The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-02-11
THE CHILDLABOP Bit

We have the following interesting let
ter from a student at the University of
VirgInia: s.ag..
Editor Of The Times Dispatch:
Sir.--For some years 1 have been read
Ing and agreeing. with The Times on
nearly every subject Of politics and soci-
ology, bat Fat last forced to disagree
with it.
The editorial strain at Is the one in
to-days Issue on Child Labor" which,
in my opinion, is utterly and diametri-
cally opposed to your well-known anti
paternalism policy. If the Cabell bill
had forbidden child labor unless the
parents OF the child gave their consent.
instead OF unless the judge Of the Cor
poratlon: Court, etc., then 1t would be
acceptable-probably because 1t would
mean nothing.
do not intend tosadisouss this with
You, but do call on you to explain TO
me and others like me why 1t is wrong
for the State to require the child to be
educated against the parents wish?
Why 1t is wrong for tho State in any
way to attempt to regulate the family
that Is, anyway but this-and why 1t Is
wrong for the State to control {not regu-
,late) tho liquor traffic, and then explain
why this, tho sole instance Of home reg
'ulation you advocate, is right?
UNIVERSITY STUDENT.
University of Virginia, February 9th.
We are glad that our correspondent
has raised this question. The Tines
Dispatch does not claim to be infallible,
and it does not attempt to force its own
views whether or not. upon Its readers.
Our columns are always open to polite
questions and to polite communlca cations
taking issue with US In any opinion that
we may express.
But There Is nothing inconsistent In the
opposition OF this paper TO patcrnalism
and our advocacy Of a bill to regulate
nalism In government, and we stand for
the individual rights Of citizens, and
especially for the dignity and sanctity
and prerogatlve Of the home. We are
opposed to compulsory education, for
that implies that the officers Of govern
ment may go into tho homes of the peo-
| pie and take their children by the hand
| and lead them off to school In defiance
Of the wishes Of parents. But there is,
in our view decided difference between
| the compulsion OF parents and the pro-
| hibitlon of factories, We do not say tina t
the parents of Virginia must send their
children to school; we do not say that
parents may not manage their children
in their own way; we do not say that
parents may not put their Children to
work. We simply say that tho factories
should be prohibited from working chill
dren under twelve years ofiage under
any circumstances, and tha they should
be prohibited from working children over
the age OF twelve and under the age OF
fourteen unless It can be shown to the
satisfaction of certain men in authority
l that such children are able to read and
write, or that II is necessary for them
to work for tho support OF themselves
or members of the family,
Our correspondent introduces tho sub
ject Of regulating the liquor traffic. and
SO supplies an illustration In support of
| the principle which we advocate. The
! Times-Disptach Is opposed to prohibition
as applied to the liquor traffic, but we
are In favor of regulating tho liquor
traliicb by law, and so reducing tho llouor
evil to the minimum. We do not saw
that liquor dealers shall not sell ntoxi.
eating drinks to adults. but we do say,
and we belieNe there is general agree.
ment on this Eant that 1t is entirely
competent for the government to pro.
hible liquor dealelS from selling In,oxi,
eating drinks to majors. Does our cor.