In is not our intention to devote much space to a recapitulation of the arguments in favour of the Child Labour by-law, which it is hoped to put before} 'a special meeting of ratepayers} next Tuesday afternoon. The question was discussed very fully before the fiasco of the April meeting—perhaps too fully. A good deal' of heat was. engendered in. the process of canvassing: both sides, and we are ready to take our own share of the blame in this matter, became so keen on their own point of view that they found it almost impossible to believe that any other could be seriously entertained; and the result was undoubtedly damaging to the prospects of the by-law among moderate men whose minds were still fairly open on the subject and may well. have become confused in all the clamour of controversy.
Very briefly put, what the by-Inw proposes to-do.is as follows no child under the age of ten years is to be employed in a factory or industrial. undertaking for a. period of four years after the by-law becomes offective; after these four years, no] child under twelve: shall: be: employed: and no child under fou teen shall work for move than twelve hours, including one hour of rest, during the twenty-four, while one full day's holiday shall also be granted, to. such: children at least once in avery fortnight. Further provisions are that no child under foun-teen shall be employed upon hazardous work*or in any dangerous place; and that alt necossary precautions shall he taken surround machinery with necessary safeguards. This bylaw still stands for proposal next Tuesday in the form in which it would have been put to the April meeting. Bat the Council, by a note published in the Municipal Gazette of May 19, has introduced an important notification, Resolution 7 (the by-law being Resolution 6) says "that the Council be authorized. its discretion to proceed" with the recommendations of the Child Labour Commission. The italicized words have been introduced into this Resolution after very careful consideration by, the Council and in order to avert any herships in the operation of the by-law, such, as are feared: by its opponents, For example, it would. be possible for the Council not to attempt to turn out of the mills any: ehildven actually employed in them, but merely to see that no more children under the age. of ten were engaged. Funther, one. of the great evils. which have. to he fought in connexion. with child labour is the contractors who bring down children from up-country with promises of remunerative work, when it is safe to say that most of the remuneration goes into the con-|! tractors' own pockets, We are: not in favour of chili! labour at the: mills under any conditions: but certainly a distinction might be. drawn between children, far from their homes and supplied by contractors, and children actually accompanying their parents to the mills and returning with them to their homes after work. Such a distinction Council should be able to en: force if the Resolution as now worded: be passed. It is also carefully noted in the Council's statement that there is to be. question of 2 dole or grant in aid for those thrown out of employment.
One point may be suggested in connexion with this Resolution. The by-law to be proposed unlder Resolution 6 very clearly [says "no person shall" do such and suck a thing "from the date fat which this by-law shall become effective." Now, if that Resolution is passed, is it possiable for the Council afterwards ito use discrimination as to the time or. method. of its being put Jinto operation? It appears to lus. that the Council is then ound by the mandate of the lnatepayers and that any dis-re tionary. powers. that it might) wish to acquire. should be. in-udod, in Resolution 6. and. not jut into, a separate Resolution. Phi really a question for lawyers, and we are quite read; ito admit that we may be mistaken. The Council's intention is unquestionably clear; it is the ldraughtsmanship. of the Resolutions which seems to us to be at Hault. There are certainly many people, advocates of the by-law, who will be dissatisfied by any thought of the postponement of fits full operation; and if, Resolution 6 having been passed in its. present form, they then called upon the Council to carry out its provisions forthwith, one lnwould like to be sure that the Council would be legally in a [position to resist them.
The statement of the Council policy is important in two ways: it should satisfy all fair-minded opponents of the by-law that every precaution will be taken ito present hardships from arising under it; and, it also shows that the Council is not rushing at the matter like a bull at a gate, if indeed it could over be fairly accused of such undignififed procedure. In this connexion Imost people will conclude that the councillor tackled by Mr. [Bruce Lockhart and quoted by him in his letter to-day: was not speaking seriously and was really using the quickest means of putting an end to a conversation which he knew would be useless and feared would become unending. In any case it seems hardly fair to tar the whole Council with the brush of cne member, even if it could be believed that he meant what Mr. Bruce Lockhart tells us he sai It is the simple fact thet both the Child Labour Commission, which included a number of men intimately acquainted for many years with factory work, and the Council have given a at the end of this thinking, their conclusions were at fault, it will be for the ratepayers next! Tuesday afternoon to tell them so, But we do not think that such a body of opinion should, and we sincerely. hope that it will not, be lightly rejected. We hold that Shanghai may not onl [safely rid itself of the reproach [of employing children in its fac-ories—which, say what anyone may, is no small one-—but that it may also give a. lead to mills, Ithrowghout China. The new form in which the question is put to ratepayers will also [allow time for propaganda work Humongst those outside mills,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.