The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1903-02-11
ANoTHEE>G949- SPEECH.

col. D. O. Herbert, of Orangeburg,
favored the bill and spoke in reply TO
Mr.. Bomar. The bill is not drastic,
it is not oppressive. 1t is mild in
tone and yet will fill long-needed
want. South Carolina has not always
been such a manufacturing State, ana
her progress is a mattr Of pride.
In reply to Mr.. Domar he said that
perhaps some of the people who are
interested don't want this legislation
any more than some Of the people
don't want the bill to stop treating on
election days. In the language OF Mr.:
Story, the people Of the United
States must be protected from the
people of the United States" This
question not only affects the mill
owners and the mill operatives, but
it affects society and society must
protect itself. He was glad, to hear
that Spartanburg county was doing SO
well. Spartanburg might not need
this legislation, but would not be IN
jured by it. So far as he knows there
had been no objection made to this
bill in the committee room, wheaeas
in years past mill men had come here
and the journals had been filed with
petitions against the bill. On no ac-
count would ne injure the mills, but
if these mill men thought this would
hurt them they would be here fight
ing it. This bill has two worthy OBJ
jects-to force the children from the
mills and to get them into the schools.
The children will govern the affairs OF
this State when we are gone. Col.
Herbert declared that the very fact
that some Of the mill presidents make
this rule excluding children under II,
shows that the rule is satisfactory. II
the other mills will not make this
rule, why should not the State make
it for them. The most progressive
nations of the world have enacted
laws on this subject, then why should
not South Carolina? There is a gener-
al demand all over South Carolina for
lust such law as this. He then
quoted from the messages OF Cover
nors McSweeney and Hayward.
Col. Herbert went on to say that
State Democratic convention had
passed resolutions recording its appro-
val Of this bill. The people OF the
entire State are interested. The agri-
cultural people are as much so as the
factory people. The legislature must
look to the good Of the people and its
in duty bound to legislate for them.
IT IS NOT AN EXPERIMENT.
The next speaker to defend the bill
was Mr.. Lewis W. Haskell OF Colum-
bia. He declared that the pending
question had been thoroughly thresh-
ed over, yet it is Of paramount impor-
tance and he wanted to call attention
to some reasons why it should pass.
In the first place, this matter OF en-
acting child labor legislation is not
empirical OF tentative--we are not eX-
perimenting; we are acting IN the
light Of the best experience Of most
of the manufacturing State-and IN
isae with the most enlightened foreign
countries. II. therefore submit, be
said, that we do not approach the
issue in the attitude of exploiters--
but that We simply meet a condition
in our State that has arisen by virtue
Of our development as manufactur-
ing State. We have abundant evidence
Of the efficacy of child labor laws IN
the northern, middle and southern
States-we have precedents for enact
ing this law entitled to the highest
consideration-we are not seeking d
solution, but simply applying rene
dy which has commanded itself TO
nearly all manufacturing communities
The question is not a scholastic one,
but practical one-a condition not
theory confronts US.
Mr.. Haskell continued: 1T is trite
to say-a truisn-that little children
should have fresh air and sunshine
that they should romp and play in the
open air-will physicians or others
gainsay this? It sounds trivial to
to state it. Accumulation ol wealth
through our great manufacturing III
dustries is great dcsideratum-but a
greater desideratum is the building
up Of a robust womanhooa and man
hood in this State. Therefore. Ar.
Speaker, let US carry oat the spirit OF
the resolution passed by the Democra-
tic convention il May and place this
law on our statute books.