The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1918-12-30
FEDERAL CHILD LABOR
LAW NOW DEMANDED

Many hundred thousand children win
~ Affected by the Pomerene child labor
amendment 10 the revenue bill. IL II
bAcomes law. says the national child
labor committee in \ statement in
witch Wednc sdays vote Of the senate
ID compared with its vote two years
Ako on the measure based on the inter-
stAts commerce power OF congress and
declared unconstitutional by the su-
pfNme court last June.
Not only was the vote almost the
same numerically In the two In
stAnccs--52 to - In 1916 and 50 to Ia
a. the taxing measure last Wcdnes-
dsr. but the alignment OF the senators
Eho voted on both these measures
showed little variation, Seven OF the
twelve who voted no" on the pome-
rene amendment voted mo" on the
commerce bill. Twenty of those who
voted "yess last Wednesday voted
yes" In 1919. Two senators, Beck
ham. Of Kentucky. and Underwood. Of
Alabama changed their votes from
''yAS' to no while two other sena-
tori. Rsnrose. of Pennsylvania. and
Fletcher. OF Florida changed from
no" to yea" All but one Of the
twelve negative voters on Wednesday
we're Southern u emo crats Nine
southern Democrats voted for the
, Amendment
These comparisonS according to the
committee. indicate that the issue on
the second occasion was clearly be-
tween taking federal action against
child labor and leaving the matter en-
Ntrely to Il he states. Fer ftw general.
thA senators .i#ha favored 10 .s,se ri
the federal commerce power to attack
the child labor evil favored the use
of the taxing power. and those who
opposed The ons opposed the other. II
may b assumed. the committee be-
iisven. that the men Of the latter
group were merely expressing their
conception Of states' rights, but with
ont reference to these particular men
Z - noteworthy that many Of the In
dividuAls and organizations that raise
the question of states rights when
child labor Legislation Is proposed In
cehgress are also found opposing such
legislation In the state capitals.
The committee agrees with Senator
Ledge that the strength of the case
t4f federal child labor legislation ia
AUp largely to the failure OF the states
"a enact adequate protective laws In
behalf Of the nations children and to
eA3orce their laws no as to make them
Adequately effective. Through nobody's
fAutt but their own twenty-s'x states
have no provision on their status
books prohibiting the labor Of children
uhder sixteen in mines and ouarries.
though each Of fifteen of these states
nm mine and quarry products worth
&s.seo.roo or more annually. Twenty
ohe states have no eight-hour day
limit for work Of children under six
t6sN In factories. Eight have no pro-
vision sgainst night work for Juvenile
factory workers, and three do not pro-
hibit the labor OF children under four
TEEN In factories.
The committee emphasi1es the point
that the age. hour and night work re-
- - t. - ~
wo1ad protect not only the thousands
~ children already at work in the In
dustries and under the conditions TO
which the measure applies but would
Alno eerwe to check the daily. monthly
aAd yearly Accessions to the horde Of
ehflAren prematurely leaving school
ana entering industry. In the course
at = year the number Of children who
would thus receive the beneht OF fed
efAl protection would be enormous.
The rapidity Of the augmentation Of
the ranks Of child labor II typcally
shown by the fact that in Indianapolis
from June. 1917. to May. 1919. inclu-
aive. 3.l<7 working certificates. or an
average OF 3s2 a month. were issued
- children between fourteen and SIX
t4sn years OF age who had never be-
fore received certificates. This is the
record in one city In one year, and
tAAse permits covered only few oc-
e0pations in 1910. according to the
federal census only 2422 children ten
- sixteen years of age were employed
In Indianapolis.