331,3 
 
 Er44c 
 
The person charging this material is re¬ 
 sponsible for its return to the library from 
 which it was withdrawn on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft/ mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons 
 for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from 
 the University. 
 
 To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/childlaborlegislOOeric 
 
National (Etfilii IGabor Committee. 
 
 105 EAST 22D STREET 
 N EW YORK CITY 
 
 [Reprint®*! from the Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the National 
 Child Labor Committee, New York Citv, February 14-16, 1905, as published by 
 the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia, in The Annals 
 I of the Academy, Yol. XXV., No. 3, May, 1905.] 
 
 CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION AND METHODS OF 
 ENFORCEMENT IN NORTHERN CENTRAL STATES 
 
 Halford Erickson, 
 Commissioner of Labor, Wisconsin. 
 
 The enforcement of child labor laws is, in effect, an attempt to 
 reconcile by law two apparently diverging economic interests. The 
 child labor problem has been co-existent with the growth of manu¬ 
 facturing and early required the attention of state legislatures. Half 
 a century ago child labor laws were found on the statute books of 
 some of the Northern and Central States. These early efforts were 
 crude and ineffective, but they formed the nucleus of the-,present 
 fairly comprehensive systems which have to a large extent allayed 
 the evils of child labor. 
 
 From the outset these laws have had to contend with a large 
 variety of deterring influences. Manufacturers with the ever in¬ 
 creasing desire for high profits, the lack of sympathy for the laboring . 
 classes, and in many instances the honest belief that child labor 
 was necessary for the continuance of their business, together with 
 the natural opposition of the employees who considered such laws 
 as an infringement upon their personal liberty and privileges, made 
 difficult the enactment of proper laws, and because of which enforce¬ 
 ment was practically impossible. With the rapid growth of manu¬ 
 facturing in these states public opinion and the majority of the 
 employers have come to understand the necessity and eminent fair¬ 
 ness of restrictive legislation. 
 
 The development of the child labor laws has been in many 
 instances a series of compromises. Nearly every step forward was 
 gained by the sacrifice, temporarily at least, of some provision which 
 in that respect was a regressive movement, so determined was the 
 opposition. One state after another adopted measures which on 
 their face appeared to reach the difficulty, but which failed of their 
 purpose because they lacked the first essential of a successful child 
 
2 
 
 Child Labor Legislation in Northern Central States 
 
 labor law, an appreciation of the weakness of human nature, and 
 adequate provisions for enforcement. Our whole experience with 
 law and order demonstrates that to arouse public interest in the 
 child, to awaken from lethargy the public official to the realization 
 and confession that a genuine evil exists, is a comparatively easy 
 matter; but to crystallize this sentiment into law, to enact a system 
 of corrective legislation supplemented by adequate machinery of 
 enforcement is a proposition fraught with no little difficulty. It has 
 always been easy to convince, but hard to persuade. 
 
 The gradual growth of this class of legislation in the North¬ 
 west from the earliest efforts down to the present time can best be 
 observed by tracing the development in one particular state and 
 comparing the problems and the attempts at solution with similar 
 tendencies in the neighboring commonwealths. The state of Wis¬ 
 consin will be taken for this purpose, first, because of its varied 
 experience with child labor legislation, and, secondly, because 
 through its remedial statutes it has constructed probably one of the 
 most effective systems. 
 
 Wisconsin first recognized the child labor problem in 1877 by 
 a law which prohibited the employment of children under 12 years 
 of age, during the school year, in factories where conditions were 
 deemed injurious to their health. The law was a failure, so far as 
 results were concerned, because of its indefinite application, low age 
 limit, and its failure to provide any effective means for enforcement. 
 It only provided that district attorneys should prosecute violations 
 on complaint, but there being no one charged by law with the duty 
 of investigating the places of employment, few complaints were 
 made, and the law was very generally disregarded. Amendments in 
 the following year made the law more definite and certain, but still 
 provided no means for enforcement. The legislature failed to 
 realize that men who see a pecuniary profit in violating a law will 
 not desist simply to satisfy their conscience as to the commission 
 of an act merely prohibited and made illegal. 
 
 In 1883 the bureau of labor was created and charged with the 
 duty of enforcing the law, but was given no facilities for doing so. 
 This act was an important step, not so much for its own provisions, 
 but in that it provided a framework about which to erect the machin¬ 
 ery for enforcement which it was seen would have to be adopted 
 in the near future if the child labor law was ever to become more 
 
Child Labor Legislation in Northern Central States 3 
 
 than a mere threat to the violators. In 1885 a factory inspector 
 was provided for, but as his duties went no further than to post the 
 law in the places of employment inspected by him, his influence 
 was really small. 
 
 In 1889 the legislature made a general revision of the child labor 
 laws. The age limit was raised to thirteen years, and the law 
 extended not only to factories, workshops and mines, but also to 
 stores, places of business and places of amusement. This measure 
 by its increase in the minimum age limit, and extended scope, repre¬ 
 sented a considerable advance in the accepted views as to restrict¬ 
 ive legislation, but the one positive essential to a successful and 
 adequate means for enforcement, was still lacking. 
 
 Another weakness of the law of 1889 was the introduction of 
 the permit system. While it made unlawful the employment of 
 children under thirteen years of age, it authorized the county judges 
 to grant permits at their discretion, excepting from the operation of 
 the law children over ten years who could read and write English. 
 It was the intention of the permit provision so to modify the law as 
 to enable persons really in need of the earnings of their children to 
 get early assistance from this source. This system presupposes 
 that the officer granting the permit will make an investigation of 
 each particular case. Since in practice, the only source of informa¬ 
 tion to the judge is the applicant himself, it was not surprising that 
 the prospect of exemption from the law should awaken a disregard 
 for the truth, and the officers be overwhelmed with tales of misfor¬ 
 tunes. The judges, whose regular duties already more than occu¬ 
 pied their time, found it impossible to investigate each case, and 
 giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt, generally granted the 
 permit. Under this practice the restrictive age was really lowered 
 to ten years, making it a regressive rather than a progressive pro¬ 
 vision. 
 
 In 1891 the legal age was again increased from thirteen to four¬ 
 teen years, and the minimum age at which county judges could 
 grant permits was raised from ten to twelve years. This law also 
 made it the duty of the labor commissioner and factory inspectors 
 to prosecute violations of the law. But the entire factory inspection 
 force at this time consisted of only two persons. To inspect the 
 factories of the state and to enforce laws relating to dangerous and 
 unsanitary conditions of employment, fire-escapes and other safe- 
 
4 Child Labor Legislation in Northern Central States 
 
 guards of the public health in accordance with those laws which 
 were capable of enforcement and violations of which were more 
 readily detectable was a much larger task than would occupy the 
 time of the most diligent inspectors. Moreover, their time could be 
 devoted to this work with far greater profit to the state than could 
 possibly result from the thankless and disagreeable task of attempt¬ 
 ing to enforce child labor laws which were entirely inadequate and 
 destined to prove a failure from the start. So that, while on the 
 one hand the lack of provision for enforcement of the law operated 
 to divert the attention of the factory inspectors to other more fruit¬ 
 ful laws, the permit system, on the other hand, operated to virtually 
 legalize the employment of child labor down to the limit of ten or 
 twelve years of age and in many instances to vitiate whatever en¬ 
 forcement was attempted. 
 
 The situation in Wisconsin under this law is aptly summarized 
 by the Commissioner of Labor in his report for 1897-1898. He says: 
 “To completely enforce the law has been found very difficult. The 
 reasons for this may primarily be found in the facts that it is so 
 frequently violated and that these violations are, as a rule, very 
 hard to establish. The reasons for this are easily guessed at. The 
 inspectors cannot tell the exact age of the child from its appearance 
 alone. By common understanding the children themselves, their 
 parents, and not seldom the employer, usually endeavor to deceive 
 the inspectors on this point. Besides this there is in this state a 
 notable lack of reliable or complete birth records. Roundabout and 
 laborious methods are therefore necessary in order to obtain data 
 relating to the ages of children that are complete enough to furnish 
 a safe basis for further proceedings. While the first step to obtain 
 data as to their ages consists of a personal examination of the child, 
 this seldom brings the desired result. They are ready enough to 
 answer all questions, but experience soon teaches that the replies 
 given concerning their ages cannot be depended upon. As a rule, 
 the children do not only studiously misrepresent their age, if younger 
 than the age limit fixed by the law, but besides this they also, as a 
 rule, are provided with certificates signed by their parents or others 
 concerned showing that they are fourteen years of age or past, 
 regardless of the facts of the case. Cases have even been met with 
 where parents, anxious to either obtain employment for their little 
 ones or to keep them at work, have changed the records of thei r 
 
I i 
 
 Child Labor Legislation in Northern Central States 5 
 
 ages in the family Bible and other places. Numerous other devices 
 for the purpose of deceiving the inspectors are constantly resorted 
 to. The obstacles of all kinds which the inspectors must overcome 
 in order to perform their duties are often both unpleasant and 
 very difficult.” 
 
 It was not until 1899 that the Wisconsin child labor problem was 
 taken up by the legislature in anything like a serious manner. The 
 law then adopted retained the permit system to exempt children 
 in needy circumstances, but the authority to grant such permits was 
 also vested in the labor commissioner and factory inspectors. The 
 most important provision, however, was in the recognition of the 
 cause of former failures, that is, the lack of provisions for enforce¬ 
 ment, and hence when this law provided for six additional factory 
 inspectors it appeared that the day of rigid enforcement was now 
 at hand. The law prohibited the employment of children under 
 fourteen years at any time in factories, shops or mines and at any 
 time except during the vacation of the public school in stores, laun¬ 
 dries and the messenger service. By an amendment in 1901, the 
 application of this law was extended to prohibit the employment of 
 children under fourteen years of age in bowling alleys, bar-rooms 
 and beer gardens. The law also authorized the commissioner of 
 labor and the factory inspectors to prosecute all violations of the 
 law, and added a new provision which required employers of child 
 labor to have and keep on file and accessible to the factory inspectors, 
 affidavits of parents of all children under sixteen years of age. 
 These affidavits were to be regularly sworn statements, showing the 
 name, place and date of birth of the child and the place and time 
 of school attendance. By this latter provision it was not intended 
 to restrict child labor under sixteen years, but by requiring the 
 affidavits for all children under that age it was believed to be easier 
 to enforce the restriction as to fourteen years. 
 
 It was hoped that this provision would help to solve the child 
 labor problem. Indeed, the first few months of its operation bore 
 out this expectation, but an unfortunate tendency soon manifested 
 itself, the temptation to falsify affidavits. In anticipation of just 
 such methods the affidavit had required a statement of school attend¬ 
 ance, to be referred to in case of discrepancies, but the number of 
 obviously false affidavits increased so rapidly that inspectors found 
 themselves swamped in trying to investigate them. Employers in 
 
6 Child Labor Legislation in Northern Central States 
 
 the name of industrial necessity secretly encouraged this demoral¬ 
 izing tendency adopted by unscrupulous parents, which robbed the 
 schools and instructed the children in the arts of falsification, as 
 to the extent of which they had not the slightest conception. The 
 rapid growth of this vicious practice demonstrated emphatically 
 that the affidavit system was not adapted as a means for successful 
 enforcement of child labor legislation. 
 
 The facts growing out of this condition of affairs were laid 
 before the legislature of 1903 which again revised the law, abolish¬ 
 ing the affidavit system and in place of affidavits by parents required 
 all employed children from fourteen to sixteen years of age to 
 obtain permits from the commissioner of labor, factory inspectors, 
 $r judges of the county, municipal or juvenile courts, authorizing 
 the employment of the child during such time as the officer granting 
 the permit may fix. These officers are required to keep a record 
 of the name, age and school attended by such child and a report as 
 to the number of permits issued must be sent to the commissioner 
 of labor or factory inspector. When the granting officer has reason 
 to doubt the age of any child applying for a permit he may demand 
 proof of such child’s age by the production of a verified baptismal 
 certificate, or a duly attested birth certificate, or in case such cer¬ 
 tificate cannot be secured, then the record of age as stated in the 
 first school enrollment of such child, and in case no such proof 
 can be secured then by the production of such other proof as will 
 satisfy the officer authorized to issue the permit. No permit is 
 to be granted under this law unless proof of the child’s age is filed 
 with the commissioner of labor or other granting officer. The 
 filing of such a permit by the employer is a condition precedent to 
 legal employment. A child of legal age finds little difficulty in 
 securing satisfactory proof, but it is practically impossible for per¬ 
 sons not entitled to permits to deceive a diligent official. Under 
 this law it is possible to enforce the child labor law in Wisconsin, 
 a thing impossible under the affidavit system. 
 
 Turning now to the other Northern Central States, the first child 
 labor laws were adopted as follows: Ohio in 1852, Illinois in 1877, 
 Indiana in 1881 and Michigan in 1885. These laws, with the 
 amendments adopted by the next succeeding legislatures prohibited 
 under a penalty the employment of children in certain occupations 
 which were deemed especially injurious to them, fixed the age limit 
 
Child Labor Legislation in Northern Central States 7 
 
 under which no child could be employed at any labor, and fixed 
 the number of hours they might be employed in other occupations. 
 The age limit for factory work was placed at twelve years in 
 Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, and at fourteen years in Michigan unless 
 such child had attended public school for four months of the year 
 in which he sought employment, when the age limit was put as low 
 as ten years. 
 
 Adequate penalties were provided in each case for violations, 
 but the laws were of little avail because of their indefiniteness, low 
 age limits, and like the Wisconsin laws failed principally because 
 they did not provide means for enforcement. Each law provided in 
 effect that a violator of the same should be liable to prosecution 
 before any justice of the peace or court of competent jurisdiction in 
 the county in which the illegal employment was given, but left the 
 duty of instituting such prosecutions to irresponsible and voluntary 
 initiative. As was to be expected, few complaints were ever made 
 to the district attorneys and prosecutions were so rarely heard of 
 that instead of restricting the employment of children, the law was 
 ineffective and child labor increased with the rapid growth of manu¬ 
 facturing. The legislatures had not yet learned that a social evil is 
 not remedied merely by making it illegal. 
 
 To better enforce the law bureaus of labor and departments 
 of inspection were created, entrusted with the duty of prosecuting 
 violations of the law. Along with these provisions was a general 
 movement to increase the age limit to fourteen years and extend 
 the application of the law to mercantile establishments, offices, hotels, 
 laundries, etc. Manufacturers were required to keep a record of all 
 minors in their employment, stating their names, ages and residence, 
 which were to be substantiated by affidavits of parents, kept on file. 
 Factory inspectors were authorized and empowered to visit and 
 inspect all manufacturing and mercantile establishments and report 
 all violations to the district attorneys who were to prosecute such 
 violations. Ohio adopted such a law in 1885, Illinois in 1893 and 
 Indiana in 1897. 
 
 Michigan did not follow this course in her legislation. It placed 
 the duty of enforcing the child labor laws on the local police force. 
 The chief or superintendent in all cities was authorized to inspect 
 places of employment and prosecute any violations of the law. If 
 necessary he was empowered to detail a part of the force on duty of 
 
8 Child Labor Legislation in Northern Central States 
 
 this nature. In the city of Detroit the board of building inspectors 
 was given concurrent jurisdiction with the police, while in towns 
 the duty of enforcement was placed on the supervisors. This law 
 was repealed in 1895 and as in other states the enforcement was 
 placed in the hands of factory inspectors. 
 
 The legislation of this period which for convenience may be 
 called the second period of development, introduced the affidavit 
 and permit systems. By these laws a minor applying for employ¬ 
 ment was required to present an affidavit from his parents or guard¬ 
 ians stating his name, age and residence, which was to be placed 
 on file by the employer for reference in case of investigations. As 
 the laws only fixed a minimum age and made in several instances 
 two exceptions, first where the earnings were necessary to support 
 parents in indigent circumstances, and second, the permitting of 
 employment during school vacations, and such periods as the com¬ 
 pulsory education laws permitted, a ready method for evasion was 
 provided which was not long neglected. In each of the states, 
 parents finding the comparative ease with which the law could be 
 evaded easily, yielded to the temptation to forswear themselves and 
 many children were found at work who were clearly not of the 
 required age, yet possessing the proper affidavits could not be 
 removed. Record evidence not being available for comparison as to 
 ages, and the number of inspectors in each state being far too inade¬ 
 quate to deal with the question properly, the number of children 
 employed was not very materially reduced. In Illinois alone the 
 number of child laborers seems to have doubled during five years 
 and Ohio and Indiana showed large increases. 
 
 The present laws are the result of efforts to remedy practically 
 similar difficulties and as might be expected have many provisions 
 in common. The minimum age limit is placed in all the states at 
 fourteen years except in Ohio where it is thirteen years. Manufac¬ 
 turers are required in some states to keep the regular record of 
 minors employed and to post in a conspicuous place a list of such 
 minors with the ages which are to be substantiated by affidavits 
 of the parents placed on file with the employers, and to be sub¬ 
 mitted to the factory inspectors on request. The Wisconsin pro¬ 
 vision for enforcing the fourteen year limit by requiring permits 
 for all children up to sixteen years is in general use. The Ohio law 
 provides that no boy under fifteen years and no girl under sixteen 
 
Child Labor Legislation in Northern Central States 9 
 
 years is to be employed for wages at any time while the public school 
 is in session. Indiana prohibits the employment, except during 
 school vacations, of children under sixteen years who cannot read 
 or write simple English sentences. 
 
 The operation of the affidavit system as it is in vogue in these 
 states seems far from satisfactory and reflects all the weakness of the 
 Wisconsin law of 1899. Such a system is necessarily based on the 
 theory that the parent in making the affidavit will be guided by 
 perfect honesty. Experience shows that just the contrary is true. 
 These laws all have the same end in view, the provision for the 
 safe-guarding of life and health and a development in harmony 
 with industrial and educational civilization, but their ineffectiveness 
 is largely due to a lack of understanding of the fallibility of human 
 nature. Where the game is worth the candle human ingenuity is 
 well nigh inexhaustible, and even to maintain existing regulations 
 constant vigilance of legislative bodies is necessary. Some people 
 will always evade the law, but when opportunity is given so that 
 violations become so frequent and insistent that the limited number 
 of inspectors find it impossible to compare the affidavits with record 
 evidence, the law ceases to be effective, perjury and dishonesty 
 receive material rewards and the prohibitive law becomes permis¬ 
 sive. Such affidavits cannot be easily attacked since the burden of 
 proof in each case is on the inspectors. Where parents refuse to 
 forswear themselves or the violation is so flagrant as to be apparent 
 on the mere examination of the child the law does succeed in reduc¬ 
 ing the number of child laborers. Two other expedients have also 
 been adopted. They are, first, the requirement of certificates of 
 physical fitness, and secondly, requirements for a knowledge of 
 reading and writing. The first provision enables the factory inspec¬ 
 tors to require any child which appears to him to be physically 
 unfit for labor to undergo a physical examination and is only re¬ 
 tained in employment when such examination reveals a healthy con¬ 
 stitution. This provision has been very effective in removing from 
 the glass, cutlery and garment trades a large number of cripples 
 and deformed children. The educational provision has been more 
 difficult of enforcement due to the lethargy of school authorities. 
 
 Experience shows that it is wrong both in practice and prin¬ 
 ciple to permit any exemptions from the law. Indeed to do so is 
 really to amend the law and substitute the exceptions in place of 
 
io Child Labor Legislation in Northern Central States 
 
 the original intention of the law. To authorize the employment 
 of a child because his parents are in need of his earnings is only a 
 temporary expediency which instead of being beneficial is often 
 a detriment to parent and child alike. It encourages indolence and 
 dependence in parents for which it sacrifices the health of the child. 
 It is better that the state should support ,a few really needy families 
 than to favor a practice which abrogates the law. Further, the 
 granting of permits during the school vacations changes the habits 
 and ambitions of children and enables them to become employed 
 in factories where, once legally entered, factory inspectors cannot 
 always find them. On account of the comparatively short period 
 of the compulsory school attendance the law is also often restricted 
 so as to apply only to about half of the year and in some states to 
 even less. 
 
 Illinois in its latest law has avoided the evils of the affidavit 
 system. This law, adopted in 1903, besides the common provision 
 for the maintenance of a register and record of the minors employed, 
 requires as a condition for employment the deposit of an age and 
 school certificate by the child, this certificate to be approved by the 
 school superintendent or director or by some one authorized by him 
 in writing. The certificate is in no case to be approved unless record 
 evidence as to age is given, but where such evidence is not obtainable 
 the information may be given by the parents. The law requires the 
 school board to provide an office where the certificates are to be 
 issued and recorded, and age statistics to be maintained. But before 
 the age certificate is accepted a certificate of school attendance must 
 first be presented, a duplicate of which is sent to the factory inspec¬ 
 tor’s office. No minor between fourteen and sixteen years is to be 
 employed who cannot read and write simple sentences, in cities 
 where public and evening schools are maintained, unless such minor 
 attends the evening school or is employed during the vacation only. 
 Complaints for violation of the law may be made to the school board 
 of the district which is to report them to the factory inspectors for 
 prosecution. 
 
 This law escapes the evils which confront Michigan and Indi¬ 
 ana, and which also confronted Wisconsin under the law of 1899, 
 in that it does not go to the parents for information until the last 
 resort. The board of education is required to maintain a complete 
 record of ages of all children in its district. Since a copy of these 
 
Child Labor Legislation in Northern Central States 
 
 ii 
 
 certificates is required to be deposited with the factory inspector’s 
 office, any discrepancies or suspicious circumstances can easily be 
 detected. The means by which this law can be evaded is where 
 parents must be asked for information and in the forging of cer¬ 
 tificates. In suspicious cases evidence can thus be obtained without 
 difficulty and as many as from 1,000 to 1,500 violations are success¬ 
 fully prosecuted annually. 
 
 There should be mentioned in this connection a growing ten¬ 
 dency to place in the inspectors a large discretionary power. In¬ 
 spectors on their tours found large numbers of children who were 
 over the minimum age engaged in occupations which slowly but 
 certainly were crippling them, injuring their health or exposing 
 to danger their limbs or very life itself. This gave rise in Ohio to 
 a provision which has since been adopted in substance in Michigan 
 and Illinois, and which provides that no child under sixteen years 
 of age shall be engaged in any employment whereby its life or limb 
 is endangered or its health is likely to be injured, or its morals may 
 be depraved, and places the duty of enforcement on the factory 
 inspectors. The Ohio provision was general and indefinite and 
 compelled the inspectors to define such dangerous occupations. An 
 extensive classification of occupations was made including in such 
 danger list every operation which could in any manner be con¬ 
 strued to be dangerous to health or morals, and so rigidly is it said 
 to be enforced that the employment of children under sixteen years 
 in such occupations has become practically impossible. Illinois, in 
 its law of 1897, had a provision very much like that of Ohio, but in 
 the law of 1903, rejected the general terms and prohibited abso¬ 
 lutely the employment of children under sixteen years of age in a 
 large number of enumerated occupations, els the cleaning and oiling 
 of machinery, operating cutting and stamping machinery, and hand¬ 
 ling injurious chemicals. The effect of this law has been to raise the 
 minimum age to sixteen years in all dangerous occupations in those 
 states which have adopted such a statute and where it is enforced. 
 
 But the child labor law, no matter how drastic its terms or 
 how rigid its provisions for enforcement, is still destined to failure so 
 long as legislatures fail to appreciate that its success is largely deter¬ 
 mined by supplemental legislation. By discharging the child from 
 employment, but going no further than that, the state has only par¬ 
 tially discharged its duty. Idleness in a large city is not always to be 
 
12 Child Labor Legislation in Northern Central States 
 
 preferred to some kinds of employment, but in no case is employment 
 to be preferred to the public schools. Many states boast on their 
 statute books a law which appears to be far-reaching enough, but 
 which does not accomplish the full measure of good because it only 
 causes the discharge of the child who immediately seeks employment 
 in some other occupation, equally in violation of the law, or what is 
 often even worse, leads a life on the streets. The child labor laws 
 cannot be enforced as a unit. They can never accomplish their real 
 end until the whole child problem is regarded as one distinct entity, 
 and there is enacted a comprehensive scheme of which the child 
 labor law and the compulsory educational law are integral parts. 
 The educational system must be so adapted to the industrial system, 
 dovetailed into it, so as to give the widest possible range of school 
 life consistent with industrial training and ultimate social good, 
 and the machinery of enforcement of both must be made to work in 
 harmony and co-operation. 
 
 The Northern Central states now recognize this necesary inter¬ 
 relation. Each of these states has a compulsory educational law 
 requiring school attendance up to the minimum age of employment. 
 For the enforcement of these laws truancy officers are provided, 
 whose powers and duties vary somewhat in the different states. The 
 laws of Indiana, Illinois and Michigan go no further than to direct 
 the truancy officers to investigate and report violations of the laws 
 to parents and to prosecute those liable. The Illinois law is in reality 
 stronger than would appear from a reading of the section because 
 the labor laws vest in the school authorities the power and duty to 
 grant the age and school certificates for employment and sending 
 copies thereof to the factory inspectors. Ohio has vested her tru¬ 
 ancy officers with police’ powers and authorizes them to enter fac¬ 
 tories and other places of employment of children, to discharge the 
 children and place them in the public schools and to prosecute both 
 the parents and the employer for the violation. Wisconsin has not 
 given the powers of factory inspectors in this regard to the truancy 
 officers, but makes up for this partially by giving to the factory 
 inspectors all the powers of truancy officers, thus enabling an inspec¬ 
 tor to follow up a discharge from employment and place the child 
 in the control of the school authorities. 
 
 It would appear from this review that the future development 
 of child labor legislation is likely to vary somewhat from certain 
 
Child Labor Legislation in Northern Central States 13 
 
 existing provisions. The experience of every state with the affidavit 
 system shows conclusively that other means of enforcement must be 
 adopted. The legislatures must consider that to permit opportunity 
 for evasion means to sanction evasion. In this respect the present 
 Wisconsin and Illinois laws offer some relief in placing the power 
 to grant permits beyond the influence of parents. The difficulty 
 to-day, as ten years ago, is still with the enforcement of the law. 
 Then it was more a matter of error in method; to-day it is insuffi¬ 
 ciency of means. Every state has placed the duty of enforcing the 
 law upon the factory inspectors, but no state has a force of inspec¬ 
 tors large enough to cover thoroughly the field and give it such con¬ 
 sideration as it requires. Prosecutions have been numerous and 
 have succeeded in causing employers to hesitate before they entered 
 upon an agreement for illegal employment. With the great indus¬ 
 trial activity of recent years the number of violations of the law 
 has increased to some extent, but the chief remedy for this lies in 
 extending and adding to the inspection force. 
 
 Child labor legislation in the Northern Central States to-day 
 occupies a favorable position. This is due largely to the change 
 of opinion by the public and by the employers as a body. Public 
 opinion is not created in a day nor does it always act promptly even 
 after it has been aroused. The bureaus of labor and factory inspec¬ 
 tion have, through their persistent work, helped to place this prob¬ 
 lem in its true light and this in turn has assisted in creating a gen¬ 
 eral demand for effective child labor laws. Further, the employers 
 who formerly fought every step in the progress of this legislation 
 have since learned that the evils which they feared were largely 
 imaginary and that industry will not suffer if the law is uniformly 
 enforced. In fact some of the strongest supporters of child labor 
 laws to-day are employers who formerly opposed them. Another 
 force which tends to alleviate the difficulties is the growing efficiency 
 of the school laws, and the passage of statutes prohibiting the 
 employment of children in violation of the school laws together 
 with the granting of concurrent powers for the enforcement of these 
 laws to the factory inspectors and the truancy officers. These forces 
 in their slow but not uncertain way, are bringing together the child 
 labor law and the compulsory educational law into the harmonious 
 relationship of one complete scheme, where each, though thorough, 
 in its narrow sense, must in its broader meaning be a supplement to 
 the other. 
 
National ICabor Committer 
 
 105 EAST 2 2d STREET 
 
 N EW YORK CITY 
 
 ORGANIZED APRIL 15, 1004 
 
 OFFICERS 
 
 FELIX ADLER, 
 
 CHAIRMAN 
 
 Homer Folks, 
 
 Vice-Chairman 
 
 Samuel mccune Lindsay, 
 
 SECRETARY 
 
 v. everit macy, 
 
 TREASURER 
 
 A. J. Mckelway Owen R. Lovejoy 
 
 assistant Secretaries 
 
 BOARD OF TRUSTEES 
 
 Felix adler, chairman 
 Robert w. de forest 
 Edward t. Devine 
 Homer FOLKS 
 John s. Huyler 
 Mrs. Florence Kelley 
 
 James h. Kirkland 
 v. everit macy 
 Edgar Gardner murphy 
 ISAAC N. SELIGMAN 
 
 Paul m. Warburg 
 John W. Wood 
 
 OBJECTS 
 
 To PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF SOCIETY, WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYMENT 
 OF CHILDREN IN G AI N FU L OCC U PATI O NS. 
 
 TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT THE FACTS CONCERNING CHILD LABOR. 
 
 TO RAISE THE STANDARD OF PUBLIC OPINION AND PARENTAL RESPONSI¬ 
 BILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYMENT OFCHILDREN. 
 
 TO ASSIST IN PROTECTING CHILDREN BY SUITABLE LEGISLATION AGAINST 
 PREMATURE OR OTHERWISE INJURIOUS EMPLOYMENT, AND THUS 
 TO AID IN SECURING FOR THEM AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ELEMEN¬ 
 TARY EDUCATION AND PHYSICAL DEVELO PM ENT SU FFI Cl ENT FOR 
 THE DEMANDS OF CITIZENSHIP AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF 
 INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY. 
 
 TO AID IN PROMOTING THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS RELATING TO CHILD 
 LABOR. 
 
 TO CO-ORDINATE, UNIFY AND SUPPLEMENT THE WORK OF STATE OR LOCAL 
 CHILD LABOR COMMITTEES, AND ENCOURAGE THE FORMATION 
 OF SUCH COMMITTEES WHERE THEY DO NOT EXIST. 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF 
 ®he National (Hhtlil Eabor (Crnnnutt?? 
 
 The following is a list of the publications of the National Child Labor 
 Committee, single copies of which may be had gratis, except as otherwise 
 noted, upon application to the secretary, Samuel McCune Lindsay, 105 East 
 Twenty-second Street, New York City. Those out of print will be reprinted 
 by the committee if the demand for them warrants it. 
 
 The smaller series is in the form of leaflets by 6 inches, which 
 fit into an ordinary-sized envelope and are convenient for mailing. The 
 larger size, 6 by 9 inches, is in a more convenient form for library file and 
 permanent reference. Publications in both the smaller and larger series will 
 be furnished in quantities of fifty copies or over at cost price, for distri¬ 
 bution by clubs, societies or individuals interested in the cause of child 
 labor; and persons receiving single copies who do not wish to keep them 
 longer for personal use are requested, whenever possible, to send them to 
 others whose interest in the subject may thus be aroused. 
 
 /. SMALLER SERIES: - 
 
 1. Folder giving names and addresses of the members of the National Child 
 
 Labor Committee, statement of the Objects of the Committee, and list of 
 executive officers. Pp. 8. 
 
 2. “Illiteracy Promoted by Perjury/' A statement from the Pennsylvania 
 
 Child Labor Committee of conditions among children at work in Penn¬ 
 sylvania and on the legislation which has been passed for their protection. 
 Pp. 16. 
 
 3. “Children Who Work at Night." A report of investigations into the 
 
 conditions of child labor in various industries in Pennsylvania, and the 
 glass industry in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Pp. 24. 
 
 4. “Unprotected Children." A discussion of children in occupations not 
 
 usually covered by child labor legislation. Pp. 20. 
 
 5. “The Cost of Child Labor." A study of diseased and disabled children. 
 
 Pp. 36. 
 
 6. “Dependent Parents." A discussion of the problem of the widow de¬ 
 
 pendent on her young children for support. Pp. 12. 
 
 II. LARGER SERIES: 
 
 1. Program of the First Annual Meeting of the National Committee, held 
 
 in New York City, February 14-16, 1905. Pp. 4. 
 
 2. “Child Labor." A volume containing the papers and addresses, and the 
 
 proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the National Committee, 
 also two specially contributed articles on the subject of child labor. Pp. 
 176. Price, cloth bound, $1.25; paper binding, $1.00. 
 
The papers and addresses printed separately and for most part available 
 for free distribution, as noted below, are marked thus The two 
 
 special contributions to this list are marked thus “f”. 
 
 3. “The School as a Force Arrayed Against Child Labor.” By James H. 
 
 Kirkland, Chancellor, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. Pp. 8.* 
 
 4. “Child Labor from the Employer's Point of View.” By Rev. Dr. Emil 
 
 G. Hirsch, Professor of Rabbinical Literature and Philosophy in the 
 University of Chicago. Pp. 8.* 
 
 5. “The Test of Effective Child Labor Legislation.” By Owen R. Love- 
 
 joy, Assistant Secretary of the National Child Labor Committee. Pp. 8.* 
 
 6. “Child Labor Legislation and Methods of Enforcement in the 
 
 Western States.” By Judge Ben. B. Lindsey, Juvenile Court, Denver, 
 Colo. Pp. 8* 
 
 7. “Child Labor Legislation and Methods of Enforcement in the 
 
 Northern Central States.” By Halford Erickson, Commissioner of 
 
 Labor, Wisconsin. Pp. 16* 
 
 8. “Child Labor Legislation and Methods of Enforcement in the New 
 
 England and Middle States.” By Mrs. Florence Kelley, Secretary of 
 the National Consumers’ League, New York. Pp. 12.* 
 
 9. “Child Labor Legislation and Methods of Enforcement in the 
 
 Southern States.” By Rev. Neal L. Anderson, Montgomery, Ala. Pp. 
 
 20 * 
 
 10. “The Work of the General Federation of Women’s Clubs Against 
 Child Labor.” By Mrs. A. O. Granger, Cartersville, Ga., Chairman of 
 Child, Labor Committee, General Federation of Women’s Clubs. Pp. 8.* 
 
 11. “Child Labor in the United States and Its Great Attendant Evils.” 
 By Felix Adler, Ph. D., Chairman of the National Child Labor Commit¬ 
 tee, and Professor of Political and Social Ethics in Columbia University, 
 New York. Pp. 16.* 
 
 12. “Child Labor in Southern Industry.” By A. J. McKelway, Charlotte, 
 N. C., Assistant Secretary of the National Child Labor Committee. 
 Pp. 8* 
 
 13. “Child Labor Legislation —A Requisite for Industrial Efficiency.” 
 By Jane Addams, Hull House, Chicago. Pp. 12* 
 
 14. “Children in American Street Trades.” By Myron E. Adams, Head- 
 worker of West Side Neighborhood House, New York City. Pp. 24.! 
 
 15. “The Operation of the New Child Labor Law in New Jersey.” By 
 Hugh F. Fox, President of the Children’s Protective Alliance of New 
 Jersey. Pp. 24.t 
 
 (*, f. Also contained in and printed as part of Larger Series, No. 2, 
 “Child Labor,” a volume containing the papers and addresses, and the pro¬ 
 ceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the National Committee; also two 
 specially contributed articles on the subject of child labor. Pp. 176. Price, 
 cloth bound, $1.25; paper binding, $1.) 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 3 0112 064621