The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1907-01-11

Washington. January S-SenaJoN
Overman, of North Carolina. address,
ed the senate In opposition To the pro-
posed federal child labor laws. his OPP
position being based on the broad
ground of state rights.
Senator Overman went into an dab
crate defense of the doctrine OF state
rights. His text was taken from the
constitution OF his state.
"A recurrence TO first principles Is
absolutely necessary TO the prescrva-
ton of our liberties.
The child labor bills OF Senators
Lodge and Beveridge were read by
Mr.. Overman. with the comment that
the enactment of either would not only
tend to stretch TO the breaking point
the commerce clause OF the conStitu-
ton, but would be a usurDation or the
rights of the states-rights which the
people had expressly reserved TO them
selves when the tenth amendment 10
the constitution was adoptd. II pro-
vides that the power o delegated
W Tic CIlllcu OIdltS W lHc tclhoS4lultblA
not prohibited by ii TO the states. are
reserved TO the states respectively. D.
to the people"
AS there was in the days Of the adop-
ton of this amendment evidence of Il
strong sentiment for consolidated or
centralized government, Mr.. Oyermar
believed there is even stronger evi-
denceS OF this tendency today. This
sentiment, he said, has grown with
the inordinate desire for the dollar. has
increased with the growth of CONNER
cialism, the building up OF mighty
fortunes, the Capitalization of great
wealth in the hands Of the few, produc-
ed by the great trusts and monopOlics,
many of which are organized for the
purpose OF crushing out competition
and which have been robbing the PEG
pie Of untold millions
Mr.. Overman pictured the enc o.
state sovereignty as the result OF the
present desire for encroachment on the
reserved rights OF the people. II more
power Is needed, he suggested, the way
is clear. Let an amendment be 20
mitted II the states. In any eIeYt
let the people be consulted; Let their
sacred will be known; let their consent
be given to the surrender OF any N
their rights. Without their consent.
let nothing be done by an unwarranted
construction.
Mr.. Overman held there was no limit
to the power of congress to deal with
which is Interstate in It's
nature. He heartily endorsed recent
measures exercising this control, such
as the rate bill. the pure food law n
the meat inspection regulation. There
was decided distinction between reg
ulating interstate commerce n max
ing regulations concerning commercial
production which might not become In
terstate commerce. For this latter
class of industry, Mr.. Oyerman desired
no interference from congress. n
mere fact that goods were manufact-
ured in one state for transmission -
another did not, in his opinion, maEe
those goods subjects OF interstate
commerce. To support this contention
Mr.. Overman went into an elaborate
discussion Of court rulings OH the QuH
ton. He then drew his conclusion t>yt
if congress could regulate enid 0
in the factory and mine it could reBA-
late it on the farm and in every IN
dustry. and in fact, IL could regulate
every other detail OF every industry.
Mr.. Oyerman said he was in favor
of q child labor law for the District
of and was not to be under
stood as making any objection To the
enacrmapt Of state laws regulating d
subject His objections VAS on the
broad Ground Of defending the rights
Of tha states against the Capitalization
Of Uower in the federal government