Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Section 3. That for the purpose of securing proper enforcement of this Act, the Secretary of Labor or any person duly authorized by him shall have authority to enter and inspect at any time mines, quarries, mills, canneries, workshops, factories, and manufacturing establishments in which goods are produced for interstate commerce.

Section 4. That it shall be the duty of each District Attorney to whom the Secretary of Labor shall report any violation of this Act or to whom any state factory inspector, commissioner of labor, state medical inspector, or school attendance officer or any other person shall present satisfactory evidence of any such violation, to cause appropriate proceedings to be commenced and prosecuted in the proper courts of the United States without delay for the enforcement of the penalties as in such cases herein provided.

Section 5. That any person, partnership, association or corporation or any agent or employee thereof manufacturing, producing or dealing in the products of any mine, quarry, mill, cannery, workshop, factory or manufacturing establishment who shall violate any of the provisions of Section 1 of this Act, or any of the rules and regulations made in accordance with the authority contained in Section 2 of this Act, or who shall refuse or obstruct the entry or inspection authorized by Section 3 of this Act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 or by imprisonment for not more than one year or less than one month, or by both fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.

Section 6. In prosecutions under this Act each shipment or delivery for shipment shall constitute a separate offense.

The National Child Labor Committee urges the enactment of this law because we believe it presents the most effective and direct method of putting an end to this national abuse. After ten years experience in seeking improved legislation in the various states and attempts to harmonize state laws through general adoption of the Uniform Child Labor Law we have reached the conclusion that Congress should forbid interstate commerce in the products of child labor because:

(a) It is difficult if not impossible to secure uniform and effective laws in the different states. This difficulty arises from the fact that every proposition to enact an effective state law is opposed by the industries that would be affected on the ground that such a law would handicap them in competition with other states. We believe this objection is frequently unwarranted because we maintain that child labor is the most extravagent and wasteful kind of labor. Nevertheless the opposition is quite as effective with legislative committees as though it were never founded on a fallacy.

[ocr errors]

(b) The preponderant moral sentiment of the community is hostile to child labor, but the state which does enact an effective law is helpless to protect itself or its citizens from purchasing goods produced by exploiters of young children in another state and shipped into local markets.

(c) The states are therefore powerless except by joint and simultaneous action effectively to prohibit child labor. Therefore we believe if child labor is to be abolished we must invoke the power of the Federal Government in so far as Congress may act under its constitutional limitations.

Congress might act in one of three ways to control this situation.

1. By the power to regulate interstate commerce. This is the method proposed in the foregoing bill.

2. By the taxing power. Congress might tax all establishments employing child labor regardless of whether the goods were shipped in interstate commerce. The tax, to be effective, should be: (a) Heavy enough to make child labor very expensive as in the case of the oleomargarine tax, in which case the Federal Government would place itself in the position of tolerating child labor on condition that the profits of it went into the Federal treasury, or (b) Heavy enough to tax child labor out of existence, as in the case of the white phosphorous tax. In this case the tax becomes a subterfuge rather than a direct method. The purpose is not to license but to destroy. This we submit introduces a wholly new method of handling labor problems and would provide a precedent which might seriously affect all existing labor legislation. The Government could destroy any kind of industrial activity of which it did not approve by imposing a prohibitive tax. This plan is so far-reaching in its possibilities of controlling industries within the several states that we should hesitate to invoke it until all other resources have been exhausted.

3. By the power to regulate the mails The Government might forbid the use of the mails to advertise goods made by child labor in the same way that fraudulent or immoral matter is forbidden, or it might forbid the transportation of goods by parcel post. This method would in our judgment, be equally indirect and would involve equally difficult questions. Furthermore even if

valid it would touch only a part of the problem as it would have no application to freight or cxpress business or to local advertising.

In advocating this legislation we are not unmindful of the criticisms that may be brought against any attempt to deal with this subject on a national scale and specifically against the bill we here advocate.

Objections Considered.

These objections fall roughly under four divisions which we undertake to consider, for the information of people who would be glad to endorse so direct a method of dealing with the problem, but are deterred by objections advanced against the proposition with such vigor and plausibility as to appear irrefutable.

We shall consider questions on the following points:

[blocks in formation]

When the Palmer-Owen Child Labor Bill was introduced in Congress on January 26th, it was immediately hailed by the conservative press throughout the country as a "drastic measure." Assuming for the moment therefore that such action by Congress would be considered constitutional we are compelled to face the charge that the proposed bill is drastic, that it seeks to establish standards which the American people cannot tolerate.

In Factories.

First: Child labor under fourteen years of age is to be forbidden in manufacturing establishments, canneries and workshops which seek the facilities of interstate commerce for the distribution of.their goods. To what extent is this standard already established? Forty states, the District of Columbia and Porto Rico have laws on their statute books forbidding the employment of children under

[ocr errors]

fourteen years of age in manufacturing establishments. A few of these states make weakening exemptions in their laws, it is true, and several are without the proper machinery for enforcing the law. On the other hand some states are above the standard specified, as for example: Ohio, California and Montana.

In detail the prohibition of child labor under fourteen years of age is shown in the following schedule of states.

Schedule I.

States which prohibit child labor under fourteen years in mills and factories: Forty states, the District of Columbia and Porto.

[blocks in formation]

Second: The bill provides that no child under sixteen years shall be employed in mines or quarries. Investigators for this Committee have shown within the past few years the extensive employment of children of twelve, thirteen and fourteen years in and about the mines and quarries of our various states. Evidence from physicians, emergency hospitals, the U. S. Bureau of Mines and other sources

is conclusive that mining is an extra-hazardous industry and that no child should be exposed to its dangers. We believe the employers in this branch of industry will be glad to have child labor entirely eliminated. At least the operators of mines and quarries have offered no objection so far as we are aware. The objection has come rather from those who feel that our mining communities will suffer if young children are not allowed in the ranks of wage-earners. However, the restriction proposed has obtained so wide an application among the states as to be fairly regarded as the American standard. Fifteen states forbid employment of children under sixteen years of age in mines and quarries. In Texas the age limit is seventeen; in Wisconsin eighteen, and in Pennsylvania, children under eighteen years may not be employed in quarries. In addition to these states, there are six states which have so small a number of people engaged in mining or quarrying that the need of such legislation has never been brought to public attention. Thus there are twenty-one states that have already established this standard or whose "practical" interests could offer no reasonable opposition.

Schedule II.

Child labor forbidden under sixteen years in mines and quarries in fifteen states:

[blocks in formation]

The following six additional states employ less than 1,000 wage earners in mines and quarries and therefore could have no economic interest in opposing this legislation:

[blocks in formation]

Third: The third standard proposed in this bill is the establishment of an eight-hour day for children under sixteen years of age.

« AnteriorContinuar »