The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1902-08-31

= - @3@<S - 4SA&x 4A44WzA&I3&&&k xAe
In recent issue Of The New Haven
Register occurs an editorial from which
the following Is significant extract:
Nothing has raised such a general storm
OF protest throughout the State press this
summer as the expected removal of one
Alabama because nt the cheaper labor
conditions in the South. The particular
cause for criticism of the Hartford con-
managers of the company could not secure
the cheap child-labor they wanted In this
State, because the labor laws here are
too stringent In that regard But as un-
fortunate q phase of the matter as that
is the fact that the village Of New Hart
ford, for many years thriving and in
dustrious, will NOW be forced into the i'm
mediate commencement of decay unless
some other manufacturer decides to pur-
chase the plant of the old duck mills.
The predominant regret running
through that extract is the anticipated
decay and ruin Of the now thriving man
ufacturing villages in Connecticut and
other New England States. and The Reg
to some Of the smaller towns in its own
State which have almost become depop-
ulated on account of the renewal Of the
mills.
But to us the Illuminating thought Is
that the removal of those mills to Ala
bama Is not for reason creditabie to
our State We do not agree with re-
cent article IN The Atlanta Constitution
which claims that the South can con-
cede the abolition of child labor and still
doupse discount the North in the man
ufacture of cotton goods. The mill which
IL to be removed from New Hartford to
Alabama is engaged exclusively in the
manufacture of cotton duck goods. as we
are informed, and we see no reason to
doubt that such goods can be made here
cheaper than in Connecticut. even with
adult labor. The difference in climate
and in convenience of raw material should
be sufficient to overbalance any other
advantages that section possesses.
But the plain. simple fact remains that
those mills are coming South because
the lives of Southern white children. and
there is no use trying to conceal the fact.
With the prices the New England mill
owners have to pay for adult operatives.
with unfavorable climate, and with their
long distance from the cotton fields, they
can no longer successfully compete with
the South. especially in the manufacture
of the coarser grades of cotton goods,
and they know it. But when to all the
other advantages which the South offers
them these mill owners see that they
can obtain all the labor they want at
10 or II cents a day. they will take ad-
vantage of 1t. No one can accuse a New
England man of being Indifferent to his
own interests. and coming South is a
business proposition. As such we have
no right to censure or criticise them, but
the blame and the shame are on our own
heads that such things are possible.
When our Legislature assemblies next
winter there will be an attempt to enact
laws for the protection of the children
Of Alabama and 1t will meet with deter
mined opposition. 1t will be opposed by
the mill owners, both native and North
ern, who are making money by depriving
the little ones of Alabama of all the
pleasures and joys of childhood. Corpor-
atoms are never very tender-hearte6, and
as long as our laws sanction child labor,
it will be employed. Appeals to human
ity will not abate the evil, and nothing
but the strong arm OF the law will avail
If the Legislature suffers itself Influenced
by the lobby. which is certain to assem-
BILE at the Capitol to keep down any leg
islation in the interests of the children,
it will not DO its duty to its own race
and to the good name of Alabama. If we
cannot have mills in the South without
the murder of the innocents. then. in
Heavens name, let us have no mills.