SUPPLEMENTARY
TO
THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
VOLUME ELEVENTH.
Minors in the Cotton and Woollen Factories----Hon. Simon
Wile,
of Laporte,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, April 22, 1869,Mr. Williams of Union's bill [H. R. 283.] a bill regulating the employment of persons under sixteen years of age in Cotton and Woollen Factories in this State, and providing for the education of such persons, was taken up-it being the special order for this hour.
SECTION 1 proposes that no person under the age of sixteen years shall be employed in any Cotton or Woolen factory in this State unless such person shall have attended school at least twelve weeks during the twelve months immediately preceeding; nor shall such person be employed in such factories for a longer period than nine months in any one year.
"SEC. 2. No person under the age of sixteen years shall be employed in any Cotton or Woolen factory more than eleven hours in any one day."
SEC. 3, Fixes the penalty for violation of this act at a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars.
The question being on Mr. Stewart of Ohio's amendment to strike out the word "eleven" in section two and insert in lieu thereof the word "eight,"
Mr. WILE said:
Mr. President: I am opposed to the passage of this bill. In stating my objection however, I beg to say in advance, that I am not actuated by any selfish motives. I trust that my motives are placed upon the solid basis of right.
In stating the reasons for the vote I shall give, I speak somewhat from actual experience.
In the first place this bill discriminates, unjustly, between cotton and woolen manufacturing establishments and other branches of industry, placing restrictions that must work to the disadvantage of one branch, while foundries, rolling mills and other manufacturing interests are exempt from the provisions of the bill. They are permitted to employ whom they please, work them as long as they may choose, regardless of age or time, while this bill discriminates against one of the prominent departments of industry.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that must be patent to every candid mind that this discrimination, is, in every sense unjust. The woolen and cotton manufacturing interest in this State has but recently commenced the process of development, and for the short period of its existence, has gained such a position, that the State may well be proud of it. If gentlemen will but pause, and reflect that by the passage of this bill, they virtually place such obstacles in the way of the progress of one of the most useful branches of industry, as will seriously cripple and discourage the further improvement of the same.
Mr. Speaker, I can not reconcile my mind to the belief that this House, upon calm reflection, will pass a measure, which, in effect, would be calculated to place a check upon one department of mechanical industry-discriminating in favor of the one, to the prejudice of the other.
As to the remaining provisions of the bill, making a change in the working hours from ten to eleven hours, I am totally opposed.
Ten hours labor per day is sufficient for employer and employes. Practical experience has fully demonstrated, to the satisfaction of all familiar with the subject, that all experiments in changing the time from ten to eight hours, have resulted in failure; and the old system of ten hours still prevails.
page: 305[View Page 305]I agree fully with the charitable views presented by the gentleman from Cass, [Mr. McFadin and the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Stewart in regard to working children in factories of all kinds; but when these gentlemen speak with vehemence and earnestness of the "soulless corporations," I must beg leave with them. It is a fact that no gentleman will deny, these corporations have added largely to the wealth of the State, giving steady employment to hundreds and thousands of poor widows and orphan children, whose condition would, in many instances, be deployable in the extreme, should the ideas presented by these gentlemen on this floor, prevail.
Gentlemen have intimated that these "soulless corporations" might go somewhere else to seek investment for their capital. I insist that this is a very hasty conclusion. I would beg leave to remind the eloquent gentleman who made these intimations, that the citizens of his own town held out large inducements to a certain woolen manufacturing company-a "soulless corporation"-to locate and build their works there.
The people of this State, as well as the citizens of all the Northwestern States, should fell and fully consider every measure calculated to work to the disadvantage of their enterprising capitalists. Our manufacturing establishments are yet young, and we lack experience. Besides all this, we have to contend with many disadvantages thrown around us by the New England monopolies; therefore, if you bridle this enterprise, in its infancy, in such a way as to retard its progress, disastrous results must be the inevitable consequence, and manufactories, instead of increasing, will decrease.
One more point and I am done. The bill under consideration provides that minors between the ages of eight and sixteen years, shall not be allowed to work more than nine months in the year. This provision is a good one, I admit, but like all the other provisions of the bill, refers and applies to the woolen and cotton manufactories only. This, of itself, should condemn the bill at once. If my opinions are correctly founded, this House has no right to confer special legislative favors on one branch of industry, to the exclusion of the other.
Sir, I ask is this bill calculated to advance the industrial pursuits of this State? or is it intended to protect the interests and welfare of the poor?
I submit that it is not. Our cotton and woolen manufactories are in their infancy, and compelled, as it were, to educate their own help; and under this bill, are required to do the same thing every nine months, and in this way incur great inconvenience and expense. Under this provision of the bill, you place before the manufacturer two alternatives, one of which they must adopt. One of which is to train a new set of hands every nine months; the other is to discharge at once the poor boy and girl, who, by their daily labor, perhaps, support a widowed mother, thereby compelling him or her to seek a new field of employment, not under the restrictions proposed in this bill. The consequence to the employe must be apparent. The change of avocation is followed by a loss of time in securing a new situation. Again, after obtaining another place the learning a new-trade is a serious matter. I therefore submit that the remedy sought by this measure is not attained, but that the bill will work to the disadvantage of both the employer and employe.
Which horn of the dilemma, Mr. Speaker, will the manufacturers choose? Is it not reasonable to suppose that they will pursue that policy which will insure to them a steady set of hands ? They would prefer to pay higher wages for older help, than to make a change of hands every nine months. I would not have it understood that I am in favor of a policy that would keep our youths away from school.
I hold that it is every good citizen's sacred duty to encourage education, and urge it upon those who feel indifferent about it, but I claim that this measure will fall far short of accomplishing the desired end. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the bill and pending amendments will not meet with the approval of this House.
