The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-08-10

be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine
OF not more than $500.
The argument in favor of some such
legislation suggests itself: The child is
father of the man. To the extent that
we interfere with the development of the
child in the formative period, to that ex-
tent We sap the citizenship of the state
We do not need to press this argument
or to dwell at length upon the humane
side of the question. The child has its
rights which we are bound to respect and
protect. This being admitted there Is
net room for further argument on that
score.
1t Is worth while. though, to set forth
what is said by those who are opposed to
restrictive legislation. First ii is said
that the children are better of inside
than outside the mills, because they have
no occupation. are allowed to grow up In
ignorance, are in unsanitary surround
ings, have unwholesome food, and are
condemned to be and remain part OF
the shiftiess and possibly criminal pop
ulation of the State An attractive PIC
ture is drawn of the change wrought In
the domestic condition of the cracker
family that is brought in from the bar
rens and set to work in the well appoint
ed mill; steady employment at wages Tor
the whole family. provision of good
house to live in. weil-equipped general
hospital for the sick, day and Sunday
schools for the children, a library, read
ing room. gymnasium, oaths, play
grounds, etc; no strong liquors allowed ;
no temptation to the squandering of one 5
substance. This is what is afforded by
the Dwight MIL Company at Alabama
City; but the treasurer of this company
has admitted that the Alabama MIL Is
IN some respects exceptional. This ad-
mission is significant. 1t is not the ex-
ceptional' mill THAT must be considered,
| but the mill that Is representative of gem
eral conditions in the State. The labor
| in the Dwight mill may not need regu-
fhA In
| other mills that are not as well appointed
as the Dwight? 1t is asserted that in
very many mills the little children nave
few IL any Of the advantages above de-
scribed, and, moreover, that they are are
worked so continuously that they could
not profit by them even II they had them
To think of the little ones being worked
all day, from daylight to dark, or: some
times, from dark to daylight! What op-
portunity for the enjoyment OF play
grounds libraries, gymnasiums or the
requirement of information in schools!
1t is further argued that the employ
ment Of the little children is necessary
to the employment of the family; but 1t
should be a Sufficient answer to say that
restrictive laws are in operation in all
of the older milling centres, and in Lou
isiana, Tennessee. Kentucky and south
Carolina, in the Southern States, yet the
milling business is conducted there with
success No doubt, it is an advantage to
the mills in this State to use the young
children, but it hardly can be said that
such use is a necessity when 1t is not a
necessity elsewhere in the South.
Finally and at the very groundwork
Of the fight against this reform, 1t is
said that the effort to regulate child la
Dor in the South originates in the New
England States and is fostered by labor
Organization as well as by the mill own
ers who do not welcome the success of
Southern mills; and, more, that here we
have the entering wedge Of complex and
oppressive labor legislation. The objec-
ton here mentioned resolves itself into
this: that we of Ala ama must resist this
beginning of Eastern interference with
our concerns. We say, however. that If
what we are doing is wrong in itself. we
must apply the remedy, whatever the
possible result in the shape of encour-
agement of further demands from the
East.