The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1922-07-14
Continued from last week.

throp, a rarely gifted executive. II
her 9th annual report Miss Lathro
said:
"a well-organized system of
administration had been develop
ed as high or higher than those
of the Federal statute and with
competent administering officials
were working in excellent coop
Grafton with the Government in
spectors to the strengthening of
both. In some States laws had
been modified to make possible
compliance with the certificating
provisions of the new statute. In
others the direct issuance of GER
tificates by the officers of the
Children's Bureau was securing
an orderly procedure, returning
many children to school, increas-
ing the popular demand for
schools, and incidentally showing
the parents and the public the
need of physical tests of fitness
for work. Cases of willful viola
ton had been successfully prose-
cuted, though this was the least
important effect of the law"
In spite of the clear language o.
the Constitution and the many decl
sions of the Supreme Court, the inF
was hardly dry upon the Child Labor
Act passed by Congress in 1916 before
an inferior Federal judge in Nortt
Carolina assumed to hold the act VOC
as unconstitutional and enjoined Its
enforcement in that district. | refer
to the case of Hammer V. Dagenhart
which reached the Supreme Court or
appeal by the Government and was
decided in June, 1918.
We are informed from the recorc
in this case that the bill to test the
constitutionality of the law was fileC
in the United States district court
for the western district of North Caro-
lima by a father in his own behalf anc
as the next friend to his two minol
sons, one of the age of IA and the
ether between the ages of Ia and II
years. All were employees in the
cotton mill at Charlotte, North Caro-
lima. Who paid the expenses of these
cotton mill operatives in the litigation
does not appear. The Supreme Court
of the United States, however. by q
5 to 4 decision declared the law un-
constitutional in spite of the plain
language of the Constitution and in
spite of that courts previous decl-
sions. Mr.. Justice Holmes. however
filed strong dissenting opinion
which was concurred in by Mr.. JUS
tice McKenna. Mr.. Justice Brandeis
and by Mr.. Justice Clark. In his dis
senting opinion, Mr.. Justice Holmes
said:
"The question then is narrowed
to whether the exercise of It's
otherwise constitutional power by
Congress can be pronounced I'M
constitutional because of its pos
sible reaction upon the conduct
of the States in a matter upon
which l have admitted that they
are free from direct control.
shold have thought that that mat
ter had been disposed of so fully
as to leave no room for doubt.
should have thought that the most
conspicuous decisions of this
Court had made it clear that the
power to regulate commerce and
other constitutional powers could
not be cut down or qualified by
the fact that it might interfere
with the carrying out of the do
nestle policy of any State. y
81 should have thought that if
We were to introduce our own
moral conceptions where in my
opinion they do not belong. this
was prominently a case for up
holding the exercise of all its
powers by the United States.
"But l had thought that the
i+xy Of tho of
power admitted to exist in some
cases was for the consideration
of Congress alone *. 1t is
not for this Court to pronounce
when prohibition is necessary to
regulation if it ever may be nee
essary-to say that it is permlss-
ible as against strong drink but
not as against the product of ru-
ined lives.
This does not NEEDLE with any
thing belonging to the states. They
may regulate their internal affairs
and their domestic commerce as they
like. But when they seek to senc
their products across the state line
they are no longer within then
rights. If there were no constitution
and no congress their power to cross
the line would depend upon then
neighbors. Under the constitution
such commerce belongs not to the
states but to congress to regulate
1t may carry out its views of public
policy whatever indirect effect they
may have upon the activities of the
states. Instead of being encoun-
tered by a prohibitive tariff at hel
1 -taE he
public policy of the United States
which it is foc congress to express
The public pollcy of the United
States is shaped with view 20 the
benefit of the nation as whole. If
as has been the case within the NOM
CRY of men still living, state should
take a different view of the pro-
priety of sustaining a lottery from
that which generally prevails, | can
not believe that the fact would re-
lune a different decision from that
reached in Champion VS.. Ames Yet
in that case it would be said with
quite as much force as in this that
congress was attempting to inter
NEEDLE with the states domestic at
fairs. The national welfare as un'
derstood by congress may require q
different attitude within it's sphere
from that of some self-seeking state
1t seems to me entirely constitutional
for congress to enforce it's under
standing by all the means at its COM
mand."
The opinion written by Mr.. Justice
Day for the five Judges constituting
the majority of the court, does moi
in form override any previous decis
ions. but says:
an our view the necessary effect
of this act is by means of prohibi
ton against the movement in inter
state commerce of ordinary CONNER
cial commodities. to regulate thu
hours of labor of children in factories
and mines within the states"
"Of course the very purpose of the