Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 3.djvu/511

 THE ILLINOIS CHILD-LABOR LA W 497

statute passed in 1891, known as the "Lenz" law, \\hich pro- hibited the employment of children under thirteen years of age, but authorized the employment of children of any age who had any dependent relative and had attended school eight weeks in the year. Neither of these laws was enforced ; no prosecution was ever undertaken under them.

The experience of four years confirms the conviction that that child-labor law is not enforced at all which is not enforced by the constant help of the courts; not because there is hostility to the law in the public mind, or contumacy on the part of those who violate it. Far from it ; there was never a time when the child-labor law was so popular with press, pulpit, and people, so well regarded by the best employers, as it is at present. But the vice of our American citizenship is negligence, good-natured, well-meaning negligence. In Illinois, for many years, this negli- gence has been fostered by a prevailing policy of enforcing noth- ing except what was popular or seemed likely to be popular ; until our negligent disregard of law and ordinance is now the wonder of travelers from countries which enjoy the benefits of good local government.

This negligence on the part of the employer who means well but fails to comply is everywhere, until the inspection depart- ment convinces the management that millionaire and sweater, personal friend, relative, alderman, legislator, and total stranger all fare alike, and pay costs, or fine and costs, before the justice of the peace for every violation of which evidence can be obtained. Fortunately the fines go to the county school fund ; and there can, therefore, be no corrupt intent in the insistence upon bringing to completion all suits begun, even where there has been a tardy compliance before the suit reached trial. Public opinion sustains the literal fulfillment of the section which requires the inspector to prosecute all violations. It was found that local justices inclined to leniency if suit was brought upon first inspection ; and, in visiting an establishment for the first time brought under the statute, we, therefore, gave twenty-four or forty-eight hours' notice. If the wall records and registers