The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-07-05
coMER,s LETTER To MrLLMrN.

| Aai ttttCA ObCE AtAt. Df D. &OfAtCE D ttattlCs which is being sent out in the envel- opes of his Avondaie Mills, doubtless to the officers of every cotton mill in Alabama. Accompanying the letter Is a typewritten copy of clippings from several newspapers and from reports of DR cunfingham's speeches.
 It Is plain that MT. Conner assumes that all the cotton mill men in the State can be counted upon by reason of self-interest to respond to his ap- peal to their prejudices. That Is where he has made Q mistake. Many of them have consciences and rise superior to the pocket-nerve. which Mir. Conner has frequently assumed to be the handspring af every human being. Others stil! have broad inteIligences which tell them that present proht is manent advantage.
 It would take a great deal of space to expose all the vulnerable places In Mir. Corners earnest appeal to the miu mems self-interest to come over and help him in his fight. We can dwell just now on only a few of the worst breaks he makes.
 It will be observed that he con- temptuous1y writes down Dr. Cunning ham as his opponent and his friends as "the railroad machine crowd" This is absurd in the light of the facts. Dr. Cunningham has frequently in his speeches challenged anybody to pro- duce proof that he was the railroad candidate or that a single dollar of railroad money was being spent in his interest. On the contrary, it Is mat ter of common knowledge that many prominent railroad men are supporting Mir Conner, In order to get him off the Commission. Furthermore, Mir. Conner has received tremendous assistance from the railroads in the shape of pri- vate cars on special schedules, In which he has gone all over the State, stopping at nearly every station on so-called Inspections" but really busy at work on voters. He has not yet filed any official report on the roads, though he has been in office eighteen months. If there Is a railroad machine in this campaign. 1t Is plainly on the side of MT. Conner.
 Then Mir. Conner says that pr. Cum ningham and his friends are making a direct attack on the cotton mill in- terests in the State." and are mis- representing mills on the child labor proposition" There is no foundation whatever for this allegation. The crit icisms have been on Mir. Conner alone for his vigorous opposition to an ef- fective child labor law; there has been no arraignment of mill interests. He cannot put himself up as a Colossus, including and representing all the contenaed by Dr. Cunningham, The Advertiser, The Mobile Herald. Dr. Mur- phy or any one else that even 8 ma jority of the mills have been violating the existing law. It Is notorious that some of them have. of which fact many a citizen of this State who rides by in railroad or street cars is fully cog nizant. But we believe that this Is the exception and not the rule.
 The most absurd thing of all in MT. Corners foolish letter is his attempt to arraign Dr. Cunningham for falling to enforce the present law when he was acting Governor. How could he enforce a law that has so little provis- ion in 1t for enforcement? Who has any authority under the law to force his way into a cotton mill, to get a list of the children on the pay roll. to see whether affidavits are on file as to the age of child workers, and then to investigate the truthtuiness of 4he af- fidavits? The present law provides for no inspection by anyeState or county official. Undoubtedly, if the present Jaw had not been so modified by the fight made on 1t in the conference be- MT. Murphy for the Child Labor Con- mittee. 1t would have been amended so as to have been effective. If the present law has been imperative, Mfr Conner is far more to blame than Dr. Cunningham.
 It Is enough to make horse laugh when Mir. Comer'se broad expressions on child labor legislation are noted: he advocates "judicious regulation" of youthful labor and that educa- tional advantages should be furnish ed them to as great an extent as pos sible." That is what he says now, but here Is what Dr. Murphy says he did in 1903:
 In the bill proposed by the Child La Dor Committee, Section 5, provided that no child under the age of IA about any factory unless such child attends school for at least twelve weeks Of each year. six weeks of said schooling to be consecutive" We of- fered this proposal in order to reduos somewhat the proportion of illiteracy among our operatives. We thought n would work no serious hardship on the mills and that 1t would help to pre- ting out their children from the school privileges provided by the State This proposal was vigorously opposed and at length defeated by MT. Conner and his associates.
 There was also a proposal in oui suggested bill that no child under the age of 16 shall be employed at labor or shall be detained in any factory be- m, The object of this propoaal Tt oaa va: as to protect children of fifteen years and under from being put to labor in the cotton mills at night. It has always no question among humane men as to the wisdom and appropriateness of such legislation as this. Whatever differences men may have on the sub- ity and good sense would seem to sug- gest that factory labor ought not to be imposed upon our children after night fall. Although MT. Conner and his as- did not themselves employ children aI night they Fefused to allow thia pro.