Evening star., 1936-05-19
{continued From Fourteenth Page.)

(Codtfnued From FOurGeenCn fdScJ
citizens Of the different States and
the power to regulate commerce en-
braces the instruments by which
commerce Is carried on. .
Difference In Manufacture
And Commerce Previously Defined.
The distinction between manu-
facture and commerce was discussed
In Kidd VS.. Pearson, 128 U. S. ], 20,
Il, q, and it was said:
mo distinction is more popular to
the common mind, or more clearly
expressed in economic and political
literature, than that between man
ufacture and commerce. Manufacture
Is transformation-the fashioning OF
raw materials into a change of form
for use. The functions Of commerce
are different. If it be held that
the term includes the regulation OF all
such manufactures as are intended
to be the subject of commercial trans
actions in the future, it is impossible
to deny that it would also include
all productive industries that con-
template the same thing. The result
would be that Congress would be in
vested, to the exclusion of the States,
with the power to regulate, not only
manufactures, but also agriculture,
horticulture, stock raising, domestic
fisheries, mining-in short, every
branch of human industry"
And then, as though foreseeing the
present controversy, the opinion pro-
ceedS:
ANY movement toward the estab-
lishment of rules of production IN
this vast country, with its many
different climates and opportunities,
could only be at the sacrifice OF the
peculiar advantages of large part
of the localities in it, if not OF every
one of them. On the other hano,
any movement toward the local,
detailed and incongruous legislation
required by such Interpretation would
be about the widest possible depar-
ture from the declared object OF the
clause in question. Nor this alone.
Even in the exercise of the power
contended for, Congress would be
confined to the regulation, not OF
certain branches of industry. however
numerous, but to those instances
In each and every branch where the
producer contemplated an interstate
market situation more par
alyzing to the State governments, and
more provocative of conflicts between
the general Government and the
States, and less likely to have been
what the trainers of the Constitution
intended, it would be difhcult 10
imagine"
Commodities May Never
Be Sent from States.
That commodities produced or
manufactured within State are m
tended to be sold or transported out
side the State does not render their
production or manufacture subject TO
Federal regulation under the COM
merce clause AS this court said IN
Coe VS.. Enrol. Though intended for
exportation, they may never be eX-
ported; the owner has a perfect right
to change his mind; and until actually
put in motion, for some place out OF
the State, or committed to the Gus
todv of q carrier for transportation to
such place, why may they not be re-
parded as still remaining part OF
the general mass of property in the
Slater" 80
In Heisler VS.. Thomas Colliery Co.
We held that the possibility, or even
certainty Of expectation Of product
or article from State did not de-
tsrmine it to be in interstate COM
merce before the commencement OF Its
movement from the State. To hold
otherwise would nationalize all in
dustries, it would nationalHe and
withdraw from State jurisdiction ana
deliver to Federal commercial control
the fruits of California and the South,
the Wheat of the West and its meats,
the cotton of the South, the shoes OF
Massa achusetts and the woolen indus
tries of other States, at the very in
ception of their production or growth;
that Is, the fruits unpicked. the cot
ton and wheat ungathered, hides and
flesh of cattle yet on the hoof', wool
vet unshorn and coal yet unmined,
because they are in varying per-
centages destined for and surely to be
exported to States other than those OF
their production"
Previously Ruled Mining
Was for Local Regulation.
In Oliver Iron Co. VS.. Lord, 262
q. s. 172, 17S, we said on the authority
of numerous cited cases: Mining Is
not interstate commerce, but, like
manufacturing, Is local business sub
ject to local regulation and taxa
ton" 80
The same rule applies to the pro-
duction of oil.
We have seen that the word com
merce" is the equivalent of the phrase
.intercourse for the purposes OF
trade" Plainly, the incidents leading
up to and eliminating in the mining
of coal do not constitute such inter-
course. The employment Of men the
fixing of their wages, hours OF labor
and working conditions. the bargain
ing in respect of these things-wheth-
er carried on separately or collective
ly-each and all constitute intercourse
for the purposes of production, not
Of trade. The latter is thing apart
from the relation of employer and
employe, which is all producing oc-
cupations are purely local in char
acter. Commerce in the coal
mined is not brought into being by
force of these activities. but by nego-
tiations, agreements and circum-
stances entirely apart from produc-
ton,
A consideration of the foregoing,
and of many cases which might be
added to those already cited, renders
inescapable the conclusion that the
effect of the labor provisions of the
act, including those in respect of
minimum wages, wage agreements,
collective bargaining, and the Labor
Board and its powers, primarily falls
upon production and not upon COM