Evening star., 1925-01-31

without amending the Constitution
passed two laws on the subject
neither law undertook in the re-
motest degree such drastic inter-
ference with the work upon farms.
Also. that the same arguments made
against Federal law now would
apply to State laws, and yet no State
mas ever attempted to encourage idle
ness or children either upon farms
or IN cities. Some of the farm
eoitors, claims the secretary. are con-
trolied, not by their humane instinct,
In oehslf of the children, but by their
advertisers. since the support of all
farm papers comes almost entirely
from advertising, not from subscrip-
tlons. The advertising is controlled
by manufacturers. and 1t is their in
,huence. not that OF farmers. which is
masking as farmer opposition" ON
the contrary the farm publisher with
the widest. farm support in America
is Senator Arthur Capper. and next
to him comes L. ]. Meredith. former
Secretary of Agriculture, and both of
theSe farm leaders support the
amendment in their publications.
The truest indicator of what Con-
gress would do If given the consti-
| tutional power to enact uniform leg
lslation for the entire country upon
this subject is the acts il did mass
when supposing the power existed.
argues the secretary of the league.
!: = x x
The first child labor act was passed
in 1915. 1t provided that no child
| under IA years of age should work
longer than eight hours. six days a
week, with no night work, and it
made any attempt of manufacturer
to ship products of child labor yiolat-
II the shipment becme interstate.
When the Supreme Court ruled that
that law was beyond the power of
I Congress a second law was passed in
1878, which put tax of 10 per cent
| upon all goods made by child labor
when such goods crossed State line.
Even before the Supreme Court ruled
out that law on the ground that it
| was an attempt TO do by indirection
what Congress had not power to do
directly-regulatc child labor-it
was discovered that there were thou
sands of children employed in mines
and textile factories who would not
be protected by it. The products of
their labor could stand a 10 per cent
| tax and yet be profitable to their ex-
ploiters, who would simply reduce
the wages to correspond to the tax,
making the child pay the tax intend
cO lOI ILS pTOIeCllOn. In some states
children work II hours a day, and
| there is no restriction as to physical
tests or educational limits
xE X X
With headquarters at Charlotte, N. c.,
| there is so-calied Farmers States
Rights League, Inc, Of Troy, N. c."
which has supplied score or more of
the leading farm papers throughout the
country with large advertisements set
ting forth the statement that the child
labor amendment meant that no child
on the farms would be permitted to do
chores or other farm labor until over 1s
years OF age. In the last issue Of Labor,
| an organ of union labor supporting the
amendment, appears what purports to
be an expose Of this TURNER'S States
Rights League" It alleges the league
Is not composed Of nor supported by
farmers, but its president Is a cashier
Of a cotton mill bank, and it's other of
fcers are all cotton mill employes-none
farmers. The writer Of the advertising
Is the editor OF the magazine organ Of
cotton mill owners Of the South. No
| dues are paid by the membership, but
| the costly advertising is paid by "volun-
| tary subscriptions from undisclosed
contributors, according to Labor The
supporters Of the amendment working
to defend childhood say they have no
strong financial backing to meet such
interests
Copyright, 1875, by fau1 r. ocrins.a