Page images
PDF
EPUB

NOON RECESS-MAJESTIC ROOF GARDEN VIEW.

At 12:15 the convention took a recess until 2:30 p. m. At this juncture the delegates marched in a body to the main entrance of the Majestic building, where, after an elevator ride to the top of this lofty structure, they took a grand view of the beautiful city of Detroit from the roof garden of this elegant building. This feature, which had been arranged by the local inspectors, was very much enjoyed and appreciated by the visitors.

AFTERNOON SESSION-ROLL CALLED BY STATES.

At 2:30 sharp, the president called the convention to order, and announced that the secretary wished to correct the roll of delegates in attendance, and the same was completed by a call of states, which resulted as follows:

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

(Louis Arrington, the new chief of the Illinois Department arrived the last day

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

The following invitation was read by vote of the convention, was accepted and a vote of thanks extended.

OFFICE OF THE DETROIT, BELLE ISLE & WINDSOR FERRY CO.,
Detroit, Mich., August 31, 1897.

[Foot of Woodward Av.]

MR. J. L. Cox, Chief of Michigan Bureau Factory Inspectors:

Dear Sir-Will you kindly designate an hour that will be convenient for your organization to take a little trip on one of our boats.

Any hour that suits you, will be pleasant to us, and we will have great pleasure in doing what little we can to make your stay agreeable.

Yours truly,

DETROIT, B. I. & WINDSOR FERRY CO.,

HORACE W. AVERY,

Secretary.

REPORTS OF CHIEFS BY STATES.

President Wade then announced that the convention would proceed with the regular report of the chiefs from various states.

PENNSYLVANIA-Was the first report. Chief Campbell briefly stated that new laws were enacted relative to factory inspection, sweat shops and bake shops during the last legislature, and that they were quite satisfactory, excepting the bake shop law, which meets the approval of a majority of the bakers and the public in general. A few large bakeries object to section 1 which prohibits Sunday work before 6 p. m., and have been prosecuted and fined for vio

lating that section, having appealed the case to a higher court and set up the claim that the law is unconstitutional. *

NEW YORK-Chief O'Leary read the following excellent report of the condition of New York state factory inspections.

REPORT OF CONDITION OF NEW YORK STATE FACTORY INSPEC

TION.

Our factory laws have undergone important changes at the hands of the legislature of 1897, which we think render the factory laws of our State very effective as a whole. The law of 1897 is written as an act in relation to labor, constituting chapter 32 of the general laws; the act is a grouping of all laws relating to labor, found upon the statutes prior to the year 1897. The codification is for the purpose of convenient reference to all the labor laws. The various subjects embraced in the act are grouped, and each group of subjects is designated an "Article." The sections of the whole chapter are consecutively numbered from 1 to 191. The laws relating to the factory department are contained in articles 1, 2, 5 and 6; article 7 relating to tenement made goods, or as we commonly call it "sweating;" article 8 relating to bake shop inspection; and article 9 relating to mine and quarry inspection.

The original factory act, as passed in 1886, with the many amendments which were added year ofter year, was little better than a mass of contradictions, made so by the use of descriptive terms employed in an attempt to make plain the purpose of the act in these amendments, but they served only to confound what was intended to be many of its most effective parts. As arranged, the act of 1897 eliminates all this cause for complaint, and from its application, at least so far as we have gone, we find the condensed law to be very forceful. Between the explanatory terms in the old law "manufacturing establishment" and the title "An act to regulate the employment of women and children," the deputy inspector oftentimes felt severely tried in patience to know just what to do. One man would say the law did not apply to him because he did not employ any "women and children." Another would say the law did not apply to him because he did not conduct a "manufactory." Note for instance the New York Herald, a large printing plant in the city of New York, perhaps the most perfect of its kind in the world, with a pay roll of nearly seven hundred (700) people, an immense building filled with machinery of the most intricate kind,-refusing to allow a deputy to make an inspection of the place, because they claimed they did not "manufacture" anything. Also note fashionable dressmaking and millinery establishments, employing hundreds of young women and children, having gorgeously arranged apartments for the reception of their patrons, styled reception, show and fitting rooms, with nothing but elegance to meet the view of the public eye,-refusing admittance to the inspector because the law said nothing about such places; or, if the deputy gained admittance, the right to make an inspection of the premises was strenuously denied; and, where inspections of such places are made, as has been done since the new law went into effect, we find women and children packed into foul basements and sometimes into sub-cellars, into * These laws will appear in the concluding pages of this report.

small, ill-ventilated, foul smelling, overcrowded back rooms, or in garrets up under the roof, five and six stories from the ground, with no means of escape in case of panic or accident by fire or through other cause.

In the new arrangement of the law we had the words "business establishment" added to the paragraph defining the term "factory" so that the law now reads:

"The term 'factory' when used in this chapter, shall be construed to include also any mill, workshop or other manufacturing or business establishment where one or more persons are employed at labor."

Sec. 2 Definitions.-The term employee, when used in this chapter, means a mechanic, workingman or laborer who works for another for hire. The person employing any such mechanic, workingman or laborer, whether the owner, proprietor, agent, superintendent, foreman or other subordinate is designated in this chapter as an employer. The term "factory," when used in this chapter, shall be construed to include also any mill, workshop or other manufacturing or business establishment where one or more persons are employed at labor. The term "mercantile establishment," when used in this chapter, means any place where goods, wares or merchandise are offered for sale. Whenever, in this chapter, authority is conferred upon the factory inspector, it shall also be deemed to include his assistant or a deputy acting under his direction.

The effectiveness of these additional words has been made manifest many times since the change to which we refer went into effect. A large printing firm in New York city, one which had successfully resisted the efforts of the deputies to make inspection of their place year after year, was a short time ago waited upon by an officer of the department, and of course the manager of the concern put up the old bluff that their property and establishment was exempt, etc. The deputy said to him, "I am not a lawyer, but here is the law, (handing him a copy of it); you can read it yourself and you will then understand whether or not your place comes under the law." The manager accepted the law and read the paragraph indicated by the inspector and to use a common or vulgar expression "threw up both hands" saying, "Oh! you have us this time sure, we are yours now, take us!" and he gracefully yielded to the majesty of the law.

The child labor provisions of the old law were always a source of great annoyance to the department, and the protests of the work-people against the ineffectiveness of the act became so great that the legislature of 1895 appointed a special committee to investigate the subject. The report of that committee covered two volumes of about 900 pages each and was submitted to the legislature of 1896 with various recommendations. These recommendations are embodied in the amendments or changes which were made to section 2 of the old law. When these amendments were pending before the governor of our state, I opposed them for the reason, as I stated in a memorandum filed at that time, that I believed the proposed changes would tend to increase the difficulties of enforcing the provisions relating to the employment of children and would ultimately act as a nullification of the law. For opposing the amendments I was quite severely taken to task by the Central Labor Union of New York, and in a letter from the secretary, under the seal of the union, I was requested to withdraw my opposition before the governor, which I subsequently did. My instructions to the officers of the department, upon the law taking effect, were to enforce the law in a manner favorable to the child. Our work went on smoothly enough in all parts of the state, excepting the city of Buffalo. Here we found a

« PreviousContinue »