Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1918-06-04
CHILD LABOR LAW
DECLARED INVALID
Supreme Court Sustains Injunc-
tions Restraining Gov
crnment
FOUR JUSTICES DISSENT
Majority Holds That Production
Of Articles Is Matter Of
Local Regulation.
FOUR JUSTICES DISSENT
IBy Associated pre.1

chilo LABOR law or 1915 forbidding in
terstate shipments ot products of child
labor was to-day declared unconstitu-
tional and invalid by the Supreme
Court.
1njunctions restraining the govern
ment from putting the statute into et-
feet and restraining Il Charlotte. y. c.,
| cotton mill from dischargins children
employed by it were sustained by the
court
justices Holmes. McKenna. Brandeis
and Clarke dissented
In deciding the case Justice Day. who
rendered the opinion. said:
Over interstate transportation or its
incidents. the regulatory power OF
Congress is ample. but the production
of articles. intended for interstate
commerce. is a matter of local reEula-
tion.
IF 1t were otherwise. all manu-
facture intended for interstate ship
ment would be brought under Federal
control to the practica! exclusion Of the
authority OF the States. a result GER
tainly not contemplated by the trainers
Of the Constitution when they vested in
Congress the authority to regulate
commerce among the States.
The grant of power to Congress
over the subject of interestate COM
merce was TO enable 1t to regulate such
commerce, and not to give it authority
10 control the States in their exercise
and manufacture.
EVERY STATE IN UNION
HAS CHILD LABOR LAW
That there should be limitations
upon the right TO employ children in
mines and factories In the interest of
their own and the public welfare. all
will admit. That such employment is
generally deemed to require regulation
Is shown by the fact that the brief Of
counsel states that every State in the
Union has law upon the subject.
limiting the right TO thus employ chill
dren.
The power of the States to regulate
their purely internal affairs by such
laws seem wise TO the local author
ity is inherent and has never been
surrendered TO the general government.
To sustain this statute would not be in
our judgment recognition OF the law
full eXertion of congressional authority
over interstate commerce. but would
sanction an invasion by the Federal
power of the control of n matter pure
ly local in it's character. and over which
no authority has been delegated in
Congress in comforting the power to
regulate commerce among the States.
The act in a twofold sense is re-
pugnant 10 the constitution. 1t not
only transcends the authority dele
gated 10 Congress over commerce, but
also exerts a power as to a purely
local matter to which the Federal au-
thority does not extend. II Congress
can thus regulate matters intrusted to
local authority by prohibition of the
movement of commodities in interstate
commerce. all freedom of commerce
will be at an end. and the power of
the States over local matters will be
eliminated. and thus our system of
government be practically destroyed"
MIyoRITY HOLDS THAT
ACT Is CONSTITUTIONAL
In the dissenting opinion. in which
Justices Mckenna. Brandeis and Clarke
concurred, Justice Holmes declared
enactment of the law came clearly
within the powers of Congress.
The act does not meddle with any
thing belonging to the States" said
Justice Holmes. They may regulate
their Internal affairs and their domes-
tic commerce as they like. But when
they seek 10 send their products across
the state line they are no longer with
in their rights. If there were no Con-
stitution and no Congress. their power
to cross the line would depend upon
their ncighbors. Under the Constitu-
tion such commerce belongs not to
the States but to Congress. to regulate.
It may carry out its views of public
policy. whatever indirect effect they
may have upon the activities of the
States. The public policy Of the United
States is shaped with a view to the
benefit Of the nation as whole. The
national welfare as understood by
Congress may require a different atti-
tude within its sphere from that of
some self-seeking State. 1t seems to
me entirely constitutional for Congress
to enforce it's understanding by all
means at it's command"