The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1922-07-14
CHILD LABOR AND FEDERAL COURTS
Address of
Senator Robert NJ. La Toilette Before Convention
of American Federation of Labor,
Cincinnati, June IA, 1922


erless to declare otherwise.
The seventh annual report of the
/ the results of the repeal of this
| Chief of the Children's Bureau tells
child labor law by the supreme court
in its decision of the Dagenhart case,
as follows:
"The immediate effect of the de-
cision of the sopreme coort in states
where the state child-labor standards
were lower than those imposed by
the Federal law was the prompt re-
storation of the longer working day
| for children under 16 and an increase
in the number of such working chill
dren. In addition. in number of
these states there was an appreciate
| increase in the violation of the state
| laws. For example, of the 80 fac
tories visited in one state by inspec-
tors of the bureau shortly after the
Federal law was declared unconstitu-
| tional, AZ were found violating the
state law by employing 430 children
under II years of age, while in the
| 40 factories inspected in this state
while the Federal law was in opera
ton only 95 children under Id years
had been found at work The ten
dency to illegal employment of chill
dren was especially marked in the
| canning industry. In one state where
| the minimum age for employment in
canneries was ID years, the same as
that established by the Federal law,
721 children under that age, includ-
| ing over SO who were not vet 10
years old, were found employed in
| 205 canneries visited by inspectors of
| the bureau in the summer of 1918"
| (After the Supreme Court had multi
fled the Child Labor Law
Congress at the next session,
passed the act of February "a, 1919,
which sought to obviate the objec-
ton of the supreme court by levy
ing an excise tax upon the employ
ers of child labor who transported
their product in interstate commerce
and who employed children within
the prohibited ages and in excess of
prescribed hours. This statute, in
my opinion, though amply supported
by authority to be found in previous
| cases of the supreme court, was
doomed unless the court should re-
verse its decision in the Dagenhart
case. When the decision was hand
ed down on the 18th of last month
in the case of Bailey VS.. The Drexel
Furniture Company, setting aside
and multiplying this statute, Justice
Clark dissented. | assume that the
other judges dissenting in the Dag
enhart case which | have discussed
previously thought that the decision
| in that case was conclusive and that
a dissent was useless. The Daley
case. like the Dagenhart case. also
came up from the western district
of North Carolina, and in both in
stances an inferior Federal Judge as
sumed to nullify statute passed by
| the congress after the greatest con-
| sideration. and approved by the
president. 1t is worthy of note also
| that the Dagenhart case which set
tied the principle and fixed the po-
sition of the majority of the court,
should almost wholly escape public
notice and condemnation. while the
| Bailey case decided last month, which
does little more than to cite the
| Dagenhart case as authority, has
provoked hostile comment from one
end of the country to the other and
| is made the subject of consideration
in this conference. The explanation
is, of course, that the supreme court
| decided the Dagenhart case June 8,
1918, when we were all too busy
| making the world safe for democ-
racy to pay any attention to what
| was happening to our own children.
| have briefly sketched the manner
in which the Federal courts have
thwarted the will of the congress and
Of the people inthe matter of child
| labor simply because it is typical Of
the conduct of the Federal Judiciary
| and particularly the Supreme Court
whenever Congress has sought to
enact progressive and humane legis-
| lation which was offensive to great
| financial interests and enterprises.
The point that | am trying to make
is that we are dealing with a fixed
purpose and predisposition on the
part of the supreme court and the
federal judiciary generally.
This decision is, however, merely
| the last of a long list of decisions
| equally arbitrary and equally indie
feasible from the standpoint of pub
lie welfare.
You only have to recall the decis-
ions arising out of the employers
liability statutes, the Arbitration Act,
the Workmen's Compensation Act,
the Income Tax Laws, and the
shameful manner in which the court
rewrote and misapplied the Anti
Trust Act in the Standard Oil and
Tobacco Trust and other cases. If
perchance the memories of any of
you are very short, l direct your
attention to the recent decision Of
the Coronado Coal Company case.
The opinion in this case by Chief
Justice Taft is significant because of
what the court says on questions that
are not involved in the case rather
than because of anything that is act
uaily decided. This is another case
of obiter dicta.
A six-line decision was all that
was required to dispose of the case
on its merits, for the supreme court
was reluctantly obliged to admit the
fact that there is not and never was,
any evidence to show that the de-
PENDANTS conspired to restrain or
monopolize interstate commerce. That
being true, of course there is not,
and never was, any case against the
United Mine Workers in the Federal
count. The court, however, went out
cf it's way through 20 pages of
NDllef ulcId 10 peIdIe VIC uelCl'udiito
and 10 characterize them as outlaws
and murderers, and Chief Justice
Taft wound up his opinion By say
ing: "The circumstances are such
as to awaken regret that in our
view of the Federal jurisdiction, we
cannot affirm the judgment" In
which the court went outside the rec
ord to announce principle which
will be laid hold of by the Federal
courts whenever necessary to disrupt
labor unions and farmers organiza-
lions throughout the country.
There is no need for laymen to
comment upon these decisions. Let