Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-09-11
CHILD LABOR LAW UNDER TEST
NEWSPAPER RAISES QUESTION
OF CoNSTITUTIoNALITY.
Class Legislation Is Contention
Made in Case on Trial Before
Juvenile Court.

| The constitutionality of the child labor
law of May %. 1908. and as to whether it
| could be held to apply to newspaper SELL
ing or distributing papers. was the prob
lem.
| The hearing was before Judge De
Lacy, in the Juvenile Court, yesterday.
| Information had been filed against Lynn
| l.. Reider. route agent for a Washington
| newspaper claiming that he had en-
ployed to deliver papers on certain
| route Thoney Weidman, d boy under four
| teen years of age, who was compelled to
| start upon his work at 5 o'clock in the
| morning. The act limited the hours of
child labor from o'clock in the morning
to o'clock at night
On behalf of the newspaper Attorney
Wilton j. Lambert filed a motion to quash
on the ground that the act was unconsti-
| tuuonal in that 1t was class legislation,
because of the fact that it undertook to
discriminate between boys of the same
age, excepting from the operation of the
| act children who might be employed in
the Senate Of the United States and those
who might be employed in theatrical exhi-
1 billions.
1t was also contended by counsel that
| lnasmuch as Congress by the act has dis
| eliminated against employment in which
boys could not be engaged after the hours
| mentioned. and had failed to include the
| distribution of newspapers. they could not
De considered to be included under the
| general head Of merchandise, especially as
IN another section it had in mind the reg
| ulat1on OF the sale of newspapers.
1t was contended that the provisions in
| reference to the sale of newspapers could
not be held to apply where the child was
| employed to distribute them.
! 1t was also contended that the spirit
| ana intent of the act was to preserve
1 the mental and physical development of
! the children, and had reference to occu-
| patlons where there was continuous en-
| ployment in order that they might not be
| compelled to work after certain hours
| and that the act did not apply to the dis
| trlbuting of newspapers, as it would not
endanger the physical or mental condi-
| tlon OF the children, and the duration of
| the employment was not more than two
| hours at the most
On behalf of the District, Assistant
| Corporation Counsel Frank Stephens con-
| tended that the act was constitutional
and that newspapers must be rega rded as
coming under the head Of goods, wares
| and merchandise. He conceded that the
| point in reference to the provisions gov
| erning the sale of newspapers did not ap-
ply where they were merely served to
| customers.
1t not being possible to conclude the
| arguments yesterday the court adjourned
the case until September %. Then, it is
| expected the case will be finished
| 1t was announced that the matter was
| to be thoroughly considered on all sides,
inasmuch as the question of constitution
| atty was raised, a case being presented
| which could be taken on either side to
the Court of Appeals of the District of
| Columbia and from there to the Supreme
Court Of the United States for final action