Mr. DALLINGER. The employment of children under 14 is absolutely prohibited, and under 16 they are obliged to have a certain amount of schooling.

Mr. SUMNERS. In what sort of work are they prohibited?

Mr. DALLINGER. From all work.

Mr. SUMNERS. Could they not work on the farm?

Mr. DALLINGER. Why, I suppose they can help their families on the farm.

Mr. SUMNERS. They could not go across the field and help a neighbor?

Mr. DALLINGER. Well, I understand if they work regularly, between 14 and 16, they must have a certain amount of schooling. They must go to night school, or go to school a certain part of the week. Under 14 they are not permitted to be employed at all; and in order for a boy or a girl to get employment they must get a certificate from the school authorities showing that they are of the proper age.

Mr. SUMNERS. It is believed by you people that the age limit which you fixed is about the correct age limit?

Mr. DALLINGER. Why, naturally; sir.

Mr. SUMNERS. I mean the people who are interested in child welfare. I think they are from all over the country.

Mr. DALLINGER. The provisions advocated here are substantially the same as in the child labor law that was passed by Congress on two different occasions.

Mr. YATES. As I understand you, your amendment does not fix the age limit, but leaves it to be determined by Congress from time to time?

Mr. DALLINGER. I made it broad. I would be in favor of fixing the age at, perhaps, 14; but I want to give Congress the power to extablish a uniform law of this kind. I have no doubt, may it please the committee, that if you give Congress the power to pass such a law, that it will pass substantially the same bill that it has passed twice before, by an overwhelming vote.

Mr. FOSTER. A general committee representing 17 of these national women's organizations have had up with a number of lawyers the proper wording of the proposed amendment.

Mr. DALLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I want the committee to frame the best constitutional amendment that it can. I am here to plead for the passage of a constitutional amendment that will give Congress the power to prohibit the employment of children of the age when they should be at school and at play.

Mr. DYER. You do not want to advocate the whole of your resolution, then, do you?

Mr. DALLINGER. Oh, yes; I am in favor of it.

Mr. DYER. Establish uniform hours and conditions?

Mr. DALLINGER. I think that Congress ought to pass a uniform law in regard to the employment of women and minors in line with the 48-hour laws passed by many of our States.

Mr. DYER. Is not that question practically regulated now-the hours of labor of women? You do not seriously advocate that Congress should recommend or present a resolution for a constitutional amendment to the States fixing the hours and the conditions of employment of women, do you?

Mr. DALLINGER. Yes, I do; I am in favor of that.

Mr. DYER. You do not think it could ever be done?

Mr. DALLINGER. It probably would be done. Congress has passed an 8-hour law for all Government employees long ago.

Mr. DYER. And the States also have taken up that question. As to the constitutional amendment, you do not think that is necessary, do you?

Mr. DALLINGER. Yes; I do.

Mr. DYER. But you do not think it is necessary to add that to the amendment?

Mr. DALLINGER. I think it is important to regulate the hours of employment and the conditions of labor.

Mr. DYER. Why not put it in for men, too, then?

Mr. DALLINGER. Because the men can take care of themselves. Mr. DYER. The ladies can take care of themselves pretty well. Mr. DALLINGER. Now that they have the vote, perhaps they can. Mr. SUMNERS. Is it your judgment, or not, that sentiment in favor of protecting children with reference to the hours and conditions of labor is growing over the country generally?

Mr. DALLINGER. I think it is growing, sir.

Mr. SUMNERS. In view of the fact that you believe it is growing, do you have any question in your mind as to the wisdom of the Congress taking this matter from the jurisdiction of the States, instead of leaving it for the people of the States, for the good women and men of those States, to develop a local opinion and attitude that will compel their legislatures to respond to this sentiment?

Mr. DALLINGER. I wish that sentiment might be what you say, sir; but I am very much reminded of a speech by Congressman Howard, of Georgia, at the time one of the child labor bills passed the House. Many of his colleagues were opposed to the bill, you will remember, and he made a speech in favor of it. He said that one. of the most pathetic things to him was to go from his house to his law office in the morning and to see the little colored children going to school and the little white children going into the factories and the mills because their parents who had moved in from the mountain districts wanted their children to go into the factories and the mills. That accounts for the fact that those States have not passed this humane legislation.

When you have men and women in States in this country so blind to the interests of their own offspring and to the welfare of the future citizens of their State that they deliberately want their children to go into the factories and mills, it is going to be a long time, in my opinion, before all the State legislatures will pass this humane legislation. In addition, I think the whole country is interested in the welfare of all of its children.

Mr. SUMNERS. I think we are getting at the heart of this bill so far as I am concerned. I will ask you this question-and we are just in consultation here. Mr. Howard expressed what I believe is the growing sentiment everywhere. Now don't you think it is quite worth while if the people of the States are compelled, say under the leadership of such men as Mr. Howard, to make this fight for the protection of the children there? Don't you think it is worth while to develop this sentiment among the only people on earth who have

the power to protect the children? That is a serious question in my mind.

Mr. DALLINGER. I think that you and I agree in this respect, that it is too bad that we have to ask for a constitutional amendment. It is too bad that the people of all the States do not see the matter in the right spirit. I will call your attention to the fact that Congressman Howard, of Georgia, was defeated.

Mr. SUMNERS. For the Senate.

He was not defeated for Congress.

Mr. DALLINGER. He is not here. As I
Mr. SUMNERS. But not on that issue.

say, he was defeated.

Mr. DALLINGER. It may have had a good deal to do with it. The CHAIRMAN. We have not time to speculate about Mr. Howard. Let us discuss the question before us.

Mr. DALLINGER. If the people of these States that have not passed this humane legislation do not do it, I think the Nation ought to do it. Mr. SUMNERS. Do you not believe, and do you not know, that the sentiment in the country generally, in the States, is growing in favor of protecting child labor? Is that not a fact in your judgment?

Mr. DALLINGER. For the country as a whole, that is true; but it does not seem to have permeated the States where this evil exists in its pronounced form to any such extent as to warrant us in believing that they are going to pass this legislation in the near future.

Mr. SUMNERS. Is not this a fact, that only a short time ago practically none of the States had legislation along this line? And, considering the territory of the United States as a whole, has not that sentiment grown, and has it not crystallized into legislation, rapidly as any other general movement that you know of?

as

Mr. DALLINGER. In certain sections of the country it has not advanced very much.

Mr. FOSTER. Is it not a fact that the last Federal census shows that 1 out of every 20 children under 16 years of age in the United States is in gainful employment; and in some States, one out of four? And since the Supreme Court declared this law unconstitutional, 44 State legislatures have met in 44 States which have standards not equal in all respects to the law declared unconstitutional, and not one of the 44 legislatures raised their standard. That would suggest that progress is not very rapid, would it not?

The CHAIRMAN. You began your remarks by saying that these other States had an element of unfair competition by reason of the lack of labor laws, and that it might take away from your State its precedence in certain lines of industry. Do you think that has anything to do with the question of adopting a constitutional amendment? Mr. DALLINGER. I do, because I do not think that a State should be penalized for adopting humane legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that would be a ground for invading the system that was adopted by the fathers in creating the dual form of government under which we exist?

Mr. DALLINGER. It should not be a compelling reason. I believe, sir, that the States should be encouraged to adopt humane legislation. Now, I put this thing entirely upon the ground of the welfare of the future citizens of the country. In other words, the Nation is interested in the welfare, the physical and mental welfare, of the future citizens of the United States, and if the States refuse or neglect to adopt humane legislation that is going to better the future men

tality and morality of the country, I believe we are justified on every ground from the war power, if you please to do this sort of thing. Now, as the Supreme Court has declared the child labor law unconstitutional, I think we ought to get a constitutional amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that a few communities with the advanced idea ought to be put in the position of enforcing their views upon the other communities of the United States?

Mr. DALLINGER. I do not think there are a few.

The CHAIRMAN. That is seemingly what the condition is, according to Mr. Foster's question. Is not the fact that 44 States have met since the decision of the Supreme Court and taken no action, evidence that 44 States are opposed to this form of legislation?

Mr. DALLINGER. I do not think so, sir; many of those States have child-labor legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but he put it that no change had been made to conform with the standard set in the congressional legislation.

Mr. DALLINGER. Because that included the States that had no child-labor laws at all.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask if you are aware of the fact that, according to the report on the employment of children issued by the bureau, 61 per cent of the child-labor employment is engaged in agriculture, forestry, or animal husbandry? Sixty-one per cent; are you aware of that fact?

Mr. DALLINGER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Only 7 per cent in the extraction of minerals; 17.5 per cent in manufacturing and mechanical industries; 1.8 per cent in transportation; trade, 6 per cent; domestic personal service, 5.1 per cent; clerical occupations, 7.6 per cent; others, 4 per cent.

Now, this distribution shows that in the country districts, where they need farm help, the children are employed in aiding their parents in the work of the farm, and in the forests, and in animal husbandry. Is not that conducive to health, and to the development of children? Mr. DALLINGER. I do not think so, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, how far is the State going to be called upon to pass coercive legislation to control the power of the parents over their children, when the use of that power is spurred by those who would take the children of these parents and follow some ideal, beautiful course of treatment, such as your State of Massachusetts has devised?

Mr. DALLINGER. I think, sir, that the standard of living in the United States ought to be high enough so that every parentThe CHAIRMAN (interposing). You do not eliminate poverty, do you?

Mr. DALLINGER (continuing). Can educate his children; and the State is vitally concerned in that until that child reaches the age of 14. You just quoted to me certain figures, about only 17 per cent being engaged in manufacturing. That includes the textile industry. You do not point out in those figures that in some States the proportion is very much larger than that.

The CHAIRMAN. The figures I quoted are for the whole United States.

Mr. DALLINGER. I know it; but there are some States where perhaps 25 per cent of the children are being employed in the factories

and mills, and I do not believe that the Nation ought to allow that to go on.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you or do you not believe, Mr. Dallinger. that if the same amount of interest and propaganda were directed to those particular States concerning which you complain, that the results would be different, that it would enable the States to deal with this question, which is a matter for State legislation and not for national legislation?

Mr. DALLINGER. No, sir; I do not, because you have the selfish interests of the parents in those States, the parents who are so blind to the interests of their children that they want those children to go into the factories.

The CHAIRMAN. For instance, I see here something reprinted by permission of Collier's, in which it refers to my State, Pennsylvania, and speaks of the startling condition of affairs.

Mr. YATES. What are you referring to, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. I am referring to the propaganda you have all received.

Mr. FOSTER. I asked to have it placed on our desks this morning. That is my responsibility. I hope everyone reads it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the part here relating to Pennsylvania is quite insulting. Pennsylvania can be agitated to any reform that is within the line of moral vision, and to make this statement about Pennsylvania is absurd on its face. Any appeal by these good ladies and any other appeal by citizens to the legislature would secure every reform that would be warranted in being passed.

Mr. YATES. What is the statement, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. It states

That great State has a governor who is ranked as one of the most far-seeing progressives. The old-line politicians feared him as a doctor fears pneumonia. We have no idea of saying for one moment that Gifford Pinchot is responsible for the fact that the boys are still working at the mines, a great many of them illegally, underground in the Pennsylvania fields, but what we do call to attention is the fact that an electorate which put in a man of that type is the same electorate which permits the damaging work to go on. It is no backward community. It is one of the greatest in the United States.

Well, now, if that electorate has such intelligence, why not make an appeal to it and make that reform? Have we heard from Governot Pinchot the slightest complaint upon this subject? He has been investigating the mines. Have we heard a word from this progressive statesman concerning the employment of children in Pennsylvania? No; it is like a great deal more of the propaganda that is issued and circulated among us and that has no foundation in fact.

Mr. FOSTER. If the Federal Government is to do nothing and leave the percentages which our chairman has read and which are relatively low, we are to be left in a position where our standard is below Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czechoslavakia, New Zealand, Norway, Rumania, and Switzerland. They all have a higher standard than our Nation.

What we are trying to do here is not to say that the States must do a certain thing. They can legislate above our standard as much as they see fit. We are trying to fix some standard so that one backward State will not be in the position of unfairly competing with another State that has seen fit to adopt more humanitarian legislation.