widespread influence, was hailed by the workmen everywhere with
delight; mass meetings and processions proclaimed it as a great
victory; and only the conservatives prophesied the worthlessness
of such legislation. Horace Greeley sympathetically dissected the
bill. He had little faith, it is true, in legislative
interference with private contracts. "But," he asks, "who can
seriously doubt that it is the duty of the Commonwealth to see
that the tender frames of its youth are not shattered by
excessively protracted toil? .... Will any one pretend that ten
hours per day, especially at confining and monotonous avocations
which tax at once the brain and the sinews are not quite enough
for any child to labor statedly and steadily?" The consent of
guardian or parent he thought a fraud against the child that
could be averted only by the positive command of the State
specifically limiting the hours of child labor.

In the following year Pennsylvania enacted a law declaring ten
hours a legal day in certain industries and forbidding children
under twelve from working in cotton, woolen, silk, or flax mills.
Children over fourteen, however, could, by special arrangement
with parents or guardians, be compelled to work more than ten
hours a day. "This act is very much of a humbug," commented
Greeley, "but it will serve a good end. Those whom it was
intended to put asleep will come back again before long, and,
like Oliver Twist, 'want some more.'"

The ten-hour movement had thus achieved social recognition. It
had the staunch support of such men as Wendell Phillips, Edward
Everett, Horace Greeley, and other distinguished publicists and
philanthropists. Public opinion was becoming so strong that both