Evening star., 1933-07-07

Previous objection to Federal interfer-
ence with labor matters in the States is
in strong contrast, as viewed by the
public, to the ease with which child
labor has been abolished through the
code for the cotton textile industry. An
amendment to the Constitution has been
pending several years, but has progressed
SO slowly that its success has been
doubted. The amendment was offered
because Of a Supreme Court decision
adverse to Federal legislation on the
subject.
For more than a decade and half"
says the Baltimore Sun. the textile in
dustry on the one side and the labor
organizations and reformers on the other
have been at loggerheads over the ques-
ton of prohibiting child labor by Ma
ton wide fiat. Now, at the very outset
of the new deal, the textile operators
march up to Hugh s. johnson, the car
Of the industrial recovery act. and say
they are perfectly willing to rule child
labor out in the new code. 1t is almost
breath taking. However. 1t may still be
argued that acquiecsence in this provi-
sion is negligible, since minimum
wage tends to make the employment Of
children impracticable anyway. And
that point is well taken. 1t may also be
argued, for that matter, that the &C
ceptance means nothing, since authority
to enforce ban against child labor may
be lacking under the court decisions on
this subject. The reasoning as to au-
thority to enforce such a regulation
under the recovery act is important and
may come decidedly to the front later
on If any operator balks."
Every President for a quarter CEN
tury," according to the Topeka Daily
Capital, has urged abolishment Of child
labor by amendment of the Federal Con-
stitution, but industrial States have
refused to ratify the amendment, Kan
sas among them" The Capital feels
that "it is gratifying that the action Is
taken voluntarily by employers" and
declares further: Like abolishment Of
the 12-hour day, to which the steel
trust, vowing it would never consent,
suddenly consented some years ago. child
labor is now suddenly renounced by the
cotton industry by voluntary action. 1t
is the first victory for the industrial re-
covery act, to which must be given full
credit for it. Child labor Just caved in
when labor, capital and Government sat
down to consult upon code for indus
try. It was too obvious that no reputable
code for business could tolerate such an
anomaly as exploitation Of children IN
machine labor"
Opposition to the amendment" re-
cords the Boston Transcript, "has not
arisen so much from desire to employ
children in the mills as from reluc-
tance to lodge with the Federal Gov
ernment so much power over industry;
that and the fear that such legislation
as Congress might enact might
prove discriminative against some
State, one way or the other. Now,
however, in the twinkling of
an eye, such a tremendous revo-
lutionary change has taken place that
facturers eagerly consulting with the
Federal authorities, seeking approval of
codes by means Of which to regulate
their business, but F. C. Dumaine, head
of one of the largest manufacturing
plants in New England. remarks to
Hugh s. johnson, the Federal admins
TRAITOR: It's high time an industry in
capable of intelligently managing its
affairs should be forced to accept out
side control Verify. the great social
revolution that is taking place Is pro-
viding yardsticks for its own measure
ment."
"It is hoped that the ban will sur
vive the emergency and become fixed
rule, declares the charleston Is. o.
Evening Post, feeling that undoubtedly
child labor in the cotton mills is un-
desirable" The Youngstown Vindicatol
believes that ut will be pretty hard tc
bring back. once both sides have ad-
mitted that it is undesirable" while the
Jersey City Journal AYERS that this &C.
ton means that whatever base scale
Of wages is agreed upon will have a
much better chance Of being actually
lived up to-" The Glendale Calf }
News-Press. giving special attention to
the employment Of women ct similar