Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1918-06-07
Child Labor and the Ronc.Dry LAW

| n ECISlON Of the United States Supreme
| II Court declaring unconstitutional and
invalid the Federal child labor law Of 1916,
! forbidding interstate shipments of products
| OF child labor. is signal victory in fore
stalling insdious encroachments OF Federal
authority upon the right OF the States to
regulate and control their own domestic af-
fairs. While affirming the amplitude Of tho
regulatory power of Congress over interstate
transportation the court rejects an in
vasive exercise OF authority its attempt to
interfere with the production OF articles in
tended for interstate commerce, the question
OF such production within the States being
entirely matter of local regulation.
In rendering the decision Of the court
Justice Day said: The power of the States
to regulate their purely internal affairs by
such laws as seem wise to the local authority
is inherent. and has never been surrendered
TO the general government. To sustain this
statute would not be. in our Judgment a
recognition of the lawful exercise of con-
gressional authority over interstate COM
merce, but would sanction an invasion of
the Federal power of the control of mat
Ter purely local in its character. and over
which no authority has been delegated to
Congress in comforting the power to regu-
late commerce among the States" Further
illustrating the Iepuguance CT the statute
TO the Constitution. the Justice continued:
trusted to local authority by prohibition of
the movement OF commodities in interstate
commerce, all freedom Of commerce will be
at IN end, and the power OF States over local
matters will be eliminated, and thus our
system of government be practically de-
stroycd"
1t can readily be surmised that the prin-
ciple OF State authority which governed this
decision applied to the Federal bone-dry law
fnr c1,,I l..
as to its repugnance to the Constitution
SHOULD test of its validity be made in the
courts For instance in the exercise OF it's
exclusive rightful authority. the State OF
Virginia has fixed the amount Of Intoxicating
liquors which its citizens may lawfully secure
and have transported in commerce within
given periods OF time. It's right to make such
regulation. the court by implication affirms in
the above decision. The Federal enactment
attempts to take away this right. Can it
do so?
1t may be argued that the grant of power
10 Congress to regulate interstate commerce,
and the Virginia regulation as to the right
or its citizens to import liquor in limited
quantities, conflict in their operation. Even
So but since the grant to Congress does not
extend to interference with interstate COM
merce to the practical exclusion of the in
herent authority OF the States in a matter
purely OF domestic concern it necessarily
follows that Congress is attempting the
exercise of unwarranted authority More
over. the exercise of the authority that vests
in Congress over interstate commerce must
be uniform in its operation upon ali the
States. 1t may not discriminate against
States in this power to regulate Yet the
bone-dry law makes it unlawful to shin
liquor into one State and legalizes its ship
ment into another.
All OF which suggests that the encroach-
ing habit OF Congress to overthrow the au-
thority of the States in the matter of regu-
latng their own local affairs is due for an
other call down.