fornia, if they have certificate of age and education. In Massachusetts those between 14-16 years must be certified.

The hours of labor are restricted by law: in Alabama, under 12 years, 66 hours a week; Arkansas, under 14 years, 60 hours a week; California, under 18 years, 54 hours a week; Illinois, under 14 years, 8 hours a day-under 16 years, 48 hours a week; Indiana, under 16 years, 60 hours a week; Louisiana, under 18 years, 10 hours a day; Maine, females under 18, males under 16, 10 hours a day; Minnesota, under 14 years, 10 hours a day; New York, under 16 years, 9 hours a day; under 18 years, 60 hours a week; North Carolina, under 18 years, 66 hours a week; Oregon, under 16, 10 hours a day, 6 days; Wisconsin, under 18 years, 8 hours a day.

Night work of children.-Children of 13-15 years are not to work between 7 P. M. and 6 A. M. in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon. In New York the law forbids children under 16 years from working between 9 P. M. and 6 A. M.; in South Carolina children under 12 may not work between 8 P. M. and 6 A. M. In Texas children 12 to 14 years may not work between 6 P. M. and 6 a. m. Minnesota requires a certificate of physical fitness for work-a principle which is influential in the discussion and legislation of other states. The inadequacy of the age test alone is generally recognized.*

IV. FACTORY INSPECTION

No protective law is self-enforcing, and it is evidence of moral insincerity or ignorance in a legislature to pass a code of regulations without providing money and organization for competent inspection of work places. The majority of employers in all countries, as a rule, will not voluntarily execute a law which casts on them a financial burden and

'See Josephine Goldsmith, Child Labor Legislation, Handbook National Consumers' League, 1908.

trouble, and employees are everywhere afraid to complain for fear of discharge from employment. As might be expected from what has already been said, there is no general system of regulation and inspection common to all the states. Yet one can discover considerable similarity and even identity of language in the laws. The older states copied many provisions from the British laws and the newer states imitated these. In the volume of Labor Laws which is here used for data we observe the greatest differences in extent of provisions, from the elaborate codes of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, down to the statute of Nevada whose sole contribution seems to be the requirement that set screws must be countersunk! Sometimes the statute makes a rigid requirement and leaves it to benevolent employers to interpret and apply at their discretion, and sometimes the office of inspector is created without giving the partisan appointee any serious duties to perform. Probably it is expected in such cases that the "County Chairman" will keep him busy at patriotic tasks! In the purely agricultural states, rapidly diminishing in number, the need for regulations is not widely felt; but factories are rapidly springing up everywhere and control becomes imperative. Factory inspectors are appointed in the following states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Mine inspectors are appointed in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, United States (federal laws). There are railroad inspectors in Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Washington.

Since it is impossible to describe in this place all the forms of organization, we may select New York as one of the most highly developed and specialized. By law a department of labor was created, over which is placed a commissioner of labor appointed by the governor by and with the advice of the senate. The commissioner of labor has the powers and duties belonging to the offices of factory inspector, labor statistics, and mediation and arbitration, and three bureaus exist for these three objects. The immediate direction of the bureau of labor statistics is lodged with a deputy commissioner, while another deputy commissioner has charge of the bureau of factory inspection. The commissioner of labor, with the aid of the deputy named, is required to collect, assort, systematize and present in annual reports to the legislature statistical details in relation to commercial, industrial, social, and sanitary conditions of workingmen and productive industries in the state. Employers are required by law to furnish information desired. A free public employment bureau is under the charge of the commissioner of labor in several cities of the state. The factory inspector may appoint not more than fifty persons as deputy factory inspectors, not more than ten of whom shall be women, and these may be removed by him at any time. The salary of the deputy factory inspector is $1,200. Special deputies are appointed to inspect bakeries and mines. It is the duty of the inspectors to visit factories as often as practicable and to enforce the laws. Any lawful municipal ordinance relating to factories shall be enforced by the state inspectors. The salary of the commissioner is $3,000 and of his two deputies $2,500 each; but the positions may change with party or factional changes and there is little prospect for a professional career. If an employer violates the law the inspector lays complaint before the county attorney, with all the proofs, and it is the duty of the

attorney to prosecute. In certain cases the inspector is authorized to accept arrangements which he regards as equivalent to those named in the law; for example, the fire escape in a factory may be of any kind which in the judgment of the inspector is reliable and sufficient for its purpose. The inspector of a bakery may determine the method of drainage and ventilation in a building. The department can make regulations for the security of miners in coal mines. and quarries. An employer who tries to hinder an inspector is liable to punishment. Supervision of home industries in making clothing belongs to boards of health, while workmen on railroads are under the care of railroad commissioners. The inspection of steam boilers in the city of Greater New York is under the charge of the police authorities. This board is empowered to appoint inspectors and make regulations.

Similar provisions were recommended to the legislature of Illinois at the last session in 1907, but rejected, for the most part, chiefly on the ground that the law gave too much authority to the factory inspector. In America, where the "spoils system" is still at work with corrupting influence, the factory inspector is feared by employers not only because he is tempted to enforce the law too rigidly but because custom makes bribes and blackmail only too frequent.

In 1908 the legislature of New York placed the inspection of mercantile establishments under the Department of Labor, in a Bureau of Mercantile Inspection. It had been found that control by local boards of health was ineffective."

Special studies, with historical background, are F. R. Fairchild, History of Labor Legislation in New York; Alba M. Edwards, The Labor Legislation of Connecticut; J. K. Towles, Factory Legislation in Rhode Island; these in Vols. VI (1905), VIII (1907), and IX (1908), of “Publications of American Economic Association."

CHAPTER XII

SURVEY AND OUTLOOK

There are already, as we have seen in the preceding chapters, various systems of industrial insurance in the United States which witness to the universal sense of need of such protection even among those workers who have. least developed habits of thrift. These imperfect and unrelated schemes are yet to be developed, co-ordinated, regulated, and combined so as to form a consistent, comprehensive, and adequate system. The hope of progress lies in these germinal beginnings, and the problem immediately before the nation is one of synthesis. Evolution does not make great leaps, for even the "sports" which figure in the "mutation theory" of DeVries are closely akin to the parent stock.

Is universal insurance an economic possibility? A complete answer to this question would require extended discussion. A few things may be suggested. The profit fund could carry a very large share of the burden, as shown by the fact that employers are marvelously prosperous, and by the fact that even now, though in a very uncertain way, they set apart a vast sum for helping workmen in times of disability in the form of contributions to sickness funds, hospitals, physicians, and gifts to families in distress, not to speak of taxes for public relief and enormous costs for casualty insurance and litigation, which is now waste. The wages fund could bear a much heavier drain for insurance if we can judge from the immense sums spent by workmen for objects which are destructive to health and morals. It is true that the unskilled workmen have no margin for adequate insurance, and those who cannot supply even the