The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-01-13

Mfr. Edgar Gardner Murphy of thi'
 city, who is Montgomery for the great
 CT part of the winter. expressed him self very freely yesterday in reference to the federal child labor bill recently introduced at washington by Senator Beveridge of Indiana. When seen al the Exchange Hotel he said he was glad that The Advertiser and the Ala. bama press generally had opposed this measure.
 MT. Murphy's attitude is specially significant as he has long been ono of the most vigorous advocates of the regulation of child labor, but he has ia vored a policy of State control rather than a policy of federal intervention As first chairman of the Alabama Child Labor Committee, his efforts had wide influence not only. in the South but in the North. Realizing, however that the evils of child labor exist every where in this country. he became some years ago, as Dr. Falix Adler has re- csnly said. "the father and founder of the National Child Labor Commit tee. body having headquarters in New York and Atlanta and doing a large work over the whole country. Mir Murphy has withdrawn from this or ganization. however. because of It's en- dorsement of the Beveridge bill.
 q am sorry said he, ito leave the the national committee, for my interest in its work was intense and my re- iations with my associates on it's exec utfve board were most cordial. but af- ter its approval of Senator Beveridgess measure no other course seemed open to me. am strongly in favor of the regulation and restriction of child labor by the several States of the union, long for the day to come when the children of the South will be as well protected as any children anywhere in the world, but together with my asso- ciates. Judge Gaston, Dr. Anderson and MT. B. c. Caffey, am opposed to their cause being used as pretext for un- warranted encroachments of the fed eral power. Such action will serve. think, only to make their protection more insecure and will at length weak en the cause of the children North as well as South.
 A Broad Issue.
 For would not argue the case from the sectional standpoint. There are necessarily, of course. some sectional phases of the argument. Of these I will speak later. Fundamentally, how ever, the case is the same, whether we look at the problem from the South ern or the Northern point of view It is in it's essence simply a question of moral and industrial statesmanship and the principles involved seem to me to underlie not merely the restric- ton of child labor but the whole task of the permanent regulation of social and industrial evils in the United States.
 "As all understand, our national con titution-according to previous inter pretations of it-leaves such questions as the regulation of the hours and con- ditions of labor to our local State gov ernments. These questions have been regarded as outside the domain of the federal authority. Congress. represent- ing the federal power, has jurisdiction only over such questions as involve the relations of tho several States to one another. Those, therefore. who have wanted the federal government to concern itself with child labor or with the regulation of the hours of labor in the several States have heretofore at- tempted to achieve their purpose by pressing an amendment to the national constitution.
 The New Proposal.
 "Senator Beveridge, however, by suggested Interpretation of a single phrase, finds a short cut to the end he l,as in view. The constitution gives
 he federal authority power to regu- late commerce between the States. Therefore says the senator, we will reach the question of child labor in the several States by passing law | at no railroad shall accept for trans portation from any factory or mine any article of commerce save when accom- panied by an affidavit declaring that said factory or mine does not employ children under fourteen years of age.'
 The bill may have been recently changed, but the above is the wording of the enacting clause in the copy sub mitted to me privately in New York city about December 1st. Under this plan the Federal Government would at tempt to do indirectly what 1t cannot ao directly. It is ingenious and clev- ST. as a friendly journal has described It. But many of my Republican friends who are pressing this measure, have harsh things to say if. in the regula- lion of the suffrage, for example, our Southern States by ingenious and clev- er' means attempt to do indirectly what they canot do directly; yet that is an- other subject.
 For, turning at once to the more se- rious issue. let us ask the question aoes such a measure represent a sound public policy? Granting for the mo- ment, just for the sake of argument. that such a procedure is constitutional, Is 1t wise? I do not mean wise in the temporary or narrow sense but wise as } permanent principle of legislative ac- ton?
 'Is it not true that the Federal pow pr in all questions which normally and usually come within the Jurisdiction of he States, should be used only as a power, a power to be ex- srcised only in adjusting controversies between the States. or only when the States are stubbornly and contuma- ,iously neglectful 0f the national in- terest? If this be not the case. and If he Federal authority is to be inter posed whenever the party in power can a temporary majority for a popular measure, we may as well have 10 State governments at all. This point Is so obvious thaEits truth is assumed ,ven in so extreme a statement of the, position as that recently made by MT. Root. Unfortunately, however, he used as an illustration of his argument and as indicating an in- stance of the perversity of the States. he position of the child labor ques- ion in our country-an illustration which points as sqhareiy away from 1is conclusion as any illustration he ,ould have chosen.
 Recent Progress by States.
 For what are the facts? Is it true hat the States are indifferent to the question of child labor? On the con- .rary. no public issue in the United