The independent. [volume] (Elizabeth City, N.C.) 1908-1936, 1919-02-28
THE TEXTILE INTERESTS
THINK THEY'RE HONEST
But Their Conduct Bellies Their Fair Pretensions-
They Are Ruthlessy Opposed to Any Effec-
tive Child Labor Legislation

best effort, handicapped tho I was by
lack of legislative experience. About
the same time Senator Henry G. Connor
volunteered to introduce the same bill
in the Senate.
The hostility of the Chairman of the
Horse Committee on Manufactures and
Labor having shown it's face, request
ed the Speaker of the House to refer
the Shipman bill to Judiciary Committee
No. 2. This he did. Before the com
mittee could act on my bill, Represent
ative Neal, of Mcdowell county, an
other textile manufacturer introduced
a child labor bill and had it referred to
the committee on Manufactures, Chair
man Love. The Neal bill was a sorry
makeshift for child labor legislation 1t
recognized no eight hour day, no in
spection, no record Of child workers
and it took the enforcement of child
labor legislation out of the hands of
the Commissioner of Labor and Print
ing, putting the Governor in the Com
missioner's place. Governor Beckett
Immediately protested; he didn't want
Neal bill provided no law worth en-
forcing.
A RAW DEAL
The House now found itself in the
predicament of having two child labor
bills under consideration by two differ
ent committees, one committee mani
festly hostile to the cause and unable
to act without bias. I approached the
Speaker of the House and asked him if
hy1vy hn -,
two bills before one committee. The
Speaker suggested that, with the con-
sent Of all parties, both bills could be
referred to the Committee on Educa-
ton. I accepted this suggestion and
laid the proposition before Represent
ative Neal. Mr.. Neal said he would
consent to this. Oh, he acted just love-
ly about it! But behind his lovely con-
duct was the spirit of one Edgar Love,
which has nothing to do with brother1y
love.
Acting in good faith, I withdrew my
bill from the Judiciary Committee and
had it referred to the Committe on Ed
ucation. What did Neal do? I'll tell
you. He prepared a substitute for his
original bill. He was going to send his
ton. He knew the educational preju-
dices of this committee. He took his old
hag of a child labor bill, gave her a wig
of compulsory education and a set of
false teeth called the Commissioner of
Public Welfare. He scented her with
perfumes of fragrant educational and
public welfare pretensions and sent her
into the Committee on Education to
f1irt with and seduce that body. But
it wasn't enough for Representative
Neal to have played this unfair game
He did not keep his promise to with
draw his child labor bill from the Com
mittee on Manufacturers and refer it
to the Committee on Education for con-
sideration. Before referring his sub
stitute to the Committee on Education
he had the Committee on Manufacture
es recommend the child labor features
of his substitute bill
Is it any wonder that when the child
labor question got to the Committee on
Education, that committee was at loss
how to function? 1t wasn't child labor
to be considered at all, but hastily
constructed and utterly inadequate
compulsory education law. In
limited time it was almost impossible
to get the issue straight before the
committee. Under pressure from law
yers from cotton mill counties in the
state Senate, perhaps miSled too by
powerful lobby of manufacturers which
had been working at the capital for
days, a majority of the committee. tired
and worn out with other matters,
bn
looked good to them. 1t is not the
first time men were fooled by good
looks only to discover in nine days
that they had gotten something
wrong into their blood.
BALLING THINGS UP
The manufacturers in their frenzied
thoughtless efforts to block the passage
of a real child labor law in this session
f the General Assembly have ruthlessly
tiles and Public Welfare and the De-
partment of Education. The Neal
Child Labor Bill has hopelessly mixed
compulsory education with child labor,
to the embarrassment of the State
Superintendent of Public instruction.
Supt Brooks has some ideas of his
own about statewide compulsory edu-
cation and one of his ideas is that it
ought not to be confused with the child
labor question. By tacking even good
compulsory education act onto a child
labor bill. the state misses the point
entirely. The compulsory education act
is for the whole state and is not prim-
ari1y concerned with a certain group of
children in the state. DR.. Brooks and
all true friends of education are con-
vinced that compulsory education in
North Carolina will be given serious
setback and the Department of Educa-
ton involved in endless difficulties with
the mill people if compulsory education
| is not divorced from child labor legis-
lation and given a dignifed stand on
! it's merits.
! At the same time the Department of
Charities and Public Welfare feels it
| is to be badly handicapped if it is ident-