New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-26
COOPERATION IN LIEU OF CRITICISM


To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: | have been very much interested in
the editorial in your issue of February 20
Under the caption Reform Begins at Home
In this editorial you cite with apparent ap-
prevail. the statement of member of the
boara of sanitary control of the cloak and
suit trade that Sing Sing would not be big
enough to hold all the factory owners and
manufacturers who lock exits. OF course, it
is always easy TO make general statements,
ana i; is easy, without knowledge of the facts,
to approve of general statements. If the gem
tleman who made the statement has knowl-
edge of such conditions, might it not be worth
while for him to bring it to the attent on Of
the proper authorities?
know it is the practice OF the Industrial
Commission TO promptly prosecute all cases
of locked doors coming under its jursdc-
tion whenever such conditions are found. II
is, however, manifestly impossible, with the
hest kind of supervision that could be de-
vsed, to wholly prevent locked doors if the
factory owners are determined to lock them.
You further call attention in your editorial
TO the fact that an official Of the United States
Labor Department stated that these matters
are much better handled in the State of New
Jersey. This, | presume, refers to the re-
marks made by Professor Royal Meeker, of
the United States Bureau Of Labor Statistics
am curious, however, to know what are the
sources of Professor Meeker's information
with regard to law enforcement and factory
inspection in the State of New York as COM
parec with the State of New Jersey. Factory
conditions in New Jersey can no more be com
pared with factory conditions in New York
City than can New York City conditions be
compared with factory conditions upstate in
New York.
Rave always been impressed with the
readiness of the New York people TO crticise
our own institutions and our own methods
and to uEhesitatingly accept the statements
of persons who utter such criticism. That
conditions are ideal in New York no one will
contend Have we not had almost enough
Of fruitess criticism and is it not time for a
little mere hearty cooperation? 1t may be
remarked in passing that while invitations 10
attend and speak at the conference on labor
sanitation were extended to officials of the
United States Department of Labor, which
has no jurisdiction over matters here, and to
members OF various unOnclal ASSOCIATIONS, the
great state agency, which can DO the most
effective work and which is charged by law
with the responsibility for conditions name
Is, the Industrial Commission was not in
vited to the conference, nor invited to send a
representative, nor does IL seem to have oc-
CURED to any of the persons present that the
object for which they were striving might be
effected through cooperation with the constl-
tuted authorities
| am al a loss 10 understand, however. the
connection between the matter Of the enforce
ment Of the labor laws in New York with the
matter Of the construction and the mainte-
nance of the State Capitol and other state
buildings. These buildings are not subject to
the provisions OF the labor law, and there is.
therefore, not only no responsibility upon the
Industrial Commission TO enforce the laws in
these buildings, but it has no power TO at
tempt 10 do so. The recent investigation Of
these buildings that was made by this com
mission was undertaken in response to a reso-
luton adopted by the Legislature and was
with view to pointing out to the Legislature
tho working conditions OF state employees
HENRY u. SAVER, Commissioner.
New York, Feb. 2l, 1917.