Evening star., 1935-01-11

Two clashing campaigns. one in
favor OF the proposed child labor
amendment to the Federal ConStitu-
tion, and the other led by the oppoSi-
ton of the American Bar Association,
arouse comment from the press. Many
of the statements point to flaws in
the proposed law, chiefly relating to
the control of married persons under
the age of Is. The legal organization's S
claim that a reasonable time for rati-
fication has passed is widely indorsed,
while it is pointed out that the N. R.
A. has reduced child labor.
The child labor amendment was
first proposed to the States by Con-
gress in 1924. BY June, 1881, it had
been ratified by six Legislatures and
rejected in 38 States by one or both
branches Of the Legislatures. 1t can
not be adopted unless most of the
States that have taken some adverse
action reverse themselves.
Those who framed the legislation. -
says the Birmingham Age-H Herald,
simply overreached themselves. They
were seeking an authority quite out
of the keeping with the purpose they
were supposed to be serving. That is
why they found ratification so difficult
to begin with. That is why at this
late hour, 1012 years after the amend
ment was launched, they are still try
ing to put it over. The elimination
Of the abuses of child labor can be had
through a uniform State law such as
the American Bar Association has
been pressing, or through the move
ment against the exploitation of chill
dren which IS everywhere in evidence.
One can be eternally against the evil
Of child labor without joining in the
hue-and-cry now spuriously raised in
the name of reform"
The Committee of the American
Bar Association" according to the
Kansas City Star, REACHES interesting
conclusions. Chief among them are
these: That a reasonable time for
ratification already has passed, the
amendment having been submitted to
the States more than 10 years ago;
that child labor can be dealt with
better by the individual States than
by Federal authority; that the ma
Jor1ty of the States now have so acted,
and that there is no legal precedent
or warrant for State reversal on rati-
tcation, which already has occurred
and which would be further necessary
if the required 36 States finally were
to approve the amendment. The Bar
Association is not opposed to child
lot tArsf nj
methods that would be employed
through the amendment. Its COM
mittee finds sanction for its position
as to reasonable time for ratification
in an opinion of the United States
Supreme Court handed down in 1921,
and takes note of the fact that the
longest period for ratification in the
history of the Constitution was only
three and a half years, in the case
of the income tax, or sixteenth amend
ment. With this legal phase Of the
matter the laymen will be less con-
cerned. Another Supreme Court de-
cision might be necessary to clear up
the question of time in this particular
instance"
Favoring the proposed amendment,
the Watertown IN. ~ Daily Times
describes the opposition of the
Bar Association as simply another
instance of the bar trying to tell the
people of the country how they should
vote" The Times asserts that "it is
matter Of record that the people have
a way Of deciding such things for
themselves" and insists that. "if child
labor is wrong, then this amendment
ought to be passed"
The Asbury Park Evening Press
places President Roosevelt on the side