ployed therein. Not only did these men appear before the committee, but they talked with members of the legislature whenever the opportunity presented, and endeavored to persuade them that business interests would be injured and the mills subjected to a heavy loss if deprived of the labor of the children. They seemed forgetful of the fact that the state owed a greater duty to the children than to any moneyed corporation within its borders. They seemed to forget that the health, education and moral training of children was of more importance than dividends of stockholders in factories where these children spent their lives. Just as in the commercial world the dollar is the unit of value, so in the body politic the child is the unit of value, and upon the soundness of the child depends the future of the state and nation.

In most instances, the mill interests secured the support and influence of the local representatives, this being due no doubt to a feeling on the part of the legislators that great damage would result if poor children were forced out of employment. Perhaps they also feared that the advocacy by them of child-labor legislation might not be approved at home and that their course would meet with condemnation by the influential citizens of their respective counties, many of whom were interested in the mills. They may have feared also that children thus thrown out of work would become a charge upon charity, or that a dependent parent might, by the loss of the child's wages, suffer for the necessities of life. They seemed to forget that their first duty was the protection of the small children, whose property is so well protected by the laws of the state, but whose physical, mental and moral welfare has been without the protection of the law. They seemed to forget that no one ever died of starvation in Mississippi. They seemed to forget also that no community has ever permitted a deserving woman or child long to want for the necessities of life.

The only argument we could use against the contention of the mill owners was to take the high ground of justice and right, and appeal to the humanity of the legislature. Even then we were met with the proposition that the children and their families were better off in the mills, and that it was to their interest to be allowed to remain in the employ of factories without restriction. We were also met with the proposition that the state should not interfere with a parent's right to control his own child. In this latter

contention, however, we had no trouble in convincing the members of the legislature not only that they had the right, but that it was their duty in many instances to do so. It is the duty of the state to save the child, not only from corporate greed, but from its own parent, if necessary.

Compromise rather than Defeat

After having obtained a favorable recommendation from the committee, when the bill was called for passage it was very bitterly assailed, and a motion to re-commit was carried after a discussion of certain features most strongly attacked by its opponents. After recommitment a subcommittee was appointed, and I appeared before this subcommittee and decided to make certain concessions by way of compromise rather than risk a defeat of the bill, since the vote was very close; and I had hopes that two or three members who had opposed the bill when first offered would support a compromise measure. In this conclusion I was correct. Practically the only concessions made were to change the age limit from fourteen. to twelve years and the elimination of that feature of the bill requiring employees under the age of sixteen years to have attended school for a portion of each year in which they accepted employment in factories. The bill then came up for final passage in the senate. The mill interests were strongly intrenched, having a number of their representatives on hand. When the bill was called section by section for passage, amendments were offered to almost every section in an effort to get the bill so amended that it would be of no service whatever, or unacceptable to its own advocates. The hackneyed provision with reference to “invalid fathers, widowed mothers and orphan children" was offered, but defeated by a close margin.

Then came a fight on the number of hours per day which the children should be permitted to work. Following the recommendation of the Nashville Conference of 1907, I had agreed on a tenhour day, though personally I preferred to see an eight-hour limit inserted. Even a ten-hour day was opposed on the ground that the mills should be allowed to use their own discretion as to the number of hours of employment. They objected to any regulation whatever in the number of hours of employment per day, but were willing to accept a sixty-three hour week. The bill, however, finally

passed with a provision restricting a day's employment to ten hours, fixing a fifty-eight hour limit per week. Night work of children under sixteen years of age is prohibited, and applicants under that age required to furnish a certificate from their parents showing their age and educational advantages, and one from the county health officer showing their physical condition. The enforcement of the law will necessarily be somewhat handicapped by reason of the fact that no provision was made for the appointment of a factory inspector, this duty having been assigned to the sheriff of the county where the mill is located, and to the county health officer. It was thought useless to ask the creation of a special office of factory inspector, because there were so few mills in the state where child labor is employed, and so few children employed therein, that the duty could be performed with less expense and with almost as great efficiency as by a special officer.

After the bill was sent to the house of representatives, the fight was renewed. The mill interests feared to have the bill called on the calendar, since its passage was practically assured if it ever came to a vote. Dilatory tactics were adopted, and it was some time before the matter was taken up in committee. The committee set a date for hearing objections to the bill, and after arguments on both sides had been heard, recommended the bill just as it came from the senate, except that a sixty-hour week was fixed, with no regulation as to a day's employment for children under sixteen. years. This amendment was defeated on the floor of the house, and the bill was passed on the day before adjourment, and received the Governor's signature on the last day of the session.

Continued Opposition to the Law

The statute went into operation October 1, 1908, and I am advised that the various mills have regulated their schedules so as to come within the pale of the law. The mill owners, however, have not been silent in their protests since the enactment of the law, but have announced their determination to fight for its repeal or modification at the next session of the legislature. So it will be seen that not only were we confronted with difficulties in the passage of the law, but we must keep it on the statute books over the protests of the manufacturers. This we believe we can do, as the more the question is agitated, the greater will the interest in the welfare

of the children become. When the issue is clearly defined, and becomes in reality a battle between the dollar and the child, the people of Mississippi, as well as those of every other Southern state, will respond to the cry which comes to them from helpless children, unable to protect themselves from slavery of body, dwarfing of mind and neglect of soul. The people of Mississippi have the AngloSaxon pride of race which will not deny to struggling children an opportunity to acquire strength of body, development of mind and. expansion of soul necessary to fit them to become strong and influential citizens, the fathers and mothers of future generations.

This movement has been frequently characterized as fanatical. It has been said that it is the work of women and preachers. If this be true, then all the more credit is due the good women and preachers who have undertaken such an unselfish work, and have fought such a winning fight. God pity the woman whose heart is not touched by the cry of a child; God pity the child of such a woman; God pity the minister who has forgotten the words of the Master, "Suffer little children to come unto Me."

Reports from State and Local Child

Labor Committees1

KENTUCKY CHILD LABOR ASSOCIATION.

The Kentucky Child Labor Association was organized in February, 1907. Its declared purposes were the collection and dissemination of information concerning the working children of Kentucky, the cultivation of a public opinion favorable to a reasonable regulation of child labor and the proposal of measures for such regulation by government. It was contemplated that its activity should be state-wide. In this respect the hopes of its promoters have been, up to this time, only partially fulfilled. In Louisville, which is the chief industrial city of the state, its organization has been thorough and its influence considerable. In other parts of the state it cannot be said to have exerted any marked influence, except through the passage of the Child Labor Law, hereafter described, which is, of course, applicable to the entire state.

The law of Kentucky in force when this association was organized (Act of March 17, 1906), may be summarized as follows:

Act of March 17th, 1906.

Children Affected. Class I, children under fourteen; Class II, children between fourteen and sixteen.

Employments Prohibited. To Class I (under fourteen): (a) At all times, employment “in any factory, workshop, mill or mine." (b) During school term, employment "in any mercantile establishment, in any service of any telegraph, telephone or public messenger company, laundry, or printing establishment."

To Class II (between fourteen and sixteen): Employment "at any occupation dangerous or injurious to health or morals."

Exception. As to children under fourteen years, the following proviso was added to the prohibition: "unless said children shall have no other means of support." This clause was interpreted as reserving to each county judge in the state the power which he had possessed under an earlier law, to grant a "permit" authorizing the employment of a child under fourteen in cases where he was satisfied by proofs submitted to him that the earnings of the child were absolutely necessary to the support of the family.

Hours of Work. Children under sixteen: "In any manufacturing establishment, mine, mill or work-shop," no such child could work "after 7 o'clock in the evening or before 6 o'clock in the morning", nor more than ten hours in one day or sixty hours in one week.

Penalties. For any violation a fine of not more than $50.00 for the first offense and not more than $200.00 for any subsequent offense.

For the report from the Illinois Child Labor Committee, see the statement of the Secretary, Mrs. H. M. Van der Vaart, page 214.