Evening star., 1934-12-13
BOARD MAY FIGHT
VIENNA BOYS CHOIR
Head of Education Group
Hits Prettyman on Child
Labor Law.


ton Counsel E. Barrett Prettyman
Unexpectedly compose their differences
concerning Interpretation Of the Dis
trict's child labor statute, 1t is highly
probable" that the Board Of Education
will disregard Prettyman's compare
lively liberal view and take upon 1T
self the duty of prosecuting what 1t
considers violation of the law.
This likelihood was presented today
by DR.. Hayden johnson, board presi-
dent, in discussing supplemental
opinion submitted yesterday to the
board by Prettyman, reversing his
former ruling by permitting the ap-
pearance here January 20 of the
Vienna Boys Choir.
The reversal followed the interven-
ton of the Austrian Minister, through
the Secretary of State. Prettyman
told the board he received additional
information through the State De-
partment which changed the aspect
of the case.
Received Note from Minister.
II also received a memorandum
from the Austrian Minister" re-
marked Supt. of Schools Frank W..
Ballou, but ! don't see that 1t con-
tains any information we did not
have or that was not previously before
the corporation counsel"
School officials already have eX-
pressed the opinion that the appear
ance here of the Vienna Choristers
would constitute law violation. In
the first Official Interpretation on
record. rendered recently, Prettyman
confirmed this view and also banned
the proposed performance Of Ruth
SlencZynski, 9-year-old nationally
famous pianist, January %. He
allowed his ruling in the latter case
to stand unchanged.
If the corporation counsel should
decline to prosecute a case the Board
of Education deems a law violation, it
is, believe. not only the privilege but
the duty of the board, itself. to prose-
cute" DR.. johnson declared.
Written Opinion Submitted.
The School Board head. who is one
of the city's leading attorneys. sub
mitted a written opinion to the board,
giving the law a stricter interpreta-
ton than Prettyman's and by impli-
cation criticizing as vague and un-
certain the corporation counsels in
depreciation of the statute.
Johnsons opinion, which was re-
quested by DR.. Ballou, will be for
warded to Prettyman "for consider
alton and reply" DR.. johnson said
he expected the corporation counsers
response before the boards next reg
ular meeting. January 8, when the
matter probably will be threshed out
to final determination.
Prettyman contends that, to consti-
tute violation Of the statute, child
under IA years Of age must engage in
an activity which could reasonably be
construed as work" within the mean
ing of the law, and that the activity
be "gainful occupation"
He sets up a three-fold basis to de-
termine whether the particular exer-
ton Is work He would consider Cd
the purpose of the exertion; 90 the
regularity Of its repetition. and 90
the effect upon the child.
johnson Hits Attitude.
Thus, what might be work for one
child would not be work for another
according to the individual psyche
logical and physical reaction, Pretty
man explained.
DR.. johnson attacked this attitude
on the ground that the child labor
law is a penal statute and the public
has a right to know definitely what
constitutes violation.
Both authorities hold that the exer-
ton is a "gainful occupation" if 1t
results in a profit either to the child
or to some one else. This, DR.. john
son believes, should be the sole con-
sideration in constituting the law.
DR.. johnson pointed out that he
could not predict definitely that the
board will break with Prettyman and
take prosecution of violations into
its own hands, but added. II have
every reason in the world to think the
board will stand behind me"
my Interpretation Of the law is
not new" he asserted. 1T points out
the procedure which has been fol-
lowed since passage Of the law in
1928. Mr.. Prettyman is the person
who Is making a departure from the
established practice.
prosecutions Required"
"The law specifically states that
1T shall be the duty of the director
OF the Department Of School Attend
ance and Work Permits to prose-
cute all violations 80 From this
would assume that the Board Of Edu-
cation, which employees the director of
school attendance and work permits,
not only is given specific authority to
prosecute violations of the act. but
is required to do so.
There is nothing to prevent us
causing the arrest Of a violator and
taking the case into court. There
are four lawyers on the Board Of Edu-
cation, and, if the board so directed,
it would be the duty Of any one of
US to prosecute violation"
ITO my mind, the question is not
whether the corporation counsel has
the sole right to prosecute child labor
violations, but whether he has the
right at all. DR.. Ballou tells me we