The Washington herald., 1918-06-04
CHILD LABOR
LAW NUELED
BY COURT
Highest Body Bases Opin-
ion on States Rights
Doctrine.
DECISION 5-TO-4 VOTE
Keating, Author Of the Bill,
Charges Cotton Men
with Iobhvino
DECISION 5-TO-4 VOTE

Representative Keating of Colorado,
father OF the child labor law, an
nounced last night that he will call
an immediate conference to discuss
framing a new bill which will get
around the invalidities of the present
statute, which the Supreme Court. by
a five to four vote, declared uncon-
stitutional.
Both Keating and Senator Owen of
Oklahoma, who championed the meas
ure In the Senate, commented on the
courts decision in formal statements.
Keating said 1t might be proposed
to fix heavy taxes on the products of
child labor that such manufacture
would be Improbable. II necessary,
he declared. an amendment to the con-
stitution will be proposed.
Prevents Other Laws.
Senators who are authorities on con-
stitutional law studied the decision
carefully for loopholes in It. SEN
ators johnson. Of California, and
Kenyon. of Iowa, champions Of the
law, pointed out the the strong States
rights doctrine asserted in the opin-
ion would prevent other intended leg
islation along the same line, such
as limiting the hours Of labor for
women. Kenyon and johnson agreed
that the decision apparently covered
all points which they might wish to
attack
Mr. Keating said:
1T will satisfy no one except the
cotton manufacturers Of the South.
who financed the lobby which fought
the measure in Congress and who
hired the distinguished attorneys who
argued the case before the court.
"A conference will be called at once
to decide II we can bring about a
change of the law without an amend
ment to the constitution, as was
necessary in the income tax mat
ter"
But II It is necessary. we will
press an amendment"
A 6-to-4 Decision.
Five justices signed the majority
opinion, including Chief Justice
White. the others being Justices
Day. McReynolds, Vandevanter and
Pitney.
Justice Holmes submitted a dis
sentinS opinion. signed by Justices
MCKenna, Brandeis and Clarke.
ne uCSlSlOH a ueClSlOn In
the United States District Court of
the Western District of North Caro-
lima, when the law was held un-
constitutional on a suit brought by
Roland H. Dagenhart, father of two
sons employed in a cotton mill.
In our view," read the majority
opinion. "the necessary effect of
this act is, by means of a prohibition
AGAINST he T.
state commerce of ordinary COM
mercial commodities, to regulate
the hours of labor of children in
States, a purely State authority.
Thus the act is in a two-fold sense
repugnant to the constitution. It
not only transcends the authority
delegated to Congress over COM
merce. but also exerts a power as
to a purely local matter to which
the Federal authority does not ex-
tend. The far-reaching result of
upholding the act cannot be more
plainly indicated than by pointing
out that, II Congress can thus regu-
late matters entrusted to local
authority by prohibition of the
movement of commodities in inter-
state commerce. all freedom of COM
merce will be at an end. and the
power of the States over local mat
ters may be eliminated. and thus
our system of government be prac-
tically destroyed"
Dissenting Opinion.
In the dissenting opinion, Justice
Holmes said: II should have thought
that the most conspicuous decisions
of this court had made 1t clear that
the power to regulate commerce and
other constitutional powers could
not be cut down or qualified by the
fact that it might interfere with the
carrying out of the domesic policy
of any State. The notion that pro-
hibition Is any less prohibition when
applied to things now thought evil.
1 do not understand. But II there 4
any matter upon which civilized
countries have agreed-far more
than they have with regard to in
toxicants and some other matters
over which this country is now emo
tionally aroused-it is the evil Of
and excessive child labor.
1 should have thought that IL we
were to introduce our moral convic-
tions where in my opinion they do
not belong, this was pre-eminently
a case for upholding the exercise
of all its powers by the United
States.
The act does not meddle with
anything belonging to the States.
They may regulate their internal
affairs and their domestic commercs
as they like, but when they seek to
send their products across the State
line they are no longer within their
rights. II there were no constitution
and no Congress, their power to
cross the line would depend upon
their neighbors. Under the consti-
tuition. such commerce belongs, not
to the States, but to Congress to
regulate. The public policy of the
United States is shaped with a view
to the benefit Of the nation, as Q