The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1922-07-07
CHILD LABOR AND FEDERAL COURTS
Address of
Senator Robert NJ La Toilette Before Convention
of American Federation of Labor,
Cincinnati, June ID, 1922

per cent. In the New England states
it had fallen to SO per cent. In
1900 the percentage of the Southern
states was still % per cent. and in
the New England states it was only
81 per cent. One result of this sit
uation was the establishment OF
branches of New England cotton
mills in South Carolina, Georgia. AL
ALBANIA and North Carolina, where
young children could be worked with
little restriction.
The Industrial Commission, created
by the act of June Is. 1898, in its
final report, volume 10, page 922,
said:
"Uniform or at least similar leg
| islation in the various states is es-
pecially desirable in the case of
laws restricting child labor because
in so far as the employment of chill
dren is real economy it gives man.
ufacturers in the states where it is
permitted an unfair advantage over
those nthe states having child labor
laws"
The whole matter was we'll sum-
med up in the testimony of Mr. Brin-
ton of Philadelphia, printed in the
| hearings before the Committee of
Labor, 9th Congress, LIST session, on
| II. r. 1924, page 270, as follows:
"Mr. BYinton. Gentlemen of the
Committee: From Pennsylvania we
come to this hearing with high hopes.
Session after session at our legisla-
ture we have been met by the cry
from the manufacturers, State legis-
lation is unfair. You ask us to COM
MA - 81
standards. This interstate compe-
tition will ruin our business. If we
must advance let us advance togeth-
err The condition which
confronts us today is therefore in
actual fact largely problem of in
terstate competition through inter-
state commerce; a condition empha-
sized in every child labor campaign
in every state: condition certain to
grow more hopeless as conditions of
competition become constantly more
intense. Interstate commerce is at
the root of the evil as it exists to-
day"
And in the Senate Report No. 1858,
Gath Congress, first session, page 81,
which had under consideration the
measure which afterWard became
law it is said:
$50 long as there is a single state
which for selfish or other reasons
fails to enact effective child labor
legislation. it is beyond the power
of every other state to protect eff
fectively it's own producers and man.
ufacturers against what may be con-
sidered unfair competition of the
producers and manufacturers of that
state or to protect its consumers
against unwittingly patronizing those
who exploit the childhood of the
country"
1t has been we'll and truthfully
said that childhood labor in any
state lowers manhood labor in every
state.
Congressional legislation is abso-
lutely necessary therefore to protect
the childhood of the country. and to
protect manhood and womanhood of
the country, and to protect the con-
sumner from becoming a partner
with the exploiters of child labor
through unwittingly purchasing the
tainted products of child labor.
1t was, sir, in recognition of this
situation and in obedience to these
compelling reasons that the Congress
enacted the child labor law which
have referred.
The power of Congress to enact
that law is not only written into
the plain language of the Constitu
ton itself, but Congress had so fire.
quently exercised similar power as
to make it seem certain beyond the
possibility of doubt that no court
would venture to question the Con-
gressional power to enact this much
needed legislation. The clause of
the Constitution of the United States
which l contend expressly confers
upon Congress the power to enact
this law is found in section 8, where
it is declared "The Congress shall
have power to regulate
commerce with foreign nations. and
among the several states, and with
the Indian tribes
The power of Congress to regulate
commerce between the several states
is therefore supreme. The Congress
has precisely the same power to reg
ulate and control commerce between
the several states that it has to
regulate and control commerce with
foreign nations. Before the Con-
gress passed the child labor law 1t
had passed many other laws, consti-
tutionality of which had been up
held by the Supreme Court, which
not only regulated but practically
prohibited interstate commerce in
certain commodities. 1t had pro-
hibited the movement in interstate
commerce of lottery tickets. see lot
terry case 1873 U. S. 321; persons for
immoral purposes. Hoke v. United
States, 227 U. S. 308; diseased stock,
Reid V. State of Colorado. 1877 U. S.
1877; adulterated food. Hopilite Egg
Company VS.. United States. 220 U.
Distilling Company VS.. West Md.
Railroad Company, 342 U. S. 81
1876.
In these and many other instances
congress had absolutely closed inter-
state commerce to certain persons
and commodities under its power to
regulate commerce. That the COM
modities excluded were in many in
stances not harmful made no diff
ference. See United States VS..
American Tobacco Company, 221 U.
S. LOG, 1872.
The constitution vested in the con-
gress solely the right to determine
the necessity and propriety of regu-
lating even to the piont of prohibit
ing the transportation of any arti-
Gle in interstate commerce. This
rule had been so repeatedly declared
in the cases to which l have referred
and many others that it had come to
be accepted as a self-evident prop
osition. Nor was this all. So tena-
cious of the power of congress to
control interstate commerce has the
federal government always been that
the power of states to regulate or
tax corporations engaged in inter
state commerce has been greatly
hampered by the court and fatty de-
.;aI h., +ba cunrap1a ao1,rt NUharaUar