The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-02-07

aL0O
INDIANA may well be proud Of its Legisla-
d ture. The present session has before it a
liberal program looking toward social justice
rather than toward narrow self-interest. Both
Democratic and Republican member have thus
far shown singular freedom from tub-thump-
ing and log-roIling. They are giving a high
quality Of public service.
There have been, and will continue to be.
vigorous differences Of opinion. This is as
it should be in a deIiberative body. Yet these
differences appear 70 grow out of honest con-
victions rather than the ugly influences Of
the lobbyists for special privilege. A good
start has been made, but much remains to
be accomplished. Let US have some plain talk
about the road ahead during the present
session.
~HILD labor comes first. There are six
groups Of people who oppose Indiana's
ratification Of the Child Labor Amendment.
Here they are:
/. h old-fashioned, sincere states rights
advocate. He is perfectly honest in his con-
viction that states should regulate all labor
matters. He is mistaken because he forgets
that ALL modern industry is interstate in
character and that labor problems know no
local geographical boundaries.
2. Farmers who fear that the abolition of
child labor may deprive them Of their chill
dren's occasional services in doing chores.
Nothing of the kind will happen, of course.
Home duties are part Of :. child's education.
II Congress were so silly as to try to regulate
the relationship between parent and child it
could never enforce such regulation. 1t would
never attempt such fo~olishneSs. After all, most
Congressman are parents.
3. The hair-spltters of the legal profession.
Thousands of onward Hooking, social minded
attorneys are squarely behind the Child Labor
Amendment. The pettifoggers may be dis
regarded. These technicians are so tangled in
red tape they do not know their own con-
victions.
4. Certain iaymen and clergy of the Luth-
eran and Roman Catholic Churches who fear
tina the Child Labor Amendment may inter
fcre with the church schools at some future
time. We haze always fought for religious
freedom ard shall continue to do so, but we
can not concur with the members of those
churches whit oppose the abolition of child
labor. We here pledge ourselves that We shall
always stand shoulder to shoulder with them
if at any future time their freedom of wor-
ship or their right to maintain their own
schools is attacked. but we can not agree that
little children should be sweated in factories
because of some theoretical chimera.
5. The o~ut-and-out sweatshop operator who
wants to exploit child labor. He is, of course.
a disgusting swine unfit for association with
decent people.
6. Last, there is the venal newspaper oper-
ator whose god is the cash register. Do not
be fooled with his pious talk about freedom
OF the press" We believe in that freedom, too.
and we'll fight to the last ditch for 1t. But
what such a newspaper owner really wants is
the right to send little children out at all times
o. the night to sell his papers on the street.
Do not be taken in by his nasty, self-right-
eous cant about his opposition to the Child
Labor Amendment.
NEXT to child labor in Importance is a
~ grave problem of public health: Stream
pollution. Indiana now has 1377.75 miles of
unspeakably filthy streams. OF this mileage,
68975 miles are loaded with city sewage. The
remainder is corrupted with the waste of
greedy industry.
1t is from these streams that our drinking
water must be drawn. No matter how thor
oughly it is sterillzed - and it is rendered
To,o~ ooJ Nt,s,o aud IN +Io or,o dow Charts