The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-01-13
companied by an affidavit that in the whole factory or mine the operating

companied by an afidavit that in the whole factory or mine the operating | company does not employ children under fourteen years of age
 Now Y question seriously whether, | interstate commerce clause of the con- stitution. the federal authority can go | back of the article offered for com
 article. determine the hours of labor. | the ages of the laborers. and other of | the conditions of production to be l found not only in the manufacture of | that article but in the general conduct of the operations of factory and mine. Possible Consequences.
 If the federal authority, under the | interstate commerce clause of the con- | stitution can go back of the article | offered for commerce, in order to reach one set of conditions, why may 1t not | use the same means to reach other con
 ditions? Why may 1t not reach the conditions of iiliteracy In the mining dis6icts of Pennsylvania by prescrib- ing that no product of factory or mill shall be accepted for interstate com merce except when accompanied by an affidavit declaring that said factory or mine employs no person who cannot read and writer Why may the federal government not reach suffrage condi- tions in the South by saying similarly, tnak no cOttOn OT OtnoT COultuOutty bnblk be accepted for shipment which has been handled by laborers among whom the heads of families are other than qualified voters of the respective States? Why may 1t not take in charge the whole subject of cruelty to anil
 mals by providing that no article of trade shall be accepted for transporta- tion, in the carriage for transporta-
 mal defective in strength or condition. has been employed; or why may the federal authority not strike in the same way at the coal mined or at the man ufactures produced by convicts, or at the products of every sort made here by foreigners?
 No, the whole principle Is unsound. And 1t is unjust. It may seem strange for any friend of child labor legislation to be sensitive of injustice to the em- ployers. for the children have suffered so greatly that we have grown into the natural habit of looking chiefly to
 their side; and yet l believe we are
 bound in the very interest of the chill dren. to be absolutely just to every in- terest involved. This Is true not mere- ly in the abstract interest of right, but
 for the reason that any injustice, even
 to the most brutal employer, any un- willingness to be scrupulously fair. will wound and harden that moral sensitive
 ness, that sense and instinct of justice in the public mind to which tho chil- dren themselves must appeal. and upon which we must all depend for the ulti-
 mate power and triumph of their cause.
 And 1t is unjust for the Federal au-
 thority to visit the drastice penalties
 of this bill upon employers who may
 have accepted in good faith the false
 affidavits of avaricious parents, or who
 may be shipping an output from fac- tory or mine In the production of which u Nats. Ams hal
 Iy absent or practically infuttesimal.
 Unfortunate Effects.
 'sThe manufacturers. however, are abundantly able to take care of them
 selves. I am chiefly concerned as to
 the effect of any unfair legisiation on
 the cause of the children themselves.
 The very proposal of Federal reguia-
 ton has already been of injury to this
 cause. It has introduced. both North
 and South. divisive issue-the issue of Federal intervention--among the &C., tive friends of protective legislation. n has put those apart who should stand together. In section where Federal Interference is naturally so unpopular.it
 has had tendency to throw public sym pathy to the side of our opponents. It
 has introduced anew the suspicion that New England wishes to raise the age limit at the South not in any interest of the children but upon purely selfish and competitive grounds. The measure, similar to the bill of Senator Bever- idge, which has just been introduced by Senator Lodge of Massachusetts has but served to confirm an impression, which however base1ess 1t may be. is never theless a force to be reckoned with. And undoubtedly these Federal meas ures have a distinctly sectional aspect. Inasmuch as the 14 year limit obtains practically everywhere else except In this section. these bills, under the guise of general laws, seem to be leveled at the conditions which are assumed to prevail within our Southern States. As improved legislation in a number of the Northern States is being checked, on the ground that low standards at the South make 1t impracticable to have better conditions until the South moves forward, 1t would seem a cardinal err TOT of policy even from the Northern standpoint to arouse needless suspicious here. to divide the active forces of re- form and to weaken and embarrass here as elsewhere the encouraging To- cal movements for stronger State legis- lation.
 Final Recommendation.
 'T would suggest however. to those who are supporting the cause of the children that they put their faces reso- lutely in the direction of a sound and constructive progress by State action, undisturbed by the pro- posals which have embarrassed us. It is more important to protect our children than to talk back to" the North. We will necessarily continue to raise the questions as to the advis- ability and constitutionality of this suggested Federal legislation. The South, politically. has never been more helpless than today. But if constitu- tional government be reality in our nation, the minority is not wholly with out protection and relief, and I believe we may continue to appeal, not with out prospect of present Influence and of ultimate success, to the law as 1t stands and to the good sense of the country"
 MT. Murphy stated. in closing. that many of the leading men of the North had already declared themselves in op- position to the Beveridge-Lodge pro- posals.