Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 11.djvu/454

 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

constitutes a systematic effort at decentralization. The small electric motor favors this form of labor, and decreases the superiority of the shop over the home.

The legislature of 1892 was too lenient when it made this form of production an exception to the regulations then passed. Students of sociology and hygiene have spoken against home production, not so much because of the principle as because it offers such favorable opportunities for exploiting the labor of children, for overworking and underpaying laborers, etc. Now the protection of children is guaranteed by the school and health laws, if they are properly enforced. The sweating system is that which stands in greatest need of remedy.

Some, especially socialistic writers, have demanded the entire suppression of such centers of labor. That would be unjust ; for to many it is more agreeable and more productive than shop labor. It is neither possible nor desirable to prohibit. Should it, then, be regulated? Attempts have been made so to do, but the right of private domicile stands in the way and would have to be revised first.

But many shops can be regulated, as it is. Every employer who uses a laborer, not a member of his own family, converts his home shop into one that comes under all the regulations of thb larger shops. By requiring lists of all those employed by any one patron, and their addresses, the inspector of labor can trace their identity.

Why restrict the regulation to motor machines? This has been asked by many. Some have said that it is unnecessary, for most of those who carry on home labor have not the resources to provide such a machine ; and even if they have, it cannot be installed without requiring a separate shop, in which case they come at once under proper regulation. But these people forget about the electric motor, which is neither noisy, dangerous, nor unhandy. A little motor fastened to the wall appears less a machine than an ornament. The installation of such a machine as this becomes the signal for inspectors to enter. But out of 380,000 home shops in 1896, only 164 had motors, and these were, of course, among those who left least to be desired in the conditions of production ; and thus the sweat- shop evil is not reached.

Justice and logic demand the same : neither to neglect all regulation of the home shop, nor to throw it into the same class as all others. A practical question presents itself in the difficulty of tabulating and visiting all these home shops ; it will require a great increase in the force, and a corresponding increase of expense. Again, we must come to some decision about the private family life. Anyone who employs others than his family lays himself open to inspection ; but where the family life and the shop life are really one, what is to be done? The inspector should be empowered to enter at all hours of the day and night, in order that he may really accomplish his end. It would seem impossible to reduce the work in the family to a regime, as is done in the shop ; thus regulations for overwork are difficult ; and where a laborer works for several employers, which is to be held responsible for abuses, the laborer or the employers ; and if the latter, which of them?

Exorbitant in principle, vexatious in application, the regulation of family labor would be lacking in results. Any regulation under the present view of the case would be a dead letter, a simple declaration of principle, a pure form devoid of imperative virtue and paralyzed by lack of sanction. J. Cavaille, " Faut-il regle- menter le travail des ateliers de famille?" Revue politique et parlementaire, September, 1905. D. E. T.

Legal Status of Labor Unions in The United States. Down to the time of the Revolution, any banding together of laborers in this country for the purpose of bettering their conditions was considered by the common law opposed to the common well-being and a conspiracy against the limitations on trades and business, and anyone who took part in the same was punishable. A single laborer might refuse to perform a given piece of work under given specifications ; but when two or more combined for any purpose of benefit to themselves, they were guilty. Since the Revolution, seldom have such unions been called in question. At the present time, only the motives of violence, intimidation, and fraud can prevent men from combining to accomplish their purposes. Several of the states have