The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-09-03
many Of the abuses for which they have
hanr raspouafhIo

many Of the abuses for which they have
been responsible.
There is no ground for the contention.
sometimes offered In Alabama that agita-
ton for child labor law represents IN
reference" from outside. This legislation
was dema nded by representative bodies IN
Alabama long before outside interest was
awakened. The system OF child labor is.
itself the most serious interference"
with Southern conditions that know Of.
1t did not originate in the South. Our
people and our States have been strangers
to It, II was brought in upon us una
wares. after England and New England
had cast II out. The interference In this
case Is represented by the institution OF
child labor itself The protest against 1t
is coming from the hearts and the homes
of cur people.
Practically every manufacturing State
in the country has a child labor law.
Among Southern States, Tennessee. Ken
lucky and Louisiana already have such
laws. The Democratic Party has pledged
such legislation in Texas and in South
Carolina. This sufficiently disposes of the
suggestion that the passage of such leg
islation would be detrimental to any le-
climate interest Of the mills If the mills
can work successfully everywhere else
without the labor of the younger children.
they certainly can do so in Alabama. If
the families of the operatives can get
along everywhere else without the tiny
wages of their younger children, they
certainly can do so In Alabama
Shall Alabama be among the last of
the States of the South to enact law for
|, the protection Of her younger children?
We need not be disturbed by the cry that
the child is better off in the mill than
out of the mill" Is this true of children
under twelve?-better for them that they
should work at the monotonous task Of
the spinning room from $50 a. m. to $50
p. m. (sometlmes working far into the
night than that they should have free
dom? Are the probable iniquities of lit
tie children under II 50 great that we can
save them only by the antidote OF sus-
tanned labor for ten or twelve hours a
day? The thought is preposterous in
its absurdity. Freedom may bring them
into mischief, but shall the purely uncer-
tain and problematical risks Of freedom
force US to yield their tender lives into
the certain perils Of sickening confine-
ment and monotonous drudgery?
1t Is true that the outward condition
of the child of the mill family is some
times better than that Of the poor white
child of the country. Where this Is true,
II Is true not because of child labor but
49,
in the East that the condition OF the
child in the sweat shop Is vast I'M
proyement" on the condition of the child
in the crowded foreign city where 1t once
lived Does that prove that the sweat
shop labor of its tender hands is respon-
sible for the change? No! Is child labor
responsible for the better condition OF the
factory child? Its life may share In
the general improvement of conditions
but the child instead of receiving as
childhood should, the maximum or I'M
munity from distress, and the largest
freedom which the new environment az
fords. is bearing in its tender strength,
the greatest burdens and the heaviest
curse of the new prosperity" Let US
not be guilty Of mental confusion. Let
M not credit the good fortune OF the
family to the misfortune Of the child
An explanation of the policy OF the
mills in opposing the legislative restric-
ton of child labor Is quoted In the col
umns of the New York Evening POST
from Seth M. Milliken of the iirm OF
Deering. Milliken & Co., New YORK CITY;
Mr. Milnken has been deeply interested
for years in Southern cotton manufac-
ture. He declares that the representa-
tiyes Of the mills really desire the aboi-
ishment of child labor. but that they op-
nose legislation out of Difference TO their
employees who, II prohibited from WORK
ing their younger children in one State,
might move to another. Says Mr.. Milf
ken: The passage of such legislation In
South Carolina, for example, would not
be concurrent with similar action on the
part of competitive States, such as North
Carolina, Georgia and Alabama-hence
detrimental to the State thus handicap
ped"
In the first place, it is interesting to
observe that the gentleman quoted views
the question from the standpoint of a
single industry, not from the standpoint
of society or from the standpoint
of the child. In the second place. it is
interesting to inquire what has prevented
child labor legislation from being con-
current" In the cotton manufacturing
States of the South? Nothing whatever
but the concurrent antagonism Of the
| mills.
1t was contended in Alabama that legis-
iation must be delayed till 1t was concur
rent" in Georgia and the Carolinas. 1t
was commended in Georgia and the Caro-
| linas that reform must not be tolerated
| till legislation was concurrent" In Ala
bama A conservative bill for the pro-
| hibition of child labor under IL was de-
| teated in each of these States. In turn,
upon the contention that 1t would never
| do for that particular state to place it.
| self out of the market of competition for
the younger children! If we can have
| the assistance of the best mills-as
hope we may-there will be concurrent
legislation in every State within twelve
| months. In the meantime, The Trades
man of Chattanooga august 15). begins
an apology for our conditions conditions
| fostered by Northern capital as well as
| SOUTHERN with the naive confession that
inasmuch as the total OF our textile fac
| tories has about doubled since the year
covered by the census of 1900. there are
now approximately 5000 children under
| 10 years of age in the cotton mills of the
| South!
Edgar Gardner Murphy,
| Chairman Of the Committee on Child La
Dor in Alabama.