Evening star., 1924-04-25
in TODAY'S SPOTLIGHT
BY PAUL Y. COLLINS

Probably next week will decide
whether Congress will submit to the
states a constitutional amendment
labor throughout the United States.
The proposed amendment has been
before the committee on the judiciary
OF tho House. and has been reported
out with n majority recomm ending its
submission. and a minority urging
that no federal limitations be put
upon tho states in permitting children
To labor in mines and factories. but
that state rights be respected. The
strongest demand for state rights in
tho matter Of exploiting children,
comes from the Keystone state of re-
publicaniHn. while such states as
Louisiana and South Carolina and
other Gouthern states, through their
labor commissioners, testify to the
benefits in enforcing their state laws
which they experienced while the
federal laws on the subject were in
force, prior to being declared uncon-
stitutional by the United States Su-
prcme Court The subject Of child
labor. therefore, appears not to be a
party question. but, like Hancock's
definition of the tariff, is local
issue" at least, state rights issue.
Tho constitutional amendment pro-
vides:
Section /. Congress shall have
power to limit. regulate and prohibit
tho labor of persons under eighteen
years OF age
Sec. :. The power of the sew
eral states is unimpaired by this
article. except that the operation of
state laws shall be suspended TO the
extent necessary to give effect to
legislation enacted by Congress"
x = r
The minority report opposing the
adoption Of the amendment is written
by Representative George S. Graham
(RopublicaD of Pennsylvania and in
dorsed without concurring in all the
details) by Representative Montague
CDemocrat) of Virginia. Dominiclx
,Delnocra) or South Carolina and
Weller (Democrat) of New York Mr.
Graham Is chairman of the committea
CUT the majority report, supported bv
he, hnrs put & nour or its twenty-one mem
pers' was written by REPRESENTATIVE
Foster (Repubiican) of Ohio
4
me opposition report argues that
there should not be any more amend
ments to the Constitution centrariz-
ing power in the federal government.
the nation formed under the Com
stitution of 1889 was not n na,ion in
the general sense of that word II
was nation with limited powers"
Deft ununited these thirteen several
states would soon have become a
prey to interstate jealousies. rival
rles and selfshness or prey TO for
eign enemies" Many sound think
ers nave contended that the clause
permitting amendments to the Con-
sltutlon was only intended to cover
changes by addition or Improvement
with respect to the delegated powers
and was not intended to take away
from any OF the states against their
VIII the powers sovereign in their
character which have been expressly
reserved"
The opposition contends that there
is no crying necessity for federal
action, since with state control only
a million children between ten and
hIteen years are now employed in
mines. factories and farms. There
are in the United States 125O25S2
cltildren--not counting those under
ten years Of age, for there are TO
census figures on the employment of
children under ten. Why should the
federal government be given by a
constitutional amendment the power
to regulate the minimum restrictions
on the employment of only a million
children? The other 1000, 900 are
not yet employed. What are a mil
lion children in this great republic?
AS Representative Graham exclaims:
Taken all together, is it not a mon
strous thing to claim that these in
their totality make an overwhelming
necessity for changing the funda-
mental law?' He is supported by
Felix Rackemann of Boston, Mass.
who testified that it was not correct
to say that economic conditions call
for the enactment of federal
amendment. In other words, that the