Evening star., 1925-04-19
Mad Orgy of Law-Making Held
Nations Greatest Handicap

However, before we have a total
surcease of legislation, one change
in existing law l hope to see either
by judicial Interpretation. legislative
action or constitutional amendment
whatever may be needed to correct
the present situation. 1 do not like
the state of the law governing sub
mission of a proposed amendment to
the Constitution. Before an amend
ment may become a part of the Con-
stitution 1t must be ratified by 36 of
the 48 States. Unless specific limita-
tion is placed by the amendment it
self, there. is no time limit on adop-
ton. In other words, a Legislature
may act on the proposed amendment
this year, next year, or any year
hereafter, as long as the amendment
is pending. Moreover, ratification,
once voted, is permanent and not
subject to reconsideration or rescind-
ing.
On the other hand, rejection of an
amendment by Legislature may be
only temporary. Any succeeding Legis-
lature may again vote on ratification,
and the question of ratification may be
kept before the Legislature until IA
vorable action is obtained, whereupon
procedure ends. This is an anomoly
which would eliminate.
Any State which last Winter ratified
the so-called child labor amendment
this by way OF certified it's
ratification to the Secretary of State in
Washington and thereby ended all fu-
ture consideration so far as that par
ticuar State was concerned. Through
its properly constituted representatives,
1t placed itself on record for all time to
come in favor of transferring to the gen
eral Government the power to restrain,
restrict and prohibit the labor of all
persons up to 1S years OF age. The ques-
ton of ratification or rejection became a
closed incident upon ratification. No
revulsion of public sentiment would
enable a succeeding Legislature to re-
open the question. What was written
was written to remain permanently upon
the record. Nothing less than a Fed
eral repeal amendment submitted by the
Government to the States would enable
state to change its affirmative action
Yet State that rejected the child
labor amendment may vote on it
again. not only once more but as
many more times as 1t may desire.
This enables those who favor the
amendment TO seek pledges, openly
or surreptitiously, from the candidates
to the next Legislature that, if
elected. they will vote to ratify the
amendment. When done openly this
is not so bad. but when done
secretly IL Is indefensible In either
case IL may mean that without any
change in the attitude of the people
toward the amendment a succeeding
Legislature may set aside the action
of its predecessor and join the
States in favor of the amendment
l see no justice in a situation
whereby State never can go back
upon ratification of an amendment,
yet always can go back upon re-
lection. The vote, whether affirma-
tive or negative, should be forever
conclusive, or each State, up to the
time of ratification by three fourths
of the States, should have the right
to change it's vote on ratification.
The child labor amendment. which
has been rejected by most of the
states, should not ultimately be
adopted through sinuous influences
NO State should attempt to change
Its vote until and unless q full dis
cussion of the amendment, in which
the voters may participate, has been
conducted
Copyrighted 1925, 21st Century Press)