Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-02-03

was meant to be included, as these
truant law experts claim, then the fac
tory inspector is without an occupa-
| ton so far as child labor is concerned
| But the truant law did no such thing
| Their proposition has no legal stand
! ing. The only conceivable reason for
their assumption is that, lacking the
needed ability or the manly pluck to
enforce the truant law themselves
these local compliments seek to I'M
load their burden of legal responsible
| ity upon the shoulders of State Off
Ger, without the shadow of an excuse
in law or right.
| As factory inspector, have no powe.,
| 10 turn any child of the required age
from mill, who possesses the proper
lproof that he attended school sixteen
weeks the year previous. | have no
jurisdiction in the domain Of the COM
mon schools, and am in no manner re-
| spcnsibe for the school attendance of
lchiidTen of any age. My duties are
corrective, not educational. | have
consistently. and as ] believe. success
! fully executed my trust under the law
las it noW stands as to the employment
iof child labor, and no child, not duly
certified as within the legal age limit.
has been nor now is permitted to work
/! for wages in any Maine factory.
| This unfortunate conflict of law
should certainly he remeded at the
coming session of the Legislature.
While it works no very serious harm
| to the children. it is source of him
draace and more or less annoyance to
both school and labor officers in the
performance of their respective duties.
While | am in no manner responsible
for the enforcement of the school tru-
ant law nor any part thereof, cannot
forhear Il brief reference to the child
Question, as it. presents itself outside
my own official domain. We have had
IL compulsory school law in Maine since
1857, which has been repea tedly
strengthened, until today it would be
no easy task to formulate more
stringent measure than that now on
the statue books. l have been inter-
tested to know what results have been
achieved by the enforcement of this
series Of truant laws, especially fer the
trllant officers and three times that
whose sworn duty it is to WELD this
|lesal hludSecn, which, if rightly hand
led ought ere this to have reduced our
army Of unschooled children to the
minimum What is the result? Per-
haps n few unvarnished facts may
throw Il glimmer of light upon the
matter. The following statement of
comparison between 1891 and 1901 is
short but full of meat:
Whole number of children of
school age. 1891 @1O,997
Whole number Of children of
school age, 1901 2l1,S6
Increase SCI
Whole number Of children at
tending school, 1891 lll, d33
Whole number of children at
tending school. 1901 ;32, S6o
Decrease S,571
Whole number Of children not in
school, 1891 G9,56i
Whole number of children not in
school, 1901 79,oo2
Increase o,43S
These figures tell their own pathetic
story. Ten years ago with mild
coulpulsory school law we had 69,56i
children ont of school: last year. ten
years later. with Il stringent truant
law. we find 1902 children outside the
'schoolhouse, a gain of 9,42S, while the
gain in number of scholars was but S61.
AS factory Inspector, l beg to report
that of these 1902 children out Of
unbooI 10 CT yaor hardly 0tf Wera in fac