Evening star., 1922-06-03
Upholds States Rights, Yes;
But What About the Children Z?

But What About the Children
Absolutely rieht-more's the pity"
is the gist OF most of the editorial
Comment on the decision of the Su-
preme Court declaring the child Ia
Dor law unconstitutional. While ac-
| claiming the courts support of the
doctrine of states rights. editors are
careful to emphasize the fact that
the decision is good only because 1t
| SO unequivocally reafirms that doc
| trine; they all agree with the Knick-
erbocker Press (Albany) that lit is
most unfortunate that a law against
child labor should have been the vic
tim of the courts awakened con-
science on this subject" And there
| is. Of course, general agreement that
the fight against child labor must go
on. although there is pronounced
division of opinion as to whether the
battlefield should be state or national
sists on a constitutional amendment
that will make federal control pos
sible.
The Supreme Court of the United
States" the New Haven Register re-
minds US. deals witE law as it ie.
not with ethics or humanitarianism."
and it's child labor decisions. the Nor
folk Virginian Pilot says, is merely
"a clear-cut application. Of sound lie.
gal and governmental principles
freshing, at least from a southern
viewpoint, to read that the United
States Supreme Court has rendered
a decision in defense of the rights OF
the states. invaded time and time
again by the federal al s;.,n soyernmensr msa'sr
observes. those rights still exist"
Because there IL grave danger. moral
and political" in their invasion, the
Chicago News thinks ut fs high
'fn asserting the fundamental i'm
portance of our basic law. even over
legislation that Is benevolent and
well-intended." the Youngstown Vim
dicator feels that "the Supreme Court
epoch-making in its effect" for. the
Portland (Me) Express and Adver-
tiser says, "the Constitution cannot
be safely evaded, even for good
purpose"
(conn.) Republican sees it. it is the
old question Of state rights versus hu-
man rights" and in the opinion of a
number of editors the court has given
q narrow construction in the case OF
the child labor law. which 1t has failed
Constitution, which the New York Call
reminds us, embodies 1.-THE ideas of the
fathers who lived in the days of the
stage coach, chRttel slavery and the
ox-cart." certainly could not" the
ed for every emergency. for every de-
velopment of the national sense OF
morals and necessity" "Unquestion-
ably the scope and power of the fed
erai government have been extended
<h4 l~tA - 40 fvoY nj
the Constitution" the st. Louis Globe
Democrat admits, but the trend has
been ito make the rights Of the whole
people superior to the rights OF any
section of the people," and it contends
that I'VE should have been far behind
our present progress and standing as
a nation If this had not been the case"
II the Supreme Court Is right, the
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette sees
ample justification for the declara-
and protecting and maintaining an in
fanny that Christian civilization cannot
and will not indefinitely tolerate"
which, II we must make 1t. the Cham
paien (Ill.) News Gazette finds. "a sor-
ry Acknowledgement to make to the
But the answer to this position.
many writer's point out. il that, as
the Lafayette (Ind) journal and
Courier says. there is nothing in the
latest SOuTt that COH-
dones the utilizing Of child labor"
Rather, the Oklahoma City Okla
homan notes, "the court made it plain
that it was in the interest of the
public welfare to prevent the employ
ment OF shildren fss ..nao5s and 1or that a, rea-
ville), believes that "those who still
cling to the ideal Of state right will
accept the decision as q solemn warn
ing to the states Of them obligation
to their youthful populations.n for II
there should be, the Individual states
should stand first in their enactment"
The effect of the decision, the In
dianapolis News thinks, us both to
throw great burden OF responsi-
them to meet that responsibility" The
st. Louis Post-DIspatch believes that
"the reason why some states have not
abolished child labor is that they
have not awakened to the response
bihties Of citizenship" and. as the
Chicago Journal says. "if reformers
had devoted their attention to back
ward states during the last seven or
eight years, It 10 doubtful II any,
southern cotton mill would be en-
ion Of the New York Post. ''to con-
vert these states to the desirability
Of such legislation will be q far
greater triumph than to impose It on
them in the way that has now been
held invalid"
II is. however. more than . state
interest" the Harrisburg Patriot de-
claree. at IL q national interest" for.
as the Christian Science Monitor as
serts. "a grievous wrong does exist"
and .'the problem is one far more i'm
portant than that of state sover-
eignty." The Allentown (Pa.) Call
notes that at has been next to inn
possible to solve the problem by state
action, for there have been enough
states in which public sentiment Is
callous and Indifferent to nuliify the