The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1922-05-16
Child Labor Law
 Unconstitutional,
 Says Chief Justice

Washington, May 16-The Child Labor Law was declared unconstitu- tional yesterday by the Supreme Court. The law, enacted in 1919, was intended to regulate the employment of children in any mill, cannery, work shop, factory or manufacturing es- tablishment, under the age of 14 or in any mine or quarry under 16 by imposing an excise tax of 10 per cent. upon the net annual profits of those employing such labor.
 It was attacked on the ground that it attempted to regulate an exc1u- sively state function, in violation of the Federal Constitution and the tenth amendment and was defended as a mere excise tax levied by Con- gress under it's broad power of tax ation conferred by the Federal Con- stitution.
 The law was attacked in the Stu preme Court by three cases from North Carolina, appealed by the gov ernment. Two of these, the Atherton Mills and that by John J. George and others were dismissed on technt- calities, but the case brought by the Drexel Furniture Company was found in proper form and it was in that the law was declared invalid.
 No Dissenting Opinion.
 The opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Taft with no dissent an nounced. The case was discussed at lSIS LII III Nl6W OI pISN1OQS OSC1SAO1lo Involving questions bearing upon the taxing power of Congress and the law was held invalid as an attempt by Congress to regulate through it's taxing power something entirely within the Jurisdiction of the various states in the exercise of their police power.
 Officials of the internal revenue bureau declined to discuss the decis- ion until they had an opportunity to the amount of money involved in taxes was small and that the child labor bureau, employing about fifty persons. would be discontinued.
 Does this law impose a tax with only that incidental restraint and regulation which a tax must inevit- ably involve?' the chief justice asked, 'or does it regulate by the use of the it is clearly an excise. If 1t were an excise on a comm odfty or other thing of value we mighta not be permitted under previous decisions of this court that the act intends a prohibition in stead of tax. But this act is more.
 Ana1yzes Law.
 After analysing the principal fea- lures of the law and it's operation, the chief justice said, '.in the light of these features of the act, court must be blind not to see that the so- called tax Is imposed to stop the em~ ployment of children within the age limits prescribed:'
 Its prohibitory and regulatory eff feet and purpose are palpable,' he added. ttAll others can see and un- derstand this. How can we properly shut our minds to dt?''
 Declaring 1t the duty of the court to decline to recognize or enforce laws of Congress dealing with subjects not entrusted to Congress, but left by the supreme law of the land to the con- trol of the states, the chief Justice said the court must perform that duty, "even though it requires us to refuse to give effect to legislation de- signed to promote the highest good
 Regrets Of States.
 Grant the validity of this law, said the chief justice, land all that Congress would need to do hereafter, in seeking to take over to it's control any one of the great number of sub jects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with and which are reserved to them by the tenth amendment would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word tax would be to break down all constitutional limitations of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the states"