The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-01-02
SATURDAY. JANUARYs ., 1892.

SATURDAY. JANUARY 9, 1892.
This popcq' is democratic IN principles
and is independent IN its pietDs on on
iocall questions.
New York's Busybody Societies.
The contest between Elbridge T.
Gerry and the New York theatrical
managers is a highly instructive epi-
sode. 1t shows the danger of entrust-
ing great and loosely defined powers
to Irresponsible people. The extent
to which New Workers are tyrannized
over by two men, Mr.. T. Fellows
Jenkins, Gerry's factotum, and Mr..
Anthony Comstock, is one of the
wonders of the Nineteenth Century.
Here are two men, not chosen by
the people, nor yet by the representa-
tives of the people; not answerable to
the people in any way, not subject to
Judgment by the ballot directly or
indirectly, and who yet exercise
powers affecting liberty and property,
compared with which the powers OF
the police and even the courts are
feeble. Taking advantage of some
real abuses, some real crimes, some
real horrors if you will, the two
societies, the Children's Society OF
!. Gerry and Jenkins and the Vice Soci-
ETY. of Comstock, have procured the
passage of laws which give them
practically autocratic jurisdiction in
a vast field, wherein it is true they
may do much good-doubtless do
much good; but wherein there is, be-
sides, endless opportunity for tyranny
and oppression, which they ruthlessly
avail themselves of.
The case of the respectable theatre
cal managers against Messrs. Gerry
and Jenkins is ably summed up by
Mr.. French in a series of questions adj
dressed to Mr.. Gerry as follows:-
First--If the law prohibits the employment
on the stage Of children under sixteen years of
age, why is It not enforced at every theatreY
Second-If the law does SO prohibit the use OF
children on the stage, has any one individual the
right TO break the law by giving permission to
any other individual to SO employ them?
Third-Where is the line to be drawn and why
should any line exist at all?
Fonrth--Can the law be violated at the will of
one person?
Fifth-Is not the condit ion Of children on
the stage far ahead of that OF Others W no work
Tor a pittance barely sufficifnt to keep them
sSixth-AreAot stage children better fed, bet
ter clad and better taken care of than those in
shops and factories? Do they not make more
ssventh-was mot the present law framed
when the padrone systems were in vogue and
child acrobats beaten aud abused by cruel
---A-AA Cl>..1Ik il nor ma nAnaCCarv IN Chnw
thst chiiIren are fiftreated?
Eighth-IS there any reason why a well
q groomed, we'll fed, healthy chil Id should not
work % ten minutes during a stage perform
ance Of $50 minutes, il its future is better
assured thereby?
After reading these questions, only
ole doubt remains in the mind:-Is
thAA state OF facts theoretically set
forth III them actually existant in
New York? Those who have watched
the history OF the two societies in
question, will have no diff cultY in
testifying that it is.
The theatrical managers are going
to agitate for q repeal of the law
They viii have the sympathy of four
fifths OF the people with them. The
only question is as to whether the 81
row minded and oppressive minority
of Pharisees and busybodies will be
able to perpetuate the existing
wrongs.
LET us hope 1892 is not weeping to-
day for all the trouble it sees ahead.