The Lakeland evening telegram. (Lakeland, Fla.) 1911-1922, 1916-08-22

do indirectly what under the Cons1-
tuition it has not power to do direct
ly, and the recent decision in the Ok.
lahoma case, Two hundred and thir-
ty-eighth United States, should elm
mate the excuse for a sneer at that
proposition.
1t seems clear that an admission OF
the existence of such power would be
full of danger, in that it might lead Ill
timately to the destruction of the re-
served rights of the sovereign States.
The effort here is not to regulate
, commerce of any kind, but in order
that the Federal Government may
enforce the laws which Congress may
enact respecting the employment OF
children in certain kinds of labor, and
to control the manufacture Of products
in the States.
To contend this may be done, no
matter how noble the purpose, is to
proclaim the doctrine advanced by
Charles Sumner in the distressing Pc
riod of the country's history. when
desperate measures were resorted to-,
that
Beyond all question the rule under
the National Constitution . is that
anything for human rights is consti-
tutional .. There can be no State
rights against human rights; and this
is the supreme law of the land, any
thing in the constitution or laws OF
any State to the contrary notwith-
standing"
Two cases of the Supreme Court
are principally relied upon to support
the claims Of the advocates of this
bill, to wit:
What is known as the Lottery case
18S U. s., 331 and the White Slave
case, Hoke v. United State (227 U. S.
3OS).
If we concede that these cases sup
port the contention that Congress
may prohibit interstate commerce
when the article of commerce is no
inherently impure, not an OUTLAW" o
commerce, which deny, still we mus
bear in mind it is commerce, and no
manufacture, that may be prohibited
according to these cases.
1t is not claimed that the article
manufactured or produced by chill
labor as it exists in the States is il
:. itself impure, unsound, unclean, dan
gerous to health and morals. TIL
movement Of such articles in com
,merce neither of these cases hold
may be prohibited by Congress.
d The fifth amendment to the Const
n tuition protects such property fror
n confiscation. The manufacturing plan
e it not the outlaw" when the onl
complaint in the method, the practic
employed in the process of manufat
II ture. Can Congress prescribe that ey
n cry cannery must have a glass roo
otherwise the goods coming from
!, can not move in interstate commerce
, The Supreme Court holds that eve
though, in certain circumstances, Coz
). gress may prohibit commerce in a
article after it's creation, it may nc
pr0hihit itc crootion
K The cases of Kidd " Pierson (12
e U. s., y and United States v. E. {
" Knight Co. (156 U. S., 12) supper
q this view
le These cases and the cases of I'm
le ted States v. Witt 60 Wall, 47) an
9. Coe v. Enroll GIG U. s., SID seem t
Y, me conclusive against the constit,
u tionality Of this bill.
Is Justice Lamar said, in United State
ct against E. c. Knight Co.:
"The fact that an article is man,
or featured for export to another Stat
a. does not of itself make it an articl
In Of interstate commerce, and the il
IS tent of the manufacturer does not d.
le termine the time when the articl
passes from the control of the Stat
~ and belongs to commerce.
. Justice Bradley said, in Coe again.
. Enroll:
/ What we have already said, hoy
J ever, in relation to products of
: State will indicate the view whic
y seems to us the sound one on tn;
} subject namely, that such goods d
not cease to be part of the gener
mass of property in the State SUI
= ject, as such, to it's jurisdiction an
nd to taxation in the usual way, until the
up have been shipped or entered with
! common carrier for transportation
ne a continuous route or Journey"
Sc Here the article, logs. had been C,
5e- and were intended for interstate col
" merce, and had started on their jou
d. ney, but they were held to be subje
oh 10 ha ~ 4,