Evening star., 1934-12-04
SCAN
CH|LDLABORL LAW
Revision of Prettyman's
Ruling Against Paid Tai.
ent May Be Sought.

The Board of Education is expected
to thrash out at its next meeting. De-
cember II, controversial issues regard
ing administration Of the District child
labor law which arose with the recent
submission of an opinion by Corpora
ton Counsel E. Barrett Prettyman
concerning the appearances here OF
certain child artists.
Meanwhile, Prettyman's ruling pro-
hibiting the appearances of Ruth Slen-
czynski, 9-year-old pianist, and the
Vienna Boys Chior in Constitution
Hall next month, still stands, accord
ing to Supt. of Schools Frank w
Ballou
The four lawyers on the School
Board will submit opinions on the
Prettyman ruling tomorrow. Then,
if the board so votes, an attempt may
be made to persuade the corporation
counsel to change his mind
Prettyman said yesterday he had
been told the facts presented to him
in the cases of the girl pianist and the
boys choir were not entirely correct
He said he might change his ruling if
different set of facts is placed before
him by school authorities.
Regular Fees Cited.
The 9-year-old girl was to have
played January % and the choir was
to have sung January 20. Prettymans S
ruling was presented to the Board of
Ediipa flor, of re oh t,r-0
weeks ago. 1t permitted the appear
ance of 11-year-old Gloria Perkins,
violin soloist, with the National SYM
phony Orchestra November IS.
The corporation counsel held that
little Gloria was only pursuing her
education, while Ruth Slenczynski
and the Boys Choir were travelling
concertists receiving regular fees.
When it was presented DR.. Ballou
criticized the Prettyman opinion,
holding that it required a pre-
determination by the work permit
officer of the psychological effect on
the child of the proposed employ
ment, and therefore set up an admin
istrative impossibility.
OISk VI
Prettymans opinion constituted the
first official Interpretation of the
present child labor statute. He ex-
pressed the gist of his stand as fol-
lows:
The test would seem to be %
the purpose of the exertion, 20 the
regularity of its repetition, 80 the
effect upon the child. If the purpose
be educational or recreational. then
that one factor tends to show the
eXertion is not work If the act
be repeated at regular times and a
benefit flows to some one else, either
parent or some other adult, that
factor tends to show that the child
is working. If the effect upon the
child be not to increase his happi-
ness or his mental or physical we'll
being, that factor tends to demon
Strate work and not play or educa-
tion.
If the purpose of the extertion be
the fulf1llment of a normal childish
desire, indicated by any compelling
authority, occurring only upon occa-
sion, and its effect the betterment oi
the child's mental or physical we'll
being, such exertion is not work
within the meaning of this statute
If the purpose be the exploitation oi
the child for some ones benefit, al
regularly dictated times, with a re-
stricting effect upon the natural anc
normal development of his life, such
exertion must be deemed to be work
and prohibited by this act.
I'VE think that the same rule which
applies to the boy with the hammer
and saw applies to the child prodigy
with his violin or piano."