New-York tribune., 1922-05-16
Taft Delivers the Decision
Holding Law Unconsti.
tutional in Encroachino o
on Powers of The States
Penalty of Excise
Tax Is Attacked
kules Congress Exceeded
Its Authority; No Dis.
senting Opinion Filed

WASHINGTON, May 15.-The child
labor law was declared unconstitu-
Aonal to-day by the Supreme Court.
Inc law, enacted in 1919, was intend
ca 10 regulate the employment of chill
oren under the age of fourteen wears
IN any mill, cannery, workshop. factory
or manufacturing establishment or
'nose under sixteen years of age in
any mine or quarry by imposing an
excise tax of 10 per cent upon the net
annual profits of those EMPLOYING such
labor.
1T was attacked on the ground that il
attempted 10 regulate an exclusively
state function, in violation of the Fed
cfai Constitution and the Tenth
Amendment, and was defended os q
mere excise tax levied by Congress m
Ger ITS broad power Of taxation con.
lerred by the Federal Constitution.
Ruling in North Carolina Case
The law was attacked in the Sn-
preme Court by three cases from North
carolina, appealed by the government
Two OF these, the Atherton Mills and
that by John j. George and others, we're
olsm'ssed on technicalities, but the
case brought by the DreXel Furniture
company was found in proper form
and 1T was in that the law was declared
invalid -''
The opinion was delivered bv Chief
Justice Taft with no dissent announced
me case was discussed at length in
we" OF previous decisions involving
questions bearing upon the taxing
held invalid as an attempt by Congress
to regulate, through its taxing power,
something entirely within the jurisdic-
ton OF the various states in the exer-
else of their police power.
Othcials of the Internal Revenue
Bureau declined 70 discuss the decision
until they had an opportunity to read
the full opinion but said that the
amount of money involved in taxes
was small and that the Child Labor
bureau, employing about fifty persons,
would be discontinued.
Question of Regulation
Does this law impose a tax with
only that incidental restraint and regu-
latlon which q tax must inevitably in
volve," the Chief Justice asked cor
does it regulate by the use Of the So
called tax as penalty? If tax, it
is clearly an excise. If it we're an
excise on comm odity or other thing
of value we might not be permitted
under. previous decisions of this court
to infer solely from its heavy burden
that the act intends prohibition in
stead of tax: But this act is more"
After analyzng the principal
features of the law and its operation.
the Chief Justice said: "ln 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 en-
ployment Of children within the age
limits prescribed.
"lts prohibitory and regulatory eff
feet and purpose are palpable," he
added. "All others can see and under
stand this. How can we properly shut
our minds to ito"
Must Regard States Rights
Declaring it the duty Of the court
to decline to recognize or enforce laws
Of Congress dealing with subjects not
intrusted to Congress but left BY the
supreme law Of the land to the con-
troll of the states, the Chief Justice
said the court must perform that duty
even though it require US to refuse to
give effect to legislation designed to
promote the highest good.
HN EOou SOOEiiA III uUCOHSll
legislation" he added, SIS an insidous
feature because it leads citizens and
legislators of good purpose to promote
it without thought Of the serious
breach it will make in the Ark of our
Covenant, or the harm which will come
from breaking down recognized stand
ards. In the maintenance Of local self
government on the one hand and the
national power on the other our coun
try has been able to endure and pros
per for near a century and half"
Out of proper respect to q coordinate
branch Of the government the Supreme
Court has gone far to sustain taxing
acts as such, Chief Justice Taft CON
tinued, adding this had been done "even
though there has been ground for sus
pecting from the weight OF the tax it
was intended to destroy its subject
But in the act before us" he said,
"the presumption Of validity cannot
prevail because the proof of the con-
trary is found on the very face of its
(Contlnued on page thres1