Number of children engaged in each principal occupation group, by geographical divisions and States, 1920 [Fourteenth Census of the United States, population, 1920. Occupations of children] Children 10 to 15 years of age, inclusive, engaged in specified occupation group Number of children engaged in each principal occupation group, by geographical division and States, 1920-Continued Children 10 to 15 years of age, inclusive, engaged in specified occupation group Running back over a period of years and I think the questions at the last hearing indicated the interest in what had been the development in this the census figures show that in 1880 there were 396,504 children 10 to 15 years of age, inclusive, gainfully employed. In 1890 the census did not show the numbers for from 10 to 15 years of age, but showed them for from 10 to 14 years of age; and that number, in 1890, was 274,167, indicating probably at least a large or a larger number, if you include the children 15 years old, as there were in 1880. For 1900 there were 686,213; for 1910 there were 557,797; and for 1920 there were 413,549.1 I am speaking now of nonagricultural employments exclusively; not of those in agricultural employment. So that in 1920 we had a larger number of children in nonagricultural gainful occupations than we had in 1880; but the per cent of the total number of children from 10 to 15 years of age was smaller. That is, in 1880, the per cent of the total number of children from 10 to 15 years of age was 6, of the children who were employed; in 1900, it was 7.1 per cent; in 1910, it was 5.2 per cent, and in 1920, it was 3.3 per cent, showing a decline in the per cent of children from 10 to 15 years of age, but a numerical increase in the actual number of children affected in the country,1 Mr. SUMNERS. In determining whether a child is engaged in gainful employment, do you take into consideration the school period, or is it at any period during the year? Miss ABBOTT. So far as the census figures go, the instructions I read you were the census instructions, which were: The term "gainful occupations," when applied to children, includes the occupations of all child workers except those working at home merely on general housework, on chores, or at odd times on other work, who should be reported as having no occupation. That is, children working for their parents, children working at home merely on general housework or chores, or at odd times at other work, should be reported as having no occupation. Those, however, who materially assist their parents in the performance of work other than household work should be reported as having an occupation. Mr. SUMNERS. From everything you have gotten hold of, do you understand a child on the farm, after school, who engages in helping to finish the harvesting of the crop (I am speaking of the vacation period) would be, under the instructions given the enumerators, classed as having been engaged in gainful occupations? Miss ABBOTT. I want to speak especially about agriculture, if that is what you are interested in. The Census of 1920 was taken in January, 1920, and the proportion of children employed in agriculture (that would be really, in any sense employed, Mr. Chairman) would, of course, be very much smaller than in 1910; because the census was taken that year in April, when the numbers out of school and at work would be very different than in January. The percentage of reduction of the number of children between 10 and 15 years of age, between 1910 and 1920-that is, of those in agricultural employment-would seem to be largely due to the change in the time when the census was taken. Mr. SUMNERS. You do not think the census enumerator would undertake to find out the custom, rather than what the child happened to be doing, at the particular part of the year he got there? Miss ABBOTT. He is not really supposed to. When you have 89,000 of them taking the census there is a large opportunity for errors to creep in. They are supposed to take the census as of the date they make the enumeration, and they are not supposed to count a child going to school and helping with chores at night as a gainfully employed child. That is not what the definition includes according to the instructions given to the enumerators. Mr. SUMNERS. There is only one question I am trying to clear up, and that is the child that goes to school, 13 years old, we will say, seven months during the year, and the other three months in the year takes what is called a hand in-help with the farm workMiss ABBOTT. (interposing). The other five months. Mr. SUMNERS. The other five, yes; such a child, under the enumeration, as you understand it, would be classed as being engaged in a gainful occupation? Miss ABBOTT. I do not think they were in 1920, because the enumerators probably would have struck the seven months when the parents would have replied the child was in school. That is why I think the 1910 and 1920 numbers differ so greatly. I think in 1920, if they got there during the five months' time and the child was working full time in the field, they would have said the child was gainfully employed. That is the reason why I think the numbers in 1910 were so large, very much larger, in agricultural employment, than in 1920; because in April a good many children would be out of school and employed on the farm. Mr. SUMNERS. Have you any information, not just your own conclusions, as to what probably would happen? 1 Figures taken from material as yet unpublished; furnished through the courtesy of the United States Bureau of the Census. Miss ABBOTT. I read you the text of the instructions. Mr. SUMNERS. And upon that text you base your conclusions? Miss ABBOTT. Yes; upon the text, which I have read to you. The question, therefore, becomes of interest as to how much of the decrease between 1910 and 1920, in the nonagriculturally employed children, is real and how much is apparent. In the agricultural field, I have said I think a good deal of it is apparent rather than real; that the decrease was due to the time of the year when the census was taken, in 1910 and 1920. I think there were definite permanent gains between 1910 and 1920 with reference to the employment of children in nonagricultural occupations. Some of them were only temporary, however, because in 1920 we had, in addition to the improvement in State legislation, the Federal child labor tax law, discouraging the employment of children, and we do not now have that. Of course, it is impossible for anyone to say, numerically, how much effect that had on the numbers employed; but in that time, when the census was taken, we did have the standard in operation described the other day and as Federal law discouraging, by a very heavy tax, the employment of children below those ages. Mr. SUMNERS. The law to which you refer was not operative with reference to agricultural labor? Miss ABBOTT. No. Mr. SUMNERS. So that any change you found in the statistics with regard to that could not be traceable to the national legislation? Miss ABBOTT. Not at all; nor of the States, either, because, as I said the other day, practically no State attempts to regulate agricultural employment of children, except as they are affected by the compulsory school attendance law, except the beginnings made by a law in Ohio, which is practically the only thing we have. Mr. SUMNERS. Do you, at this point, desire to express an opinion as to the wisdom of having the National Government leave to the States the matter of regulating the labor of children on farms, or not? Miss ABBOTT. On what? Mr. SUMNERS. I say do you at this time want to express an opinion as to the wisdom of having the National Government leave to the States the matter of regulating child labor on the farm? Miss ABBOTT. Do you mean am I advocating a statute that would prohibit their employment? Mr. SUMNERS. No; would you like at this time and at this point to express an opinion as to the wisdom of leaving the power in the States to regulate child labor on the farm, as distinguished from giving such a power to the Federal Government? Miss ABBOTT. I should be very glad to say I think that an amendment should be passed-this is not a statute, but an amendmentauthorizing Congress to legislate with reference to child labor. I think an amendment should be inclusive; so that whether or not we have a law would depend on Congress and not upon the language of the amendment. Mr. BOIES. Would you not be a little fearful, if you tried to control child labor in agriculture over this country, that the amendment would not be adopted? Miss ABBOTT. You mean as to whether it is done or not; not the amendment itself? Mr. BOLES. If it was included, had you thought of the probability that the amendment would not carry? 1 Miss ABBOTT. No; I have no fear on that score. No one is advocating, that I know of, at the present time, a statute regulating agricultural child labor for the United States, if the amendment does not prohibit it. We do not know what will develop with reference to agricultural labor in the future at all. We may have in the next 10 years or the next 100 years a totally changed situation from what we have now. We may have a vast growth of large-scale agriculture, and children will not be employed on the home farm but under conditions approximating industrial employment. Who can know? I can not say what will happen 100 years from now, and certainly I would not like to attempt to say now, because it would be sure to be wrong. Consequently, it seems to me a full grant of power to Congress is in line with the other grant of powers in the Constitution. Then the question of a particular statute could be taken care of. If it were a question of a statute being passed at this time to regulate child labor on the farms, I would be among those who would not favor the enactment of such a statute. Mr. SUMNERS. Is it your position with regard to conferring power upon the Federal Government, and the extension of power by the Federal Government, that you would give the Federal Government, when the opportunity presents itself, the power to do that which at the present time, you do not have a definite opinion on, that it could exercise, if it saw fit, possibly, at some future time; is it your position that at some future time it might want to exercise it, and, therefore, you would give the power now? Miss ABBOTT. If you are giving to Congress the power to regulate and prohibit child labor, and leaving to it to say what type of child labor it will regulate and prohibit, then I think it would be very foolish to attempt to put in that amendment the preciseness you would have in a statute, because, as I say, it would defeat the general purpose for which we are contending. The preciseness of a statute belongs in a statute and not in the amendment, which is a grant of power. Mr. MONTAGUE. You would make no exception at all? Miss ABBOTT. I would make no exception at all. Mr. MONTAGUE. In the legislation passed at this time? Mr. FOSTER. Do you know of any reason why, if an amendment was made to include agricultural labor, the farm bloc would not be able to take care of that? Miss ABBOTT. I come from the farm bloc region, and I think they would be pretty well able to take care of the situation. Mr. HERSEY. There are a number of forms of amendments before us, some of them describing absolutely the age and the manner and the kind of employment prohibited and making an absolute prohibition of that kind of employment of children; there are other resolutions saying that Congress shall have the power to prohibit, and at what age, and omitting the details. |