Evaluating Testimony on Child Labor: Whom Do You Trust?
In 1911 a state legislature considers a bill limiting work by children under 14 to eight hours a day. Two sources are placed before a history class. Source A is testimony from a mill owner: 'Our mill employs no child under 12. Parents beg us for jobs because they need the wages. The work teaches punctuality and discipline. If you pass this bill, families will suffer and the mill will move south.' Source B is a report from a salaried state factory inspector: 'On March 3 I found 14 children under 12 operating spinning frames. One 10-year-old had worked 11 hours. The employment ledger had been altered in two places. Parents told me they feared being fired if they complained.' The owner testified against the bill; the inspector's job was to enforce existing child-labor law. A student writes: 'Source B is more reliable because it is a government report, so it proves the owner lied about everything.' Another student says both sources are useless because each side is biased. The teacher asks the class to evaluate the sources for the question: Did the mill employ children under 12 in 1911?
1. Evaluate the reliability of Source A and Source B for the specific question. Consider purpose, audience, and the speaker's position. Do not simply label one source biased.
Read the worked answer
For the question 'Did the mill employ children under 12 in 1911?', Source B is stronger but not flawless. The inspector's report was written by a salaried official whose job was to enforce child-labor law, and it gives specific, checkable details: a date (March 3), a count (14 children), an age (10), hours (11), and altered ledger entries. Those details can be checked against employment records, census records, or other inspections. However, the inspector may have had an incentive to find violations to justify the agency's budget or to support the bill.
Source A is the mill owner's testimony against the bill. The owner has a direct financial interest in resisting regulation, and the statement 'our mill employs no child under 12' is a general denial rather than a specific record. The audience is a legislative committee, so the owner is trying to persuade. That does not make the testimony automatically false, but it means the denial should not be accepted without records. Source B is more reliable for the specific factual question because of its specificity and official enforcement role, but it still needs corroboration.
2. Critique the first student's statement that Source B 'proves the owner lied about everything.' What parts of the owner's testimony could still be accurate or useful, and what would a historian need to check?
Read the worked answer
Source B cannot prove the owner lied about everything. It directly contradicts the owner's claim that no child under 12 was employed, if the inspector's count is accurate. But the owner also says parents wanted jobs, that the work taught discipline, and that the mill might move south. Those are claims about motives and consequences, not the same factual question. Some parents may indeed have wanted the wages even if they feared the working conditions; both can be true. The owner's statement that the mill would move south is a prediction and may or may not be accurate.
A historian would need to check employment ledgers, payroll records, birth certificates or school records for the 14 children, and other inspectors' reports. The altered ledger is important: it suggests records may be unreliable, so the historian should look for independent sources. The student should say that Source B provides strong evidence of a violation, not proof of every statement the owner made.
3. Critique the second student's claim that both sources are useless because each side is biased. Explain how a historian could use the two sources together and what additional source would best corroborate the inspector's finding.
Read the worked answer
Bias does not make a source useless; it tells the historian how to read it. Source A shows what the mill owner wanted the legislature to believe and reveals the arguments used against child-labor limits. Source B shows what an enforcement official reported and provides specific details that can be tested. Used together, the sources frame a factual dispute: the owner denies under-12 employment, while the inspector reports 14 cases.
The historian can compare the details and look for independent records. The best corroboration would be the mill's own payroll or employment ledger from March 1911, especially the entries the inspector says were altered, along with birth records or school enrollment records for the named children. If the ledger and birth records support the inspector, the denial is weakened. If they do not, the inspector's count may be questioned. The two sources are not equally reliable for every purpose, but neither is useless.