we have felt are the essence of an adequate and proper approach to the problem.

The exact name of the measure embodying these principles of child labor control is of no importance, naturally, to an organization such as the League of Women Voters, and if the end we are interested in can best be achieved by coming in as a part of a larger bill, such as this fair labor standards bill, naturally that will meet with our approval too, although as I say, we are not empowered and I am not empowered on behalf of the league to take any stand in regard to the other provisions of this bill.

However, we do feel very strongly that certain amendments should be made insofar as the features regarding child labor are concerned. We approve of the child labor standards, which are embodied in the bill; that is, the prohibition of the employment of children under 16 years in factories and children under 18 in special hazardous occupations to be determined by the Children's Bureau. We do, however, very strenuously object to the provisions which adopt the prisonmade goods principle of regulation. We believe, as I believe Mr. Jackson said in his statement, the wise thing to do is to put the thing we really want directly up to the Supreme Court, and I think what all all of us want, who are sincerely interested in child labor regulations, is an interstate commerce law which will prohibit children under 16 working on goods which are shipped in interstate commerce. believe that should be done directly rather than indirectly.

We

There are various reasons for our objection to the prison-made goods principle. In the first place, such experience as we have had, and many of us have worked very closely with our own State labor departments in connection with State child labor laws, leads to the conclusion that the administration of the prison-made goods provision would be extremely complicated. The situation regarding goods produced by children is entirely different than that of prison-made goods. After all, there are comparatively few prisons in the United States and comparatively few of those prisons make goods which are actually shipped in interstate commerce commercially, whereas the number of factories which might be employing children, the number of sweatshops and so on which do employ children, might be legion compared to the number of prisons. We believe the enforcement of the prison-made goods part of this law would be an extremely difficult and complicated matter. We believe also that it is unwise, because it would require the enactment of new legislation in all but three of the States in order to become effective; in other words, the States would have to accept the provisions of this act, which again would cause the same kind of difficulty that we have had in securing ratification of the child labor amendment; and those of us who have been active in that fight in the States would very greatly prefer not to have to take on a new fight at the same time in order to get adequate child labor law enforcement enacted.

In addition, we believe that it would actually hamper ratification of the child labor amendment because of the fact that we would have to be working on getting laws through the State legislatures in order to accept the principles of such an act, and we finally believe that it is an unsound governmental principle to establish, because it is in effect further setting up tariff barriers between the States, an actual trade barrier, which seems to us leading in a dangerous direction.

We, therefore, would greatly prefer to have the provisions regarding the child labor revised to be on the simple and direct basis of interstate commerce.

If you will pardon one rather frivolous comment, I think one reason I feel strongly on the subject of prison-made goods principle, is that it was perfectly obvious at the time of the hearings before the Interstate Commerce Committee that those of us who had been in this fight for a long time for better child-labor laws had a lot to fear of the Greeks who were bearing gifts, because when the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Bar Association all came out for the principle embodied in the prison-made goods law, it makes me feel that there is something that those of us who are really sincerely interested in the abolition of child labor should at least be on our guard against.

If you will pardon one personal reminiscence, I will say that last summer at the meeting of the American Bar Association in Boston I had the pleasure of meeting the chairman of the Committee of the Association for Ratification of the Child Labor Amendment, and after considerable talk with him, I came without much difficulty to the conclusion that he was a real representative of the committee which he was the chairman of, that the interests of this committee were certainly not in establishing good child-labor standards but primarily in defeating the ratification of the child labor amendment, and I felt that this prison-made goods theory was distinctly a red herring drawn across the trail of adequate Federal child-labor legislation.

That, as I say, is purely a personal opinion, but when one suddenly finds one's self on the same side as the people who have opposed childlabor legislation for a great many years, one is naturally a little skeptical of the methods that are being advocated.

There are two other points which I wish to bring out briefly, Mr. Chairman. One is that I believe if the Federal labor-standards bill is adopted by the committee the exemptions from applications of the civil-service laws which are now listed in the bill should be materially reduced, so that the merit system would be applied to the appointments under the bill.

Finally, we ask with great earnestness that whatever amendment is necessary be made, that complete administration be by the Children's Bureau. This is not a matter of emotion. This is a matter of long and very definite experience on the part of the League of Women Voters and the other women's organizations which have worked in this field. Ever since the administration of the first Federal child-labor law in 1916, those of us who have been interested in this subject have been deeply impressed by the unselfish and the extremely expert work which has been done by the Federal Children's Bureau. We believe that that could only be appreciated by those of us who have worked closely in this field who are familiar with it. We believe that the life of a child, all the problems in regard to the welfare of children are such that it is very difficult to separate health in one compartment, labor into another compartment, and so forth, but they should all be combined. It was on that theory that the Children's Bureau originally was foundedthat the life of a child was something that should be regarded as a unit even if the welfare of a child had something that could be put into different pigeonholes.

The Children's Bureau has functioned effectively and with extraordinary lack of the difficulties that frequently beset Federal bureaus in cooperation with the States. I think that other people will submit.

to you evidences of such cooperation and I believe Miss Lenroot has filed a statement with you which gives some details of the previous experience of the Bureau in cooperation with the States, so that I will not go into that. I may say that those of us who have worked in this field know that that cooperation has been effective in the extreme in the past. Under the first child labor law the appropriation to the Children's Bureau for the enforcement of that law was almost fantastically small, that instead of the army of inspectors that was supposed to overrun the country to enforce the child labor law, there was something like 51 employees altogether in the entire Children's Bureau for the enforcement of this act and only 17 or 18 of them were actual inspectors.

The reason for this was that the Bureau worked out so admirably a system of cooperation with State labor departments that in the States that had any adequate child labor law enforcement, no work by the Federal Government was needed except a certain amount of cooperation in the setting up of the actual detailed methods, and so forth. The result was really an extraordinary degree of cooperation and of friendly relations between the States and the Federal Children's Bureau.

It is therefore on the basis of past experience and genuine confidence that this problem is one that should be dealt with as a whole in the light of the welfare of children, that we would like to see the Children's Bureau made the enforcement agency for any Federal child labor law that is passed, whether it is on this principle or not.

I do not know, of course, what the committee has in mind as to the form of this bill. I believe the league had hoped, and there are other organizations that had hoped, that if this was included as part of another bill, that the whole question of child labor could be put in one section so that it could be regarded as a whole, as a separate problem, rather than part of the problem of wages and hours and so forth. If that is not possible, however, and I am not sure how important it is except that it is important to do it in some form so that it will not become unconstitutional if the rest of the bill does. We believe it is essential that these three things be considered-administration by the Children's Bureau, the merit system of enforcement, and finally the abolition of the prison-made goods principle, and the adoption if possible of the principle simply of interstate commerce with the prohibition of the shipment of goods in interstate commerce.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Would you mind stating for the record the name of the gentleman who was the chairman of the American Bar Association committee?

Mrs. BROWN. Yes. The name has slipped my mind for the moment. I will recall it in a moment. He comes from Birmingham, Ala. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Mr. Simpson?

Mrs. BROWN. Mr. Simpson. He is an extremely charming gentleman. I think I am stating it fairly when I say that he did not know much about child labor law enforcement and the child labor amendHe felt very strongly about it, however.

Are there any questions?

The CHAIRMAN. May I say to the committee that we have a number of witnesses today, and it is necessary if we are to carry out our plan that we adopted, to be brief in the questions we ask of the witness. Of course, if we do not finish with these today that we have, they can go over until tomorrow. We have a few more to

morrow than we have today. It is entirely up to the committee. The other day we adopted the program with the idea of trying to get them all this week.

Are there any questions?

Representative THOMAS. Just one. Judging from your remarks, do you believe that if the question is again put up to the Supreme Court as it was put up in the Hammer v. Dagenhart case, that they will reverse their stand?

Mrs. BROWN. I think it is highly probable. Of course, as you know, it was a five to four decision, and I think that among the constitutional lawyers

Representative THOMAS (interposing). In short, that is what you advocate now?

Mrs. BROWN. Yes, sir. I should like to put it up to the Supreme Court.

Representative THOMAS. Urging us to put it up to them again, you believe they will, so to speak, change their position? Mrs. BROWN. That is what we believe.

Representative THOMAS. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I might state also that in notifying the witnesses to appear, I have notified each one of the number of witnesses we have here today and stating that it would be necessary to have a limited time. If the committee looks, however, at the program for Thursday, it will be noted that we do not have so many witnesses on that day, because I was informed that Mr. Emery of the Merchants and Manufacturers Association would need a longer time to discuss the bill, to give their viewpoint of the bill. We have purposely left for that day a longer time. There were no particular requests made for length of time for these who are here today and tomorrow, and all of them have agreed to cooperate in an effort for us to finish.

May I state that the members of the committee have before them each, a copy of the statement of Miss Lenroot. It is a very important statement and was not read at this time, but I suggest that you take it with you and read it. It will, of course, appear in the record. (The statement presented by Mrs. Brown follows:)

STATEMENT OF MRS. MARY T. BANNERMAN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS

Since its organization in 1897, the National Congress of Parents and Teachers has been opposed to the exploitation of children in industry. It has throughout its history supported legislation to abolish child labor. It helped to secure the adoption by the United States Congress of the child labor amendment and its State branches have assisted in securing ratification by State legislatures.

No action has been taken on any of the bills dealing with child labor recently introduced, however, if the enactment of any of them would lessen or abolish the exploitation of children in industry, it would be cause for deep gratification to the membership of our organization.

The latest resolution on child labor adopted by the National Congress of Parents and Teachers and still in effect reads as follows:

"We reaffirm our stand in favor of ratification by the States of the child labor amendment and the enactment of such Federal legislation as will give the necessary protection to child workers and we urge that State branches work constantly for the improvement of State child labor standards and State enforcement machinery, with special emphasis on the establishment of (1) a basic minimum age of 16 for employment, (2) a higher minimum age for the employment in hazardous occupations, and (3) minimum wage provisions for minors."

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON CHILD LABOR BY THE NATIONAL BOARD, YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Since the year 1919 the national Y. W. C. A., at its conventions composed of delegates from the local associations throughout the United States has expressed its conviction that there must be legislative enactment if the abolition of child labor is to be accomplished.

In 1922 the national board, acting for the national association, adopted a resolution in favor of "law establishing a Federal minimum of protection", and joined with other national women's organizations in working for a child labor amendment to the Constitution, authorizing Congress to pass such a law.

Since then the national association in convention, and its national board, have repeatedly reaffirmed the position that States alone are not able to bring about the abolition of child labor in the United States, and that through the Federal Government a minimum standard must be set up.

This position of the Y. W. C. A. is not a theoretical one. It is based on experience of hundreds of young industrial girls who are in Y. W. C. A. clubs throughout the country. Our first official action on child labor was based on the testimony given at a national conference of industrial clubs of the Y. W. C. A. We have given thorough study to various possibilities of improving conditions, such State legislation, Federal legislation, voluntary action on the part of employers. Year by year the situation has been canvassed, with the same result, namely, that although much improvement can be brought about through other methods, child labor cannot be abolished without the aid of a Federal law establishing a minimum standard below which no State shall fall.

Since there is delay in the ratification of the child labor amendment making possible a general child labor law, we are interested in measures that offer control in certain fields. We believe that a Federal law, based on the interstate commerce power, to give immediate protection to children employed in manufacturing establishments, would be a step in the right direction. We would be interested in seeing at this time a law enacted which would bar from shipment in interstate commerce the products of any factory in which children under 16 are employed and a similar prohibition regarding employment of children under 18 years in highly dangerous occupations, such as mining, et cetera.

While such a law would not offer the complete protection which is needed, it seems to offer a genuine and enforceable remedy for one part of the child-labor problem.

STATEMENT FOR THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN'S CLUBS, INC., BY MRS. OPAL D. DAVID

The National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs has opposed the exploitation of child labor for many years and has been active in the campaign for the ratification of the child labor amendment. We believe that campaign must go on if all harmful child labor is to be adequately regulated, but we also feel that the present attempts to reenter the field of Federal regulation through congressional action offer a more immediate step in the right direction. In considering the child labor provisions of the Black-Connery fair-labor-standards bill, we urge the committee to give careful thought to the problem of enforceability. We also favor, especially, provisions which will be effective in every part of the United States without the necessity for further legislation on the part of the individual States.

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, BY MRS. NETTIE PODELL OTTENBERG, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE

The National Council of Jewish Women, organized in 200 cities and 40 States and representing 40,000 women, has consistently worked for the ratification of the child labor amendment, and in addition favors such Federal legislation as will adequately protect the children of our Nation.

In accordance with our policy of seeking for the best administration of legislation which we favor, we respectfully urge that in the Black-Connery bill, the child labor features be administered by the Children's Bureau of the Department of Labor.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Courtenay Dinwiddie.

150422-37-pt. 2- -9