Labor; Cost of Living, Reconstruction, Employer's Liability, Insurance; Wages, Women Wage Earners, Strikes, List of Publications. For sale by Supt. of Documents. (Price List 338th Ed.) 28 pages. Au­gust, 1922. Uni i·o.c::"tu or Te:··as Bulletin American Child. 3 :267-73. November, 1921. Child Labor in Agri­C'lllture. G. H. Folks. American Child, v. 6, No. 9, p. 3. September, 1924. The Forces Begin to Line Up. American Child. 4:53-6. May, 1922. New York Youths a.nd Their Jobs. H. B. Burdge. American Child. 3 :204-5. November, 1921. History of Federal Child Labor Legislation. Agriculturist Student (Ohio State University), v. 31, pp. 63-65. December, 1924. What Can Congress Do With Our Children? Affirmative by Francis W. Coker; negative by C. A. Dyer. American Machine. 62 :341-2. February 26, 1925. Law on Employ­ment of a Minor. L. Childs. Congressional Digest. February, 1923. Child Labor Amendment Issue. Contains articles on Child Labor. Washington, D. C. Constitutional Review. 9 :44-E.2. January, 1925. The Child Labor Amendment. Cornell Countryman. 22: 111. January, 1925. Yeas and Nays of th~ Proposed Child Labor Amendment. Melvin S. Reorge. Current Opinion. 77: 13-14. July, 1924. Another Constitutional Amendment in Sight. Current Opinion. 78:12-14. January, 1925. Child Labor Issne. Elementary School Journal. 25 :401-2. February, 1925. Constitu­tional Amendment on Child Labor; editorial. Forum. 73:13-27. January, 1925. Tu:entieth Amendment, a Debate. 0. R. Lovejoy; W. E. Gonzales. Forum: 73-278-82. February, 1925. Twentieth Amendment, Sym­posium. Good Housekeeping. 80 :24-5. January, 1925. Cotton-Mill Children. Ethridge, W. S. Home Economics. 17 :32-4. January, 1925. Children's Earnings in the Foreign-Born Family. R. A. Cohan. Illinois Journal of Commerce. p. 9 plus. February, 1925. The Child Labor Amendment; Arguments for and Against the Measure. Independent. 114 :201-2. February 21, 1925. T1ventieth Amendment Defeated? An Interpretation of the Constitution. B. W. War­ren. Independent. 113: 350-1. December 20, 1924. Education vs. Propa­ganda. Independent. 108-507-8. June 10, 1922. Why the Supreme Court Rejceted the Child Labor Law. F. Franklin. Industrial Education Magazine. 26: 127-9. November, 1924. De­velopment of Child Lctbor Legislation. G. N. Boone. Industrial Hygiene. 55 :382-9. February, 1924. Future of the Child Labor Question. H. G. Powell. The Child Labor Amendment Index. Pages 10-11. December, 1924. Status of the Proposed Con­stitutional Amendment Giving Congress Regulatory Power. Literary Digest. 83: 12-14. October 6, 1924. Bcittle Over Child Labor Amendment. Literary Digest. 84-10-11. February, 1925. Why the Child Labor Amendment Failed. Literary Digest. 83 :31-2. November 29, 1924. Would Congress S poil Our Children? Literary Digest. 71 :32. November 26, 1921. New Hardships for the Child. Literary Digest. May 27, 1922. The Child Labor Law Quashed. Minnesota Law Review. 9 :179-210. February, 1925. Child La~or Amendment. Tables. Monthly Labor Review. Child Labor (in Labor recommendations in Governor's Messages of 1925). April, 1925. Monthly Labor Review. April, 1921. Trend of Child Labor in the United States, 1913-1920. P. McGill. Monthly Labor Review. 15:817-18. October, 1922. Census Returns on Gainfully Employed Children, 1920. Monthly Labor Review. 20-71-101. January, 1925. Federal Control of Child Labor; a List of References. L. A. Thompson. Monthly Labor Review. 17-1342-3. December, 1923. Child Labor on Maryland Truck Farms. Monthly Labor Review. 18 :801-2. April, 1924. Child Lo,bor on Norfolk, Va., Truck Farms. Monthly Labor Review. 18-1281-2. June, 1924. Child Labo;· in the United States, 1910-1920. Monthly Labor Review. 19:128-30. July, 1924. Employment and Welfare of Children in Cotton-Groii;ing Areas of Texas. Monthly Labor Review. 18 :800-1. April, 1924. Trend of Child Labor in New York State. Monthly Labor Review. 19 :403. August, 1924. Employment of Children in Louisiana. Monthly Labor Review. 17 :1344-5. December, 1923. Occupations of Juvenile Workers in Detroit. l\Ionthly Labor Review. 18 :570. March, 1924. Child Lubor in Dela­ware. Monthly Labor Review. 22: 181. March, 1925. Employp1ient of Children. L. D. Clark (in his Labor Legislation of 1924). Monthly Labor Review. 19 :1378-80. December, 1924. Child Labor in Wisconsin. Nation. 120 :59. January 21, 1925. Catholics and Child £ ,, b r. National Educators' Association Journal. 14 :51-4. February, 1925. Disinterested Testimony on the Child Labo1· Amendment. Unil:er:;ity of Texas Bulletin New Republic. 31 :248-50. July 26, 1922. Child Labor and the Court. F. Frankfurter. · New Republic. 31:177-9. July 12, 1922. Child Labor Decision. E. S. Corwin. North Amel'ican Review. 220-223-44. December, 1924. Child Labor Amendment. Grace Abbott and D. U. Fletcher. Outlook. 138-477-8. November 26, 1924. Child Labor Amendment. Outlook. 136 :587-8. April 9, 1924. Child and the Constitution. Outlcok. 139-173. February 4, 1925. Question Not of Morals, but of Method. Outlook. May 31, 1922. Is the;·e no protection? Public Affairs. (Washington, D. C.), p. 24. December, 1923. Is Child Labor Amendment Needed? Review of Reviews. 70 :63-4. July, 1924. Child Labor Amendment and the Farmers. E. C. Lindeman. Review of Reviews. 71-65-8. January, 1925. Child Labor: Problem in American Government. R. G. Fuller. Review of Reviews. 71 :6-7. January, 1925. Pending Child Labor Amendment. Saturday Evening Post. 197 :9. April 4, 1925. Children and Work. E. Frazer. School and Society. 20 :54-6. July 12, 1924. Child Labor and the State Legislatures. School and Society. 21:71-2. January 17, 1925. Action on the Child Labor Amendment. School and Society. 21 :233-5. February 21, 1925. Child Labor Amendment in Perspective. R. L. Finney. School and Society. 20: 113-114. January 24, 1925. States and the Children. School and Society. 19: 14-15. January 5, 1924. Child Labor Amendment to the Federal Constitution. School and Society. 15: 592-3. May 27, 1922. Child Labor and Federal Educational Legislation. School and Society. 16 :306-7. September 9, 1922. Children's Bu­rerni Conference on Problems and Standards of Employment C~rtifi.cate Issuance. School and Society. 14 :454. November 19, 1921. Child Labor in Colorado Beet Fields. School and Society. 20 :731-3. December 6, 1924. Child Labor Amendment. School and Society. 20 :586. November 8, 1924. Movement to Ratify the Child Labor Amendment. Survey. 53:777-8. March 15, 1925. South and West on Child Labor. E H. T:lton. Survey. 51 :673-6. March 15, 1924. Ghosts vs. Children. G. Smith. The Child Labor Amendment Survey. 53:379-82. January 1, 1925. Child Labor, the New Align­ment. W. L. Chenery. Survey. 48:727-9. September 15, 1922. Child Labor at the Four­teenth Census. E. N. Matthews. Woman Citizens. 9:11. December 27, 1924. History of Child Labor Laws. Grace Abbott. Woman Citizen. December 27, 1924. The Child Labor Amendment. Woman Citizen. 9:19. February 7, 1925. Ohio's Child Labor Hear­ing. AFFIRMATIVE REFERENCES An Amendment to the Constitution Is Needed to Give the United States Power to Safeguard the Child Life of the Nation. Wash­ington. 1923. An appeal issued by seventeen national organi­zations. American Federation of Labor. Child Labor Amendment Merely an Enabling Act. (In its Weekly News Service, October, 1924). Child Labor in the United States. Compiled from United States Government reports and other authentic sources for the use of twenty national organizations supporting the "Children's Amend­ment" and for the churches and the press. December, 1923. Obtainable from the Commission on the Church and Social Service of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, New York City. Fuller, R. G. Meaning of Child Labor:. 161 pages. $1.00. McClurg. 1922. Contents: Child Labor re-interpreted; methods of reform, amount of child labor, some costs of child labor, child labor and school attendance, child labor and school abandonment, Federal legislation; State legislation. Hudson, Manley 0. Is the Child-Labor Amendment Properly Drau:n? National Child Labor Committee. Publication :-.lo. 321. 4 pages. New York. 1924. Matthews, E. N. Physical Standards for Working Children. Eighth Annual Convention of Government Labor Officials in United States and Canada. 1921. National Child Labor Committee. American Patchwork. Pamphlet No. 311. 1230 Fifth Avenue, New York City. 1923. National Child Labor Committee. Poems of Child Labor. New York. 1924. National League of Woman Voters. Truths and Half-Truths About Child Labor. National Women's Trade Union League. Election Day and the Child-Labor Amendment. (In its Life and Labor bulletin, Ko­vember, 1924). Unive1·sity of Texas Bulletin Organizations Associated for Ratification of the Child Labor Amend­ment, Washington, D. C. The Struggle for the Child-Labor Amendment as Revealed by the Massachusetts Referendum. Washington, D. C., 1924. 24 pages. Pound, Roscoe (Dean). Writes on Child:Labor Amendment. New York. National Child Labor Committee. 1924. Swift, Wiley H. A Defense of the American System of Government. Being an Answer to a.n Examination of the Pending Child Labor Amendment by Mr. James A . Emery. New York. National Child Labor Committee. 1924. Walsh, Thomas J. Speech in Senate, January 8, 1925. Congressional Record, January 8, 1924, V. 66, No. 27, pp. 1473-1484. Woman's Committee for the Children's Amendment. Child~n's Amendment, 1924. Fifth Street N. W. Washington, D. C. American Academy of Political and Social Science. Child Labor a Menace to Industry, Education, and Good Citizenship. Philadel­phia, 1906. American Child. 4 :49-52. May, 1922. Shortcomings in Child Pro­tection. E. M. Johnson. American Child. 3 :353-8. February, 1922. Economics and Child W elfare. R. G. Fuller. American Child. 3 :200-3. November, 1921. Industrial Accidents to Young Wage-Earners. American Child. 3 :281-6. November, 1921. Child Labor vs. Chil­dren's Work. R. G. Fuller. American Child. V. 6, No. 7, pp. 7-9. July, 1924. What Kind of a Child-Labor Law Should Congress Pass. American Child. V. 6, No. 12, pp. 1-3. December, 1924. A Lawyer's View of the Child-Labor Amendment. Lewis William Draper. American Child. V. 6, No. 7, pp. 1-6. Back to the People. Owen R. Lovejoy. American Child. V. 6, No. 10, p. 8. October, 1924. The Opposition Primer, or Why Is Mr. Emery Scared _ American Child. V. 6, No. 11, p. 6. Sever.a£ Leading Agricultural Publications Favoi· Child Labor Amendment. American Child. V. 5, No. 10, p. 1. October, 1923. Looking From a N ew Angle. Henry W. Thurston. American Child. V. 6, No. 6, p. 4. June, 1924. Your Questions Answered. Agriculture and the Child-Labor Amendment. American Federationist. September, 1922. Child Labor Must Go. Senator Medill McCormick. Boston City Record. 15 :1561-2. November 3, 1923. Child Labor Called the Crime of the Ages and a Drag on Progress. J. M. Curley. Catholic World. 120 :166-74. November, 1924. Proposed Child­Laboi· Amendment. J. A. Ryan. The Child Labor Amendment Century. 109-599-605. March, 1925. Children in Politics, Rights of . States and Rights of Children. W. L. Chenery. Child Labor Facts. National Child Labor Committee, 105 E. Twenty­second Street, New York. January, 1922. Christian Science Monitor. p. 18. October 21, 1924. Why the 18­Year Age Limit? Alice Stone Blackwell. Christian Science Monitor. Children in the Beet Fields. March 13, 1923. Christian Science Monitor. May 4, 1923. Three-Year-Olds Pick Cot­ton in Imperial Valley Fields. Christian Science Monitor. April 3, 1924. Colorado Favors Child Labor Law. Christian Science Monitor. January 11, 1924. Three-year-old "LaborSlaves" Make Things Sold on Fifth Avenue. Collier's. 73:12. April 19, 1924. Children Will Win, if You Help. W. Hard. Colliers. 74:18. July 26, 1924. States Rights or Children's Rights, Which? Collier's. January 20, 1924. Grown Men Talk While Children Toil. Harold Cary. Collier's. December 15, 1923. Must Our Children Do Hard Labo1·? Harold Cary. Collier's. November 17, 1923. Work Never Hurt Any Kid Yet. Harold Cary. Current History Magazine. New York Times. 20 :932-5. Septem­ber, 1924. Child Labor a Blot on American Civilization. J. C. King. Current History Magazine. 854-9. March, 1925. American Chil­dren in Bondage. P. Chass. Good Housekeeping. 75 :64-5. November, 1922. Child Labor in Our Cities. R. G. Fuller. Good Housekeeping. 80 :24-25. January, 1925. Cotton Mill Children. W. S. Ethridge. Hygeia. 2 :71-3. February, 1924. Picki'IJ,g Our Greatest Crop Too Soon. F. B. Williams. Harvard Alumni Bulletin. P. 291. November 27, 1924. The Child­Labor Amendment. Charles W. Eliot. Labor. October 25, 1924. LaFollette, Coolidge, and Davis for Child­Labor Amendment. Literary Digest. 81: 13-15. June 14, 1924. To Sai•e the Child From Slavery. Literary Digest. 80 :33-4. February 9, 1924. Tiny Tenement Toilers. Monthly Labor Review. 18:1046. May, 1924. Trend of Child Labor in Thirty-four Cities in United States, 1922 to 1923. \'ation. 119-590. December 3, 1924. Child Labor Mi1st End. University of Texas Bulletin Nation. 114:766. June 28, 1922. Are You Fond of Oysters? Child Labor in the Oyster and Shrimp Canneries. Nation. 118-392-3. April 9, 1924. Set the Children Free. H. F. Pringle. National Educators' Association Journal. 13:193-4. June, 1924. Children Who Work on Farms. N. P. McGill. National Educators' Association Journal. 13 :317-18. December, 1824. Challenge of Child Labor. National Educators' Association Journal. 14:23. January, 1925 . ....Appeal to Prejudice and Ignornnce. National Grange Monthly. November, 1924, p. 11. Oregon State Grange Favors Child Labor Project. National Humane Review. 12 :143-4. August, 1924. Children in Street Trades, Newsboys, Exposed to Many Influences Detri­mental to Health and Morals. J. V. Minor. New York Times. May 4, 1924. Child Labor Fight Reaches the Senate. New Republic. 41: 108-9. December 24, 1924. Child Labor: Why They Invoke States' Rights. New Republic. 41 :32-3. December 3, 1924. Child Labor, the Horne and Liberty. Discussion. 41: 145. December 31, 1924. New Republic. 39 :99-100. June 18, 1924. Who Wants Child Labor? V. Paradise. New Republic. August 15, 1923. On the Industrial Scrap-Heap. Outlook. 139 :211-12. February 11, 1925. Amendment Dies, a Cause Lives. Outlook. 131 :199. May 31, 1922. Is There No Protection? Outlook. 132-323. October 25, 1922. Abuse of the Child. Pictorial Review. 25 :2. February, 1924. Children in the Market Place. Medill McCormick. Pictorial Review. 26 :2. February, 1924. What's the Matter With Georgia? J. C. Clarke. Plumbers, Gas, and Steam Fitters' Journal. V. 39, No. 8, p. 11. August, 1924. Musty States' Rights Claim Now Used Against Children. School Life. 9: 130-1. February, 1924. Rural Child Labor vs. Rural Education. J. F. Abel. Scribner's Magazine. 76:399-403. October, 1924. Child Labor as a National Problem. E. J. Eberling. Southern Agriculturist. October 15, 1924. The Proposed Child­Labor Amendment. Survey. 53 :78. October 15, 1924. F ederal Child Labor Amend­ment; Ten Questions Answered. F. Kelley. Survey. 48: 621-2. August 15, 1922. Children of the Oyster Sheds. The Child Labor Amendrnent 29 Survey. 53 :177-8. November 15, 1924. Misinformed Massachusetts. W. H. Swift. Survey. 48 :404-5. June 15, 1922. Home Work but Not Study. The Juvenile. December, 1922. Support the McCormick Senate Res­ olution Proposing Child Labor Amendment to Federal Constitu­tion. Woman Citizens. 9:17. December 27, 1924. Child Labor and Statea' Rights. A. S. Blackwell. Woman Citizens. 9 :9-10. December 27, 1924. Present Child-Labor Evil. 0. R. Lovejoy. Woman Citizens. 9: 20. February 7, 1925. California's Ratification Campaign. Woman Citizens. 9:17. March 7, 1925. But Where Are the Farm­ers? Woman's Home Companion. 52:14. February, 1925. L et the Facts Be Known. E. M. Smith. Woman's Home Companion. January, 1923. The Children's Amend­ment. Florence Kelley. NEGATIVE REFERENCES American Farm Bureau Federation. Opposes Government Regula­tion of Children. Weekly News Letter, March 6, 1924. Brooks, John G. Past and Present Arguments Against Child Labor. Macmillan. New York, 1917. Butler, Nicholas M. A Threatened Departure From American Prin­ciples. 4 pages. National Committee for Rejection of the Twen­tieth Amendment. Washington, D. C. Cadwalader, Thomas F. The Proposed Twentieth Amendment. 11 pages. National Committee for Rejection of the Twentieth Amendment. Washington, D. C. Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York. Child-Lctbor Amendment to the Federal Constitution Opposed: Action of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York and Editorials and Other Public Statements Against the Amendment 1925. Re­print from the Monthly Bulletin of the Chamber of Commerce of December, 1924. Citizens' Comm;ttee to Protect Our Homes and Children. An Exami­nation of the Proposed Twentieth Amendment to the Constitu­tion of the United States. Boston. 1924. Emery, James A. An Examination of the Proposed Twentieth Amend­ment to the Constitution of the United States. Secretary's Of­fice, 50 Church Street, New York. August, 1924. Emery, James A. Prohibition of Work ; the Proposed Twentieth Amendment; Its Falsities and What It Will Mean to the Life of the Nation. August 30, 1924. University of Texas Bulletin Lee, Joseph. Child Labor a11d Local ~11· Reprinted from Boston Transcript, October 14, 1924. National Association of Manufacturers of the United States of America. Proposed CO'ftBtittdioflal Amendtnext. (In its Wash­ington Service Bulletin, November 1, 1924. No. 150, p. 2). National Child Labor Law, or Socialistic BureaueratU: COfltrol Sup­planting Parental, Comrol 1Jf Cltildren Plain Politics for Parents. Leaflet distn"buted by American Constitutional League.. Chicago. 1924. National Committee for Rejection of Twentieth Amendment. TM Proposed Twentieth Amendment to the Federal C071Btitutim& ••. a Cross-Sectiofl. of America11 Sentinumt mOpposition to the Revo­lutimlary Gr010tlt, of Power Sought by C011gren From tlt,e Several States. Washington, D. C. American Child. V. 6, No. 7, p. 3. July, 1924. Do Thq Reall11 BelierJe It? America. V. 32, pp. 166-167. November 29, 1924. TM Child-Labor Amendment. F. W. Grose. American Bar Association JournaL V. 10, pp. 713-714.. October, 1924. The Labor Amendmem Submitted for RatificatUna.. Ever­ett P. Wheeler. American Federationist. 31 :541-53. July, 1924. N010 t1t,e States Must Act; the Past, the Present, a11d tlt,e Future of the Effort to Free AmerU:an Child1wod. American Industries. No. 2, v. 25, pp. 24-25. Sept.ember, 1924. Truth Abold Child Labor. Nathan B. Williams.. American Industries. 25:5-8. March, 1925. That T10efttieth Amewd­ment and Some Further Objectiuns. A. P. Allen. American Industries. 25:19-23. Febru111y, 1925. EmplbJ/ers awd Child ~orBill. N. Sargent. Barron's Weekly. March 24, 1924. Child Labor Facta a11d Bva­combe---Emoti01UJl Pleas with Little Fact Baris for a Dangermu Amendme?lt to the Federal Constituti07L Aaron Hardy Ulm. Christian Science Monitor. November 11, 1922. Foe3 of Chi1d Labor Bupeak Backing of Consumers' Leafl'IU. Commerce and Finance. V. 13, pp. 702-703. April 9, 1924. Thougltt­leas Thinking; Amendbtg the Federal C0113titutUm. Commerce and Finance. V. 13, p. 1557. August 20, 1924.. P.,.epos­ terous Child-Labor Amendme11t. M. Sykes. · Current Opinion. 78:12-14.. January, 1925. Cltild Labor l811U. Dearborn Independent. November 8, 1924. Should the NatiO'Jt Con­ trol Chi1d Labor? Iredell Meares. Dearborn Independent. P. 2. November 22, 1924. Slundd tlt,e Ameri­can Child Be Federalized? New Amendment Talua Codrol of Child, Not of His Condition: An Analftsis; Some Dawgers of The Child Labor A.meildment Bureaucratic Methods in Dealing with Ju;:enile Labor. Iredeli )1eares. E lementary School Journal. 25:161-3. XoYember, 1824. Opp0 protect children from exploitation as cheap labor have followed, somewhat slowly, the industrial development of the country, and are now found in varying degrees of effectiveness in practically every State. The demand for universal education and the recital of the evils of child labor by early labor leaders and social refermers brought the first legislative efforts to reduce the employ!'lllent of children. A beginning in such legislation had been made in the New England States, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio before 1860, but the greatest progress was made during the latter part of the Nineteenth and the early part of the Twentieth Century. In spite of great diversities in the child labor laws of our forty­eight states, the developing tendencies are clear. In general, the laws set up an age, an educational and a physical standard which a child must attain before he can be employed in a specified list of oc­cuptions; they regulate the hours during which he may work during the first few years of employment and prohibit him from certain hazardous occupations. But these laws vary so in the occupations to which they extend, in the exceptions and exemptions which are made in the age, hour, education, and physical standards, that they fit to­gether like the pieces of a crazy quilt, and uneven enforcement adds to the inequality of protection. As public recognition of the widespread and harmful effects of child labor became more and more general, this great diversity in the child labor laws of the different states and the difficulty of raising standards in one State because of industrial competition with states University ol Texas Bulletin having lower standards gave rise to the movement for establishing a minimum standard through Federal legislation. Perhaps the most important of the reasons brought forward for resorting to National legislation in this field were : (1) The slow progress made in the protection of children in states in which an in­dustry was locally so powerful as to prevent the passage of a reason­able child labor law or the enforcement of one after it was passed; (2) conscientious consumers objected to the products of child labor becoming articles of commerce; (3) manufacturers objected to the competition of those who relied upon the low wages of children as the basis of their profits; (4) industrial districts are not confined by State lines. Children who live in one State work in another and manufac­turers have found it possible to dodge behind State laws in giving out tenement homework in a neighboring State. States, therefore, found themselves unable to protect either the children, the consumers, or the manufacturers. This discussion reached Congress in 1906, when ·Senator Beveridge of Indiana and Representative Parsons of New York introduced bills "to prevent the employment of children in factories and mines," and Senator Lodge of Massachusetts sponsored one "to prohibit the em­ployment of children in the manufacture or production of articles intended for interstate commerce." Between 1906 and 1916, when the first Federal child labor law was passed, bills for this purpose were introduced in every Congress except one, by Senators and Representa­tives from different parts of the country. Most of the measures suggested were for Federal laws, as it was believed that Congress had constitutional authority to meet this National need through some one of its general grants of power. But there were also proposals for constitutional amendments. In 1914 Representative Rogers of Massachusetts proposed an amendment giving Congress power to regulate the employment of persons under 21 years of age and of women. On September 1, 1916, the so-called Keating-Owen bill, sponsored by Representative Keating of Colorado and Senator Owen of Oklahoma and urged by President Wilson, became a law. Based on the power of Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, this act closed the channels of interstate and foreign commerce to the products of child labor. It was to go into effect September 1, 1917. The measure had met with opposition organized and led by re"re­sentatives of the southern textile industries, and as soon as it was passed steps were taken to contest its constitutionality. On August 31, 1917, on the ground that the law was not a valid exercise of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, an injunction was granted by the United States District Judge of the Western District of North Carolina enjoining the United States Attorney of that dis­trict from enforcing the act. The injunction was nominally sought by The Child Labor Amendment John Dagenhart, father of two children affected by the act, and it enjoined the Fidelity Manufacturing Company, of Charlotte, N.C., from dismissing John Dagenhart, who was under 14 years of age, and from curtailing the hours of employment of Reuben Dagenhart, who was between 14 and 16 years of age. This injunction applied only to the Western Judicial District of North Carolina. An appeal was taken by the Government to the United States Supreme Court and, pending a decision by that court, the act was enforced in other parts of the country. It was adminis­tered by the Children's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor, under a system of cooperation between the Federal and State labor officials. The basis for this cooperative functioning was laid in the act itself, which made it possible to accept for the purposes of the Federal act the certificates of age or work permits issued under State authority. On June 3, 1918, after the act had been in effect nine months and three days, the Supreme Court sustained the decision of the North Carolina court and declared the law unconstitutional by a vote of 5 to 4. Congress next sought to use its taxing power for the protection of children. On November 15, 1918, Senator Pomerene of Ohio intro­duced as an amendment to the Revenue Act a provision placing a pronibitive tax (10 per cent) upon the annual net profits of establish­ments violating the standards set up by the previous child labor law. This measure, passed February 24, 1919, became the so-called "Child Labor Tax Act" and went into effect on April 25, 1919. The opponents of the act again contested its constitutionality, and on May 15, 1922, the Supreme Court, this time by a vote of; 8 to 1, dec:lared the law unconstitutional, on the ground that it was not a legitimate exercise of the taxing power of Congress. Inasmuch as these two attempts of the Federal Government to extend its protection to child laborers were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court-in both cases without any reference to the merits of the law-President Harding and President Coolidge urged upon Congress the necessity of giving to Congress through a con­stitutional amendment the power to legislate in this field. Joint resolution proposing amendments were promptly introduced in botli House and Senate. In the Senate, Senators Lodge of Massa­chusetts, Walsh of Montana, Shortridge and Johnson of California, McCormick of Illinois, and a number of others proposed amendments ; in the House of Representatives, Foster of Ohio, Johnson of Wash­ ington, Taylor of Colorado, Cooper of Wisconsin, Perlman of New York, and some nineteen other Congressmen from the North and West sponsored amendments. The states have had over two years in which to show to what ex­t ent they might be expected to supply, through their own legislative measures, the need which the Fedaral law had filled. Since the last University of Texas Bulletin law was declared unconstitutional the Legislature of every State has held at least one regular session, but, although some advances were made, not one of the thirty-five states whose child labor standards fell below those fixed by the former Federal laws has brought its laws up to that standard in every particular. Clearly, the only recourse is an amendment giving Congress power to act. During the entire period of agitation for Federal action in this field it has not been urged that the power of the Federal Government should be exclusive. Both the first and second Federal child labor laws sought only a minimum National standard. State laws that were higher were still operative and were enforced by State ma­chinery. Only in a relatively few communities was Federal enforcing machinery neces8ary. State officials charged with the enforcement of State child labor laws very generally testify that the Federal act in­creased the respect for the State laws. Instead of discouraging, the Federal laws stimulated the sense of local responsibility for the chil­dren of the State. The proposed amendment does not present a choice between alternatives of State and Federal action, but offers a possi­bility of cooperation between the State and Federal governments in protecting the children, who belong to both the State and the Nation. Federal cooperation of this kind is not a new thing. In recent years a number of measures-notably the Federal Pure Food and Drug Act, the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, and the White Slave Law-which have provided for Federal assistance in solving problems once thought purely local, but now grown national in scope, have been passed by Congress and have been satisfactorily enforced. Congress has already shown what kind of child labor laws it would pass because it has twice passed laws in the belief that it had the power the amendment would give it. State and F ederal officials have proved that they can work together effectively to enforce State and Federal child labor standards. We know what was the cost to the people of the administration of a Federal law-less than $150,000 annually. The question then is, shall we make it possible to extend the Nation's aid to the Nation's children? THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WHICH DECLARED THE "FIRST CHILD LABOR LAW" UNCONSTITUTIONAL (The opinion or the Cotlrt wn::; delivered by Mr. Jut'tice Day. Mr. Chief Justice White, Mr. Ju~ticc Vnn Devanter, Mr. Justice Pitney, and Mr. Justice McReynolds concurring. The dissenting opinion filed by Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice McKenna, Mr. Justice Brandeis. and Mr. Justice Clark concurring. From Congressional n 1:g<'sl, February, 1923. THE CASE Argued April 15, 16. 1918. Decided June 3, HJ18. Ha.inmer, United States Attorney for the Western Di:nal campaign to acquaint employers and parents with the provisions of the act. In a number of states in which children between 14 and 16 years of age were allowed, under the State law, to work more than eight hours a day, State inspectors checked time records in the course of their regular inspections to see whether the Federal eight-hour standard was being violated, and University of Texas Bulletin called the attention of the employers to the fact that their products could not be shipped in interstate or foreign commerce if the Federal eight-hour standard was not observed. The act itself provided a basis for cooperation between the Federal and State governments in that it was possible to accept for the pur­poses of the Federal act the certificates of age or work permits issued under State authority. State experience had demonstrated that it is possible to enforce a child labor law only if no child is employed without a certificate and if no certificate is issued except on reliable evidence that the child is of the legal woi;king age. The question of what State certificates should be accepted, therefore, was a very im­portant one in the administration of the act. Having adopted what were regarded as the necessary standards for a good certificate sys­tem, the laws and administrative practices of the several states were carefully studied. It was found possible to accept the State certificates for the pur­poses of the Federal act in practically all the industrial states. It was, however, found necessary to issue Federal certificates in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi, and at the time the act was declared unconstitutional arrangements were made for issu­ance in Virginia. .To an inspector of the Children's Bureau was assigned the special duty of cooperating with State officials, and joint inspections with State inspectors were tried in a number of localities. These were useful in acquainting Federal and State inspectors with the methods followed by each, and in impressing' parents and employers with the fact ·that Federal and State officials were working together. It was felt, however, that if long continued joint inspections would be waste­ful, as the time of two sets of inspectors was consumed for work which could be done by one. A regular exchange of information was probably what each needed from the other, and with this end in view, arrangements were made by the Children's Bureau to send to the child labor inspection departments of the states a summary of the findings of the bureau inspectors in their own jurisdiction, as well as all rulings and other information with reference to the act which might be published by the bureau from time to time. The same general method of enforcement was followed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue except that the same close cooperation with State departments of labor was not possible because of the fact that the second child labor law was a re~enue measure. That the State labor officials found this measure helpful is indicated by their official statements. The Child Labor Amendment THE TWENTIETH AMENDMENT A SYMPOSIUM Summarizing or quoting opinions of numerous men and women on a subject which was debated by Owen Reed Lovejoy and William Elliott Gonzales in the January issue of The Forum. The increasing opposition to the child labor amendment that has developed since its submission to the states by Congress in June makes early ratification of the amendment as a part of the Consti­tution by three-fourths of the State legislatures extremely doubtful. In the January issue of The Forum were discussed the salient points on both sides of the question. Owen Reed Lovejoy, general secretary of the National Child Labor Committee, urges ratification of the amendment on humanitarian grounds, believing that protection of children has become a national issue. His opponent, William Elliott Gonzales, editor of The State, Columbia, S.C., represents those who object to Federal centralization and assert that this amendment will make every American under 18 a "ward of Washington." Reaction to the proposed amendment, judging from the letters re­ ceived by the editor of The Forum, is rather evenly divided, with opposition slightly in advance. Those expressing sympathy with the bill are enthusiastic in its support; others believe in controlling child labor, but believe that the measures proposed are far too drastic; while those holding the opposition believe that children are "better busy than idle,'' and that Federal "usurpation" has already been carried too far. THE FIGHT IS ON "The fight is on!" writes Joy E. Morgan, editor of The Journal of National Education. "It will be one of the bitterly fought battles in American constitutional history. Education should stand against op­ position like the Rock of Gibraltar." Mr. Morgan then asks ten pertinent questions of those who are honestly trying to make up their minds on this problem. A warning is issued that they may determine the motives of those urging opposition. "Have you read the proposed amendment itself? It does not prohibit child labor, but merely gives Congress power to deal with the problem." SECTION 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under 18 years of age. SEC. 2. The power of the several states is unimpaired by this article. except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by Congress. "Has any honorable citizen anything to fear by granting to Con­ gress authority to deal with a recognized national evil?" asks Mr. Morgan. "Is it good American citizenship to try to create a lack of faith in the Federal Government? Were not the opponents to this bill also the opponents to compulsory school attendance? Would you put 'states' rights' above human rights?" As the director of the Juvenile Protective Association of Cincinnati, Lulu May Aler, puts it, there are two points of view from which one should look at the amendment: From the viewpoint of the child, and from the viewpoint of the adult. First, "Children in states that have weak child labor laws and children in interstate or migratory indus­tries have a right to look to our Federal Government for protection from dangerous work, unreasonable hours, and unhealthful working conditions. That the people of the United States have long realized the need for such child protection and have desi-red to effect it is evi­denced by the fact that they have twice, through their representatives in Congress, passed national child labor laws. These laws have been declared unconstitutional; it is now of prime importance to so amend the Constitution as to make sure that our Federal Government has the hitherto lacking power to protect children from detrimental labor conditions. "From the viewpoint of the adult: It is unfair that employers and workers in states which protect their children through good child labor laws have to compete in prices with employers and child laborers in states with low child labor standards. Moreover, the evil results of child labor affect the whole citizenship of our country not only in an economic way, but also in a social and political way. Chnd labor which prevents children from receiving an education generally results in unskilled, uneducated men and women. On the other hand, educa­tion, supplemented by the right kind of work, usually results in self. supporting men and women. It is the very essence of our democracy that every individual member of it shall have the opportunity to develop into an intelligent self-supporting citizen. "Figures furnished by the Census Bureau show that more than a million children between the ages of 10 and 15 years are working for wages in the United States," states Arthur Capper, chairman oi the Committee on Claims, United States Senate. "It seems to me if the regulation of child labor will in some small degree relieve this situation, it should certainly be given a trial regardless of all ob­jections that may be raised to it." Or, to quote President McCain, Agnes Scott College, Decatur, Ga., "The main point of it all is that the children of our country would thus get the protection they need. My view of the matter is that the amendment is permissive. It allows Congress the right to make laws on the subject. I would be very happy if the states would be so prompt in providing legislative measures that it would not be necessary for Congress to do anything." "The United States is rich beyond the imagination in material resources," says Desha Breckinridge, Lexington, Ky. "But of all its resources by far the most valuable is its childhood. Nothing should be left undone to protect that childhood. I am unable to comprehend The Child Labor Amendment the mental processes of one who honestly believes in the development and protection of the human race contending that it is an infringe­ment of its powers for the government of all the people to prohibit the mistreatment of the youth of the Nation." MISAPPREHENSION "There seems to be misapprehension in some quarters that the ratification of the amendment will result in prohibiting the labor of all children under 18 years of age,'' writes Wendell F. Johnson, general secretary of the Associated Aid Societies, Harrisburg, Pa. "I feel confident that Congress would not take any such drastic steps under the authority which this amendment would grant, and I con­sider that Congress should be given powers broad enough to enahle it to pass effective legislation for the regulation of child labor with­out fear of interference by the Supreme Court." "The objection that we propose to create some kind of industrial despotism at Washington is absurd," insists H. C. Ogden, Wheeling, W.Va. "The American people have shown time and again that they have both the courage and intelligence to change a national adminis­tration they do not like, or to change a Congress that is guilty of extravagance or incompetence. If the National Child Labor Law is adopted, it will be a law fairly representative of the thought of the American people. Otherwise it will be nullified either by lack of enforcement or by repeal." "It seems to me a niggardly restriction on an amendment of the Constitution to say that because we are not ready today to prohibit the labor of children of 18 years of age, we should not provide for that day when we may be prepared to educate and otherwise train our children instead of sending them into the world of industry before that age," is the opinion of Jess Perlman, one of the directors of the J ewish Board of Guardians, New York. Personally, I do not believe that we are now prepared to 'limit, regulate, and prohibit' the labor of persons under 18 years of age, but I do not think that giving Con­gress the power indicated is likely to be any menace, nor is in any way likely to be exercised until we are so prepared." "Some people plainly read more into the proposed amendment than is there and would change their attitude if they undersood it better," declares Anna H. Roller, superintendent of the United Charities, Wilkes-Barre, Pa. The chief objection raised to giving Congress power to regulate child labor, is the danger of centralizing too much power in the National Government. If child labor is a national problem, what can be more reasonable than national regulation ? Are representatives from the states who sit in Congress likely to ride over the sentiments of their constituents? All that Congress could University of Texas Bulletin do under the amendment would be to establish minimum standards. The states could regulate without limit beyond that point. THE CHILDREN THEMSELVES "In the multitude of arguments, pro and con, one fact seems to be completely overlooked," we are reminded by Edith Valet Cook, secretary of the Connecticut Child Welfare Association. "The hotter the argument becomes, the farther away we seem to get from the central fact, the chlidren themselves. In letting young people go to work without an educational foundation on which to build future and spiritual growth, we are daily increasing that horrifying dullness of our American life which Sinclair Lewis in Main Street has pointed out to us. In the midst of this sea of argument, let us remember the children, those children who work long hours, who often have too little time for real play. The children of today deserve our ultimate effort. The child. labor amendment is one logical step toward insuring them an opportunity." This plea finds numerous "seconds." Among them is a letter from Douglas P. Falconer, superintendent of the Children's Aid, Erie County, New York. "There is a good deal of legitimate sentiment connected with this question, but a man needs no sentiment to object to the wasteful use of child life, for national prosperity, security, and progress must depend upon a careful husbanding of our human re­sources." Mary E. Holland, executive secretary of the Colorado Children's Aid Society, Denver, does not believe in "the democracy that permits the division of its children into two classes, privileged and underprivileged. The rights of the underprivileged child are the same as the rights of the priviliged child. If State laws do not give and enforce that protection to poor children, which is due in the States of the United States, power should be given Congress to make and regulate such laws and protection." Such an amendment, in the opinion of J. Teuscher, Jr., superintendent of the Boys' and Girls' Aid Society of Oregon, however poor it is, will make it easier for those who think clearly to present their case to the jury of public opinion. ROBSON'S CHOICE There are those who believe that we should, as a nation, regulate child labor possibly by amending the Constitution, but who give their support "reluctantly" to this measure. Stephen R. Coleman, Bir­mingham, Ala., writes: "Were it possible to incorporate some reason­able provision for educational hours or periods into such an amendment, it might be more acceptable, but if not, and we must choose between the amendment and no amendment at all, our people The Child Labor Amendment owe it to themselves as a people to pass the amendment." Centraliza­tion of power in the Federal Government can be carried too far. Yet there are questions with which only the Federal Government can deal with properly and effectively. One of these questions is 'child labor, in the estimation of Herschel Dove, editor of a local paper at Bristol, Va.-Tenn. "I am in favor of a child labor amendment, but I am not in favor of the pending amendment. The age limit of chil­dren who would be affected is placed too high, and no exemptions are provided for. If adopted, it might prove as great an evil as that which it is intended to cure." "It hardly seems a case for debate, as both sides are right," declares W. D. Hooper, instructor in the University of Georgia. "All humane people must wish to see more enlightened laws on the subject of child labor and all thoughtful people must deplore the increasing tendency to cure every evil of the body politic by rushing to Washington for an amendment to the basic law of the country." Others who "do not see much in the national bill to condemn, nor are they loud in com­mendation" are J. C. Denious, Dodge City, Kan.; A. S. Edwards, University of Georgia, who "has some doubts as to whether the amendment as it stands is adequate, yet feels that the purpose of the amendment should be accomplished." Charles Spencer, Arkansas City, Kan.; Charles E. Brown, Cordele, Ga.; George Fort Milton, Chattanooga, Tenn.; E. Marvin Underwood, Atlanta, Ga.; and Anna B. Pratt, Philadelphia, hold similar views. OPPOSE AMENDMENT "It is always superfluous, apparently, to ask a Southerner what he thinks of a Federal amendment," frankly confesses a Southerner, W. T. Anderson, editor of a daily newspaper at Macon, Ga. "There are some instances where the South has not been true to tradition, but as a vast volume of blood and lives was spent in trying to estab­lish the principles of States' rights, we of the South have at least had enough schooling in this direction to cause us to be fixed for all time." It is this "encroachment by the Federal Government" that seems to be at the base of the most bitter attacks on the proposed amendment. "We have been prussianized sufficiently without this final step," declares R. Charlton Wright, Columbia, S.C. "Unlimited Congres­sional power (not subject to judicial restraint) expressly to 'limit, regulate, or prohibit the labor' and implied education of all 'persons under 18 years of age' as proposed to be granted by the miscalled child labor amendment cannot be discussed in a few words. It is not an amendment, but a constitutional revolution." This in the opinion of George Stewart Brown, member of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Washington. He continues, "It destroys the states' and local self-government under our existing Federal system Unii·ersity of Te;eas Bulletin and substitutes a consolidated national bureaucracy directed by a practically omnipotent Congress. It grants power not now possessed by any government in America. In effect it limits the right of the Supreme Court to declare acts unconstitutional except for the pro­tection of mere 'property' rights. It destroys the bill of rights, and violates every American tradition, and follows the policy of Soviet Russia. I am afraid to trust Congress for all time with such drastic and far-reaching power over the family life of the American people." AN ATTACK ON STATES' RIGHTS Various reasons are given for opposition to the proposed amend­ment, but the majority stress this very point of "empowering the United States Government to do what the states are better equipped to do for themselves." Shall child labor be regulated by the Govern­ment or by the separate states? This question is asked and discussed by Eugene F. Dodd, Atlanta, Ga.; !II. F. Goldstein, likewise of Atlanta; Charles F. Scott, editor of a newspaper at Iola, Kan.; T. R. Waring, Charleston, S.C.; L. P. Artman, Key West, Fla.; Lew B. Brown, St. Petersburg, Fla.; Powell Glass, Lynchburg, Va.; R. H. Clagett, Rome, Ga.; Erwin Craighead, Mobile, Ala.; R. Brazile Brossier, Orlando, Fla.; Willis M. Ball, Jacksonville, Fla.; L. W. Bloom, Lakeland, Fla.; and various other editors throughout the South. CHILD LABOR GOOD FOR MUSCLE Various Forum readers believe that children under 18 should not be deprived of the privilege of work. "The muscle, as well as the mind, should be educated. Today we find that the carpenters, brick masons, and plaster men and in fact the laboring class of people are drawing larger salaries than our bookkeepers and our business men. "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it," this contributor, John L. Sutton, Jackson, Miss., reminds us. "In the purely industrial sections, the child on the farm during his school vacation seasons would be much better off, both physically and mentally, ·working in the fields. To remove the child from the cotton fields would be disastrous to the cotton farmer." This in the judgment of J. M. Watters, Georgia School of Technology. Our attention is invited to the point that less than six-tenths of ·1 per cent of the children of the United States are employed in danger­ous or unhealthy places, according to a letter from Henry St. George Tucker, Representative from the Tenth District, Virginia. "This is the most vicious piece of legislation ever offered to the American people, and when properly explained will meet its just condemnation at their hands," he asserts. "How many widow's sons and daughters will this proposed legis­lation stop from aiding in the struggle to keep starvation from the The Child Labor Amendment door?" asks Howard H. Hold, publisher at Grafton, W.Va. "How many budding geniuses will it prevent from indulging ir. healthful and developing employment, to convert them i-nto habitual idlers and ne'er­do-wells? The manifest workings of this project violate all the sacred traditions of American principles of personal liberty. It invades the even more sacred relation of parent and child, robbing the parents of their innate and natural right and duty to direct and control the training of their children for the struggle of life." WHOLLY UNNECESSARY "Such an amendment is wholly and entirely unnecessary," in the esti-mation of R. V. Covington, Jacksonville, Fla. "The states can impose such laws as may seem proper and necessary. Conditions are not the same in all states. In view of some of the measures which Congress has pased and tried to pass, I feel that it would be extremely dangerous to put this power in its hands. We are already drifting too much toward centralization and paternalism. We need less laws and more lawful citizenship, less prohibiting and more encouragement to respect the Constitution of our forefathers, from which we have already drifted too far." "Uncle Sam may find it possible to publish the private affairs of the taxpayers and use a public bulletin board to post the income of gen­tlemen, and thus satisfy the curiosity of political ghouls, but trouble will come when the old gentleman seeks to usurp the privileges of the mother and father who still believe that to them is given the sole right of spanking their teen-age boys and girls," says Jesse B. Hearn, Montgomery, Ala. "The individual citizen has never surrendered the power of control over his children to the extent provided in thi-s amendment," declares Walter F. George, United States Senate. "No government yet set up in America has the right, power, or authority to prohibit the useful labor of a child, 17 years old, when that labor is neither injurious to the child nor to society. It is perfectly idle to say that Congress will never exercise the power and the answer to this is: Why grant the power if the Congress is not to exercise it in any circumstance? There is no possible justification why free men and women should surrender the power to control their own children in perfectly legitimate and useful labor or work when such labor is neither injurious to the child nor to any member of society. Every abuse of child labor can be corrected by the State in the exercise of its constitutional power, and could be corrected by the Federal Government under an amendment granting legitimate power." Similar statements of opinion are ex­pressed in letters received from Charles R. Crisp, Representative from Georgia; Grover C. Hall, Montgomery. Ala.. and W. H. Robe? t;:, Birmingham, Ala. University of Texas Bulletin CHILD LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES Extracts from bulletin of that name issued in 1923, by Children's Bureau of Dc!lartment of Labor During the decade between 1910 and 1920 F~deral regulation of child labor was for the first time in effect. The first Federal child labor law, enacted on September 1, 1916, to become effective one year after its passage, prohibited the shipment in interstate and foreign commerce of goods produced in mines or quarries in which children under 16 years of age were employed, or in mills, canneries, work­shops, factories, or manufacturing establishments in which children under 14 years of age were employed, or in which children between 14 and 16 years of age worked more than eight hours a day or six days a week or between 7 P.M. and 6 A.M. This law was declared un­constitutional by the United States Supreme Court on June 3, 1918. A second Federal law, known as the child labor tax act, was passed in February, 1919, and put a premium on the observance of the same standards by imposing a tax upon the profits of all mines and manu­facturing establishments employing children in violation of these standards. Although since declared unconstitutional (on May 15, 1922), this law was in effect at the time of the 1920 census. While this law may be said to have been an important factor in the decrease which the 1920 census shows, its effectiveness was un­doubtedly weakened by the fact that it did not directly prohibit or regulate child labor, but merely tended to discourage it by imposing a tax upon the profits of establishments employing children contrary to the standards set up, and by the fact also ,that pending the de­cision of the United States Supreme Court as to the constitutionality of the. law the collection of the tax was rendered difficult. State standards relating to the employment of children were also raised in a number of states during this period. Laws fixing the minimum age for going to work were strengthened in at least one­half of the states, either by raising the age or by increasing the number of occupations to which the law applied, or in both ways. In many states these measures were supplemented and the number of child workers consequently reduced by raising the educational, physical, or other requirements which a child must meet before being permitted to go to work. The number of states fixing a maximum working-day of eight hours for children under 16 in any considerable number of occupations increased from 7 to 28, and the number of those having no prohibition of night work of such children fell from 23 to 7 during the decade. The possibility of adequate enforcement of these various regulations was increased by both legislative and ad­ministrative action. Moreover, the standards of compulsory education laws were generally raised so that fewer children could leave school for work. Although these laws may not be well enforced in many The Child Labor Amendment localities, in 1920 every State at least had such a law, while in 1910 there were seven states without compulsory education provisions. A new type of legislation, providing for the part-time education of em­ployed children during their working hours, was passed during the decad~ in twenty-two states. This legislation undoubtedly had an influence upon the extent of child employment in 1920 in communities where continuation schools had been started, since, as in the case of restriction of hours, employers are said to be loath to hire persons for . whom special arrangements must be made. LEGISLATION AND CHILD LABOR IN MINES According to the census returns the number of children 10 to 15 years of age, inclusive, employed in mining occupations declined 60 per cent in the period 1910-1920, as compared with an increase of 13 per cent in the total number of persons engaged in the industry. During this period not only did Federal regulations become effective, . imposing a minimum age of 16 years for the employment of children in and about mines, but in addition all of the principal mining states except two-Illinois and Indiana-raised the minimum legal age for such work to 16. Illinois had had a 16-year age minimum for mining in 1910. Indiana, which had a minimum age of 14 years in both 1910 and 1920, nevertheless showed a decrease in child labor in the mining industry of 61.4 per cent as compared with an increase of 37.1 per cent in the total number of persons employed in mining, apparently a case of the influence of the Federal law in a State with standards lower than the Federal standards. IS CHILD LABOR REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL'" GOVERNMENT AT THE PRESENT TIME? Since the Federal child labor tax law was declared unconstitutional on May 15, 1922, the Federal Government has had no jurisdiction over the employment of children in the states. That the need for uni­formity in standards is as imperative today as at the time the first Federal child labor law was passed in 1916 is shown by the fact that while many of the states recognize in their laws the desirability of the 14-year age minimum, the eight-hour day, and the prohibition of night work for children, only seventeen have as high requirements with respect to employment in facto6es, mills, canneries, and. work­shops as the Federal laws, and only thirteen measure up in all par­ticulars, without exemptions, to the Federal standards. Inasmuch as two attempts of the Federal Government to extend its protection to child laborers by indirect measures have been de­clared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, it would appear that Federal regulation is possible only through an amend­ment to the Constitution specifically granting to Congress the power to pass laws prohibiting and regulating the employment of children in the various states. Since the decision of the United States Supreme Court on the Federal child labor tax law, a number of resolutions have been introduced in Congress looking to this end. HOW IS CHILD LABOR REGULATED BY THE STATES AT THE PRESENT TIME? The child labor laws of the states set up certain standards-age, educational, and physical, as a rule-which the child must meet before he can be employed in a specified list of occupations. They limit his hours of employment during the first years of his working life, and prohibit him from engaging in certain hazardous employments. The laws are enforced through a work-permit system administered in most states by local school authorities and through inspection of the place of emplo~·ment by some State agency, usually the Department of Labor. Moreover, in every State the compulsory school attendance law, if enforced, indirectly regulates the employment of children during school hours. The failure of the State child labor laws to prevent the widespread employment of children shown by the census reports is not altogether due to low standards; it is due also to the numerous exemptions per­ mitted by many of the State laws and to inadequate enforcement of the laws. Few State laws apply specifically to farm work or domestic service. Although a number of child-labor laws apply to "all gainful occupa­ tions," and therefore nominally cover farm work and housework, practically the only regulation of these types of child labor is that which results indirectl~from the operation of the compulsory school attendance laws. AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS THE CHILDREN'S AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES BY FLORENCE KELLY From the Woman's Home Com})anfon for January, 1923 The children of today are the republic of the near future. Ten years hence all those who are now eligible for "working papers" will be voters. Above all other interests, all other concerns, all other duties rises the obligation of the American people to cherish our young successors. Most sacred is their right to childhood. . Children have no votes, no organizations, no wisdom drawn from experience of life. They and the future republic are, therefore, utterly at the mercy of the adults among whom the children dwell. Our civilization will The Child Labor Amendment survive or perish according to our treatment of the children of today and the standards that we bequeath to them. Thousands of men and women have for years been working to create standards of safety, health, and intelligence. In response to their efforts Congress passed one child labor law in 1916. The Supreme Court held it unconstitutional in 1918. Congress passed a second in 1919, designed to meet the opinion of the court. This second Federal child labor law the Supreme Court held void in May, 1922, after it had been in force three years and three weeks, to the great benefit of multitudes of children. The response to the second veto by the Supreme Court is a sheaf of joint resolutions for an amendment to the Federal Constitution, introduced in the Senate and House. For Congress is confronted by a condition, not a theory. The people of this country have been striving (some of them for forty years and even longer) to stop, through the laws of the states, all labor of young children; and the deaths, mutilations, diseases, and ignorance that arise from the employment of older boys and girls. Since the second adverse decision of the Supreme Court pressure upon the Congress is more urgent than ever. For people are increas­ingly well informed as to the hazards of industry; and these hazards, excessive heat and humidity, overstrain, accidents from machinery, and exposure to trade poisons, are all more dangerous to the young than to the mature. All the more advanced European countries for­bid by law the employment of youthful workers in the lead trades, but there is no such legal protection given to children in the United States, and, according to a report made to the Federal Government by Dr. Alice Hamilton, now on the faculty of Harvard Medical School, large numbers of boys are employed in the printing trades in work which exposes them to lead poisoning. The same thing is true in many potteries, where lead glaze is used. THREE THOUSAND INJURED CHILDREN Since 1910 reports have come to Medical Journal of benzol poisoning in women and girls who use a certain sealing mixture in the manu­facture of tin cans. Benzol is a blood poison which causes hemor­rhages, and not only destroys the blood corpuscles but injures the bone marrow on which the production of new corpuscles depends. The most serious cases of benzol poisoning were in girls of 14 years, two of whom died from extreme anemia. These accidents are rare, but they may increase rapidly, for benzol is used more and more all the time and there is no law in any State to forbid the exposure of girls and boys to this dangerous poison.... Left to the neglect of the states, the deaths and injuries of the young workers are not even recorded and made public. Only where there is a workmen's compensation law, and as an incident to its Unii·ersity of Texas Bulletin enforcement, can we get facts like those recently published by the Women in Industry Division in the New York State Department of Labor. According to these official figures 2,997 minors, 14 to 18 years of age, were injured seriously enough in 1917, in New York State, to be paid compensation. And it should be borne in mind that nothing is paid for any injury which keeps the victim away from work less than fourteen days. That is the first and only year for which this knowledge is yet available. How many thousand injured children in all the states remain uncompensated we have no means of learning.... Able lawyers ... were convinced that .. Congress could always deal with child labor. The Supreme Court having definitely held otherwise, the end sought is, therefore, ( 1) to continue all the protecting powers now belonging to the states; (2) to add explicitly to the powers of Congress a new power to safeguard the children; and (3) to do this without depriving Congress of any power already granted by the Constitution. We see no conflict between Congress and the states as instrument& for saving the future republic by saving the present children. WHERE CHILDREN DO NOT THRIVE Among the oldest and largest employers of children is the manu­facturer of textiles. It proceeds under at least fourteen varieties of child labor laws in fourteen states: Maine, New Hampshire, Ver­mont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Penn­sylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Of these fourteen various laws none is adequately enforced. And there are textile factories, and child labor laws no better en­forced, in other states.. The children working in the textile industries do not thrive. Notoriously they are not of full stature, compared with school children of the same years. They are not of equal intelli­gence. The employments open to them in the future are not so desirable as those that await children whose fathers earn enough to f eed, clothe, and shelter the mothers in the home, and keep the children at school. Unbelievable is the contrast between the benefits which Congress heaps upon investors, and the neglect to which working children are consigned by the states. For the investors, the Federal Government safeguards their patents and maintains the tariff and the Federal Reserve Board. A century ago it taxed out of existence the State banks. It promotes unceasingly the flow of interstate commerce. It upholds and applies for benefit of investors the Fourteenth Amendment. In time of industrial strife Federal prosecuting officials and courts are ready. For the children, the states provide labor inspectors (if any) with­out technical training or effective civil service tenure of office, and The Child Labor Amendment jurors who are sometimes stockholders in the company whose law­breaking they are called upon to try. There is no sickness insurance; worst of all, there is no unity among the states. For children under­sized, illiterate, and without schools, who toil in Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia, what consolation is it that in Montana and the State of Washngton boys and girls are free and happy? HOW MANY ARE KILLED OR INJURED? The states have not, like Congress, been declared devoid of power to protect their children. But they have always had the right to do nothing, to shirk, to ignore the future, to accept as inevitable the coincidence between the cotton textile industry and a high general death rate, a high infant mortality rate, a high tuberculosis rate. Twenty-five states do not register 90 per cent of their births, and are, therefore, excluded from the birth registration area. But full birth records are the foundation of enforcement of all child labor laws. Who can tell whether unregistered children are of the legal age for beginning to work? And what have the wage-earning children to hope for, while they are left to states so ·indifferent as not to know how many children are born? Or how many are killed or injured? State officials whose duty it is to inspect powerful corporations and enforce rigorous health measures find their appointments not only precarious and ill paid but hard to hold. State legislators who insist upon safeguarding young workers in small industrial centers where there are no powerful organized bodies of women or of wage-earners tend not to be renominated. The removal of a faithful State inspector, thf' failure to reelect a legislator humane but not famous, are obscure episodes. No scandal resounds from Washington to the Pacific, and the children themselves do not even know what has befallen them. One invaluable survival there is from the brief existence of the Fed­ eral child labor laws. They indicated what we may hope from a Fed­ eral law after the amendment has been passed. Two examples will suffice: State child labor laws in the South do not protect children in textile mills, whether owned in the North or in the South So long as the Federal law was in force, the owners, wheresoever situated, obeyed it, to the great advantage of the children. In fruit and vegetable canneries the change for the better was revo­ lutionary. In New York, colonies of young city children with their mothers had long camped in bunk-houses in rural places, working unlimited hours while there were peas to shell, or beans to snip, or strawberries to hull. Not one penalty had been enforced under the· State law. When the Federal statute took effect, law was suddenly respected. Mothers worked only the hours specified in the State Jaw, and children below the age of 14 years disappeared. Older children began to rest at night and benefit by the short working day. For the area of the Federal Court was broad. The jury might no longer consist of farmers who supplied fruit and vegetables to the cannery, and sometimes held its shares. Importers of mothers and little children from distant places for the canning season could no longer depend upon neighbors for sympathy and a favorable verdict. The canning industries did not suffer. None went out of business or left the State. They adopted standards common to efficiently con­ducted employment. They improved their mechanical equipment, and limited their contracts with farmers to amounts of fruit and vege­tables which they could preserve. Deprived of the stimulus of the Federal statute, the canning in­ dustry reverts to its old privileges. Far from paralyzing the initiative of the State lawgivers and en­ forcing authorities, the cooperation of the Federal Government did, in fact, strengthen both. Several states with industries highly developed improved their own child labor laws while the Federal law was in force. This actual, though brief and limited, experience is a rational and an eminently concrete basis for hope.. . . TENEMENT HOME WORK CONDITIONS SUMMARIZED IN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY From The American Child, Monthly Bulletin of General Child Welfare. National Child Labor Committee, New York, N.Y., February, 1924. Conditions in tenement home work in cities, with special reference t;i child labor, were the subject of public hearings in both New York and New Jersey during the first two weeks of January. Both states held hearings at this time in order to ascertain whether or not further legislation is needed to regulate manufacturing now carried on ex­ tensively in tenement houses. The New York hearing, held in City Hall on the morning and afternoon of January 10, came as the result of a ten months' investi­ gation into tenement home work conditions in New York City, carried on by workers of the National Child Labor Committee, the New York Child Labor Committee, the New York Consumers' League, the New York State Department of Labor, and the New York Cit~ Department of Health, under the supervision of the New York State Commission to Examine Laws Relating to Child Welfare. The testimony given at the hearing presents an interesting division of opinion as to the future treatment of this form of work. Those who believed that tenement home work should be abolished altogether by law were in about equal force with those who felt that such · abolition would work untold hardship upon many poor women and their families; and those who felt that home work could be effectively controlled by official inspection were balanced by those .whose opinion The Child Labor Amendment was that inspection and control of labor in homes could never be anything but a hollow form. State Senator Benjamin Antin presided over the meetingf\ in the absence of State Industrial Commissioner Bernard Shientag, chair­man of the Industrial Committee of the New York State Commission to Examine Laws Relating to Child Welfare. George A. Hall, execu­tive secretary of the commission, presented a summary of the investi­gation just completed. MR. HALL'S REPORT Fifteen hundred and ninety-four of the families visited in New York City had children between the ages of 5 and 15, Mr. Hall said. Nearly one-fourth of these used their children in home work. More than 79 per cent of the 535 children reported working by the investi­gators were under 14 years of age, while 35 per cent were 10 or less. Most of the parents were foreign born. Ninety-one per cent of the children were found working on men's clothing, artificial flowers, embroidery, and bead work. All but 16 per cent of the families visited were in houses licensed for home work by the State Labor Department. Conditions as to cleanliness of the rooms where the work was done were found satis­factory in most of the houses. Most of the families carried on their work in the kitchen. Extensive overcrowding was found among home workers; in fact more than half the persons in the families visited were living under conditions below the standard generally accepted as normal (one and a half persons to a room). More than three-fourths of the families were living in old-law tenements, which were built without the ar­rangements for light and air required in tenements under the new law. The earnings for this work were universally found to be amazingly small for the amount of time spent. The average adult working alone earned about 27 cents an hour at home work, while the returns from the work of one adult and two children all working together were only 26 cents an hour. In short, the woman who worked alone usually earned more than the one whose children helped her. The children, on account of compulsory school attendance, could average only two and one-half hours' work a day during the school tr-rm-although 117 of them worked from three to ten hours each day. Half the grown-ups worked seven or more hours a day. LEGISLATIVE EFFORT UNDETERMINED Mr. Hall's report contained no recommendations as to legislation, as he stated that he desired to get a composite of the opinions of various agencies before deciding on a bill. University of Texas Bulletin Jean MacAlpine Heer and Marion M. Willoughby, who have repre­sented the National Child Labor Committee in this investigation, gave testimony as to conditions found in the homes they had visited. Many of the true incidents they reported have appeared within recent mcmths in The American Child under the head, "Snap Shots from the Tenements." Several school principals and visiting teachers told of the difficulties of getting children to attend school regularly because of the home work required of them. Miss Emma Haggarty, principal of a public sC'hool in an uptown Italian section, said that their visiting teacher had found a number of cases of children who were working on flowers or trousers while sick in bed with contagious diseases. James L. Gemon and Daniel O'Leary of the State Labor Depart­ment emphasized the great decrease in the amount of home work during the last ten years, as well as the improvement in the con­ditions under which it is done. From the mass of newspaper notices of this hearing, we are re­printing an extract from an editorial in the New York Sun: These facts being established, action would seem, on super­ficial examination, to be simple and easy. Child labor at least should be stopped. It is against the law. Nothing is needed but enforcement of the law. But common sense and experience show that enforcement of the law under present conditions is practically impossible. Inspectors by the thousand would be required to watch the home work that goes on in New York. As long as the work is sent to the home, part of it will be done by the children. Obviously the remedy is to cut off the home work. This can be effected by legislation dealing with the employer in­stead of the employee. By cutting off the tenement from the factory at the factory gate, piecework could be reduced to a negligible amount. Some such action seems inevitable. Doubtless it will cause suffering, for many widows are supporting their families in part by what they can do at home, and in large families wives and daughters doubtless find piecework a valuable. resource. But the work is so poorly paid, ·so difficult of regu­lation, and is carried on under such bad conditions, that it must be radically changed or abolished. To change it seems impossible. And while the adjustments following abolition would be painful in many cases, in the end the poor and the public would both be gainers by them. REPORT ON JERSEY ENFORCEMENT The hearing held in Newark, N.J., on January 7, was concerned chiefly with the reading by Deputy Commissioner Charles H. Weeks of his report on the enforcement of home work and sweat shop laws in New Jersey from June 1 to December 1. Mr. Weeks reviewed the numerous happenings in New Jersey which have received considerable The Child Labor Amendment attention in recent issues of The American Child, and concluded his report with the following recommendations: It has been clearly demonstrated that there should be several changes made in Chapters 176 and 229, Laws of 1917. These laws should be so amended that no manufacturing of any kind would be allowed in homes unless the manufacturer, contractor, or person giving out this work is a responsible party and subject to the laws administered by the Depart­ment of Labor. A manufacturer, contractor, or persons giving out home work should be held responsible for child labor conditions. If a child is found employed in a home on any goods furnished by any such manufacturer, contractor, person, or persons, they should be prosecuted under the provisions of the Child Welfare Act. The manufacturer, contractor, person, or persons giving out home work should be responsible for the licensing of the homes to whieh the work is given. · Any person, firm, or corporation gi·ving any kind of home work to a home that is not properly licensed by the State of New Jersey should be prosecuted. The term of a home work license should be extended from six months to one year, and the license issued with the under­standing that any sickness in the home must be reported im­mediately to the local health officer, and that the license is subject to cancellation for violating any terms in connec­tion with which it is issued. Contractors and agents giving out home work should be licensed. Any person or persons found indulging in home work secured from out-of-State manufacturers who are not legally licensed by the State of New Jersey should be prosecuted. Manufacturers, contractors, or persons giving out home work should be compelled to .issue a monthly statement to the Department of Labor setting forth the names and ad­dresses of the homes to which they are giving out home work. Home work on foodstuffs, dolls, and dolls' and children's clothing should be strictly prohibited or placed under strict regulation. It was the intent of Chapter 299, Laws of 1917, that it should not be permitted in any home, but as it was found to contain a technicality, it was impossible for us to enforce this law in connection with any buildings other than tenement houses. A commentary on the actual efficacy of inspection of tenement homes by the Labor Department was made by Rev. Corrado Riggio, director of the Italian Department of the Jersey City Goodwill Center, whose interest and initiative were so largely responsible for arous­ing New Jersey to the evils of child labor in home work last summer. Mr. Riggio stated that when he has occasion to visit Italian families in their homes, his knock at the door is frequently greeted by mys­terious sounds from within, followed by the opening of the door just a crack to inquire the business of the visitor. Then when his identity is recognized by the inmates, he is accustomed to hear some such University of Texas Bulletin remark as : "Oh, it's all right, mama! It's only Mr. Riggio," and then Mr. Riggio is free to enter the apartment where the family is engaged in home work. FACTS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CHILD LABOR SENATOR MEDILL McCORMICK Taken from an article. 41 Children in the Market-Place," in the P ictorial Review for February, 1924. Do you know that since the Supreme Court in 1922 declared the child labor law unconstitutional child labor in the factories, fields, and canneries has increased at an alarming rate? Do you know that the increase in eleven cities is 57 per cent., iH fourteen cities 24 per cent, in five cities 100 per cent, while in others it has run up to 800 per cent? Do you know that in Waterbury, Conn., nearly eight times as many children received work permits in 1923 as in 1922? Do you know that in Manchester, N.H., more than five times as many children are at work as there were a year ago? Do you know that working in the beet-fields makes the backs of little boys and girls crooked, and that in two counties alone in Color.ado there are 715 children under 6 years of age and 1,400 between 6 and 16 at work in the fields from eight to ten hours a day for weeks at a time? Do you know that in the anthracite mining district of Pennsylvania many children of 13 and 14 years of age have taken their place as full-time wage earners? Do you know that the child mortality rates are distressingly high in this same district? Do you know that in Louisiana in the oyster and shrimp canneries children of 8 and 10 and 12 are working from 6 o'clock in the morn­ ing until 10 o'clock at night? Do you know that in North Carolina boys may enter the mills at 12, and boys and girls between 14 and 16 may be employed eleven hours a day? Do you know that in Georgia orphans or children of widowed mothers may work in factories at the age of 12 and may be worked sixty hours a week, and that after they are 14% they may legally work all night? If you do not know all these facts and figures-and they are only a drop in the bucket-it is about time you did. If you have pity of heart and wisdom of spirit, help the children of the Nation to escape from the toils of the exploiter. Support the McCormick Child Labor Amendment, which will give Congress power to erase from our national record the black mark of child destruc­ tion. ... The Child Labor Amendment CHILD LABOR Extracts from article, "Dr. Pritchett, Dr. Butler, and Child Labor,"" in School and Society, November 8. 1924. SWEATSHOPS STRADDLE STATE LINES Do they mean to say there is no need of national encouragement, · when right in New York there has been a 12 per cent increase in 1923 over 1922 in the number of child laborers 14 and 15 years of age? It doesn't look much as if these sweatshops are reforming when we observe that just across the State line from them, according to a recent survey of the New Jersey Department of Labor, the evil was found to persist in most shocking form. A MENACE TO THE CONSUMER In Newark and Jersey City alone nearly a thousand children were found doing contract labor at home under sweatshop environment. This home work had been shipped from New York to be done by children in New J ersey because it could not be handled so :well under New York laws. Another reason for Federal regulation is that both states were practically impotent in the matter. The employers dodged behind State laws in crossing back and forth. Those who gave out the work resided in New York, the children who did it resided in New Jersey. These children, many of them tubercular and otherwise dis­eased, were making socalled sanitary powder puffs, beading dresses, assisting with dolls' clothes and working on toys, all of which were to bear the proud label, "Made in America." Their work was found to be in the most filthy surroundings and the product a menace to the con­sumer. In 1920 there were over forty-seven thousand child laborers in the State of New York in non-agricultural occupations and 2,000 of these were receiving aid from the Compensation Act for injuries received in the shop and factory. THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION Will not both the North and South see that this is a question of child exploitation rather than one of states' rights? Should there not M intelligent limits, in whatever State children live, to their employment in mills, factories, canneries, mines, and quarries at least -limits below which no industry and no State can safely go? NATIONAL REGULATION NECESSARY It is true that one State has remedied one point and another State has done something else, but it is surprising how small the University of Texas Bulletin gain in fifty years the country over. It is alleged that capital is now going from northern states that have slight restrictions into fac­tories in certain southern states, where cheaper child labor is avail­able. This is a terrible sacrifice for any State ·to make for industrial growth and prosperity, but it is the price which some of the other states have paid for years to get and hold the right to employ chil­dren. There is so much of this industrial competition between the states that it would require another fifty years to secure uniform and satisfactory regulations through the Nation. Federal help is needed to hasten the adoption of higher standards and thus prevent the harm that would otherwise come to thousands and thousands of children during the next half century. LITTLE GYPSIES OF THE FRUIT BY ARTHUR GLEASON From lfliaret's lnlt'r·national, February, 1924. California weather had always been ready for the children. Grain gave way to fruit. Fine roads were made. Cheap motor cars were built. The war came with the men away and the call to women and children to fill up the ranks of necessary labor. The war ended, but fruit spread. House shortage and high rent are driving many families to tents, and the climate permits such housing in crop areas through­out the year. So beauty and need and modern invention have com­bined to betray the children. The pied piper of the harvest leads them a long dance. These families following the fruit have seized the imagination of a few State officials. Will C. Wood, Superintendent of Public Instruc­tion of the State Department of Education, talked with me of these groups in never-ending motion. He said : "Our fruit industry is creating a wandering population who return to San Francisco and the bay cities and to Los Angeles for two or three months in the winter, but in many cases are out again by February or March for ·the asparagus in the delta regions. Then they go through the remaining months of the year with cherries, apricots, peaches and pears, prunes and grapes, tapering off to raisins, cotton, oranges and lemons, hops and tomatoes, all the way to onions, which will carry the sequence into the winter. If any time. is open, rice, beans, rhubarb, figs, grapefruit, berries, beets, cantaloupes, and apples are waiting. "It is the American drama of 'The Covered Wagon,' and that is now giving place to the Ford. These people spend nine months of the year on wheels, with their children kept out of school. The children could not fit in anywhere in city schools. These migratory children will grow in number as fast as the fruit industry grows. New racial groups will enter the stream. The Child Labor Amendment "Child labor and illiteracy are tied together. In school attendance and in illiteracy of the foreign born and of the native born, Californi& hi farther down the list of states than we should like to be. With the native born, it is· in part due to an influx of colored people and white people of the casual labor group. But even when we explain it, we do not wish it. Child labor means illiteracy. Illiteracy with us is not a city problem. In our cities, the children are enrolled in school and attend. It is a rural problem. The country, in the agricultural sections, is where our illiteracy is found, and that is where migratory chil.d labor is increasing. "I am 1n favor of a constitutional amendment on child labor that will set minimum standards. I should like to see a Government de­ partment that would take in all the child-saving agencies. There are many problems of the child, and many isolated bureaus. It is the business of Government to look after humanity as well as to give property recognition." The area of migration is the whole State. Lumber draws the families into the mountains. Fish canneries call them to the coast. Railroad construction dumps them into deserts. But the main at­ traction is the pull of the fruit; twenty-four crops through thirty-eight of the fifty-eight counties-two crops for every month of the year. If we looked down on California from an eminence, we should see a picture like that of the winds in old geographies. We should see the migratory people moving in swirls. One swirl goes out from the bay cities to the delta of the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers, and the asparagus islands, and curves down the path of tomatoes and grapes into the winter of cotton. It is almost a circle, but from its rim there is a throw-off and a fresh impulse of motion into the hops of Mendocino. Another swirl of migrants proceeds from Los Angeles to the land of sweet potatoes, and on through the unfolding of the warm valleys. The period of migration is the whole year. Every month shows a demand for sudden seasonal labor in excess of the local supply. No industry using these families can furnish employment throughout the year. There is no work except in citrus, between the pickings. The harvest calls them and then waves them on to the next ripening. Families crowd into a district without warning for an undetermined period. The town of Lindsay woke up one morning to find that fam­ ilies, comprising 500 persons, had arrived overnight to work in oranges. In a few hours Santa Paula lost 145 children, when walnut picking began in the surrounding country. That was 17 per cent of the school attendance. Once the railroad work train, full of Mexican children, sidetracked near the schoolhouse in the Edison district. The children were eager to go to the local school. Morning after morning they arrived on the school gr,.,unds at 6 o'clock, three hours ahead of time. The teacher University of Texas Bulletin found them docile and intelligent. The thing they liked to do best was to wash their hands over and over under the running water of the faucet, with lots of soap lather. They had three weeks of good times in the school. Then the work train pulled out for Bena, and they never saw the Edison school again. On the work train was a Mexican girl, Armida, 13 years old, who had gone to school in Arizona up to the fifth grade. She got permis­sion from the boss, and fitted up one end of an empty box car with a table and benches. There she held school each day from 9 to 4. She taught the children everything she knew. She had no books except a few fragments and strays. On the table she had a stout strap, and she dominated boys bigger than herself, and she taught them. ·When­ever the work train drew near a school, she saw to it that the chil­dren went. The train is now in Santa Barbara County, and a telegram has come to the State Department of Education asking what is to be dene with the ~rowd of children who want a school. The Southern Pacific Railroad has reported 430 children under 16 years on extra construction gangs in the various divisions of Cali­fornia-from one to ninety in a gang. They are whirled across the State, as the condition of roadbed summons them. They float in space in perpetual motion. They differ from the children in the crops only in the speed of their transportation. Following the fruit does not attract pioneer American men accus­tomed to heavy work. They won't do stooping. If the father shakes the tree, it is the mother and children who pick up the walnuts. The migratory families were Spanish, Portuguese, Mexicans, Italian, Russian-German, Japanese, Hindoos, negroes, and whites from the cotton fields of Arizona, Oklahoma, and Texas. A few California Indians drop down from the mountains to work in grapes and hops. In one walnut camp I visited, during the week they had been robbed by gypsies, a baby had drunk lye, a man had deserted his wife, and two men had come to night school drunk. This was a quiet week. A group of Rumanian gypsies pick apricots, hops, grapes and prunes. ·They have a trained bear, and when they are not agitating strikes, telling fortunes, or picking fruit, they give a show. The families flit wrom crop to crop by every kind of conveyance. Moving is the easiest thing they do..They will start with anything that will acquire motion-an old horse and wagon-they save and buy a secondhand Ford; then they gradually work up through cars until they get a truck carrying supplies and a tent. A man who has. a family and a truck is fixed for life ; he has his home arrd he has his income­producing labor group; he can always get work. Yesterday, on the highway from the desert, I saw a truck family of Mexican migrants riding in for the walnuts. The father and mother sat in front. In the Ieng deep body of the truck lay heaps of tumbled bedding-a white dog and several small children on top. They settle anywhere. There is no rent. When they get to that economic stage, they are apparently perfectly happy. Unfortunately, their prosperity makes them eager for more. They are oftentimes the ones who will try to evade the education laws. As they move to the new crop they camp in the wagon, or the machine, or in a tent, or on the ground by the roadside. When the Spanish families go from the bay cities by river boat to asparagus, they are disembarked at various landings through the chilly night. A group will sit on the levee. huddled together against the salty river wind from 1 o'clock in the morning till the sun comes up, and the field boss arrives to shoo them off to their camp. I have traveled the trail of the migrants for 200 miles, and in one day have seen some twenty-five families with over a hundred children coming into Kern County. Banners hang high from tree to tree across the road-"Cotton Pickers Wanted." One family came along in a large covered wagon, the canvas stretched over a wooden frame­work, home, belonging, and transportation all in one box. It was a flash of pioneer days. But pioneers arrived and settled. The traveling equipment of the majority of migrants is an old five­ passenger machine, which breaks down easily. They can't get much in it besides the family. When they are not at work, the man is always trying to fix up the machine, the mother is doing !' discharge their duties, in peace and in war, as vigorous and intelli­gent citizens. If we do not protect our children from labors beyond their strength, we are not doing all that we can to create conditions· under which childre_n are likely to grow up as citizens devoted to their country and qualified ·to show their loyalty to its institutions and. ideals. AIMS AT MILL LABOR The evils of injurious child labor are national evils that can be met by national action without danger to reasonable individual liberty. There is no reason to fear that Congress would use the power, which this amendment would confer, by forbidding forms of work generally considered to be harmless or positively beneficial to a child. The two child labor laws which Congress has passed (set aside by the Supreme Court) do not indicate that there is any such danger. These laws were aimed at child labor in mills, canneries, work­shops, factories, and mines; they are intended to make impossible the employment of children under 16 years in mines, to make impos­sible the employment of children under 14 years in the other indus­tries named, and to limit to reasonable hours the employment of children under 16 years of age in such industries. The existing laws of a dozen or more states, including Ohio, have standards equal to or higher than the laws which Congress enacted. We have a more important assurance against oppressive or unreasonable use by Con­gress of a power to regulate child labor. This assurance lies in the fact that even with the adoption of this amendment no restriction could be imposed upon child labor except with the approval of a ma­jority of representatives, a majority of the senators, and the presi­dent, or, in the absence of the president's approval, with the approval of two-thirds of the representatives and of two-thirds of the senate. Is not this an adequate guarantee that whatever would be done un­der this amendment would reflect the prevailing sentiment of the people in the states from which the senators and representatives come? What possible motive, for example, could Congress have for enacting restrictions interfering with the work of children on the farms of their parents? There will be nothing to tempt Congress to act unreasonably, ignoring the reasoned convictions of the people who inhabit our vast agricultural regions. Moreover, as pointed out above, Congress would be subject in this, as in everything else that it does, to the constitutional restrictions of due process. The Child Labor Amendment FARMER GETTING HIS SHARE There should be no attempt to becloud the issue by cries of "cen­tralization" or "paternalism." Is there more centralization in na­t:onal regulation of child labor than in national regulation of cooper­ative marketing or rural credits? The cry of paternalism and cen­tralization comes with peculiar ill-grace from farmers at this time. President Coolidge last summer, in reviewing the achievements of the present administration, said, "We have passed fifteen laws in aid of the farmers"-fifteen laws in three and a half years, by the central government; he promised further legislation in aid of the farmers; the farmers are demanding further legislation. The farm­ers are right in looking to the national government for aid in the solution of such of their problems as cannot be solved by separate State action. Are the economic interests of the farmers of more importance-of more national importance-than the mental and physical welfare of the children? In supporting the proposed child labor amendment, we shall, I believe, be responding not only to a worthy humanitarian impulse, but also to a valid economic impulse. A child who is denied the opportunity for healthful activity and driven into unhealthful ac­ tivity, who is deprived of the advantages of healthful surroundings and compelled to spend a considerable part of every day in unhealthful surroundings, is most likely to become, as an adult, an economic burden to the community, or at least an economically less useful member of the community. The cheap labor of children in mines and factories and some other industries is not cheap in the long run. Society has to pay a heavy price for the profits of those who exploit the cheap labor of children. PROMPTED BY IMPULSE ln supporting the proposed amendment we shall, I believe, be responding to a patriotic impulse. We allow without challenge the Federal Government to act upon matters of less importance to our national well-being and conscience than this. The proponents of this amendment urge that we give as open-minded and considerate attention to the future interest of our children as we give to the interests of any other essential group in the nation. Are we as a nation to be argued out of dealing with a national evil through the national government by the imaginary evils of paternalism or cen­ tralization? Are we r eally one nation unless we are willing to est ab­ lish m:nimum national standards of child welfare? President Coolidge is consistent enough to recognize that a gov­ ernment which can, without undue centralization or paternalhim, come to the aid of the farmers of the nation, can also, without undue centralization or paternalism, be entrusted with the task of giving reasonable protection to working children where such protection is neglected by their own states. So he has made clear on several oc­ casions his approval of the proposed child labor amendment. I hope that the republicans, democrats, and progressives in the State Legis­ lature will follow the suggestion of the recent national platforms of their respectiYe parties and consider the amendment from the high plane set by Mr. Coolidge in the following words, in his speech last July accepting the nomination for president: ' "Our different states have had different standards, or no standards at all, for child labor. The Congress should have authority to pro­ vide a uniform law applicable to the whole nation which will protect childhood. Our country cannot afford to let anyone live off the earn­ ings of its youth and tender years. Their places are not in the factory, but in the school, that the men and women of tomorrow may reach a higher state of existence and the nation a higher standard of citizenship." THE PROPOSED TWENTIETH A:.IENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION By BRUCE M. WATSON Published by the P ublic Education and Child Labor Association of Pennsyl­ Yania, 311 South Juniper Street, Philadelphia, Pa., 1924. They tell us that the child labor amendment will take away the power of the several states to pass and enforce child labor laws and will discourage the states in bringing up their own standards. Fortunately, there has been experience of the effect of Federal child labor laws. During the period of operation of those Jaws, the states r.i ade greater advancement in the protection of working children than during any other period; the State labor officials welcomed the help of Federal agencies; the federal officers did not go into the states where standards equal to Federal standards were enforced, and there was complete cooperation between State and Federal agen­ cies. The National Association of Government Labor Officials, repre­senting most of the states of the Union, on May 4, 1923, passed a resolution urging Congress to submit a child labor amendment, and a year later in Chicago this same body passed a resolution urging the ratification of this amendment. At the child labor conference in Washington in May, 1924, one after another of the chief labor officials of the country-those from Wisconsin, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Louisiana and other st.ates-testified to the splendid co-operation between State and Fed­eral officers in enforcement of the Federal laws. The Child Labor Amendment They tell us that the Constitution is a sacred document as handed down to us by the fathers, and that if this amendment is ratified the very structure of our government will be jeopardized. For the assurance of those who honestly fear that the Constitution is in dan­ger of harmful mutilation, it may be pointed out that the first ten amendments were made almost immediately after the original adop­tion of the Constitution and are accepted by everyone as essentially a part of the original Constitution and altogether desirable. The next two came very soon afterward and are altogether acceptable. Now, in 120 years, with all the scientific progress and the social and industrial revolution of that period, only seven amendments have been made. This record with the added assurance that comes from the safeguards thrown around the process of amendment-a two­thirds vote of each house of Congress and a later ratification by three-fourths of the states-does not warrant a fear that the country wiil go on a spree of constitutional amendment. Some people tell us they don't like the eighteenth amendment, and therefore they are against any kind of amendment. That position is as narrow and illogical as to say that because they don't like the tariff law they are against the passage of any more laws by Congress. They tell us that it will create a huge body of high-salaried enforce­ment officers who will swell enormously the public payroll and will swoop down upon the defenesless states, taking from them the rare privilege they now have of enforcing the child labor regulations. His­tory refutes this. In the enforcement of the child labor act of 1916 by the Federal Children's Bureau, only fifty-one employes were en­gaged, and the total appropriation for this purpose for 1919, made just before the act was nullified by the Supreme Court, was $125,000. Instead of interference with State .authority, there was complete cooperation, and State legislation and enforcement were stimulated rather than retarded. They tell us that if this amendment is adopted Congress will im­mediately pass a law prohibiting every person in the United States under 18 years of age from doing any work; that if this amendment is ratified it will be impossible for Johnny to milk the cow and hoe the garden or for Mary to wash the dishes and feed the hens; that "it will establish enforced loafing of the entire population of the country under 18 years of age." Thousands of good citizens who either have never seen the amend­ment or have never read it discriminatingly are under the impres­sion that these statements are true. WHAT IS THE REAL TRUTH? In the first place, this amendment, if ratified, will not of itself change the status of any child in America. It will not make a law­breaker of any employer who is now employing children legally or University of Texas Bulletin any child now legally employed. The sun will still rise in the east and set in the west, and every man, woman and child in America will go on about his business as he is now doing until Congress has passed a child labor law in exer­cise of the power delegated to it by this amendment. When a child labor bill is introduced in either house of Congress it will be referred to a committee. The committee will hold public hearings at which everybody who so desires will have a chance to be heard pro and con. The committee may modify the bill in light of the testimony given at the hearing. It may report the bill adversely to the house in which it originated. In that case the bill is probably dead. It may report the bill favorably, and in that case the bill may be placed on the calendar for a certain day, when every representative or senator in that house may express his views upon it. The bill may be amended again. It may be voted down or it may be passed, in which case it must be sent to the other branch of Congress and go through a similar process of debate and amendment. Then both houses must concur upon the exact form of the bill. Then it must go to the president and be signed by him or vetoed and repassed by a two-thirds vote of each house before it can become a law. During all this process the senators and representatives will hear from their con­stituents through the public press, through letters, telegrams, and even personal appeal. Their ears are always at the ground to sense public opinion. That is the great safeguard in a republic. Now, is it likely that any radical child labor measure will run the gauntlet of all these crossfires of influence and finally be foisted upon an unwilling public in the form of a law? ' You may believe that all congressmen are politicians; that they are grafters; even that they own shares of oil stock; but you will never charge that they are an aggregation of half-wits; and none but a Congress of imbeciles would ever enact "a Jaw to forbid the employment of any person in the United States under the age of 18," or a law that will establish "enforced loafing of the entire popula­tion of the country under 18 years of age." What would happen politically to a congressman who had voted for such a bill, or to a president who had signed it? Every one of these congressmen knows, and every one of their con­ stituents knows, that children ought to work at a proper age at suit­ able tasks and in the right way. Nobody has ever asked for a law that will prevent this. No State has ever proposed legislation re­ stricting the employment of children on farms by their own parents, and no Federal Congress will take such a step. And yet the oppo­ nents of this measure are insidiously spreading this propaganda among the farmers of America and trying to make them believe that the ratification of this amendment means an invasion of their homes. The Child Labor Amendm~nt 85 WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION IF THIS AMENDMENT IS RATIFIED'? No one, perhaps, is better qualified to speak on this subject than Representative Israel T. Foster, of Ohio, sponsor of the child labor amendment in the house of representatives. Mr. Foster is not a long-haired reformer nor a simpering sentimentalist. He is a hard­headed lawyer, a former district attorney of his own county in Ohio, and now an influential member of Congress. Here is what Mr. Foster said in a public address soon after the adoption of the amendment resolution by Congress: "M(l x imwn Hours of Night Work "The principles of the eight~hour day and six-day week and of the· prohibition of night work for minors under 16 employed in mills and factories, which were written into the first and second Federal laws, would probably form an integral part of a new Federal statute, although it would seem desirable, in addition, to limit the working week to forty-four hours, thereby insuring to the children a Satur­ day half-holiday, a_s is done by the new child labor law in Virginia. The forty-four-hour week, in fact, is beginning to be recognized in progressive industries as a desirable minimum not only for children but for adults. "If, as has been suggested, the minimum age standards are ex­ tended to cover a wider range of occupations than was possible under the former Federal laws, any provisions enacted relating to the maximum hours of labor and to night work should likewise apply to a larger group of occupations. "Educational and Physic(ll Standards. "The need for an educational minimum was especially brought out while the first child labor law was in effect. In the fiye states in which Federal certificates of age were issued by the Children's Bureau (four of which are still, in 1924, among the states having no education minimum, and one of which has no educational require­ ments other than a certain amount of school attendance in the pre­ ceding year) more than half of the 19,698 children receiving Federal certificates (56.2 per cent) were in or below the fourth grade, 8.2 per cent had not gone beyond the first grade, and 188 children had never been to school at all. On the other hand, only 2.9 per cent were in the eighth grade and 1.3 per cent in the ninth or higher grades when they applied for certificates. " In addition, the record of the United States as to illiteracy com­ pares unfavorably with that of other civilized countries. According U'Yfiversity of Texas Bulletin to a statement published by the National Education Association, "the latest figures made available by Mrs. Cora Wilson Stewart, chair­man of the Illiteracy Commission, show .that the United States ranks tenth among the advanced nations of the world in its percentage of illiteracy." "Enforcement of a physical fitness standard, it is true, presents greater administrative difficulty. Great progress, however, has been made in recent years in the child health field, and as the need of protecting the health of young people during the adolescent period is so obvious, it is to be hoped that such a standard can be included, Such reports of physical examinations of children going to work as are available indicate that from approximately one-third to two­thirds of the children examined have physical defects which should be corrected before the children go to work. "Administrative Provisions "Effective and sincere cooperation of State officers in enforcing the Federal standards can, it is believed, be secured if the Federal act makes possible acceptance of work certificates issued by State au­thorities and allows the State officers to initiate prosecution under the Federal law if they desire to take certain cases into the Federal courts. This was possible under the two former acts. The Confer­ence of State Labor Officials which met last week in Chicago, has again gone on record as to the usefulness of such resources both in increasing respect for existing State standards and in educating the public to the importance of strengthening State machinery. "State experience has demonstrated that only if no child is employed without a work certificate, and if no work certificate is issued except upon reliable evidence that the child is legally qualified to work, will the age, education, and physical standards of a child labor law be evenly and uniformely enforced? With a good certificate system, inspection serves as little more than a reenforcement of respect for the certificate by both employer and child. To avoid the expense and inconvenience to the child, the employer and the government, of a double certificate system, it is important that the law we are to pass when this amendment is ratified should make possible that the Federal authorities may, wherever possible, accept State c.ertificates for the purpose of the Federal act. "In other words, I see in this amendment the foundation for Federal and State co-operation in the protection of American children. The resources of both will not give to American children more than we owe them." This conservative statement by a man who is likely to have a promi­nent hand in drafting the next Federal child labor law should allay The Child Labor Amendment the fears of those timid ones who have an honest dread of Federal oppression. CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT AND THE FARMERS E. C. LINDEMAN From the Americnn Rci1iew of Reviews, July, 1924. · · . The friends of legislation which would regulate child labor have now determined that there is but one effective method for achieving the desired result, namely, the laborious and diffJ.cult one of amending the Constitution so that Congress shall have unequivocal power to regulate, limit, and prohibit the lab6r of children. A reso­lution providing for such an amendment was adopted by the hou~e on April 26 and by the senate on June 2. In the past, oppositi.in to the regulation of child labor has come largely from two sources: Employers who profited from such labor and citizens who were temperamentally opposed to a strong, centralized government and inclined toward a belief in states' rights. Under the influence of a steadily advancing public opinion these two forms of opposition gradually diminished in strength. The proposed amend­ment has given rise to a new and unexpected opposition, namely, that of the farmers. The present political power of the agricul­tural population has been capitalized. Rural organizations and ed­itors of farm journals have attacked th<) amendment with alarming vigor. This newer opposition was not sufficiently powerful to defeat the amendment in Congress, but it is entirely probable that its strength is being reserved for purposes of defeating ratification. DOES THE AMENDMENT INVOLVE AGRICULTURE? The amendment is inclusive in its terms. It makes no exceptions, but simply and clearly grants to Congress the power "to limit, regu­late, and prohibit the labor of persons under 18 years of age." Obviously, under this amendment Congress will possess the power to control child labor in agriculture as well as in industry. It is this power which farmers have been taught to fear. They have, in fact, been led to believe that certain faddists purpose to go so far-as to prevent boys and girls from doing chores on the farm. This is, of course, sheer misrepresentation. Work on the farm performed by children under parents' direction and without interference with school attendance is not child labor. Work performed by children away from home, for wages, at long hours and under conditions which en­danger the child's health, education, and morals is child labor, whether the work be performed in a beet field or in a cotton mill. Such agricultural labor is susceptible to legal control in the inter­ests of the child and the community on equal terms with industrial labor. In fact, certain forms of agricultural production have be­come so far indu~trialized as to make attendant conditions indistin­guishable from those which prevail in factories. Studies conducted and published by the National Child Labor Committee and the Chil­dren's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor give un­mistakable proof that thousands of American children are being expolited in industrialized forms of agriculture and that this ex­ploitation is inimical to the welfare of working children. To make exceptions for agricultural labor would be tantamount to placing a lower valuation upon rural children than upon city children. Mothers and fathers of country children will be the last to admit the validity of d'is;:r!mination of this sort. Current agricultural depression is also used as an argument against the amendment. It is a question-begging argument. Prices of farm products are not low because of under-production; on the co11trary, they are low because of over-production, under-consumption, and out­worn, speculative marketing system, and inadequate credits. Farm· ers do not need exemption from the child labor amendment to make agriculture successful, but they do need a more just economic system of production and distribution. Our agricultural economy is indeed decrepit and we are resourceless people if we must rely upon the labor of children to save farming from bankruptcy. It is unbelievable that clear-headed farmers will be tricked into a position so false as this. They may be desperate in their efforts to find a way of escape from their present financial situation, but they will need to become far more· desperate before they can be induced to trade their children's welfare for an alliance with those who place profits before human values. Farmers may be trusted to support the enlightened point of view, once they come to understand the real motives which animate the friends of child labor legislation as well as the purport of the amendment. THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL STATES Child labor has increased since the former Federal statutes have been invalidated. Only eight states have raised their standards since 1922, and no State has as yet reached the standard set by the previous Federal laws. When individual states enact legislation which does raise the standard, the tendency is a movement of child-employing industries towards states where laws are lax. This constitutes a mani­festly unfair form of competition. Production costs may be lowered by the employment of children's cheap labor, and the industries which follow this practice are thus enabled to undersell their competitors. The Child Labor Amendment The only effective means of equalizing the opportunities for the children as well as the industries of South Carolina and of Massa­chusetts is to provide a minimum standard which applies equally to both states. This is precisely what the amendment proposes to do. The second section of the amendment specifically affirms that "the power of the several states is unimpaired by this article, except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent neces­sary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress." In other words, the Federal government is to be given the power to set a standard for all American children below which no State may go; individual states may go as far above the minimum standard as they please. In essence this implies that from the viewpoint of the Federal government the children of all states deserve an equal minimum of opportunities for growth, education and recreation-a minimum which should not be invaded by enforced labor for others' profits. The majority of nations have already enacted laws whictt guar­antee certain standards for industrial child labor. The draft conven­tion of the 1921 conference of the International Labor Office of the League of Nations provides that "children under the age of 14 years may not be employed or work in any public or private agricultural undertaking or in any branch thereof, save outside the hours fixed for school attendance." Japan, Czechoslovakia, Esthonia, and Sweden have ratified this convention. If the United States government does not soon enact similar legislation it will find itself in the anomalous position of accepting and putting to work immigrant children who could not have been legally employed in their own countries. When farmers become acquainted with facts such as the above, we may be confident that they will not allow themselves to be used as the innocent but effective means for defeating the child labor amnedment. CHILD LABOR CALLS FOR NATIONAL ACTION THE NEW REPUBLIC From Congressional Digest, February, 1923. Those who are acquainted with the effects of industrial labor upon growing children will not rest content with conditions as they are left by the Supreme Court decision. They will either work for a constitutional amendment which will enable the Federal Government to enact laws that are binding, or they will set about securing better laws and more effective enforcement in the several states. The burden of proof ought to rest upon those who wish to transfer any function of the government from the states to the nation. It must be shown that the interest involved is essentially a national University of Texas Bulletin interest, and that only national action will take care of it properly and adequately. Are the rights of children to immunity from indus­trial labor such an interest? The N ew Republic believes they are. Every intelligent person who is not blinded by self-interest knows that labor in mines and factories and shops is injurious to growing children. It is a grave wrong to the children themselves, but that may be conceived of as a matter which lies between the children and the State in which they are domiciled, if one chooses to bound his human sympathies by rather shadowy geographical lines. It is wrong to industrial society, which will pay in future ill health and incom­petence, for the small present profits to the exploiters of child labor. And American industrial society is not·partitioned off by State· lines. It is a wrong to the nation, which depends in war upon the physical fitness and mental alertness of its young men, and in peace upon the vigor and intelligence of its citizenship. We are one nation, but economically our states are in very different stages of development. In the older industrial states the ultimate consequences of child labor are perhaps well enough known to pro­duce a strong sentiment against the system. In the newer industrial states that is not the case. But even in the older states there are powerful interests that· have not given up the fight for child slave labor. Always they point to the fact that the products of a State which conserves the health of its children must meet the competition of the products of states which do not. Economic specialists may point out that in the long run child labor never pays, and the states that employ it will be beaten in the competitive race. But legislatures are not made up of ec~nomic specialists and the specious argument from interstate competition affects them pro­foundly. The progress of child labor legislation through the State govern­ments has been slow and irregular. The progress of efficient administration has been yet 'slower and more irregular. Is there good reason for believing that it will be more rapid in the future? We believe that the case is one that calls for national action. We are not in reality one nation unless we can establish minimum na­tional standards, most of all in the field of child welfare. We are aware of the disadvantages of a multiplication of Federal functions and the growth of bureaucracy. Therefore, although we should look to national legislation to set the minimum standards, we should favor a plan for leaving the administration in large measure to the states, with grants in aid from the Federal treasury to help support the expense.-(Extracts). The Child Labor Amendment CHILD LABOR, THE HOME AND LIBERTY From The New R epublic, December 3, 1924. In the current propaganda against the child labor amendment, the economics of the issue is strangely subordinated. We are gravely assured by the various resolutions committees of manufacturers, mer­chants, and even the National Grange, once a progressive organiza­tion, that what is at stake is our sacred liberty, the sanctity of our homes. The defeat of the amendment, according to Professor J. Gresham Machen of Princeton University (letter to the New York Times, November 18), would mean that "it is actually possible, despite recent indications, that American liberty and the sacredness of the American home have not yet altogether been destroyed." The argument is simple. The child labor amendment grants to Congress the power "to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of per­sons under 18 years of age." There is nothing in the amendment to indicate that it applies only to commercial employments. If Congress chose, it might penalize the man who sets his 17-year-old son at mowing the lawn, or the woman who has her 17-year-old daughter help her with the dishes. It is no answer, say the opponents of the amendment, to urge that Congress would never do anything so idiotic as that. They are concerned with a principle. The immemorial right of the parent to train his child in useful tasks according to his own discretion is destroyed. The obligation of the child to contribute in proportion to his abilities is destroyed. Parents may still set their children at work; children may still make themselves useful, but it will no longer be by right and obligation, but by default of legisla­tion and administrative machinery. This is the argument that is now being repeated, with a hundred variations, throughout the United States. Its validity admits of a simple test. Does any parent in the United States now enjoy discretion beyond the possibility of legislative invasion, in disposing of his children's time and labor that it is assumed the child labor amendment would destroy? No. The states can now do everything that it is proposed to empower the Federal Government to do. If liberty and the home are destroyed when a government is in a position to step in between parent and child, they were destroyed upon the adoption of the Constitution, which did not establish the patria TJTOtestas in a bill of rights. The child labor amendment does not deprive the citizen of any liberties he now enjoys. It does not involve any new attack on the home. Not in principle. But the Federal Government might in prac­tice regulate child labor more thoroughly than the State governments do. This is at bottom the reason both for the support of the child labor amendment and for the opposition to it. University of Texas Bulletin Is it to be presumed that the legislators in Washington will have the interests of children nearer to their hearts than the legislators at the several State capitols? We see no ground for such a presump­tion. But there are two reasons for presuming that the Federal Government would move more rapidly toward effective regulation than the average of the states. The first reason is that the Federal Government would not need to consider the effect of a child labor law upon interstate competition. If it fixed the minimum age of factory employment at 16, all facto­ries throughout the country would have to conform. No habitual employer of child labor could escape the law by migrating to another State. He might, indeed, migrate to Ceylon or Japan, where he would find as many child slaves as he could use. But then he would encounter the customs barrier if he tried to compete in the American market. When, on the other hand, a State Government fixes a high age limit for child labor, the exploiter of children has only to move across the nearest State boundary. He is free to ship the products of child slavery back into the State, to compete with the products of free labor. The regulating State loses business and taxable property, without any equivalent humanitarian gain. If half the states had prohibited child labor, about as many children in the United States might still be found in factories, concentrated, to be sure, in the states of slack laws. The other reason why the Federal Government would be more likely to act than the states, is that the dilution of the citizenry with physical and mental defectives which always attends the exploitation of children, is more manifestly a Federal than a State concern. We are an excessively migratory people. Probably a majority of those who are now minors will spend the better part of their lives outside of the states in which they were born. Child labor notoriously involves an immediate profit at the cost of the efficiency of the adult worker. Under existing conditions the profit is too often enjoyed by one State while the cost is borne by another. The Federal Govern­ment would enter the profit and the cost in a single account. Federal child labor regulation would presumably be more effec­tive than State regulation. This is all that can be said for it, or against it, so far as liberty and the home are concerned. If the child labor amendment fails, the employment of children in factories, work­shops, mines and quarries, oyster beds and beet fields will be more general and persist longer than it would if the amendment is adopted. This, we think, will generally be admitted on both sides. Thus the matter simmers down to simple issues of fact. Does early employment in factories, mines, and workshops actually make for the full development, physical, mental, and moral, essential to a condition of real liberty? The Child Labor Amendment When wages are adjusted to the fact of child labor, is the parent "free" to put his children into a factory or keep them out, as he chooses? Is the "home" from which children are hurried every morning to the factory and to which they return at night broken with weariness the "sacred institution" fat business men and windy professors are prating about? We think that everyone who knows anything about actual industry will agree that it is child labor, not any law restricting it, that is destructive of liberty : destructive of the liberty of the child, and of that of the child's parents, who are thrust into a position where they have to choose between starvation and the enslavement of their children. Ultimately, it is destructive of the liberty of the community that tolerates it. We think it will also be generally agreed that wherever child labor is common the home tends to disintegrate. On the one side are real issues. If the child labor amendment is adopted, the Federal Government will be in a position to cope with the actual evils of child labor. It will have the power to eliminate conditions destructive of the home and liberty, and it is likely to use that power. On the other side are imaginary issues. The Federal government will have the power to liberate the boy from chores and the girl from tending the baby. It would certainly never use any such power. Why, then, is not the amendment restricted to the field ir. which the Government would naturally use the powers granted? Why is it not restricted to industry, mining, and commerce? Because there are equally serious abuses in agriculture and gardening conducted under the padrone system. Why is it not restricted to child labor for wages? Because such a restriction would open the door wide to all sorts of subterfuge~. Why is not an exception made of child labor directly under a parent's supervision? Because of the border lines cases sure to emerge. The child labor amendment is what every properly drawn consti­tutional amendment ought to be-a grant of powers that the legis­lature may exercise at its discretion. If it had been, like the prohi­bition amendment, direct legislation incorporated in the Constitution, it would have been reasonable to cavil at any apparent excess of scope. An amendment prohibiting all child labor· under 18, or 16, or e\'en 10 or 8, might decently be opposed as impairing the liberty of parents and undermining the home. But the charge that the child labor amendment as it actually stands attacks liberty and the home is absurd. And where it is used by interested parties to presen-e their privilege of exploiting child labor, it approaches the utmost limit of propagandist effrontery. University of Texas Bulletin MISINFORMED MASSACHUSETTS BY WILEY H. SWIFT From The Survey, November 15, 1924. By a vote of approximately 3 to 1, the voters of Massachusetts instructed their representatives on election day against ratification of the children's amendment. This decisive vote is to be charged up in part at least to two causes. First, the friends of the amendment blundered in presuming that because President Coolidge, Speaker Gillette, Senators Lodge and Walsh, and all but three of the members of the last House of Repre­sentatives from Massachusetts supported the amendment the people would support it. This presumption lulled them to sleep, or at least into state of semi-slumber. Second, the campaign for the ratification of the amendment started weeks too late and never at any time had one-fifth as many workers as it needed. I was with an automobile caravan in the campaign for the amend­ment for ten days in Massachusetts. The misunderstanding and misconceptions about the scope and purpose of the amendment were absolutely astounding. We met scores of voters who actually be­lieved it was drafted for the purpose of stopping all work by all persons under 18 years of age. Of course, this is preposterous, but the voter believed it to be true. He had been told that it was true. Naturally, he was against the amendment. When one got an opportunity to lay the matter clearly before the voter, it was no difficult matter to get him to understand the truth. This was especially true of workers in mills and factories. We went to many mill gates. We were heard gladly, and our literature was actually seized upon. The trouble was that our arms were too short. We could not reach enough of the voters in the short time. In all our travels with the caravan none of us, so far as I know, found a single person unwilling to consider the matter. I was par­ticularly impressed with the very close attention given to our workers, whether they were speaking to a crowd or simply talking to one or two. The people wanted the truth. They did not nave it, and the majority of them, I am sure, simply voted honestly according to the best light they had. There were those who spoke and taught selfishly rather than frankly. Down in North Carolina, cotton manufacturers used to charge that I was being paid by cotton mill men of New England to fight the South for the benefit of New England manufacturers. Now the people know the truth. The Child Labor Amendment The cotton manufacturers of the South have joined with the Na­tional Manufacturers' Association to defeat the amendment, and so they are succeeding. There is money behind this group-millions of it. We could feel its weight in every community. The pamphlet of James A. Emery, general counsel of the National Association of Manufacturers, seems to be the textbook of the oppo­sition. From it the voters gathered that the amendment was con­ceived in Russia. President Coolidge's support of the amendment should have been answer to that, but it was not. From it they gathered that the education of the child was to be regulated under the amendment. Any lawyer who takes care to in­vestigate knows better than that, but the people are not lawyers, and, wonderful to say, there were lawyers who were teaching just that. From Mr. Emery the people gathered that in such a simple, hu­mane matter as giving protection to children, the Congress of the United States is not to be trusted-and they believed it. Believing it, they voted "no." Taking the case by and large, the showing for the amendment in Massachusetts is not bad. Massachusetts has more states righters than any Southern State. A very substantial part of its voters are still upset over the eighteenth amendment. A smaller number are trying to get revenge for the ratification of the nineteenth. The National Manufacturers' Assocaition understood, better than the friends of the amendment, that Massachusetts was the first battle­field. They threw all their resources into it, and, as was to be ex­pected, they won. It is just as well that they did, in this first struggle. This has put the churches, the women's organizations, organized labor and all the other organizations supporting the amendment on notice. This is the first coming to grips between all these organizations interested in social development and the National Manufacturers' Association and its camp followers. It is not bad to get the lines chalked off. Then, too, this vote in Massachusetts is going to lead to a careful scrutiny of the amendment by the people of other states. That within itself will be most valuable. The Constitution ought not to be amended except after very careful consideration. Before this campaign is over, the people are going to understand that the matter of ratifying the amendment is nothing more than an inquiry ad­dressed by Congress to the people as to whether or not they wish Congress to have the power to protect boys and girls from harmful employment if it is ever necessary. Just the mere facing and an­swering of that inquiry will lead us a long way in first thought and ultimately in sound legal principles. Speaking for myself only and in the knowledge of all that I know University of Texas Bulletin about the situation in Massachusetts, I feel that we have no reason for being downcast. It is yet early in the day. AMERICAN PATCHWORK Extracts taken from a bulletin issued by the National Child Labor Committee, New York City, 1923. We do not believe in child labor in the United States. Or so we would probably claim if a foreign visitor were to ask us. Yet if that foreign visitor were inqisitive enough to study our Federal census or the vagaries of our State child labor laws, the situation might be embarrassing. We do not believe in child labor-but 1,060,858 children between 10 and 15 are at work in the United States, according to the census of 1920. We do not believe in child labor-but 378,063 of these working children are between 10 and 13 years of age. We do not believe in child labor-but the census enumerates chil­dren at work in every State in the Union. It is easy to play the pot-and-kettle game in this matter. The southerner points with horror to child labor in New York tenements. In New York they mention Southern cotton mills or Michigan beet fields. In Michigan they speak of Mississippi canneries or Texas cotton fields. And in Texas they say that some of the highest per­ centages of child employment are in eastern textile cities. The truth is, we are all culpable. The percentage of children from 10 to 15 employed ranges from 3 per ce·nt on the Pacific Coast to 17.5 per cent in the East South Central States; (25.5 per cent in Mississippi is the highest rate in the country). The census shows that child labor is national; it exists in some degree in every State, within or without the law. And there are two things which the census does not show: 1. That under their State laws thousands of these enumerated children work long hours, even at night; and, 2. That, as competent national and local investigation is always telling us, there a re plenty of children under 10 at work, though the census does not list them. We do not believe in child labor in the United States-but child labor still exists. It exists because although we have a national sen­timent against it, we have no national expression of it-that is, no national standard, and no uniform standard in our State laws. The feeling that child labor is inhuman, uneconomic and not to be tolerated in America has grown and spread since the first child labor law was passed in Massachusetts in 1837. At that time textile mills were the chief concern, but gradually, as our industrial life became more complex, we discovered that other forms of employment were equally bad. Coal mines, canneries, tenement homework, glass fac­tories, street trades, industrialized agriculture, have each in turn been found to be exploiters of children. The growth of child labor laws has been largely the story of prohibiting one or two forms of employment and little by little adding others, reducing hours of labor, and so on. Slowly our whole conception of what a child should do in childhood has changed, and the emphasis in our laws has shifted. A good child labor law as we now see it would not only prevent overwork, but would also open to each child opportunities for health, schooling, play, freedom-all the child-necessities of which labor would deprive him, and without which he cannot become the kind of citizen we want. We believe that a child labor law is constructive, the ground­ work of child-development. And this view has further complicated the problem. A kind of work may not be especially harmful in itself, yet if it deprives the child of schooling, it is harmful. There has been much room for argument and difference here. Some states have moved in one direction and some in another. Some have moved steadily though slowly, and others only spasmodically or under stiff pressure. Some have codified all their child welfare laws to be sure they are properly related, and others have laws that bear but slight relation to each other.... CHILD LABOR: PROBLEM IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT BY RAMOND G. FULLER (Author of "Child Labor cind the Constitution") From American Rcvir.w of Reviews. J anuary, 192:5. The laws of only eighteen states measure up fully to the protective standards of the fornH:r Fc-deral laws with respect to the employment of children in mills, factories, and cannerie~; . Those standards (in ad­dition to the 16-year age minimum fo~· mines and quarries) were: a 14 year age minimum for mills, factories, and canneries, with an eight­hour day, a forty-eight-hour week and no night work for children under Hl in these mills, factories, and canneries. The deficiencies of State laws are of varying degrees of importance. All but two states nominally prohibit industrial labor under the age of 14, but many of the statutes are seriously weakened by exceptions and exemptions. Twelve states fall below the eight-hour standard. Four place no restriction on night work. In numerous respects the State laws fall short of meeting the obvious need of working children of different University of Texas Bulletin ages in different occupations. One State has made no improvement in its child-labor law in the past ten years, and its statutory provi­sions are decidedly poor. FEDERAL A:l-lEKDl\lEKT BEFORE THE STATES The properly so-called child labor amendment, product of the same public opinion which procured the Federal child labor acts of 1916 and 1919, is now before the states for ratification, having been formally proposed last spring by more than the necessary two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. The amendment, however, has become the subject of much mis­understanding. Arkansas has ratified, but Georgia and North Caro­lina have rejected. In the Louisiana legislature a resolution to ratify failed of passage. The people of :::vrassachusetts, by a refer­endum vote of 696,000 to 247,000, advised negatively on ratification, and though their next legislature will doubtless act accordingly, it is likely to remember the fact that the popular campaign, from the standpoint of propagandist resources and activities, was rather one­sided-the side, as Napol eon would have said, of the heaviest bat­talions. These beginnings, with initial defeats, are by no means fatal to the amendment cause, but while time is long, childhood is fleeting. Be­ tween thirty-five and forty states will have the amendment before them at legislative sessions in 1925. It is important to view the amendment, in its historical setting, as an outgrowth of precedent events. First, the long history of State legislation, beginning with a ::\Iassachusetts act of 1836. Then, such gross inadequacy of legislation in some of the states as to lead. about twenty years ago, to a strong and widespread demand for Federal action. Then, successively, two Federal child labor acts, both_ of which were declared unconstitutional. And now the proposed. amendment, due to the continued backwardness of not a few states in protecting (or not protecting) American children within their borders. Opponents of the amendment, in their attempt to minimize the present amount of child labor in the backward states, quote the census figures of 1920, which were obtained when the Federal child labor tax law was still in operation, and at the beginning of a period of wide­ spread industrial depression and unemployment. The total number of children from 10 to 15 years of age reported in gainful occupa­ tions was 1,060,858. Of these 413,449 were in non-agricultural pur­ suits; of these 185,337 were in manufacturing and mechanical indus­ tries; of these 54,649 were in textile industries; of these 21,875 were in cotton-mill work. Of the children from 10 to 13 years The Child Labor Amendment of age, 49,105 were engaged in non-agricultural employments, and 9,473 in manufacturing and mechanical industries. RESTORED FEDERAL STANDARDS WOULD REACH BACKWARD STATES The Federal law, by its age, hour, and night-work provisions, af­fected the backward states, not the advanced states ;and it is in the backward states that the increase in industrial child labor since 1920, particularly since 1922, has taken place, as shown by recent test studies. We do not know the present.number of wage-workers under 14, or under 16, but we do know that there is no adequate or nation­wide protection against the exploitation of more when and where conditions favor. In any case, the thousands today mean more thou­sands next year, and in the course of a decade an appalling total; for child labor is a continuous process, a constant procession. It is worthy of special note that the restoration of the former Federal standards would include the eight-hour provision; and that in 1920, according to the census, there were 61,000 boys and girls under 16 employed in the mills and factories ~not to mention other work­places) of the states that still permit longer than an eight-hour workday-nine hours, ten hours, eleven hours, "sunrise to sunset." WHAT POWER IS GRANTED TO CONGRESS? The Federal acts were passed under express powers (the power to regulate interstate commerce and the power to levy taxes) in asso­ciation with which an implied police power may be exercised, but both erred with respect to subject matter; the amendment is designed to remove this difficulty as to subject matter. It will enable Con­gress to deal with child labor as child labor, not as something inci­dental to taxes or interstate commerce.... The power thus granted to Congress is neither new nor an extraor­dinary power, as will be shown. Its appearance of novelty is due to the fact that all Federal powers are delegated powers and to the consequence that any grant of power to · the central authority has to be described and defined in words and those words put into the Constitution. The words of the proposed amendment were chosen with the aid, and meet the approval, of able constitutional lawyers like Dean Roscoe Pound of Harvard and Dean Lewis of the Univer­sity of Pennsylvania. They were selected as free from ambiguity, and as expressing simply the intent of the amendment-to give Con­gress authority to pass another child labor law. It is said the proposed amendment gives Congress power to es­tablish higher standards than those of the former Federal acts. Very true. The people who criticize the proposed amendment on this ground would be better pleased if all sound principles of amending University of Texas Bulletin the fundamental law had been violated. The amendment is properly couched in general terms and properly conveys a general power (most of the original Federal powers are general). By the use of more specific terms than those employed, or by restriction of the power granted to that sufficient merely for the passage of such a Federal law as may now be thought necessary or desirable, the amendment would have partaken too much of the nature of legisla­tion. It is said, for example, why include agriculture. The answer is, why exclude it? Agriculture is not included specifically, but generally. Its exclusion would have been specific-and legislative. The matter of exclusion and inclusion, so far as particular occupa­tions or groups of occupations are concerned, should be left to legis­lation. It has no place in a general grant of power by constitutional amendment. The "ur:der 18 years" limit is a constitutional maximum and not a legal minimum. It is there because a constitutional amendment is supposed to last a long time, and because it was thought unwise, on account of unforesen conditions or contingencies that might occur in the next hundred years, err the next five hundred, to circumscribe unduly the general grant of power given to Congress with reference to the labor of young persons. It is there, also, to permit, if and when considered advisable, such special provisions relating to dan­gerous occupations, hours of labor and night work as are found in all good State Jaws. This explains why the amendment contains, besides the word "prohibit," the words "limit" and "regulate." No reasonable person wishes or expects Congress to prohibit the labor of all persons under 18 years of age in all occupations, not even "gainful employment" in the census meaning of that term. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE OF POWER The proposed child labor amendment is not a proposed law, and sets up no standards of legislation to which Congress must conform. Congressional action under the power granted by the amendment is left entirely-and rightly-to public opinion and representative gov­ernment. To withhold legislative power for fear it might be abused would be to stop legisJation altogether. A certain amount of discre­tion on the part of a representative legislative body must be as­sumed by the citizens by whom its members are elected and to whom they are responsible, else representative government is a failure and some substitute for it must be found. Attempts to defeat the amend­ment by disparaging Congress are ill-advised. From the things that are now being said about that constitutional agency by opponents of the child labor amendment, one might suppose that these people want to abolish Congress. True it is that if Congress cannot be trusted with the power to legislate on child labor (as it has twice The Child Labor Amendment 101 done before), it cannot be trusted with any other power. There may be defects in our system of representative government, nationally, but they are not to be corrected by implying, more than implying, that Congress is a bad institution, composed mostly of fools and knaves. The power "to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under 18 years of age" is no more dangerous than powers already posses~ed by Congress in other fields, or than the power possessed by the states in the same field; and there is the same safeguard against its abuse that exists with regard to any and every other govern­mental power-the safeguard of common sense and public opinion acting through representative government. There is also the safe­guard of the Bill of Rights, particularly the fifth and ninth amendments. THE QUESTION OF STATE RIGHTS Washington said that the basis of our system of government is the right of the people to alter their Constitution. But altering their Constitution is not the same thing as changing their governmental system. The framers of the Constitution delegated to the Federal government those powers which they thought in 1787 were essen­ tially national in character or could best be exercised by the central authority; other powers they reserved to the state. They left to the sovereign people the right, the responsibility and the method of re­ distributing the delegated Federal powers and reserved State powers as longer experience and new developments might require. State rights are purely constitutional rights, and, like all other constitutional rights, derive their sanction from the Constitution itself and ultimately from the sovereign people of the preamble. It has long been established that the states are not sovere;gn in the sense of "a political community without a political superior," to use Lincoln's words in 1861. The states, however, are obligated by Article V, which provides that three-fourths of their number may effect an amendment of the Constitution. It is part of the contract into which they entered. The dissenting states by that contract are reqdred to abide by the decision of the three-fourths or more. I submit that if three-fourths of the states des;re to gi\·e the Federal government a share of responsibility in the control of child labor, now a national problem, there is no departure from our dual system of government, but only a dual use of that system to meet a modern social need. As to the nature and scope of the power granted to Congress by the proposed amendment, it is the same in kind but less in extent than that possessed by the state. Congress cannot legislate regarding the labor of persons 18 years old, while all the states can and many do legislate in what is commonly called the child-labor field up to .University of Texas · Bulletin the age of 21. The majority of states have provisions reaching up to at least the age of 18. In order to have given Congress power equal to that already possessed by the State, it would have been nec­essary to set the age limit in the amendment at 21-which is doubless the age limit which the Supreme Court would be obliged to assume if none were specified. The Federal government has no powers except those expressly given and those impliedly necessary to the exercise of such express powers. In the child labor cases, the Supreme Court denied that regulation of child labor was impliedly necessary to the exercise of either the interstate commerce power or the taxing power. The power conveyed by the amendment is limited strictly to labor, and Congress could not constitutionally deal even indirectly with edu­cation, religion, or home life. But the "due process" clause of the fifth amendment (which the proposed twentieth amendment does not repeal and which, therefore, stands), and by the "rule of reason," Con­gress can legislate on child labor only to the extent regarded by the Supreme Court as reasonably necessary to protect child health and the general welfare. The only kind of Federal law wanted, needed or possible to ob­tain is, therefore, a law embodying standards above the lowest standards of State legislation and below the highest State standards. The proposed amendment and the anticipated legislation under it are not intended to relieve the states of responsibility or opportunity for State action in accordance with varying local conditions. Section II safeguards the right of every State to protect its own children to the fullness of their need. . . . CHILD LABOR FACTS Extracts from bulletin. " Child Labor Facts," published by the National Child Labor Committee, January, 1922. IS CHILD LABOR OVER? One child out of every eight from the age of 10 to 15 is gainfully employed outside the protection of Federal or State laws. This statement is to be understood in connection with the limited scope of the Federal child labor law and with the variation of the Statf laws in regard to occupations and ages covered. Each year 1,000,000 boys and girls of these ages leave school to go to work, perpetually swelling the ranks of the great army of men and women handicapped in respect of health, education, vocational fitness. The greatest vocation of all is life and the ultimate em­ployer is society. This yearly influx of children into child labor is just as serious a The Child Labor Amendment n:atter as the number of child laborers at any given time. Con­tinued over, say, a ten-year period, it means 10,000,000 childrer prematurely leaving school and going to work. So when we secure legislation stopping any part of this exodus from the schools into child labor we really protect .in the course of ten years ten times as many children as were originally affected.... Very young children-even children too young to go to school­are found in child labor. The task of abolishing this nation-wide evil is not yet finished. TENEMENT HOMEWORK In homes where work is sent in from the factories, child labor is common. Children become helpers at such work almost from their babyhood, working often under the most unsanitary conditions, in poor light, and for long hours. A recent study by the United States Women's Bureau in Con­ necticut showed that among 268 children in homes where such work was done, at least 110 worked regularly. One woman said : "Home­ work isn't worth while if the children don't help." One 9-year-old girl worked a footpress during her noon hour at home from school, while a younger brother and little cousin helped. When asked. "When do you have time to play?" she answered, "Sometimes on Sunday." The following story is told in the latest report of the New York State Industrial Commission: "I might cite the case of a child of 9 years who was crying when I made my entrance. I asked her what was wrong, and her mother said, 'Aw! she wants to go on the street and play.' I asked her what she wanted to do-finish the beads she had just come away from? She answered, 'Sure; why not?'" STREET TRADES Although twenty-one states make some regulation of street trading by children, the age limit fixed is often so low that 10-year-old boys may engage in this business. Where the law is not well enforced or no regulation exists, even younger children sell papers or peddle articles on the streets. In large cities children as young as 6 are regularly engaged in selling newspapers, working at unseasonable hours, and learning the tricks of the trade and the unhealthy wisdom of the streets and public resorts. We are apt to look at the little newsie or bootblack and murmur, "Isn't he cunning!" without stopping to inquire why he is there, what he is Jearnihg, or what he is growing into. The streets of u1l1' cities are no fit school for little children. AGRICULTURE In the Imperial Valley, California, an agent of the National Child Labor Committee found children of 4, 5, 6, and up picking cotton regularly while the schools were in session. In Oklahoma children as young as 5 were found picking cotton regularly, while the average daily attendance in the schools was only 57.2 per cent of the enrollment. One 5-year-old was said to be too young for school, but "he kin pick his twenty pounds a day, mostly ten or fifteen pounds." A 12-year-old girl picked 200 pounds a day. In the beet fields of Michigan a family of 6 was found living in a one-room shack with no windows. Little Charles, 8 years of age, was left at home to take care of Dan, Annie, and Pete, whose ages were 5 years, 4 years, and 3 months, respectively. In addition he cooked the noonday meal and brought it to his parents in the field. The filth and choking odors of the shack made it almost unbearable, yet the baby was sleeping on a heap of rags piled up in a corner. FARMWORK AND SCHOOL ATTENDANCE The most widespread effect of farmwork on children, the National Child Labor Committee finds after extensive investigation, is inter­ference with schooling either as a cause or as an excuse for irregular attendance. Undoubtedly the most serious problem of child labor today is that of agricultural work. The evil of the situation is not only posi­tive, but negative-not only he conditions it creates but the condi­tions it denies. "Rural child labor in vast areas of the United States today carries with it a virtual denial of education," says Miss Helen V. Bary, of the Federal Children's Bureau, in the North American Review. A study of 174 schools in Oklahoma, involving 6,389 pupils, shows that the total number of days absent during the year was more than one-third of the total number of days present. The number of days missed by both girls and boys on account of farn:work was 73,121; on account of illness, 44,148; on account of indifference, 26,382; on account of housework, 17,862; on account of bad weather and distance from school, 16,997; on account of all other known causes, 2,791. It will be seen that the absences from farmwork and housework together almost equal the sum of all the other absences put together. In North Dakota only 30 per cent finish the eighth grade and 4 per cent the twelfth grade. At least 20,000 farm children stay out of school each year for a pericd of sixty days to help in raising wheat and other small grain products. In Colorado the local school authorities of counties in the sugar beet growing section estimated that 4,841 children between the ages of 6 and 15 miss from 2 to 22 weeks of school, with an average of nine and one-half weeks, because of work in the fields. In the Colorado study by the Children's Bureau the educational handicap of the beet-working children was shown by the fact that over 40 per cent of those between the ages of 9 and 16 included in the study were from one to seven years behind in their grades. School rer'.ords indicated that the progress of these children was in­ferior by 25 to 35 per cent to that of the unemployed children at­tending the same schools. The children of the transient laborers were parUcularly unfortunate educationally, many being taken from school in March not to return until November. CHILD LABOR: WHY THEY INVOKE STATES RIGHTS From The Neic Republic, December 24. 1924. Little hy little the attack upon the child labor amendment is shift­ing its base from the untenable position that empowering the Federal Government to regulate child labor is an attack upon the integrity of the home, an invasion of the right of the parent to dispose of the time and labor of his children to suit his fancy. The parent has no such right under any civilized government. Every­where the State asserts the right to regulate or prohibit child labor. With u:;, the governmental body which at present exercises this power is the State instead of the nation. The child labor amend­ment proposes to give the nation a share in this power. The issue, therefore, is not the family or the individual versus government, but State. versus nation. This the more intelligent advocates and op­ponents of the amendment recognize clearly. The seriousness of the issue does not lie in the terms and objects of the amendment itself. It is silly to talk of an army of Federal bureaucrats roaming over the land devouring the taxpayers' sub­stance and setting his children against his authority. The Children's Bureau, or whatever other organ of enforcement may be created, will have a perennial fight on its hands to secure appropriations sufficient for the enforcement of such laws as Congress may enact. The appropriations committee is not going to find funds for inspec­tors enough to look into every kitchen, every field, and garden. Under t.hP, two child labor laws enacted by Congress and later declared un­.~onstitutional there was close co-operation between the Federal and Btate authorities. This would be true under the amendment. The 3tate, retaining exclusive control of the field of education, is too strongly entrenched to be thrust aside in the common enterprise of establishing the conditions under which children live. Where the State law is adequate Washington will be chary in supplying en­forcement agents. Where the State law is defective a corps of Federal inspectors will be required. No State that resented their presence would be forced to put up with them. It could bring its laws up to the minimum standard. Even if the result of the amendment were to transfer the interest in child labor legislation to the National Government instead of that of the State, it would not be true, as it is frequently asserted, that the states would be shorn of a legislative field in which they are actively working. Since 1912, as the New York World points out in one of its weightiest leaders, there has been great activity in child labor legislation. The World does not point out that the activity was greatest while the abortive Federal child labor laws were in force, and has nearly disappeared since the second one was declared unconsti­tutional. This may be explained in part by the greater difficulty of persuading legislatures to act, now that a State with high standards is again exposed to the competition of states with low standards. But the chief part of the explanation must lie in the decline of demo­cratic idealism that has marked the last years. With due allowance for the probability of a recovery of the democratic spirit, we may still assert that the child labor issue itself does not stand as a major one, either in legislation or administration. It is attacked as a symbol of something bigger and more fundamental in our national life. The real issue is the old one of states rights, the most momentous domestic issue in our history. It has figured in innumerable political campaigns; it cost us a civil war. It is no wonder that to many Americans this issue should take on almost a religious character. When so much emotion has been compacted into a single formula men cannot be expected to exhibit calm reason. They cannot be expected to distinguish between what is fundamental to the American aystem of government, the restriction of the Federal Government to the field expressly assigned to it by the Constitution and the reser­vation to the states of all residual powers not expressly denied to them, and what is unessential and requiring adaptation to the times, the definition of the field in which the Federal Government may work. States rights are invaded when the Federal Government oversteps the limits set by the Constitution. If such practices were permitted the states would be in great danger of being reduced to the position of mere administrative areas, like the French departments. When the people of the United States, by due constitutional process, confer upon the Federal Government powers it has not hithtreto possessed, there is no invasion of states rights, even though the states may incidentally be shorn of some of their powers. Under our system there are neither State nor national rights superior to the will of the sovereign people. 107 The Child Labor Amendment The founders of the Constitution conferred upon the Federal Gov­ernment such powers as at the time were ample to protect the com­mon interests of the people. Control of foreign relations, of foreign and interstate commerce, of the coinage, the power to make war or peace, and apparently adequate power of taxation-were these not sufficient for the management of the common affairs of thirteen sparsely settled states strung along the Atlantic seaboard, with each community leading almost a self-sufficing existence? The founders of the Constitution were practical men and would no doubt have con­fer.red broader powers on the Federal economy if the conditions of the National Government had required it. They did not imagine that they were fixing for all time the spheres of the Federal and State governments. Indeed, Washington, seeking in his Farewell Address to define the essence of American institutions, does not bring forward the Constitution itself, but the power of the people to change it. An immense revolution in economic life has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution. An unforseeable mobility of popu­lation, commerce and industry has characterized the century since the industrial revolution got well under way. Organized capital has risen to the rank of an economic political power of the first magni­tude; organized labor has gained a status that to the founders of the Constitution would no doubt have seemed most dangerous. A few optimists may hold that these new forces need no regulation; that whatever emerges from the womb of time is necessarily well born, destined to enrich the life of mankind. History and common sense preach no such dogma. The State cannot be indifferent to the forces working within it. A government which acts as a trustee for the common interest must hold itself in readiness to control and check, if necessary, forces that may operate subversively to the good of the people. And in a country of divided sovereignty, like the United States, common sense would seem to ordain that power to cope with new forces should be conferred upon State or nation pri­marily with a view to efficiency. Twenty years ago this appeared to be recognized by intelligent men of all parties. Only the Bourbon rejected violently the program of extending the powers of the Federal Government to cover the fields in which State action was ineffective, and the establishment of the principle of harmonious State and Federal cooperation. But in these two decades a change appears to have come onr the public mind. The Bourbons have come out into the open with the anti­ constitutional doctrine that the Constitution must be left intact as it stands. One reason for this change in public sentiment lies on the surface. We have a Federal prohibition law, and its administration j, a scandal 108. University of Texas Bulletin and a disgrace. We had State prohibition laws before. What of their enforcement? It was everywhere a scandal and a disgrace. Both State and nation have tried their hands at enforcing unenforce­""ble laws. They have failed ignominiously. But the State failure has been swallowed up in the more recent Federal failure. Just now the burden of disrespect has been shifted from the states to the Federal Government. This has no bearing, to be sure, on the question of the distribution of power between State and Federal governments. It bears on limitations of government in general, not of any particu­lar branch. But the discrimination is too nice for popular currency. Another reason, and a far more significant one, is the immense progress in self-consciousness that has been made by the leaders of big business. With the consolidation cf their economic position they grow more and more concerned over the weakness of their political position. They are afraid of the American people and of the governments which may at any time fall subject to the control of the American people. The chief virtue of our constitu­tional system, as they see it, is its inefficiency. The Federal Govern­ment, which alone holds jurisdiction co-terminous with the American business field, is without adequate powers of regulation. The states have sufficient regulatory powers, but because they are arbitrary fragments of the national economic unit they are unable to use it effectively. In the no man's land between State ineffectiveness and Federal incompetence, business may build up an economic state of its own, unhampered by regulation, insured against attack by the constitutional safeguards of property. Big business has no considerable stake in child labor as a pro­ ductive force. The 200,000 children under 16 employed in industry can produce no tremendous sum of profits. What leads big business to oppose the amendment is the principle involved, namely, the principle that when the American people desire to regulate industry they shall have the constitutional power to do so. We think big business is mistaken in its tactics. Suppose it forces a crystallization of our constitutional development, what then? Is it to be supposed that the American people, this huge and unruly colossus, will lie on its back forever, held motionless by Lilliputian legalistic strings? In the long run, there is no safety for any interest in America except by the favoring will of the people, won by adequate show of merit. NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS THE PROPOSED TWENTIETH AMENDMENT BY THOMAS F. CADWALADER Of the Bar of Maryland From The Constitutional Review for October, 1924. The proposed twentieth amendment, called the "child labor" amend­ment, is by far the most radical and far-reaching change in our form and conception of government that Congress has ever purposed. The eighteenth amendment is the first that invaded the field of the reserved power of the states so as to authorize affirmative legislation by Congress upon a matter of local concern. But the matter com­prehended within its scope is specific and sharply defined. It cannot be extended by construction beyond the making of or dealing with intoxicants. While it is charged that the Volstead Act extends to non-intoxicants, yet it must be admitted that it does not travel far afield or beyond what many reasonable men believe, whether rightly or wrongly, to be the necessary limits of any effective prohibitory law. The subject of prohibition is an exasperating one to almost everybody, for its merits are not susceptible of proof or of disproof. But the social, economic, and political effects of the prohibition of liquor are not so manifestly serious as would be the prohibition of labor or its regulation by law on any considerable scale beyond the recognized limits of the existing police power of the states. It would be a sufficiently serious innovation in our Federal system if Congress were merely authorized by this amendment to supplement the police regulations of the several states respecting the employment of minors in industry for pay. It would result in a great increase in the number of Federal officeholders, and would still further con­gest the Federal courts, adready nearly suffocated by liquor cases. It would further diminish the sense of responsibility of State legis­latures and local officials in regard to an important field of local social legislation. It would commit to a Federal bureau and its agents very broad inquisitorial powers that ought never to be exercised un­less in cases of the plainest necessity otherwise than under the sanc­tion of laws enacted with the approval of local sentiment and by officials of a local government. There can be no real liberty where important personal rights, such as the right of parents to put their children to work, are governed by laws enacted without regard to local conditions by a legislative body that is not amenable to local llO University of Texas Bulletin public. opinion, and enforced by the agents of a bureaucracy respon­sible to no one at all except their chief; and, under the civil service laws, not fully responsible even to him. GRANTS NEW AUTHORITY But these objections, inherent in all attempts at centralized mu­nicipal legislation, are not the most serious ones to the pending amendment. This measure travels far beyond the limits of the police power. It does not purport to vest in the Congress only those powers that now may be, and are, exercised by the states, but it con­fers an entirely new grant of authority hitherto unknown under our system, and, indeed, unknown except in the continental nations of Europe and sparingly exercised even there. We must cast our eyes on Russia for an illustration of the full extent of this authority. The power which Congress proposes should be conferred upon it is the power "to limit, regulate, or prohibit the labor of persons ·.mder 18 years of age." If confirmed by this constitutional amend­ment, it will, of course, not be subject to the earlier restriction upon Congress contained in the fifth amendment, that forbids depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. One effect of the fifth amendment is to render unconstitutio.nal any act of Congress, even within the sphere of its admitted powers, which would arbitrarily limit the right of the individual to seek and obtain any legitimate employment upon any terms satisfactory to himself. Notwithstanding the dissent of the Chief Justice and Justices Sanford and Holmes in the minimum wage law cases (Adkins vs. Children's Hospital, 261 U. S., 525), this is accepted doctrine. The dissent of those judges was placed on the ground that the legislation did, in fact, bear a real rellittion to the public health and morals which it is competent for the law-making body to protect even at the cost of private rights. But the legislation of Congress under the proposed amendment, so long as it relates to the labor of persons under 18, need have no regard whatever for their health, morals, or safety. It may be based on purely economic or even on purely political grounds. It may partake of racial or sectional discrimination. It may purport to equalize the costs of production in different regions or even to render them unequal. In short, the power i·s granted with­out any limitation whatsoever except .as to the age of the persons that may be directly affected. This is placed so high as effectively to negative even the implication that it is a part of the existing police power. What State could lawfully forbid a young man of 17 accept­ing employment as a clerk or on a farm? What State could compel a young women about to attain her majority to continue at school instead of helping to eke out the meager budget of her struggling parents? The Child Labor Amendment 111 Not only is the recognized limit of all statutes regulating labor en­tirely ignored in the proposed amendment, but the power is so broad that it draws to itself, as if by gravitation, a field of legis­lation so vast that Congress and its most ardent advocates would pause could they realize it. The labor of a person is his occupation in life. If he is not laboring, he is at leisure. The word "school" means "leisure." If a person's occupation may be limited or pro­hibited then in order to enforce the prohibition effectively, it is mani­fest that his leisure may be regulated. Obviously, Congress could impose educational requirements and conditions for permitting the labor of any person under this amendment. That means that it could inquire into and virtually regulate all schools, under penalty of ex­cluding their pupils or graduates from all occupations whatsover until they pass the age of 18. INQUISITORIAL POWERS The parents and guardians of minors must come under like in­ quisitorial powers, or the effective exercise of the power over labor would be curtailed. The Constitution itself grants to Congress all powers necessary or proper to the carrying out of those powers ac­ tually enumerated. This amendment adds to the enumeration and consequently to the collateral powers. In order to make effective the terms of any statute enacted under it, Federal agents may be au­ thorized to inspect the homes and question the parents of all minors under 18. Congress may require or authorize its agents to require certain standards of home living as a condition for permitting the youths and maidens of the land to earn their livings or even help their parents. It might, and would have to, supersede parental authority and discretion. It might provide new guardian of its own selection for both the persons and the property of minors in order effectively to regulate their labor, including whatever they might do, outside of their recreation or perhaps their studies. Indeed, it could and would regulate their recreation, too, as necessarily or properly related to the regulation of their work. Beyond all doubt the amendment would confer express power to nx the wages of any or all persons under eighteen in any or all in­ dustries. Whether this can be done without affecting the wages of adults remains to be seen, but if not, then, under the doctrine of nec­ essary and proper powers, the wages of adults would also become subject to legal regulation. The right of persons under 18 to strike might unquestionably be prohibited or restrained. This does not necessarily mean that young persons might be forced to work at any specified occupation, for it is not to be supposed that the twentieth amendment would operate to repeal the thirteenth, abolishing slavery University of Texas Bulletin and involuntary servitude, but it does mean that the forces of govern­ment could be employed directly in settling all disputes between employers and such of their employees as are under this age, and both might be forced to accept the decision of a Government bureau regarding the wages, hours, and conditions of their employment. Such a controversy and settlement must also involve adult employees, and seriously affect their rights. That it should do so, even inju­riously, would not be a Yalid reason for denying the existence of the governmental power invoked. If a parent's control over his child, and the exercise of his best judgment for his child's welfare, is taken from him and vested in a Federal bureau, it is difficult to place any real meaning on the word "liberty" as used in the Constitution. Of course, the executive alone could not deprive a person, even a child, of his liberty, but the restrictions of the fifth and fourteenth amendments are aimed not so much at executive as at legislative power. The Constitution says in so many words that a Jaw depriving a person of liberty, without due process of law, is no law at all. The twentieth amendment, on the contrary, confers the extraordinary power to prohibit or regulate the labor of certain persons. If this can be done, those persons have no liberty that is immune from interference by Congress, unless it be the liberty of conscience. Surely the liberty of a parent is of little value if he cannot use it in regard to bis own offspring. The word means something or nothing. If it means something, it means that any person, above or below 18, has individual rights that the legislative as well as the executive powers of government are bound to respect, and that the courts of jusice are bound to protect. If this amendment be ratified, what right can any person under 18 have, in regard to occupying himself or herself, that the legislative power may not take away at will? What right would remain to any adult citizen worth more than the care and control of those for whose existence he is responsible? If these most intimate and sacred of human rights are placed beyond the sanction of the courts, how can their function of determining the constitutional limits of legislation be exercised? Surely, the rights of property alone cannot in reason remain immune to legislative interference. Congress will be all­powerful in fact if not in name, and the great body of constitutional law on which our institutions rest, the doctrine of limited powers, will degenerate into a list of technical and meaningless quibbles until it breathes its last. With the adoption of such an amendment, it would not be difficult to foretell the demise of the greatest political creation of the modern world, the Constitution of the American com­ monwealth.-(E xtracts). The Child Labor Amendment WHY THE AMENDMENT IS DANGEROUS By MRS. WILLIAM LOWELL PUTNAM From The Woman Citizen for December 27. 1924. Whence did the twentieth amendment receive its heart-compelling title of "The Child Labor Amendment," a name calculated to lull the mind to sleep in the arms of the heart? If we can keep our minds awake, however, and study it from the standpoint which knowl­edge of life in general and of our country in particular teaches us to be true, we cannot but see that the name is entirely misleading, for on its face it appears to be a bill for the protection of childhood, whereas in reality it is a measure which will go further to injure children than anything which has ever been devised for that purpose. In its inception and in its effect it is wholly contrary to the habits, to the beliefs and to the ideals of this country. It is utterly un-American. Is it conceivable that Lincoln's character could ever have been developed under a system that forced him to do nothing more of drudgery than is necessitated by playing on a ball team after school hours? Would President Coolidge be the man he is today had he not had his homely chores to do to help his parents? America's strength has always lain in her men and women who grew up in simple surrounrlings, helping in the family life and learning at home the duty of rloing one's share in bearing the family burdens­the happiness of helping. A wholesome regard for duty is a help to everyonf the peace activities of the Government had increased more than fourteen times."-(Bentley Warren, March, 1924, Atlantic Monthly.) The Federal civil service of 435,000 in 1913 climbed to 918.000 in 1918, fell to 548,500 in 1922, and is now estimated at 590,000. Three independent Federal bureaus and commissions, which cost annually $820,000 in 1900, have grown to thirty-three, requiring for their present support substantially $550,000,000 per year. The Chil­dren's Bureau, the probable instrumentality of the power sought, with an initial appropriation of $25,640 in 1912, directed the expendi­ture of $1,551,040 in 1923 for activities which it has stimulated. On the horizon hovers a Federal Department of Education seeking an initial appropriation of 8100,000,000 ! · Today the President and both parties declare tax reduction the paramount issue. Are we likely to decrease the cost of government by enlarging its burdens, affording opportunity to multiply its civil servants, and duplicate State administration, while enormously ex­panding the irritating area of bureaucratic supervision to embrace a vast percentage of our population? The American of the present, reflecting upon the probable operation of this proposed amendment, may find much that is suggestive in the complaint of our fathers against the King in the Declaration of Inde­pendence. "He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."