Evening journal., 1922-05-16
Child LABOR
ACT IS invalid
Supreme Court Sets Aside
Substitute Law Enacted
by Congress
STATES RIGHTS
ARE INVOLVED

WASHINNIONs May 10 Aht
child labor law has been declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court.
The law. enacted IN 1919, was IN
tended to regulate the employment
OF children in any mill, cannery,
workshop, factory or manufacturing
establishment, under the age Of ID,
or IN any mine or quarry, under 16
years, by imposing an excise tax OF
10 per cent upon the net annual
profits Of those employing such
labor.
The law was enacted after the Su-
preme Court had declared invalid
an act Of Congress which excluded
from interstate commerce products
IN whose manufacture child labor
had been used. It was attacked on
the ground that Il attempted TO reg
ulate an exclusively State function,
in violation Of the Federal. Consti-
tuition and the Tenth Amendment
and was defended 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 Su-
preme Court by three cases from
North Carolina appealed by the
Government. Two OF those, the Ath-
ertoD Mills and that by John j.
George and others, were dismissed
on technicallties. but the case
brought by the Drexel Furniture
Company was found in proper form,
and II was In that the law was de-
clared invalid.
The opinion was delivered by
Chief Justice Taft, with no dissent
announced. The case was discussed
at length, In view OF previous deci-
sions involving questions bearing
upon the taxing power OF Congress,
and the law was held invalid as an
attempt by Congress to regulate
through its taxing power something
entirely within the Jurisdiction OF
the various states IN the exercise Of
Eheir police power.
Officials Of the Internal Revenue
Bureau declined to discuss the deci-
sion until they had an opportunity
TO read the full opinion, but stated
that the amount of money involved
IN taxes was small and the Child La
Dor Bureau. employing about 80 per-
sons, would be discontinued.
Does this law impose a tax with
only that incidental restraint and
regulation which a tax must newt
ably involve" the Chief Justice
asked, cor does It regulate by the
use Of the so-called tax as a penal
"? II a tax, II Is clearly an excise.
If Il were an excise on a commodity
or other thing OF value. we might
not be permitted under previous
hecislons Of this court 70 infer solely
from its heavy burden that the act
Intends a prohibition instead Of a
tax. But this act IS more"
After analysing the principal fea-
lures Of the law and its operation,
the Chief Justice said: I'm the light
of these features Of the act, a court
snust be blind not to see that the so
called tax Is imposed 10 stop the
employment Of children within the
age limits prescribed"
Its prohibitory and regulatory |
effect and purpose are palpable,"
he added "All others can see and |
understand this. How can we prop
erly shut our minds 10 it,"
Declaring It the duty OF the Court
20 decline to recognize or enforce
laws Of Congress dealing with sub
5ects 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 "even though It
require US to refuse to give effect to
legislation designed to promote the
highest good"
THE good sought in unconstitu-
tlonal legislation" he added, is an
bnsidious feature because It leads
citizens and legislators Of good pur-
pose 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 break
ing down recognized standards.
Grant the validity Of this law
and all that Congress would need
10 do hereafter would be to enact
detailed measure OF complete regu-
latlon OF the subject and enforce It
by a so-called tax upon debentures
from It. To give such magic 20 the
word tax would be to break down