The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1902-08-01
SOME PLAIN TALK
Against Child Labor by the Rov
Hudson Stuck.
'rHE SOUTHERN PRIVILEGE" !"
Declares That 1t Is ono Witch
tho South VIA Denonncc
and Forbid Whom i.

the following letter on the question Of
child lab0rin the Dallas, Texas, News.
II will be OF interest 10 our readers
just ut this time;
am sorry To sec that The News, In
it's leading editorial Of Tuesday, seems
disposed To put damper upon tho
attcmps that are being made to pro-
cure such legislation in Texas as shall
prevent the employment Of children in
factories. ! had thought that II the
world had arrived ut one ,deilnlte con
clnsion IN tho whole wide realm OF
economies, IT was that such labor Is
detrimental to the wcll.being OF the
community. and Is a proper object OF
legislative prohibition.
1t Is not II theory that we arc deal
Ing with. We arc not to be led from
the plain purpose before us by vague
considerations of tie whole subject
Or the condition OF children
in homes md on farms through
out tho State. 1t Is one plain,
notorious, indcfcnsiblc abuse that We
are seeking to abolish. Some senti-
mental reformerS," says your article OF
Tuesday, taking little note of prog
ross that has been made, and or the
natural difficulties that must always
remain in the way, would make tic
Old-timc crusade To free the little meek
slaves Of London" Whatever that may
mcan) "a ncw-limc fad, and would
run OIL into lines that arc no6 practi-
cal, and that turn in The wrong direc-
ton" Now that either means some
thing or IL 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 lG years OF age.
Is this Il new -limc fad? Is that
running oil IN lines that are not prac-
tica' and that turn III the wrong d.
rccton? 10 call it a ncw-time fad is
absurd. IT Is the the old struggle that
was foughtout out in England many
dccadcr ago, that was fought out in
NcW England soon after, that has
been fought and won in every Euro
pcan country, and that mon had sup
posed would never have to be fought
again. Butif it be necessary to prove
that two and two makes four in the
South az well as in New England (and
OF such manifest simplicity / hold the
economic problem In question to bc)
why we must open the matter again,
must rc-addrcSs ourselves to the old
task.
The conditions existing in Dallas to-
day arc conditions that the British
Parliament forbade in England exact
~ 100 years ago, in 1902; that we're
forbidden by law in Massachusetts
siXty-SiN years ago, in 1886.
In one mill in this city there arc be-
tween sixty and seventy children from
Q or years old to II, working twelve
hours day. And this not all. Two
or three times a week, whenever it
suits tho convenience OF the mill, they
work fifteen hours Il day. That is
what the first English factory act ror-
badc, in 1902. Utterly ignoraat, not
Knowing their letters very often, even
up TO good sized youth, these children
are Compelled to forcgo the night
school to which they drag their weary
feet, whenever it suits their employers
to demand overtime.
AZ any rate" says yours leading
article, IF the child labor movement
is to be kept along let the good work
begin at once where It is most need
ed." That is precisely the view OF