Norwich bulletin., 1917-04-25
1sreciai to The Buliesin.)

Especial to The Busietin.) Hartford, April a4.-There was more discussion than ordinarily at a Tues day session of the house of representa- tives, and on comparatively small mat ters at that, the one referring to the the taking of boys under IF from school to work on the farm of parent or guardian.
 Sehooiboy Farmers. bill came favorably reported from the committee on education which would permit boys over 12 years of ago to leave school to work on the farm, upon application of parent or guardi- an, and a. certificate to that effect
 shall come from school authorities. MT. Cowles of Pennington spoke in favor of the bill, as it tended to help
 out the farmers and would do the boys no harm.
 MT. Hall of New Milford opposed the bill as reported but had no objection
 to confining the boys affected to work on the farms of parents or guardians
 Mr. Curry offered amendment that shall be employed on the farms where
 they reside, thereby giving farmers opportunity to get the assistance of their own. boys. The bill limits the MT. Bowers of Manchester op- posed. The amendment was adopted. Mir. Sherwood opposed the bill and said it was a crime to have a. boy of that age work from sun to sun, and that enough work could be got out of that boy before and after school hours. MT. Fox opposed the bill and sug- of the state at farming before trying 1t on the boys of tender age.
 Mir. Curry said it would do no harm to take boys from the school to the farm for .. few hours a day when their service meant increased crops at a time when needed more than ever.
 Mir. Hiscox of Coventry said he was a farmer and was proud of 1t, and no
 farmer would compel his boy to work any harder than he ought to and with
 out detrinent to the boy.
 MT. Fish Of Newington favored the
 bill but he would prefer 2, broader
 scope, so that the labor of the boys would not De confined to their farm
 home.
 MT Meyers of Windsor said this was grand .tin for the farmers and
 would work no damage to the boys, as they would be out of school only at planting time
 MT. Peasley favored the bill, as iI was only light work for the boys. and the brief absence from school would be no detrlment- In these war times the services of these boys are needed and he said the bill ought to pass
 Mir. Hall of New Milford favored the Dill as amended.
 Mfr Brown of New Milford said that many things have been worked through the house as emergency measures that had no bearing on war matters, but he did not consider this bill in the patri- otic class.
 Mir. Waitt of Sharon could see no reason why the farmers son should be penalzed and not given the same show
 as the other boys in the town. The boy could not make up for lost school
 srr7A 6 he Ta7o hah ir7l h hfz schoolmates, the sons of the painter, the carpenter and the blacksmith. He
 hoped the bill would not pass.
 MT. Corbett of Hartford said he was
 not out with the farmer but was with
 the farmer boy, and there should be
 no economy in education. The state
 wants the boys to develop a. healthy
 brain and build up citizens worthy the state.
 Mr. Goddard of waIlingford said that schoolmasters considered athlet- ics necessary and suggested that farm ing be substituted, and he favored the measure.
 Mir Dillon of Huntington said this bill was surely patriotic measure just at this time and should be so consid- cred, that crops were necessary, labor was scarce, and the boys could do their bit, and for their benefit and the state.
 MT. Fenton of wil1irnantic said the federal government is working out a
 plan for. boys work on the farm and
 he did not believe it would be to their detrinent. He favored the bill, as 1t merely gave the boy a chance to help
 out his daddy without violation of the law.
 Mir Averiil of Washington said in his boyhood days it was not necessary for his parents to go to the state
 board to get him out of school to help On the farm, and he did not think the work injured him in any way. He said f- T1TI k--. farm products were essential to life In closing Mir. Cowles. chairman of the committee, said to send children to school and work them before and after is cruelty to children.
 The bill was passed as amended by a vote of 124 to 5S.
 Sale of oieomarsarins. According to an act passed no per- son shall manufacture, sell. offer or expose for sale, or have in possession with intent to sell, or use, oIeonar- Earine, bubtterine or renovated butter, unless annually licensed by the dairy and food commissioner. Such license shall be issued in the form approved by the dairy and food commissioner. shall be hung in the place where such business is conducted and shall con- tain the name of the hcsnsee and 8
 description of the premises wherein such business is to be conducted, and
 such license shall expirt Sept 3oth in eacn year The license fee Is $25 to
 wholesaler and $10 for retailer Mr. Eustice of Plymouth opposed the
 bill, as it meant an increase in the
 cost of the products named to the con
 sumner. He spoke of the good quail
 ties of olepmargarine, the poor mans
 butter. and is certified officially as
 pure food product. Mir Rose of Essex
 said there was no deception in the sale
 of oleomargsrine and at the present
 high price of butter the people of the
 state ought not be compelled to pay
 an advanced price for the pure substi
 ute. He also considered a license fee
 of S25 3 direct imposition on the re-
 tail dealers. He could conceive of no
 reason for adding to the burdens of
 these times. MT. Fenton of W1lli-
 mantle said this bill would be of no
 benefit to agricuIturists. as they can
 r..% r,,-aa...e. f,..4A-..