Morgan County Democrat. (McConnelsville, Ohio) 1886-1943, 1925-02-12
go to work without a common school

j ~ " WOlh WiCHOul COLumOH school
| education
Nineteen states do not make
physical fitness for work a condition
Of employment.
Eleven states allow children un-
der Is to work from to II hours a
any way daily hours of labor of chill
/ dren
Four states do not protect chill
dren under Is from night work.
Those opponents of the federal
amendment who have professed to
see no need for it because state ac-
tion in regulating child labor was
sufficiently progressive now shoulder
a grave responsibility to the children
| of toll in the United States They
| have encouraged the agitation
against federal regulation while
protesting that state regulation COM
manded their entire sympathy and
support Let them see to it that
state regulation in certain sections
of the country is not mockery and
that masses of poor and Unprotected
children are not actually driven
back into status of quasi slavery.
1t will help them in their task to
have the goth amendment to the fed
eral constitution still pending.
The justification for this federal
amendment regulating child labor is
not far to seek Elihu Root sug-
gested it in one of the most quoted
of his sayings. In the breezy hey
day of Roosevelt's new national
ism" which involved more central
ization than the nation had hitherto
experienced, Mr. Root reminded the
states that if they did not use, and
use for the general welfare, the pow
ers reserved to them by the consti-
tuition, they coaia not complain if
those powers were taken over by the
federal government. That is the
truth of the matter. While the de-
bate over states rights and centrali-
zation has run on steadily since the
foundation of the central govern
ment-the longest step toward CEN
traliZation that has ever taken
place in America was when the con-
stitution OF 1897 was first adopted
there has never been any settlement
of the precise boundary between
federal and state functions because
ment is possible. Great social and
economic changes have forced read
justments and will continue to force
them. In theory agreement is easy
on the proposition that the powers
of the states should be left as broad
as possible. There can be no dis
pute over so automatic a premise.
Unnecessary invasion of their pow
ers should be prevented That was
true 125 years ago and, of course, it
is true today. Controversy arises
now as always over the application
of the principle.
If it were true that child labor
could be left wholly within state
jurisdiction hereafter with child life
everywhere in the United States ad-
equately safeguarded from greedy or
brutal exploitation, The Republi-
can would promptly disavow any
further interest in the pending
dHl6numCUI. IL Is CeIldlH, HOWeNeI,
that when the federal government
decade ago or more first began to in
terest itself in this subject, the
states in many cases were stubborn
ly hostile to the establishment by
state laws of proper standards for
this form of labor in industry. The
south was so obstructive that Massa-
chusetts manufacturers promoted in
self-defense the movement for fed
eral legislation. There was no out
cry against the first and second fed
eral child labor statutes. 1t was
commonly assumed that under SUI
preme court decisions congress had
the constitutional power to legislate.
Only unexpected court decisions