The Waterbury Democrat., 1937-03-16

Let us suppose that the labOr or persons under eighteen years of age has been limited, regulated, and prohibited by the Congress. What are the persons" to do? How are they to spend their time and on what? In what direction is the ginger of animal spirits which goes with adolescence to be expended? In the pursuit of knowledge or spiritual develop rnent, in acquiring athletic prow- ess, learning tap dancing, crap shooting, pool playing, second- story climbing, fishing, golfing, dawdling, loafing, sleeping, or eating? Since education could be construed as labor under the pres- ent wording of the amendment persons" under eighteen could not be ordered of to school. Many of that age cannot be driven there now. The establishment of C.C.C. camps by President Roosevelt was hailed even by his enemies as sound insurance against the ad- tnitted evils to which the enforced idleness of the depression exposed the youth of the land. What iflsur- ance have the advocates of the child @ labor amendment to offer against the enforced idleness which its ratification would in- crease to indescribable propor- tions? Let the advocates of rati- fication be heard to any length on this phase of the issue. To date . they have been singularly ret icent about 1t.
 TantrumS!
 The smashing rebuff given the amendment proposal by the New York State Assembly,--a rebuff in which political party lines were wiped out-has sent those de- inanding its passage into tantrums of various sorts. The humani- tarians CD are in tears; the lib- erals CD are in frightful rage; the Communists and organized labor are denouncing this lateGt opposition to the establishment ot a workers paradise on earth; and all the religious bigots are scream. ing attention to the seduction ac- complished against the virtue of New York's Assemblyn1en by The Scarlet Woman of Rome. All of which was to be anticipated. Slow Awakening
 But others who are in favor of the ratification of the amend Inent are slowly awakening to the conviction that maybe their dari- ing has a freckle or two on it's face. Said the New York Times last Friday:
 "The present amendment
 would authorize Congress to
 limit, regulate, and prohibit
 child labor. Critics have charged
 that Congress under it could
 actually compel children to
 work, or could control their &C.,
 tivities in numerous positive
 ways. Such fears seem fantastic,
 but little would be lost # the
 word 'regulate' were dropped,
 and Congress, as in the original
 draft of the amendment. were
 empowered merely to limit or
 prohibit child labor. Again,
 fears have been expressed that
 under the regulation of labor
 Congress, by 8 stretching of the
 term to include mental labor,
 could control education, and
 that it could prohibit children
 from doing odd chores around
 the house r>the farm for their
 parents. Such possibilities seem
 equally chimcrical, but to meet
 them the phrase labor for hire,'
 or some equivalent, might be
 substituted for the simple word
 lab0r.' Finally, objection has
 been made to the high age limit
 on the children whose labor
 could be limited or prohibited.
 Little would be lost to the real
 Objectives of the amendment if
 1t were drafted to apply only to
 those under 16 or 17 instead of
 to all those under 18.
 "Given such changes of
 phrase0logy, none of which
 would substantially affect essen
 tial aims, Q new child labor
 amendment might be submit
 ted" What Then?
 The dubious wording of the amendment and the suspiciously stiff -necked opposition of its ad-, vOcates to all requests for clarifi-s cation is the cause of the an-N tipathy religious groups, in par ticular, have for 1t. The changes suggested by the Times were pro- posed by the present opponents when the amendment was first drafted. If they had been accept-g ed then the amendment would have had easy sailing. It will have when, as, and If they are accepted now. It remains to be seen, how ever, whether those who refused to listen in the past will listen in the future. If they do listen opposi- tion to the amendment will dis5 appear over night. If they refuse as they always have refused, the opposition will be strengthened Because 1t will then be proven that the fears the Times calls fantastic" are justifiabIy realistic and the "chimericaT possibilities are deadly actualitics. If the ad- vocates of ratification have nothing up their sleeves they should take off their coats by accepting the clarification which even The Times considers necessary. N