organizations sent this lady here, and unless the chairman overrules me I am going to ask the witness one or two questions. The CHAIRMAN. I am not going to overrule anybody.

Mrs. GIBBS. We have one or two dry counties and they voted for Governor Ritchie.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me a moment while the Chair is speaking. Mrs. GIBBS. Pardon me.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to be interrupted.

My only reason is that I want to get through with the hearing as soon as possible, and I thought this was aside from the issue. This lady, as I understand it, is here protesting against this as an improper amendment to the Constitution and she is not an expert on child labor or any other subject, but is simply presenting the legal aspect of this case, that is all. And I thought we might save time if we were to pursue the inquiry on that line.

Mr. FOSTER. I do want to ask a few questions, and I want to call the attention of the committee to the fact we have heard the opposition to the bill and we had no trouble taking the testimony, and three weeks prior to that we were required to hustle along with most of our witnesses except Miss Abbott, and I think it is quite in order for me to ask this lady a few questions that are in my mind concerning Governor Ritchie and his election.

Mr. SUMNERS. Personally, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interpose, but I do not quite see the part that Governor Ritchie's election. plays in the determination of the question as to whether or not a constitutional amendment--

Mr. MICHENER. If the gentleman had been here he probably would have seen the relevancy of this testimony.

Mr. FOSTER. She testified Governor Ritchie ran on a certain platform and was reelected.

Mr. SUMNERS. I would suggest such testimony should not be in the record.

Mr. FOSTER. She is here representing the Federation of Democratic Women of Baltimore and announcing the position of the membership in that organization, and she quoted what Governor Ritchie had said in his inaugural address as to how much money Maryland had paid into the Federal Government, and I was leading up to an inquiry as to whether in that inaugural address he had referred to how much money Maryland received.

Mrs. GIBBS. I think we turned down $400,000 for roads because they were going to dictate to us too much.

Mr. FOSTER. I want to ask one further question. You say you are here representing the Federation of Democratic Women?

Mrs. GIBBS. Yes.

Mr. FOSTER. Did they take action on this recently?

Mrs. GIBBS. Yes.

Mr. FOSTER. How recently was that?

Mrs. GIBBS. About a month ago they passed a resolution in which they authorized me as legislative chairman to oppose all further federal encroachment on the rights of the states.

Mr. FOSTER. Did they refer to the child labor constitutional amendment specifically in that resolution?

24666-H. Doc. 497, 68-2—11

Mrs. GIBBS. No; because I did not know it was coming up then. We referred to the election bill and, of course, we have gone against the Sheppard-Towner maternity bill, and all further Federal amendments of the Constitution. They are against any other amendment being put in the Constitution.

Mr. FOSTER. If you will permit one further question on that, I am through. At that meeting of this Federation of Democratic Women was there before them this plank that was in the last Democratic platform? I am quoting:

We urge cooperation with the States for the protection of child life through infancy and maternity care; in the prohibition of child labor and by adequate appropriations for the Children's Bureau and Women's Bureau in the Department of Labor.

Mr. SUMNERS. My suggestion is the lady has testified to the date when this meeting was had..

Mr. FOSTER. Recently.

Mr. SUMNERS. I say she has testified to that date and the gentleman has the date when the Democratic platform was written.

Mr. FOSTER. Yes; the last Democratic platform is that which I have read. Was that discussed in your meeting!

Mrs. GIBBS. No; we did not discuss that. That was some time ago. There is going to be another one soon.

Mr. FOSTER. It is the last one I have quoted from.

Mrs. GIBBS. Perhaps the other one will change this when Maryland has its say.

The CHAIRMAN. I ask the stenographer to note from the Chair that no limit whatever was placed upon the presentation by the proponents of this measure of any evidence or testimony which they might have, but because of criticisms recently made that there was delay in action on this particular amendment, the Chair has thought it wise, and without objection upon the part of the committee until this moment, to hold the hearings as continuously as possible with a view to reaching a determination as soon as it would be practicable. Mr. FOSTER. To which I, as one member, have no objection. I only wish we had started sooner.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought you said that in a censorious way that reflected upon the chair, and I do not think it is deserved. I am doing the best I can with the situation and hope that the hearings will be closed as soon as possible, and if the proponents have anything further to add, why I, for one, would be glad to hear them.

STATEMENT OF MISS MARY G. KILBRETH, PRESIDENT OF THE WOMAN PATRIOTIC PUBLISHING CO.

Miss KILBRETH. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee: I am appearing on behalf of the Woman Patriot Publishing Co. We publish a little political paper and send out bulletins on current legislation affecting the Constitution.

We are working in the political field now; that is, in the field of legislation. But we go further than that. We take the measures as far as we are able into the courts. That is, we go to the extreme limit in our stand on the constitutionality of legislation.

There seems to be suspicion about the motives of the opponents of. this measure, so I will explain that the group of women I represent

are not financed by anyone. When our paper does not pay expenses we send out an appeal for funds, and if the appeal does not meet our needs we put our hands in our own pockets.

We are no more connected with labor than we are with manufacturers.

As merely part of the consuming public we are equally hit-to be colloquial-by manufacturer if he is predatory as we are by a trades-union if it is predatory, holding no brief for either.

Much has already been said about the State rights issue involved in the proposed child labor amendments. That has been covered, I think.

As women, we are particularly concerned in violation of the right of castle aspect of this amendment-possibly even more than in any other constitutional aspect of it. As women, that is very immediate to us. And we are opposed to the vast increase in bureaucracy and Federal job holders the administration of this measure would entail. Many people are beginning to feel very much toward Congress as American colonists felt toward King George when they complained; He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

We would have the Federal Government keep within the bounds which we, the people, prescribed for it. Up to that time it was the only government under the sun which was created by the people. It is the creation of the people. We were not granted the rights we have under our Government. They were not concessions wrested from some higher power, as the barons wrested the Magna Charta from King John. We ourselves prescribed the limits of the Federal Government, and we want it kept by our lawmakers within those limits.

First, as to the good of the child. I think it was the Chief of the Childrens' Bureau, testifying before this committee, who divided public opinion on this subject into two classes-those who wish to protect the child and those who wish to exploit the child.

I resent that. Nobody would dare to-day to exploit the child. At least no one would dare to do it openly. But I believe under this amendment there would be danger of concealed exploitation.

If Congress passes this amendment, you will deprive the child of all the practical moral training inherent in work as against a purely theoretical brain stuffing from books-that is going on in our schools. One of the witnesses-I think his name is Miller-made a profound statement before this committee as to the two classes of children-that some are on the intellectual plane, and others solely on the practical plane. He said the practical-minded child felt an "inferiority complex" under our present intellectual standard of school education.

If you train that child technically to be an expert with his hands he will not feel any inferiority in relation to the boy who is merely intellectual.

We are oppressed with white collarism. It is absurd that we Americans, who are supposed to be a democracy, have a contempt for manual work. I think the schools are inculcating that as a result. We have few expert craftsmen and have to import them. We have to import expert craftsmen and skilled labor.

The boy or girl who arrives at the age of 18 having had no work training has lost the most valuable years of his or her life. Most boys and girls learn more from the empirical education of work than they do from book education in the schools. We are not an intellectual people. In purely intellectual fields we are inferior to foreign nations. But thus far we have been a resourceful, self reliant, energetic people, and I contend that this amendment would result in the practical-minded children becoming idlers and loafers, and by the implied stigma on work in this amendment there would be more overcerebralized young intellectuals from whom the radicals are recruited and who are the curse of society than there are at present.

As to the specific provisions of the amendment. In House Joint Resolution 66 introduced by Mr. Foster of Ohio and indorsed by the Children's Bureau, and the Women's Joint Congressional Committee, section 1 reads:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the labor of persons under the age of 18 years and to prescribe the conditions of such labor.

I call attention to the use of the word "labor" instead of the word "employment," used in the other child-labor amendments. The word "labor" was substituted for " employment " by the chief of the Children's Bureau. She stated her reasons before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. Miss Grace Abbott, at the Senate hearings (January 10, 1923, p. 38), said in part:

* * * The children often work with their parents, and are not on the pay roll, and are not held to be employed, and we feel that it is a dangerous word to use. * * *

Senator JOHNSON. That is, you prefer "labor."

Miss ABBOTT. Yes. * * *

The word " employment " is taken to mean working for pay.

That point has been sufficiently brought out. This provision will give the Children's Bureau officials inquisitorial power that must result in the nullification of the fourth amendment. The daughter could be prevented helping her mother with the housework and the son forbidden to help his father on the farm if this amendment were strictly and literally interpreted, and no doubt it would be so interpreted, judging by the interpretation and administration by the Children's Bureau of the last Federal act-allowing invasion of the privacy of the home.

Mr. FOSTER. What do you mean by the last invasion of the privacy of the home?

Miss KILBRETH. The maternity act.

Mr. FOSTER. Do you also think the Volstead Act invaded the home?

The CHAIRMAN. We will not discuss the Volstead Act with this witness.

Mr. FOSTER. Unless the committee overrules me I will ask the lady in this connection, do you consider the Volstead Act is an invasion of the home, if you care to answer it?

Miss KILBRETH. Mr. Chairman, I am representing officially a company. At the time that the eighteenth amendment was passed we were not in the general political field; we were not in politics, and we have taken no stand whatever on either the eighteenth

amendment or the Volstead Act. As I am speaking for this company, I can not reply with my personal opinions.

Mr. FOSTER. I will withdraw the question if you do not want to answer it.

Miss KILBRETH. Mr. Chairman, I have no right to speak on that subject here. If the gentleman wishes to know my personal opinion, I will answer with pleasure later. Mr. Chairman, is that a sufficient answer?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. FOSTER. It was my question, Madam, and I asked if you cared to answer it. I thought perhaps you would have no objection to answering as to whether you considered it an invasion of the home. I asked you whether you considered that an invasion of the home along with the maternity bill?

Miss KILBRETH. The maternity act involved communistic government interference in the domestic relations, and so does the proposed child-labor amendment. They are closely allied.

Mr. FOSTER. And as an individual you do not care to answer this question?

Miss KILBRETH. I will be glad to answer it afterwards, when I have finished my testimony for the Woman's Patriot Publishing Co. If the chairman will excuse me, I do not consider this germane to my discussion. We are interested in the subject from the woman's standpoint. That is the standpoint from which I am trying to speak.

This amendment would authorize the prohibition of a child, a girl, making the beds or washing the dishes. That is labor. Or the boy helping his father milk the cows on the farm. That is the only interpretation you can place on that special statement of the chief of the Children's Bureau. It is on page 38 of this report. The CHAIRMAN. Page 38 of what?

Miss KILBRETH. Of the report of hearings on the child-labor amendment before the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, 1923, Mr. FOSTER. Of the Senate hearing..

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, the Senate hearing. All right.

Miss KILBRETH. What I have to say I am saying with official documents.

Mr. SUMNERS. Is that a hearing at this session or at the last session?

Miss KILBRETH. The last session. It throws light on the intentions of the proponents. There has been some discussion as to the probable Federal standards in connection with the administration of this bill. The chief of the Children's Bureau, in a signed article in the radical "New Majority," of September 1, 1923, and in the "New York Call" (Socialist), of September 23, 1923, declared:

A large part of the civilized world has adopted not only a national standard but an international standard with reference to the employment of children. The most important nations of Europe have joined in the child-labor conventions drafted at the International Labor Conference (of the League of Nations). * * * Ought it not to be possible for Congress to say that in no section of this country will children be allowed to work below standards now established by international agreement among many nations?

Consequently, we Americans shall not only have two governments on our backs; that is, the State laws and the Federal laws, but it is