Evening star., 1937-01-09
Twin L May Be Answer
Joint Federa-State Statutes Might Ban Child Labor
r and Low Pay.
and Low Pay.

by convict labor. Some States forbid
the sale Of such goods. To enable
such States TO enforce their ban, Con-
gress passed . Federal law forbidding
the shipment of convict-made articles
into States that don't want them.
This law the Supreme Court unani-
mously upheld.
True, the court said the law L. valid
only when the articles banned are, so
to speak, deleterious articles, harmful
in themselves or their effect. But evi-
IDENTIFY the court Is willing to enlarge
the definition Of "deleterious" in this
connection. The court has been en-
larging its definition for more than
q century. II State says an article
is deleterious, apparently the court
will be disposed to accept that descrip-
ton. Chief Justice Hughes read .
list Of articles as to which Congress
has already forbidden interstate trans
portation: They include diseased live
stock. lottery tickets. adulterated and
misbranded articles, kidnapped persons,
women transported for immoral pur-
PooNop bleSAANAthA6 4AAAOios AASCuoto
plants, stolen automobiles-and now
conHct-made goods.
May Add Child Labor.
Now 1t seems as If the only thing
necessary Is to add to this category
articles made by child labor, or with
wages below a certain standard, or
with hours longer than a certain
standard. And it seems as II this
decision Of the Supreme Court opens
the way for what Mr.. Roosevelt wants.
Let a State pass reasonable and care
fully drawn laws forbidding the sale
Of articles made under the conditions
mentioned. Then let Congress pass a
Federal law forbidding transportation
Of such articles into States that don't
want them. With that combination,
Mr. Roosevelt's new formula is salts
fed Federal laws supplementing
State laws"
True. there is still an apparent
obstacle in the way. The Supreme
Court last Spring declared unconsti-
tutional q law of New York State
fixing a minimum wage. But there
are several things to say about that
decision. First, it was a 5to-4 deci-
sion-very slight change Of mind by
one justice would reverse it. Second,
some lawyers think that II the New
York law had been differently phrased,
the court might have upheld it. Other
minimum wage laws, differently
phrased, from other States, are about
to come before the court. 1t would
take no serious stretch OF judicial in
depreciation for the court to hold such
laws valid. To do so would be natural
evolution OF the sort through which
the courts lines of decision have
often passed.
Must Be Twin Laws.
To the lay reader. what is said here
may seem technical and legal. And
to the lawyer reader it may seem in
complete, even inexact. because there
is not space to include qualifications
But II the tendency here described
were put into a few simple sentences.
the statement might run something
like this:
Apparently Mr.. Roosevelt's objective
would be satisfied by two things-by
State laws forbidding sale Of goods
made under disapproved conditions.
supplemented by Federal laws forbid
ding interstate transportation Of such
articles into States that don't want
them. And apparently the Supreme
Court is moving in the general direc-
ton of approving these two types
OF laws.
In short. the broad tendency toward
regulating industry to prevent unde-
sirable practices is still under way
that objective Of Mr.. Roosevelt seems
likely to be won. But within this
broad tendency. the movement seems
toward regulation by State laws sup
plemented by Federal ones. The
tendency Is not toward regulation by
a single Federal law covering the
whole Nation uniformly and enforced
from Washington.
The surmise here made may turn
out to be wrong. But there are argu-
ments supporting it additional to the
evidence here mentioned, Congress Is