Evening star., 1924-11-12

Harvard, who fails to agree with DR..
roscoe Pound, dean of Harvard Law
School, supporting the amendment.
or with Dean kirkwood of Stanford
Cniversit: Law School, or DR.. Costi-
gan, School Of Jurisprudence, Uni
| versity of California, or William
Draper Lewis, dean of the Pennsyl-
vania Law School, or Dean Bates Of
the University OF Michigan Law
School. DR. Henry 5. Pritchett, pres
/ idcnt of the Carnegie Foundation,
opposes the amendment, as does also
DIR. Butler of Columbia University,
New York. But DR.. Crabtree, secre-
tary of the National Education Asso-
ciaCion, writing in School and Society,
a magazine of schools, obeying a
resolution of the association, supports
the amendment and asks, How could
either of these men ever in the future
face an audience of teachers or par
entS|
The opposition. expressing its argu-
ments in brief prepared by James
A Emery. general counsel of the Ma
tional Association of Manufacturers
of the United States of America, as
serts that the proposed amendment
would confer upon the Congress the
exclusive right to regulate, not mere
ly the working life of children, but
of every person under Is years OF
age (See section p. 1t includes,
| by necessary implication, the right
| to attach any preliminary condition
to any under IS engaging in labor.
Senator Shortridge, in course of de-
| bate, explained that the world child
| means, in law, an infant who had
| not reached the age of puberty
! hence, to avoid confusion, the amend
ment reads person" not exceeding
| IS years of age. 1T was thought
| wise to fix it at IS. lest there might
E, develop, in the future, conditions
| which would make US very much
| regret not fixing it at the higher
| figure, when we would be obliged
| plicable to the state of society then
| existing"
The Emery brief asserts that "the
| amendment would give Congress
| power to legislate between parent
! and child and Federal control over
| farm life, without precedent in the
| history of local government" and
! also, 1T would remove from the
[ States subject and Relationship
which by every concept and tradition
| of American government are pecu-
| (See section p
The answer by the National Wom-
| ems Trade Union League: '"The re-
| sponsibility has always been with
| the States. But the States have
t failed to give their children adequate
protection. Nine States have no law
| prohibiting all children under ID
| from working in both factories and
| stores; % States permit exemptions
| from their laws; 35 States permit
| children to go to work without a
common school education; 10 States
| do not make physical fitness con-
dition for work; IL States allow
children between IA and 16 to work
| from 9 to IL hours a day; 4 States
/ do not protect children from nigh,
work. State laws cannot proven,
| interstate abuses-like that of New
| York, City sweat shops sending work
| to children in New Jersey. The
| amendment does not take away from
| States the right to regulate or pro-
| hibit child labor, it gives to Con-
] gress the right to establish mini
mum standard of protection for al
| American children. (See section Z
| of the amendment)
The manufacturers brief asserts that
the labor of farm boys and girls on
the home farms-such as feeding stock
or wedding gardens. The answer Of the
supporters is to point to the two laws
passed by Congress Exceeding con-