The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1910-02-18
LABOR OF CHILDREN,
Uniform State Laws Needed For
Its Proper Regulation.
THE MINIMUM AGE LIMIT.

No Child Should Toll Before Fourteen
and Not Then Unless In Good Phys
ical condition-Eight Hours Should
Be Maximum Day.
Isaac N. Seligman Of New York,
chairman of the finance committee of
the national child labor committee, In
an address before the conference on
uniform state legislation recently held
at Washington, said In part:
Uniform laws regulating the en-
ployment of children in wage earning
occupations should be adopted as rap
idly as public interest will warrant the
advances necessary to secure effec-
tive laws.
A system of uniform laws carefully
codified, so that there could be no mis-
understanding as to their provisions
and as to the machinery of enforce
ment, would remove considerable
percentage of the difficulty now expert
enced by employers, employees, off,
Gals and interested citizens in relation
to this entire matter.
But there is one principle that must
not be overwhelmingly, progress
must not be sacrificed to uniformity.
The work of the national child labor
committee during its five years his
tory has definitely aimed at uniform
system Of protection for all children In
America. To secure this, however, the
committee has never deemed it advis-
able to abate it's efforts In any section
Of the country where improved legis-
lation was procurable. Within the
past two years important legal changes
are recorded in twenty-eight states, in
two Of which laws closely following
the highest standards thus far pro-
posed have been adopted.
1t would manifestly be an unfortu-
nate backward step to suggest to the
citizens Of these and other advanced
states uniform law that would in
any respect withdraw from their own
children the rights and liberties at
present guaranteed.
We recommend the establishment of
fourteen years as the minimum age
limit for all wage earning employ
ments. Below that age we contend
that no child should be regarded as
having any economic value. The first
fourteen years of life should, in our
judgment, be gladly dedicated by So
ciety to growth of body, mind and
soul, to the freedom and pleasure of
childhood and to the inspiration and op-
portunities Of home and school life.
Let us hasten to say, however. that
we do not regard the mere fact Of hav-
ing become fourteen years of age a
sufficient warrant for removing protec-
ton from children. In the standards
we recommend they must also have at
tanned certain stage of physical de-
velopment, roughly indicated, where
more complete scientific tests are not
available by height Of sixty inches
and weight of eighty pounds.
They must further have had suffi-
cient educational opportunity to enable
them to answer reasonable tests of
mental development, equivalent to the
normal development acquired by chill
dren in the first eight years of the pub
lie school,
We maintain that no child under six
teen years of age should be employed
in any occupation at night. During
this period of rapid growth the child
should be effectually protected against
any kind of occupation which will in
terfere with the natural rest required
for highest efficiency not only by chill
dren, but by all human beings.
No child under sixteen years of age
should be employed for longer than an
eight hour day or forty-eight hour
week. This regulation of hours has al
ready been established by our federal
government in the operation of all con-
tracts. 1t has been established in near
~ every state as the standard work
day. Practically all our criminal and
reformatory institutions recognize that
eight hours of labor are all that should
be demanded of those who, through
transgression of law, are incarcerated
at public expense.
We respectfully submit that work
day sufficiently long for our federal
and state employees, for the convicts
in our correctional institutions and
for stalwart workers Of mature age is
long enough for any child under the
age of sixteen years.
Many states grant exemption to the
children of poor parents on the ground
that by forbidding the employment of
the child the family will suffer hum
ger. The objections to this system
are twofold:
First-Such an exemption offers the
widest possible door to the entrance
Of abuses that will ultimately break
down the law entirely. The exemption
assumes that the issuing officer shall
know the domestic condition of every
family involved, an utterly preposter-
Gus assumption.
Second.-It is unscientific and I'M
ethical for society to remove its pro-
lection from child already handi-
tapped by domestic poverty. Such a
child should be granted, IL possible. an
added safeguard against the rigors of
life, and. while the problem Of caring
for the impoverished family is not
properly phase of this problem at all,
but rather falls within the field of
charitable and relief societies, we sug-
gest, on the one hand. that no such ex-
emption as here referred to shall find
place In any child labor law, and,