The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-12-03
MONDAY. DEcnMBnR 2. 1906.
Two Ansunp nrLLs.

Senator Albert J. Beveridge of In- diana and Senator Henry C. Lodge of Massachusetts are preparing to get busy an the subject Of child labor when Congress assemblies. Each latters him. eeif that the bill he will introduce will be just what is needed, and that he will push 1t through both houses -asa past the President like 1t was Ereased.
 Beveridge Is man who proposes to sthink nationally" as he expresses 1t, and not suffer little things like the Constitution or the rights of States to hamper his designs His plan is for Congress to enact laws prohibiting or regulating child labor fin the mills and Factories in any portion of the Union. It matters not that there Is nothing in the Federal Constitution giving to Congress such prohibitory powers. It makes no difference to him that the soundest opponents of that instrument Heny that such powers can be assumed pr exercised by Congress
 All that Is moonshine to the impul- nive young Senator from Indiana. : when Roosevelt, Cannon and others were trying to force Arizona and New Mexico to join he wanted 1t done re- gardless of what the people of the two Territories wanted. or how they might vote on the question "who cares" he dramatically exclaimed, what the peo- pie of Arizona want or don't want? We must think and legislate nation ally" Let the States and the people so hang, says Beveridge, while we so- Ions betake ourselves to the task of legisiating and thinking nationally.
 Then comes Senator Lodge with a pill of his own which certainly ought to be passed" he says, but we have our doubts about that True he takes Issue with the Beveridge idea, assert ing that "it is beyond the power of the general government to make laws regulating labor for the various States" !" and in that view he is certainly cor rect. but we are not sure that his own plan is going to better the matter any. That plan in brief is to have Con- gress enact laws preventing the car riage in interstate commerce of man. nfactured goods upon which child labor has been employed.
 Mir. Lodge thinks he has gotten around the Constitutional objections to which the Beveridge bill is subject, but we think when it comes to the prac- ticaI application of his theory he will find himself up against a wall. Most of the commerce of the country is now. CT will soon be, carried under the pro- visions and regulations of the inter- state commerce law. If his bill should become law how are it's provisions to be equtably enforced? How are the handlers and carriers of freight to know whether any of it is or is not manufactured in mills or factories where child labor is employed, or that none of that kind of labor was used on the goods to be transported? Will the Interstate Commerce Commission, or its agents inquire into the details of manufacture of all the American made goods loaded on freight cars? IL seems to us that such requirements would lead to endless delay and confu- sion. If the railroad people receive and transport such goods they lay them selves liable. and if they refuse to ac- rept freight offered taem they may make a mistake that would be expen- Eive to the company. In short, it strikes us that the bills of both Lodge and Beveridge would make good kind ling material