Arizona republican., 1921-09-28
By Frederick J. Haskin

 Thousands of dollars may be in- volved in the question of how old child is, under the child labor section of the internal revenue act, which is now in force and is said by officials of the bureau Of internal revenue to be practically abolishing the employ ment of children under 14 years of age in the industries to which it ap-3 plies. The validity of the law is yet to be decided by a decision of the supreme court which will probably be made some time this fall.
 The law provides that tax of 10 per cent may be collected on the net profits of an employer who employs children below a certain age. No employer can afford to pay such a tax. The law is said to work like charm. Employers take every possible precaution to avoid employ ing such children.
 In 37 of the states the state laws against child labor require the child to have certificate showing His age, and this Is accepted by the federal inspectors. In other states the fed eral inspector must ascertain the child's age by what means he can. Where vital statistics are properly kept, it is easy. In other cases bap- tisrnal records are available, but sometimes the parents or employers of the children are put to ingenious devices to prove a child's age.
 In one case in Georgia no written evidence could be found to prove the age of boy, who, his mother claimed, was 14 years old. She took the in spector to her home. called forth her family and stood it in a row. There were 14 children, the youngest babe in arms.
 Count 'em yourself. lady" she in- vited. There's your evidence"
 Tombstone Proof
 The tombstone of a. dead twin proved the date of birth of boy who was trying to prove himself 14 years old One family was found which had prepared a tombstone and set it in the cemetery for their daughter when she was born. The date of her birth was carved on the stone, and a space left for recording her death. Decorated mugs present. ed to children and inscribed with tht dates of their births have sometimes been offered in evidence. and many families have been found which had framed records of all the family births hanging on the wall Ons father had dispensed with the fram' and merely written the record on th' wall paper. The family record kep in a Bible is of course, the common est form, and many persons seen to have thought that any recort written in a Bible would be accepted One inspector was surprised to b. confronted by a long file of womei and children bearing consp1cuousi. new Bibles.
 The effort to abolish child labor of which this tax law Is the lates manifestation. is a good example O | how we legislate in this country Ten or Is years ago child labor wa | one of the crying abuses Of Amer1 can industry. Children from 10 t 14 years of age were employed in number of industries and for lonl l hours. Many of them were undoubt | edly sturited and killed. A grea | deal of publicity was given the sub | feet Newspaper editorials, maga zine articles and cartoons arouse | the public to the abuse. As a resul many state laws were passed pro hibiting or restricting child labol and a great majority of the state | now have such laws Many of thos | that have not are agricultural state in which there is little or no factor labor of any kind. The serious abus has for some years been confined a few states where the interests em blowing child labor were stron enough to influence the legislature
 To those who were working for tn | aDOlt1On or Cnllu ldDOis 1 1T cici law prohibiting it in the whole coun try seemed the only means. They wei opposed by the believers in state rights, who see a threat of the con plete destruction of local autonom in the rapid spread of federal al thority which recent years has wi messed. These persons declared tn; the United States is rapidly becon ing a huge paternalistic bureaucrac | The other side stands largely on tf merits of the law they are advt eating. The same battle has bee waged in the same words score times.
 At any rate. the opponents of chi
 labor finally obtained the passage federal law against it. Immediate the employers of child labor brougl suit on the ground that it was LII constitutional Thus the anciei farce was repeated by which law
 passed and put into effect before u Supreme court has decided wheth
 it is a law or not Most of the maj
 ufacturers gambIed that it was n
 a law and brazenly broke it as far e they cared to do so. Nevertheless, u
 taxpayers money was spent to D in action an elaborate machinery f [ it's enforcement. which was entrus
 ed to the Department of Labor.
 1918. the supreme court fulfilled il
 hopes of the employers of child l
 bor bv declaring the act unconstit
 tional
 Immediately the agitation was r