Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-10-02
MAY TRAIN his S0NS|ATTACK ON SHELDON
Merchant Does Not Violate Chairman Mack AssaIs Re-
Child Labor Law. publican National Treasurer.
DE LACY GIVES JUDGMENT CONNECTION WITH TRUSTS
Test Anton Omann Prevented His Appearance
Dismissed by Court Ticket in 1902
COMMENDED FOR HIS COURSE OPPOSITION BY GOV 0DEIL
Held Act
With Domestic Economy Sheldon Is
of Household
Merchant Does Not Violate
Child Labor Law.
IDE LACY GIVES JUDGMENT
Test Case Against Anton 0stmann Is
Dismissed by Court.
COMMENDED FOR HIS COURSE
Held That Act Does Not Interfere
With Domestic Economy
of Household.

That merchant may train his chill
dren under the age limit provided by
law IN the details of his business when
his object is not to employ their serv-
ices of his own mercenary benefit,
without violating the child labor law of
the District of Columbia. is the opin-
ion of Judge De Lacy of the Juvenile
Court. The court not only justifies the
course in law, but commends it as a
proper. means to promote good citizen
ship
Judge DeLacey this afternoon dismissed
the test case against Anton Ostmann. ST..
who was arraigned several days. ago. at
his own seeking. on charges Of violating
the child labor law. in that, his two sons.
Anton Ostmann. jr.. thirteen years of
age. and William Ostmann. eleven years
old, worked for him at his meat stand in
the Riggs market. contrary to the pro-
vision of the act entitled AN act to reg
ulate the employment Of child labor in the
District of Columbia
In his opinion Judge De Lacy said:
Judgment Of Judge De Lacy.
by the testimony of the inspector and
the boys themselves, the prosecution has
shown briefly that these boys help at
the fathers stand on Saturdays through
out the year. but that they do so volun-
tarily, and at such times as they may
elect that they receive no regular stipend
or wages. that they are not engaged in
exhausting labor. but rather regard
their employment as a training in busi-
ness"
TT is the duty of the state.' continued
the Judge. Ito protect the lives of all its
citizens, children as we'll as adults, and
it is the humane purpose of this legisla-
ton to protect children in their growing
years from labor. whose rigor and con-
tinuity would menace their development,
either physically, mentally or morally:
time was when the labor of childsen
was almost uniformly beneficial, because
carried on in the home, under the watch
full eyes of father and mother.
But the introduction Of steam and ma
chinery has worked revolution in the
industrial world. the revolution bearing
= hardest on women and children. because
it has transferred many industries from
the home to the factory, where the labor
is done under the cold and calculating
glance of a master whose Naim is too
often to get the production only. the econ
omy of the business solely. with little
or no sense of obligation for the welfare
of employees. And so this child labor leg
islatiOn becomes necessary to protect the
children and to save from deterioration
the future citizens of the republic.
"Buu whatever my personal opinion may
be upon the policy of this law. it is my
judicial duty to ascertain the Legislative
meaning, and. when ascertained. to put i,
into effect 1t is for the legislative inten,
we must look.
Nov. the act under consideration does
not stand alone and isolated. but is itself
qualified by the common law and prior
statutes. while it modifies or changes the
prior law. 1t has been well said tina,
statutory Interpretation interweaves it,
self with the science and reasons of the
entire law whereof the statute becomes a
part.
Not in Purview of Law.
Counsel for the defense contends that
the facts do not disclose employment OF
the children in the sense of the law
Worcester defines employment as business
occupation, object OF industry. Every
thing that is done requires some duration
of time for its Performance, and to arbi-
trarily fix duration as the tests of en-
ployment would be to add to the statute
and, perhaps, deceive its objects and pur-
pose.
But, as I have said. this statute mus
be construed in the light of other rules OF
| conduct prescribed by the law. Now the
law places upon the father the obligation
to support and educate his child We are
all creatures of habit. and it is necessary
that good habits be inculcated during the
formation period of childhood.
1t is not the purpose o. the child labor
law to promote ideness. which is justly
considered the mother of misery. Or to
| curtail the obligation of the parent to
teach habits of industry to the child that
will make it helpful to others and useful
to itself.
Blackstone remarks. For the policy oi
our laws. which are ever watchful to pro
mote industry. did not seem to compel q
father to maintain his idle and lazy chill
dren in ease and Incidence
Upon the father rests the serious duty
to train the child and upon the Talnins
the child receives will depend his future
citizenship. If he be habituated to IN
duStrious ways We may expect laW-apld-
ing useful citizen. If suffered to grow
up in idleness the state will later have to
contend with a va%rant.
While. OF course. mere cv2slons or the
law under pretense of training the child
ties of the act what has been done in the
cases at bar is not within the motives
and purposes of the act. An act to be
within penal prohibition must be within
It in spirit as we'll as in letter.
.It is not the intention of this law to
interfere with the domestic economy OF
the home in which the state is sought to
daily renew itself.
..It is highly important that mans
son become acquainted with the details
of his business. Otherwise. his lntimely
decease might subject his family not only
to loss, but perhaps to poverty and make
them public charge.
Il think that ii is commendable in this
defendant to train. his sons in habits OF