New Britain herald., 1916-08-07

l l ever about their dom estic concerns 1 We could just well say in this bill l that no products should be carried l from one state to another unless the l mill in which it was made had em- l plOyes every OneO f whom had had a l high school education. The senator 1 from Idaho would stand up here and l make a magnificent oration about the l perpetuity of our institutions depend 1 Ing upon the education of our citizens. l MT. Borah. I do not object to the l senator's criticising my argument but l l object to the senator referring to my ] legal argument as an oration.
 Cicero and Borah.
 l MT. Brandegee. Cicero used to com ] bine them both in one, and l think ! he was no wiser man than the senator ] from Idaho himself. So, MT. Presi | dent, while I personally would go as
 far as anybody else, l think, to relieve 1 distress or to promote the welfare, 1 especially of little children, I think l such projects ought to be carried out l in legal and constitutional method, 1 and l do not think ought to allow ] ourselves to be stampeded by the cir l culars and letters and articles that we | see written by benevolently inclined 1 people who do not understand the l
 I do not think we ought to allow our 1 selves to be persuaded to be intimi- l dated by the threats to get votes or to ] withhold votes on questions of this | kind. The form of this government is l at stake, Mr. President, in this kind of 1 legislation
 MT. Borah. The senator comedies, l Of course, that congress may prohibit l the shipment of any comm odity in in l terstate commerce that is deleterious
 or injurious
 l MT. Brandegce. Yes; per SC. l MT. Borah. Who is going to decide l whether it is or not?
 l MT. Brandegee. Congress-
 MT. Borah. Then the sole power to l decide that is in congress.
 MT. Brandegee. I think so, except
 if it would be, as the senator says, an
 arbitrary power the court would look l through 1t. I think there could be T l limit and the court could say that | congress had not acted in good faith.
 MT. Borah. Can the senator give
 me an idea where the limit is? MT. Brandegee. Yes; but it would | have to be such an extreme case that
 it would not be a reliable guide. | MT. Borah. That is it precisely. The
 senator is dealing with that subject l matter precisely as we are dealing 1 with this subject matter. To a certain
 extent the discretion rests in congress.
 Beyond a certain point of course. any | one would denounce it as arbitrary, l but within wide range the congress of l the United States may exercise it's judgment as to what is to the public l interest and the public welfare and
 to what Is delterious. As I said , while ago, MT. Marshall once said, | there is really no limit under certain | circumstances to the exercise of pow | CT except change of representatives l in congress. MT Brandegee-That may be SO, 1 Mr. President, and a change Of judges l of courts, because whether it will l stand or not will depend upon the | courts. I hope the supreme court of
 the United States would have In view | the history of this gOvernm ent as to 1 what the states have been accustom ed ] to do what advances have been made
 under our dual form of government
 and the way the commerce clause of
 cur constitution is being stretched not l in good faith to accomplish all sorts | of purposes that the national govern | ment heretofore has never been sup
 posed to have anything to do with
 whatever. I hope it will call the su-
 preme court to a, serious consideration
 of this matter.
 MT. President, there is nothing now
 that any sect or cult of people want 1 to accomplish that they are in doubt
 about the power of congress to re-
 spond to but what they say "you can l do 1t under the commerce clause
 You can not say to the people of the
 states, You shall do this" Nobody
 claims we could say that no state | shall allow boy under 6 years old 1 to work, but they do som etimes get up
 6 theory that it is bad for a boy un- | der 1 6 years old to work, and that is
 the sentiment, and if you pronounce l that it is bad for him to work, and it 1 would be in the interest of the public l welfare that he did not work, then you say anybody who allows him to work
 shall be prohibited from sending any l thing into interstate commerce, and
 we are all the time being urged to do
 indirectly what everybody admits we l can not do directly.
 MT. Cummins-The senator from l Connecticut and myself have discussed
 this question so often in the commit
 tee I m sure he will bear with me a.
 moment while I put an inquiry to
 him. I premise it with this statement
 of his view, as I understand it. It
 seems to be his opinion that congress
 can not prevent the transportation of
 anything unless there Is something ! wrong with the thing transported.
 That idea has been suggested many
 times. Now, let me ask the senator,
 suppose three corporations in the state
 of Connecticut were to enter into a
 contract which was in violation of the
 antitrust law and which was in re-
 straint of trade. That would be a,
 crime under our law. Is the senator
 of the opinion that congress could not
 say that the product of those three l enumeration assuming 1t to be a per