standard of education, the social and economic questions will no doubt be better understood and the remedy properly applied. It is marvelous to contemplate the progress made in Pennsylvania since 1824, when Mr. O'Neil, from Philadelphia, member of the house of representatives, made the following motion: "That a committee be appointed to enquire into the expediency of requiring the proprietors of manufacturing establishments who employ children under the age of 12 years, to provide for them the means of instruction at least two hours each day in the rudiments of an English education."

The committee was appointed, and on March 6th reported a bill entitled "An act providing for the education of children employed in manufacturing establishments," but was never acted upon by the house of representatives. The subject of education for factory children was again taken up in 1827 on the 11th day of December. Mr. Richards of Philadelphia, chairman of committee of domestic manufactures, offered the following: "That the committee on domestic manufactures be instructed to enquire into the expediency of providing by law for the education of children employed in cotton, woolen and other manufactures." The resolution was adopted, and the following bill was reported by Mr. Richards: "An act providing for the education of children employed in manufactories, and also to ascertain the extent and increase of said manufactures of the commonwealth." The provisions of this bill were that from and after January 1st, 1830,-"It shall not be lawful for any cotton or woolen manufacturer to employ in his factory any minor between the age of 12 and 18 years, unless said minor or his, her or their parent or guardian shall produce a certificate signed by a respectable school master or two respectable citizens of the county, that the said minor can read and write the English, German, or some other modern language, or unless said manufacturer would provide for the instruction of said minor until the provisions of this act are complied with." The enforcement of this law was left with the assessors who were to inspect the factories of their district and report all violations. The assessors were also to send in each year to the county commissioner a list of the cotton and woolen factories in his district with the number of spindles and looms. If this bill could have been passed, Pennsylvania would have had the honor of ante-dating England by five years in the matter of factory inspection. For a number of years past, the general assembly of Pennsylvania never meets but what new laws are enacted and old ones amended, protecting those who work in the mines, mills, shops and manufacturing establishments of the state. The session of the legislature which adjourned July 1st, considered and passed a number of laws in the interest of the working men, women and children. Three bills, extending the scope and work of the factory department, requiring children under 16 years of age to read and write the English language before they can be employed, creating a mining department, limiting the hours of labor to eight per day on state and municipal work, by contract or otherwise. A number of other laws were on the same line. With the development of education, men become more liberal in their views, and so goes public opinion, and wholesome legislation is the result. To the free school system, adopted in Pennsylvania in 1834, is largely due the efforts and success of factory legislation. The amount of money appropriated by the state in support of the public schools, since its adoption, is almost $65,000,000. The amount has grown from $75,000 the first year, to $5,500,000 for the year 1897, and the amount expended last year for the support of public schools in our state was about $20,000,000. It requires the service of 138 superintendents, 26,902 teachers (17,968 of these

being females). With that vast army of public instructors, the compulsory education law, the laws prohibiting the employment of children under the age of 16 years who cannot read and write the English language, the facilities for educating the children, not only in Pennsylvania, but every other state and territory in the union, are so well provided for that no child, rich or poor, needs to be raised in ignorance, or without at least the rudiments of a common school education. With a higher standard of education, intelligence will predominate in solving the social and economic questions in advancing a nobler and better civilization, not only in America, but throughout the entire world.

Mr. John E. Griffin of Boston read the following paper on

THE MASSACHUSETTS LAW REGULATING THE SWEATING

SYSTEM.

The justice of the principles embodied in the existing laws of the several states passed for the purpose of regulating the evils of the sweating system is everywhere conceded, and abundant evidence of the usefulness and importance of these laws has been supplied from the many papers on this subject that have from year to year been read at these conventions and discussed. I have used the word regulation, because as yet none of these laws have or can eradicate the system. When the statute in Massachusetts was first enacted it was more or less experimental, and it was hardly expected to supply a complete and adequate system for its suppression, and now, after six years of its enforcement, while there is no question but what this law has a permanent place in our legislation, and its wholesome effects are manifest and have justified its enactment, yet it is apparent that all the desired reforms have not been accomplished. Also, in view of the Judicial interpretation which some provisions of this law have received and the defects disclosed by the efforts made for its enforcement, its revision and amendment appear to be necessary, to the end, that it may more effectually reach the evils intended to be corrected. As some of these defects exist in the laws of states other than Massachusetts a brief reference to them may be important to the inspectors who are called upon to enforce them. A portion of the Massachusetts statute reads: "Whenever any house, room or place used as a dwelling, is also used for the purpose of carrying on any process of making, altering, repairing or finishing (for sale) any ready made coats, vests, trousers, overcoats or any wearing apparel of any description whatsoever (intended for sale), in shall within the meaning of this act be deemed a workshop." The words, for sale and intended for sale, both used in this section are the main point at issue. While not a probable nor plausible contention, still it could be claimed that the goods were made up to be given away or otherwise disposed of without bartering, and it would be a most difficult thing for an inspector to prove any intention upon the part of the maker or merchant for whom they were made of selling them. However ridiculous this must seem, it has been used against the government, by counsel for the defense who refused to submit evidence of any kind involving the introduction of testimony, except to stand upon this point as a question of common law. His point was sustained by the court, who finished his remarks by stating, that should

the government prove its case beyond preadventure the law leaves us in doubt, as we have no means of knowing that the goods are intended for sale. I believe with the exception of Pennsylvania you will find those words in one form or another, in the statutes of the other states. A better remedy for this defect cannot be supplied than that of Chief Wade's, embodied in his annual report as follows; In what is known as the liquor law, in the earliest prosecutions there were considerable successful evasions of the statute as respected sales of liquor. Unless money was actually seen to be passed upon the delivery of liquor, and all evidence of a complete sale and delivery was presented at the trial, the defense that the transaction was not a sale of liquor within the meaning of the law, but that it was quite as probable that it was a gift, prevailed in many cases. The law was rapidly being brought into disrepute, and the ends of justice defeated. After considerable experience of that sort in our courts the legislature amended the law so that delivery of the liquor in such cases was "prima facie" evidence of a sale, and that placed the burden of proof where it belonged. The defendant may show, if he can, that the delivery of the liquor was a gift, and the prosecution is therefore no longer required to prove that it was a sale; except, of course, that it may offer testimony tending to show a sale, in rebuttal of that given by the defense. Now, why should the prosecution in these so-called tenement-house-clothing cases be required to prove that the garments in question are "intended for sale"? Why should it not be "prima facie" evidence of such, if these articles of wearing apparel so found are proven to be the property of the individual, firm or contractor delivering them to the occupants of the inspected places? What violation of private rights would there be, what hardships imposed upon any party, if the words "intended for sale" were stricken from the law? Another feature of this section is the word "ready made." While it no doubt may be properly used as a trade expression, as a distinction from "custom made," it is very faulty in its literary construction, as ready made clothing cannot be made, and the use of the word will not hold in law. Another part of this section reads: "And every person so occupying or having control of any such workshop shall, within fourteen days from the time of beginning work in such workshop, notify the chief of the district police, or the special inspector appointed for that purpose, of the location of such workshop, the nature of the work carried on, and the number of persons therein employed. Now to prove a violation of this part of the section it must be clearly shown that work has been performed there for fourteen consecutive days. If a party controlling such a workshop should work ten days, for instance, and discontinue for one day, and then recommence work, he could not be convicted of a violation of the statute, and might, under that method, continue for an indefinite time without sending any notice. It also apparently allows the continuance of such a tenement house workshop (which was never the intent of the law), provided that all goods made therein are tagged tenement made. While the necessity of tagging the goods has been sufficient to abolish such workshops where the goods of any large or honorable clothing firm was being made, it might not deter many of the smaller and unscrupulous ones, who cater to a class of trade that cares not how or where the clothing is made, provided it is only sold cheap enough. This part of the law could be entirely dispensed with, without any friction to any but the tenement house sweater. No doubt the intention of the legislature and the friends of the law in framing it, was to abolish all tenement house work except that done by private families, and therefor it would be more explicit if instead of saying,

"Whenever any house, room or place used as a dwelling is also used for the purpose of making," etc., it said positively "That no house, room or place used as a dwelling," etc., shall be used to make clothing except by private families or members thereof. In pointing out these defects in the Massachusetts law, do not for a moment think that it is inferior to the laws of other states. With all the faults that it may contain it stands superior to all in this one respect. It effectually deals with the most dangerous, degrading and menacing evil of the sweating system, while as yet no other state law does, viz.: private families making wearing apparel in their homes without any restriction. The danger to the public from this source is tenfold as compared to the danger from workshops. It will not be necessary for me to repeat the frightful and disgusting details, so oft exposed at these conventions and spread over the country by the press, pulpit and organizations of labor directly affected, where mothers, living in apartments not fit to house animals, keep vigil at the sick bed of their beloved child or children, suffering with diphtheria, scarlet fever or other contagious and infectious diseases, meanwhile stitching away on clothing to be worn by the public, in order that the miserable pittance that they receive for their labor may partly supply nourishment and medicine so necessary to them, and all the time perfectly ignorant of the fact that they are endangering the lives and health of others. Through the license section of the law, while we do not claim perfection and entire protection against this evil, (for any law can be violated) yet we do claim that we have reduced this danger to a minimum. You inspectors of the various states whose duties pertain to this question must realize and experience this great deficiency in your law, and while it may be said that the inspector is appointed not to make laws, but only to enforce them, yet it must be conceded that he, by the very nature of his business, can best discover the weakness of the law. Therefore, any recommendations that he submits should at least be carefully considered, and when any law proves ineffective, not because of any lack of disposition or attempt to enforce it, but simply because the law itself, as interpreted by the courts, do not reach the difficulty, then if its insufficiencies can be remedied by further legislation it should be done. My experience attending these conventions, has taught me to believe that their primary object, is to educate each other, by comparison of the methods respectively employed in enforcing the various laws under our control, introducing all improvements which may have been called to our attention, showing defects wherever they exist, thereby enabling us to more intelligently study and discharge the duties imposed upon us. We have here from year to year new methods of ventilation, improved devices for guarding machinery, better protection to human life in cases of fire, etc., why then should not the same principle apply to the sweating system. Instead of confining ourselves entirely to the disgusting details connected with it, we should endeavor by a careful analysis of the various enactments to bring out their weak points and strengthen them. Again, the burden of assuring to the public protection from disease in wearing apparel that they purchase and wear, should not solely rest upon the state, but should be shared by the merchants and manufacturers dealing therein. This can be only accomplished by stringent and just laws, dividing the responsibility.

If all clothing dealers and manufacturers were prohibited from giving clothing to be made in any place either shop or tenement, unless the persons controling such shops first secured a certificate from the state clearly stating that it was a proper and sanitary place to manufacture such clothing, they

would be forced to interest themselves in such shops. Such a law could not find opposition or impose any hardship upon any honest dealer or manufacturer, instead, it would be a protection to him from unscrupulous contractors and a guarantee that his clothing was made under healthful and sanitary conditions. Such a certificate could be so framed as to positively prevent any and all violations of the factory laws, and would more surely and easily reach the evils now aimed at by the present laws. There is another distressing incident that has forcibly manifested itself during the past two years, to which I shall as briefly as possible refer. One is the increasing decampment of contractors with the wages of their employees. The clothing dealer makes the best contract that he can with the one who engages to do his work, and, as the manner in which this contract is fulfilled is something which does not pass under his eye, he does not have, as he otherwise might, appeals made to his sense of humanity, that would lead him to check the dishonesty which is practised upon the poor unfortunate victims who make his clothing. It is a very easy matter for a dishonest contractor, to divert the work of another to himself by underbidding him, and when he finds after exacting an amount of work from his help that reaches the limit of human endurance, that he cannot make a profit, he will by one excuse or another hold back from week to week a large part of the wages due them until it reaches a considerable amount. Then on securing payment from the clothing merchant, for several lots of work returned, he receives another lot and leaves for parts unknown. His help, whose wages if received in full, would no more than barely sustain life, are left in want and suffering without any redress. This could be obviated by the dealers requiring a sufficient bond from their contractors to provide against such cases, or a law might be enacted allowing labor to place a lien on the clothing left in their possession, as is now done in the erection of buildings. Public attention should be called to this feature through the agency of the press and organizations directly affected.

In closing I desire to bring your attention to the importations from one state to another of clothing that has been made in states where no law exists regulating its manufacture. The attention of congress has been frequently drawn to this fact, and the danger of its continued toleration pointed out. Without now repeating these details I cannot refrain from again earnestly presenting the necessity of some national law to oppose a system shown by experience to be fraught with the gravest peril and opposed to every rule of justice or humanity.

Mr. W. J. Neely of New York then read the following paper on

SWEAT SHOPS.

Ladies and Gentlemen-The topic I am to ask your attention to for a few minutes is one which is almost threadbare. Scarcely a single new idea would scem possible, so thoroughly hackneyed has it become, both from the theoretical and the sanitary point of view. "Sweating and sweaters,' however, from the practical point of view of a factory inspector, presents so many new difficulties and aspects that one may forget, overlook, and learn much from every day's experience. Making no attempt, therefore, at statistical or merely personal details, but speaking as a practical man to practical people, I will take the liberty of making some general observations on this question.