RICHARD K. CONANT, Boston, Secretary, Massachusetts Child Labor Committee. A friend from South Carolina, visiting cotton mills in Massachusetts, was astounded to discover that the operations of doffing and spinning were so frequently performed by adults, and that the stories he had heard about the need for deft and pliable fingers of little children were myths. The study of the Condition of Woman and Child Wage-earners in the United States, made by the Bureau of Labor, is sufficient evidence that child labor in the textile industry is unnecessary. In the mills studied in the states of Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire, practically onehalf of all the doffers reported were men, slightly more than onefourth were women and slightly less than one-fourth were children. The ages of all employes were tabulated in that report and there was ascertained for each department of the mill the age at which the largest number were employed. For ring spinners this age was 18, for speeder tenders 19, spoolers 18, weavers 20, doffers 16, back boys 15. In every New England state more than 50 per cent. of the back boys were 16 years of age or over, and in Massachusetts more than 75 per cent. A few men of 21 years were engaged in the occupation and occasionally a man over forty years old. The study of the Bureau of Labor showed only 120 children under 14 in the 46 New England mills studied. There is little chance to argue, after these figures, that the industry depends, for its mechanical or financial success, upon the labor of little children. Mills with one or two thousand employes frequently use as few as 40 or 60 children under 16, and none under 14. When a mill uses a larger proportion of children, it makes the same kind of goods and competes directly with one that uses only a few children. I am especially anxious not to be understood as boasting of Massachusetts. Because Massachusetts has been at work on the problem for three-quarters of a century, she ought to have pro- Experience of Eight-Hour Day. There is some strength behind a movement for a five-hour day for these children, and the outlook for at most an eight-hour day seems very hopeful. Under existing laws, children under 16 years of age may work 58 hours a week, without a daily limit, in mercantile establishments. In manufacturing and mechanical establishments, they may work 10 hours a day or 54 hours a week. Ten hours is considered too long for almost every kind of worker, except one who digs in the ditch or works in a factory. The carpenter, stone-cutter, painter, paperhanger, printer and plumber have an eight-hour day. The little child of 14, toiling in the cotton or woolen mill, must stay at his monotonous, high-speed machine for ten hours a day. That a child of 14, as soon as he begins work, should be denied the time for development which is accorded to every skilled worker, is a clear injustice. The stupefying effect of the ten-hour day, on children who are expected to attend evening school, has been brought out at our hearings in previous years. The evil of the 10-hour day has not been disputed. If you watch the day's work of a child of 14 in a textile factory-watch him go in at a quarter of seven in the morning and come out at twelve, go in at one and come out at five-thirty-you will see that he has little of the sunlight, little of the fresh air, no chance for play, that he is too tired to care for study and that a future civilization based on such foundations cannot be the best. The opposition to the eight-hour day has come from a few textile manufacturers. Presumably these manufacturers would oppose such a bill for the reason that they will be financially affected by it. The textile manufacturers who appeared before the Committee on Labor last year were closely questioned by the members of that committee upon this point. Not one was able to show convincingly how the passage of the law would increase materially the cost of his labor or decrease his dividends. The manufacturers stated that they would not pay any more for the work if it took more people to do it or if it took older people to do it; the amount paid for the work would be at the same rate, no matter how it was done. One of the manufacturers, when hard pressed by questions of the committee, stated there would be a decrease in the supply of labor because of the eight-hour provision and that a decrease in the supply would raise the cost to the manufacturer, would increase the wages which he would have to pay. He stated that the supply of labor in Fall River is small and that the scarcity of labor would raise wages. When further questioned, however, he was unable to show any considerable scarcity of labor in Fall River. The manufacturers then took the stand that is reported of a Pennsylvania manufacturer as early as 1837, who said that although he personally was in favor of a child labor law, he objected to it because it would work hardship on the families and the parents would oppose it. And it has not been very difficult for the manufacturers to persuade the parents that it will work hardship to have the children's wages reduced. Only occasionally has it been seen that abolishing child labor increases the total wage paid to labor because older labor demands more. Family Need? An investigation of the need of families for the earnings of their 14 to 16-year-old children, was recently made by our committee. We examined the family income and expenditure in the cases of 100 children who obtained working papers in December and January last, in Fall River. As the families were interviewed within two months after the child first went to work, the reasons for putting the child at work were obtained while they were still fresh. 22 of the 100 families answered that they needed the earnings of the children. Only 6 of the 100 were poor widows. The statement of the families themselves is not, of course, the best means of judging their need for the wages. For that reason their income and expenditures were studied in detail. In 67 of the 100 families there was no doubt, after a study of the earnings and expenditures, that the families were perfectly well able to get along without the support of the children. The 33 cases where there was some doubt in the mind of the investigator were analyzed in accordance with two standards of living set up in the report of the United States Bureau of Labor above referred to, the two standards being (1) a fair standard of living, and (2) a minimum standard of living. 14 of the 33 families were found to be able to live, without the earnings of their 14 to 16-year-old workers, above the fair standard of living. 10 more of the families were found to be able to live, without the earnings of their 14 to 16-year-old workers, above the minimum standard of living-leaving nine of the 33 doubtful families, 9 of the entire 100 cases studied who would be forced below the minimum standard of living if they were deprived of the earnings of their 14 to 16-year-old workers. The results of this study accord in some measure with other conclusions. The Douglas Commission of 1905 on Industrial Education found that 23 per cent. of the families interviewed stood considerably in need of the wages of their 14 to 16-year-old children. The Bureau of Labor in its later study found that 32 of 226, or about 14 per cent., had a per capita income of less than $5 a week. None of the studies shows an enormous need on the part of families for the wages of the 14 to 16-year-old children. All show a slight need, varying according to different standards from 9 to 20 per cent. of the cases. The economic value of the years between 14 and 16 has again and again proved to be much less than the educational value. It was proved by the Commission on Industrial Education in 1905, that education for children between 14 and 16 is more profitable than the 10 cents an hour which they get in wages. But these facts we have found to be of little use in convincing people who are afraid that the children will lose their jobs. This year, however, we are not compelled to use these arguments because we can show conclusively that there is absolutely no danger that the eight-hour law will result in turning children between 14 and 16 out of their jobs. The eight-hour law for children under 16 has been passed and has been in force for some time in fourteen states. Among them are the great industrial states of Ohio, Illinois, New York, and Wisconsin in which there is invested in manufacturing pursuits many times as much capital as there is in Massachusetts. In Ohio, a special agent of the National Child Labor Committee, Mr. H. H. Jones, made detailed investigation of the operation of the eighthour law passed in 1908, by visiting factories, interviewing employers and by correspondence. The factories selected were of the kind that made most use of child labor, and an attempt was made in each city to include the largest employers of children and the most representative factories of the industry; 80 factories in thirteen cities. and towns were investigated. In every case the hours of adults were over 48, in most cases they were 54 or 60 per week. 3,025 children were found at work eight hours a day. Of the 21 textile mills covered by the investigaton, 14 employ as many children under 16 as they did before, one employs more, and only two of those who answered employ fewer children. The experience of other states, then, shows that the eight-hour day is practicable, the experience of workers in all trades shows that for children between 14 and 16 the eight-hour day is humane. We are asking this amount of protection for the children of Massachusetts. We hope that Massachusetts can again show the way to make the textile industry more wholesome and more valuable to the community. We hope that the human output of the mill will be given this small amount of care and forethought. |