INFANTS IN COTTON MILLS.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Union's, bill [H.B. 285] was taken up, it being the special order for this day, proposing to allow infants to be worked eleven hours a day in the cotton and woolen factories of the State-the question being on Mr. Stewart of Ohio & amendment to make it eight hours a day.
Mr. KERCHEVAL took the floor in opposition to the bill, stating that he believed it was introduced here in the interest of a single cotton factory located in his section of the State. It had been said that this bill was copied from the Rhode Island statute. He believed that Rhode Island was alone among all the States in legalizing the employment of infants more than ten hours a day, unless they are over eighteen years of age. In some States it was an offense for parents to consent to such inhuman working of their children. He spoke here in the interests of humanity; and held that, herein the Legislature should stand as guardian of the children of the State.
Mr. WILE also spoke against the bill, because it discriminates between the woollen and cottton manufacturing interests, and other manufacturing interests; and as to the other provision, changing the time of employment from ten to eleven hours, he was utterly opposed to it. With regard to the provision requiring that infants shall not be employed more than nine months in the year, he insisted that it will fall short of attaining the end desired.
Mr. McFADIN replied to Mr. Wile; and rehearsed additional considerations against the bill. He read an extract from a report by a committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts, setting forth the hardness of the servitude of children in the numerous factories of that State. He alleged that there was no provision in this bill which required any parties to send their factory children to school during their proposed three months exemption from employment in the factories. He closed with an earnest appeal for the rejection of the bill.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, believing that labor should be allowed to regulate itself without regard to legislation, moved that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
The motion was rejected-yeas 38, nays 43.
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, regarded the page: 97[View Page 97] question gravely, in figures, showing that the hours, which the bill provides for labor for these persons in the year are not so many as the number of hours that they are worked under the existing law by 546 hours. Therefore, he concluded that the bill might be regarded as so much more favorable to the physical and intellectual development of the youths to be affected by it.
Mr. RUDDELL conceded conscientious action on the part of the opposers of the bill. As for himself, he did not propose to legislate in the interests of any class. He would legislate in the interests of the State. He would not legislate for class or sect, but for all. The Constitution prohibits class legislation, yet the legislation of the State has discriminated against the manufacturers contemplated in this bill. And he showed the blighting effect of such legislation. On the general prosperity of the State. Having an inland State, we ought to look to those interests which we may most readily and certainly develope. He would cast his vote for the encouragement, the developement and protection of the manufacturing interests of the State.
Mr. STEWART, of Ohio, replied to the speech of Mr. Stewart, of Rush, showing that the bill does not provide that those employed children shall be sent to school.
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, read from the bill the clause which forbids the employment of such children as have not been sent three months to school within the last nine months.
Mr. STEWART, of Ohio. That would only keep certain children out of employment-children who do not go to school. He also replied to Mr. Ruddell. He then showed that the argument for the bill can not stand. He would not weigh the interests of manufacturers or any material interest against the interests of humanity, and he showed how the latter better deserves the protection of law. He defended his amendment to reduce the term of labor to eight hours a day. When he had concluded-
Mr. GREENE demanded the previous question, and under it pressure-
Mr. Stewart of Ohio s amendment was rejected, yeas 34, nays 50, and the question then recurred on the adoption of Mr. Kercheval s amendment, striking out "eleven" and inserting "ten" in lieu, the vote resulting - yeas 63, nays 23-as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Addison, Baker, Barnett, Bates, Beeler, Britton, Breckinridge, Calvert, Cotton, cox, Davidson, Davis of Elkhart, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Gilham, Gordon, Greene, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutchings, Hutson, Hyatt, Johnston of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Logan, Long, Mason, McFadin,Millekan, Miller, Miles, Miner, Mitchell, Monroe, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Overmyer, Palmer, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Sabin, Shoaff, Sleeth, Smith, Stanton, Stewart of Ohio, Sunman, Taber, Tebbs, Underwood, Wile, Williams of Hamilton. Williams of St. Joseph and Wilson-63.
Nays-Messrs. Admire, Carnahan, Cave, Coffroth, Gory, Cunningham, Davis of Floyd, Dittemore, Fuller, Johnson of Montgomery, Lawler, Osborn, Ruddell, Shoemaker, Stephenson, Stewart of Rush, Vater, Welborn, Williams of Knox, Williams of Union, Zenor, Zollars and Mr. Speaker-23.
So the amendment was adopted.
Mr. WILE proposed to amend the bill by inserting appropriately: "and in every other shop, factory or place where such minors are employed," and inserting a clause repealing laws conflicting, etc.
On the motion of Mr. RUDDELL, the subject was now indefinitely postponed.
