The New York herald., 1922-09-07
SENATOR DENOUNCES
COAL GOUGING BILL
Reed (Pa.) Calls Cummins'
Idea Unwise and I'm
constitutional.
LIKE CHILD LABOR CASE
Not Within Power Of Con-
gress to Prohibit Inter
state Transfer.
-s-
LENROOT DEFENDS PLAN
Says Senate and House Have
Right to Prevent Fuel
Profiteering.
LENROOT DEFENDS PLAN
Special Dispofch to THE New YORK HERALD.
New York Herald Bureau.
WashIngton, ID. c., Sept. @.

Special Dispatch to THE NEW YORK HERALD.
New York Herald Bureau.
Washington, ID. c., Sept. Q.
Efforts Of the Senate to pass the
Cummins bin to check profiteering in
coal through operation of priority or
dess and the setting up of a Federal
fuel administration made but scant
progress to-day.
However, the Sutherland amend
ment, providing that the proposed law
shall not interfere with contracts made
prior to September /, was rejected by
a viva voce vote.
The most important speech on the
Cummns coal bill was made to-day
by Senator Reed (Pa.) since in his
State are located all the anthracite
fields. He opposed the bill in vigorous
language, contending that it was ''un-
constitutional and unwise."
"My respect for those Senators who
have spoken in behalf of the bill and
my belief in their wisdom and legal
ability is so great" he said, that
would not venture to speak on the bill
IL my belief in Its unconstitutionality
and its unwisdom did not amount to
positive. pure conviction. / believe it is
unconstitutional. / believe it Is unwise,
and / believe that If enacted into law,
1t would be utterly impracticable and
unenforceable.
Far Reaching Effect.
Whenever measure is proposed to
Congress, of course the query suggests
itself. under what express powers the
Congress proposes to enact the statute
That query has been made and has
been answered by the proponents OF the
bill that ii is under the interstate COM
merce power. Under that power II is
proposed to provide that the highways
% ;.:a nation s..a,i be ecnict. &c such
sellers OF coal. either producers or
dealers as charge more, or have in the
past charged more. than some appoint
i've officer or appointive commission in
Washington. may decide to be fair
and reasonable price.
1T Is claimed that this is a regulation
of commerce; that Is to say. 1t Is within
the power of the Congress in substance
to prohibit the transportation OF COM
modify like coal, because forsooth back
in its history someone has sold 1t for
an undue price. I venture to assert that
never since the commerce laws and the
rest of the Constitution came into effect
has 1t been attempted TO be applied in
such far reaching effect as that.
I'm the child labor case the Supreme
Court forcefully called attention to the
fact that the product of child labor was
rot evil in itself, that the articles in
trinsically did not bear evil. 1t was
held. and I think 1t necessarily would
be held in a case involving the pend
ing bill, that as The subject of the pro-
hibition was not in itself unlawful II
was not within the regulatory power
OF Congress to prohibit its transfer in
interstate commerce.
II has been often held that all OF the
express powers given Congress in the
Constitution are subjected to the pro-
hibition of the bill of rights. In the
Monongahela navigation case ii was di-
rectly held that the interstate commerce
power OF Congress was expressly subject
to those guarantees of the rights of the
individual. which are contained in the
first ten amendments.