The Batesburg advocate. [volume] (Batesburg, S.C.) 1901-1911, 1902-07-30
Against Child Labor by the Rev
Hudson Stuck.
THE SOUTHERN PRIVILEGE"
Declares That II Is ono Which
the South VIII Dcnouncc
and Forbid When
Aroused.

| the following letter on the question of
child labor i'll the Dallas, Texas, News
| 1t will he Of interest to our readers
! just at this time:
/ | am sorry tn see that The News. in
It's leading editorial of Tuesday, seems
| disposed to put dampcr upon the
attcmpS that are being made to pro-
cure such legislation in Texas as Shall
prevent the employment of children in
factories. had thought that If the
world had arrived at one definite con-
cluSion in the whole wide realm Of
economies, it was that such labor is
detrimental to the well-being OF the
community. and is Il proper object OF
legislative prohibition,
1t is not Il theory that we are deal
ing with. We are not to bc led from
| the plain purpose before us by vague
considerations OF the whole subject
Of the condition of children
in homes and on farms through
out the State. IL is one plain,
notorious, indeGenSiblc abuse that we
are seeking to abolish Some Senti-
mental refOrmcrS," says your article of
Tuesday, taking little note of prog
rcSS that has been made. and OF the
natural difficulties that must always
remain in the way, would make the
old-time crusade to free the little meek
slaves of London whatever that may
mcan) "a ncw-time fad. and would
run oil into lines that are not prayui-
cal, and that turn in the wrong dircc-
tion." Now that either means some.
thing or it means nothing. 1t has
either some application to Texas or it
has none, The only movement on foot
today in Texas, of which | know any
thing, is Il movement to secure the
passage and enforcement of n law to
prohibit entirely the employment of
children under II years OF age in fac
tories, and to regulate the hours and
conditions Of employment Of young
persons up TO III years of age.
Is this new-time fad? Is that
running of in lines that are not prac-
tical. and that turn in the wrong di-
rectiOn? To call IL a new-timc fad is
absurd. 1t is the the old struggle that
was foughtOut out in England many
| decader ago, that was fought out in
| New England soon after, chat has
been fought and won In every Euro
pean country, and that men had sup
posed would never have to be fought
again. But if it be necessary to prove
that two and two makes four in the
South rs we'll us In New England (and
of such manifest simplicity | hold the
economic problem in question to be)
why we must open the matter again.
must rc-addreSS ourselves to the old
| task.
The conditions existing in Dallas to-
day are conditions that the British
Parliament forbade in England exact
! forbidden by law in Massachusetts
Sixty-SiL years ago, in 1886.
In one mill in this city there are be-
tween sixty and seventy children from
D or years old to -, working twelve
hours daY. And this not all. Two
or three times n week, whenever it
suits the convenience of the mill, they
work fifteen hours a day. That is
what the first English factory act for
badc, in 1902. Utterly ignuraat, not
knowing their letters very often, even
up to good sized youth, these children
are compelled to forego the night
school to which they drag their weary
| feet, whenever ii suits their employers
to demand overtime.
At any rate" says your leading
article, If the child labor movement
is Il be kept along let the good work
begin at once where it is most need
ed. That is precisely the view of
those who are beginning the agitation
for factory laws in Texas. We know
no better place where the movement
may be kept along as you express it,
than right here i'm our midst where
such outragcS on childhood are per
mittCd.
The Encyclopedia Britannica. in
summing up its article ON factory
laws. says by these various enact
mentS the State has CmphatiCally
taken under its protection the whole
class of children and young persons
employed in manufacturing industries.
IL has done this I'm the name of the
moral and physical health of the com
munity.' one would hardly accuse
the Britannica of being sentiment
al reformer.'
Says Dr. lladley the president OF
Yale, in his recent book Economics
U9OOO prohibition OF child labor is
unqucStionably justified on public
grounds, because if children go tt
work lin the factory at too early ar
age they are deprived OF the chanc,
OF health and education which would
enable them To make the most OF
themselves. That is the case i'm a
nutshell. All observation, all expert
encc, show that children put to work
early in factories are ccprived OF these
two things perhaps the two most
valuable things that human being
can possess the chance OF health anc
the chance of education.
Charles Il. Spahr in his late bool
entitled Americas Working People,
, says: When | went through TIN,
mills at New Bedford, | saw only tw,
children who looked TO me less thar
49," and he was assured that they helC