The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1922-05-20
COURT HOLDS
CHILD LABOR
LAW INVALID

11dC III At6clllpCcu
j to Regulate Exclu-
sive State Functions
Washington. May 15.-The child
labor law was declared unconsti-
tutionaI tod by the Supreme
Court. The law. enacted in 1919,
was Intended to regulate the NJ
p~loy.nent Of children under four
teen years of age, in any mill, can
merry, Workshop. factory or manu-
featuring establishment, or in any
mine quarry under sixteen years.
BY Imposing an excise tax OF 10
per cent upon the net annual profits
Of those employing such labor. 1T
was attacked on the sreund that
it attempted to regulate an eSeiu-
i state function. in violation OF
the federal constitution and the
tenth amendment. and was defend
ed as a mere excise tax levied by
congress under its broad power OF
taxation conferred by the federal
constitution.
The law was attacked IN the
supreme court by three casas from
North Carolina. appealed by the
government. Two of these. the
Anterior Mills and that by john j.
George and others, were dismissed
on techniealities. but the case
brought by the Dexel Furniture
company was found in proper form
and it was in that the law was
declared invalid.
The opinion was delivered by
Chief Justice Taft, with no dissent
announced.
The case was discussed at length
in view of previous decisions IN
volving questions bearing upon
taxing power of congress, and the
law was held invalid as an at
tempt by congress to regulate
through its taxing power some
thing entirely within the jurisdic-
ton of the various states in the
excise of their police power.
docs this law impose a tax with
only that incidental restraint and
regulations which a tax must IN
eyitabfy involve the chief justice
asked, .or does it regulate by the
use of the so-eaIled tax as a pen
atty II a tax, it is clearly an ex-
else. II it were an excise on a
coanmodity or ether-thiRg yofyalue,
we might not be permitted under
previous decisions Of this court to
infer solely from its heavy burden
tat the act intends a prohibition
instead of q tax. But this act IS
more.
After analyzing the principal
features of the law and its opera
ton, the chief justice said: I'm the
Fight Of these features of the act.
8 court must be blind not to see
the so-called tax is imposed to
stop the employment Of children
within the age limits prescribed"
Its prohibitory and regulatory
effects and purpose are palpable,
he added. 4A1T others can see and
understand this. How can we prop
erfy shut our minds to it,?
Declaring it 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 control OF
the states. the chief justice said
the court must perform that duty
ever though it require us to re-
fuse to give effect to legislation
designed TO promote the highest
good"
Out of proper respect to a CO.
ordinate branch of the govern
nlent the Supreme Court has gone
far to sustain taxing acts as such,
Chief Justice Taft continued, add
ing this had been done "eyen
though there has been ground for
suspecting from the weight of the
fax. It was intended to destroy its
subject"
.But in the act before u.s." he
said, .the presumption Of validity
cannot prevail, because the proof
of the contrary is found on the
very fact of its provisions. Grant
the validity of this law. and all
that congress would need to do.
hereafter. in seeking to take over
to its control n n of the great
number of subjects Of public in
Ierest, jurisdiction of which the
states have never parted with. and
which are reserved to them by the
tenth amendment. would be TO en-
act a detailed measure of complete
regulation OF the subject and en-
force If by a ~so-calied 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 con-
gress and completely wipe out fhe
sovereignty of the states.
Where the sovereign enactinS the
law has power to impose both tax
and penalty, the chief justice said,
s.the difference between revenue
production and mere regulation
may be immateria1. but not so
when one sovereign can impose Il
tax only, and the power OF reg
ulation rests in another
Taxes are imposed" he added.
ein the discretion of the legisla-
ture on proper subjects with the
primary motive of obtaining G
enue from them. and with the in
cidental motive Of discouraSinS