The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1925-01-21

labor laws now have provisions
against the employment Of children
under eighteen in dangerous occupa-
tions. Illustrations might be null
tiplied to show that eighteen years Of
age is not an unreasonable limit to
adopt as the point up to which state
and federal protection is desirable.
Some people have been troubled by
the fact that the proposed child labor
amendment uses the words s1abor of
persons under eighteen years of age"
instead of the words employment of
persons" etc. 1t is obviously true
that the word "labor" is broader and
more inclusive in its content than the
word employment" and that the
terms of the amendment give Con-
gress the power to regulate and pro-
hibit the labor of children in their
own homes. What is the justification
of this result? An illustration will
demonstrate the wisdom of using the
broader term. The sweatshoBs of
New York City make contracts with
men who are usually the fathers of
young children, by which these men
take certain amount of work each
week or month into their homes and
the whole family is regularly engaged
each day in completing these contract
jobs. The young children work long
hours, in unsanitary conditions, and
are in effect employed by the sweat
shops to the detriment of their health,
education and well-being, but technic-
ally and legally they are not en-
ployed because the sweatshops do not
enter into contract or agreement to
employ the children at all; the con-
tract is with the father.
Again in three Rhode Island cities
it was recently found that 5000
children were engaged in industrial
home work. Four per cent of these
children were under six years of age
and forty-six per cent were under
eleven. The children engaged in
stringing tags, assembling buttons,
wiring beads, and other forms of
work. Such exploitation was possible
in Rhode Island because the laws of
that state did not make the very
distinction which the child labor
amendment seeks to make by using
the word "labor". Thus we see the
children may labor without being
strictly employed. If the amend
ment is to avoid technicalities of this
sort, it must use the word labor in
stead of employment and we shall
have to rely upon the common sense
of Congress in exercising its power
wisely. Again the pessimists and
those who distrust the federal legisla-
tive branch will have gloomy forebod-
ings but the rest of us can be assur-
ed that technicalities will not ham,
per Congress in affording complete
they labor for industry in the shop or
the home.
The advocates of the child Tabor
amendment are not sentimentalists
who discount the value of work and
regular home tasks for children.
Reasonable men and women every
where recognize the value of proper
balance between work, play and educa-
ton; likewise reasonable men and
women everywhere agree that there
must be some limitation upon the
work which child does. He clearly
should not engage in occupations dan
gerous to his health and morals; he
should not work when he ought to be
in school; he should not work ten on
twelve hours day nor for seven days
| in week; such limitations and prohi-
billions are found in the progressive
state child labor laws of the country
in other states the protection afford
ed is wholly inadequate. The i'm
portant question to be asked concern
ing any particular employment for
the child is this-does the occupation
contribute on the whole to his growth
and development or does it sap his
vitality, keep him out of school, and
leave him eventually an ignorant, un-
dernourished, weak and inefficient
citizen? We believe in labor for the
child which is not an end in itself but
a means to his development, We con-
denim the exploitation of childhood in
industry or anywhere else, and we
declare that the intent and purpose of
the child labor amendment is to "pre-
vent the reaping of the human crop in
the springtime to assure for all
children the heritage of work, play,
education, and spiritual growth which
many now enjoy.
Are these purposes and the propos-
ed constitutional amendment to affect
them foreign to the structure and
ideals of our government? Is the
amendment socialistic and revolution
airy? If so, America has the most
distinguished array of revolutionary