The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-02-16
The CHILD LABOR BILL.
II Provides for a l2-Year Limit OF
Work for Children in Mills.
GOV. Brown SUGGESTED l3.
It IL Stated That Many Families Come TO
Rhode Island for the Purpose Of Al
lowing the Children 10 Work While
Under 13-some statistics.

The bill presented to the Senate Tues
day by Senator Comstock in regard to
the limitations on the age of children en-
ployed in manufacturing concerns fixes
the age at which they may be so employed
at II years. Gov Brown in his annual
message recommended that the age be
made 13 years, as was recommended In
the annual report of the Commissioners
of Industrial Statistics for 1891.
A number Of women have interested
themselve in the matter, but Tor some
reason they fixed on twelve years instead
of thirteen. The commissioner OF indus
trial statistics points out the TACT that
the law originally fixed the age at twelve
wears. Section twenty-one Of chapter l69
provides that no minor under twelve
years should be employed in that way.
The law was repealed b. section five of
chapter $40 in regard TO truapt children,
which fixed the age AT ten years, This
act was passed May g. 1887.
The result of this was that as the age
fixed by the laws OF Massachusetts and
Connecticut provides that no child under
10 years of age shall be employed In a
factory, "A great many people come To
Rhode Island for the purpose OF getting
the three extra years OF work out OF their
children who ought To be In school at
age Of l3 the parents leave the state and
90 back where they came from. They
come here from Fall River, Taunton,
Lynn, Lowell and New Bedford in con
siderable numbers. The children are al
lowed by the law to work in factories
when the schools are not in session.
The census reports OF 1891 show that
of the Chi! i!dren not obeying the law in
regard To attendance at school :, S9S were
from 10 to IA years old and l. All from to
years old. The numter of children less
than IL years old no went TO school less
than IL weeks. as provided by law, in
1891 was 10 TO IA. 406; Z to 9. I46. That is
a total Of 5,46l who either did not attend
at all in 1891 or did not attend the full
time required bv law.
The Massachusetts law states:
No child unaer thirteen years OF age shall be
mereantile establshment no such child shall be
emp Dyed In any indoor work performed for wages
during the hours when the pubic schools of the
city or town in which he resides al e IN session or
hours unless during the year neSt preeedin9 such
twenty weeks as required by law
The Massachusetts law also provides
that no child under IA years of aye shall
be employed in any manner before o
O'Clock a. m, or after Z o'clock in the
evening. 1t also provides that no such
child shall be so employed unless he has
year just preceding.
The Connecticut law provides that no
child under 13 shall be employed ~ above
and further that no child under IA, who
has resided in the United States nine
months shall be employed to labor unless
such child shall have attended day
school during at least twelve weeks in
the twelve months just preceding the
month in which said child shall be SO
employed.
Some Statistics.
In California it is provided that chill
dren shall not be worked over eight
hours day. Colorado provides that no
child under IA shall be employed in a
mine, smelter mill or factory. Illinois
prohibits children under IA from work
ing in mines. so do Indiana and Iowa
and other states. Kansas makes the
limit IL years. with provision that no
child between the ages OF II aud IA shall
be employed unless he or she can read
and write.
Many OF the states limit the hours dur
ing which minors shall be emplovel.
New Vow makes the age IA years.
North Dakota makes employment con-
tingent upon twelve weeks attendance at
school. Ohio makes the age IL years.
So does PENNSYLVANIA. South Dakota
has law like that OF North Dakota.
The point at stake now is whether il
would not be better for the act To be so
amended as to make the age agree with
that in Massachusetts and Connecticut
which would correct the evil referred to
of families moving here TO work out the
additional years OF labor TO be secured by
Rhode Island laws. With the bill passed
as it stands it would leave only one year
for them to take advantage of, but
number Of people who are interested
think that the other one should be pro-
yided for while it Is under consideration.