Evening star., 1937-01-06

IN prison mauc
goods does not n.v,a I.vr.n..
establish, how
ever, any new principle, but simply
makes clearer an old one.
Briefly, it has been for some time
believed by some legislators that
Congress could interpret the inter-
state commerce clause to mean almost
anything It pleased, and yet, as each
new circumstance or contingency
arises which prompts the Supreme
Court Of the United States to define
what is commerce. there Is more and
more proof that commerce, like pro-
duction or manufacture. Is definitely
recognizable term of American con-
stitutional law.
With respect to prisonmade goods,
the several States have now passed
laws forbidding its sale in competition
with free labor Congress came along
with q law protecting those States
against shipments of prison-made
goods from cities outside the borders
of the States which had prohibited the
sale Of prison-made articles.
This right Of Congress to supple
ment the police power of the States
and to aid them in protecting them
selves against goods shipped into their
areas is not of recent origin or prac-
tice. The Supreme Court points out
how the original package" doctrine
vas evolved back in the latter part Of
the last century with respect to in
toxicatine liquors shipped into dry
States from wet States. The Court.
moreover, declares that the Webb
Kenyon law Of 1911 did in effect with
respect to intoxicating liquor packages
precisely what the prison-made goods
law has done recently-it put the full
power Of Congress behind the powers
Of the States in enforcing State laws.
State Policy Protection.
There is one sentence in the Su-
preme Courts opinion this week which
gives the entire story in nutshell:
1.-THE patent point is that where the
subject of commerce is one as to which
the power Of the State may constitu-
tionAlly be exerted by restriction or
full consequences. the Congress may,
II It sees At, put forth its power to
regulate interstate commerce so as to
prevent that commerce from being
used to impede the carrying out of the
State policy"
Now, what is . "constitutionally
exerted" power Of State? The ST.
preme Court has said that there is.
for example, no power in the State
Governments to fix wages and that
this power is reserved to the people,
which means that II they care to
surrender it by constitutional
amendment and grant it to the States
or the Federal Government or both
they can do 50, but at present no such
precedent for the Use of Federal or
State power exists in our constitutional
law.
What then about maximum hours?
Many decisions upholding the right
Of a State to fix or rather regulate
hours Of employment have been rem
dered but uniformly such decisions
have related to the police power of a
State to regulate hours as matter
Of health. What the Supreme Court
might say with respect to the pas
sage by a State Of 3O-hour law. for
instance. applying to men and women
alike. and involving no special con-
sideration Of health but merely OF
economics is something else again.
Certainly the right Of a State to
prohibit the sale Of goods made in one
Of its own institutions Is constitu-
tional in every sense. since the State
can make rules with respect to its
own agencies and keep them from
coming into competition with the
enterprises Of the people. But the
right OF State to limit the produc-
ton Of goods made by private indi-
viduals is an entirely different mat
ter. States have enacted laws pro-
hibiting on health grounds the hiring
Of child labor There would seem to
be no reason why . State which has
prohibited the sale Of child-labor-
made goods within its own boundaries
might not petition Congress to regu-
late the commerce that might go on
with respect to the shipmentof child
labor r-made goods from those States
which did not prohibit child labor.
The argument for a child-labor
amendment to the Federal Constitu-
ton rests on the broad ground that
while nearly all the States might pass
child Labor statutes and Congress
,,>tchf Aid, them, nv a law Sin1ilar to
that with respect to prohibiting COM
nlerce In prison made goods, any one
Sr more legislatures might separately
repeal their statutes and resume the
trafiic.
What the latest decision by the Su-
preme Court Of: the United States does
emphasize is that the powers Of Con-
Hress are. available to the States in
helping them 10 shut out commerce in
products which they themselves have
. constitutional right to ban from pro-
duction or sale. This is q long way
from saying that all the States have
to do to improve labor standards Is to
pass . law prohibiting the entry into
their States Of products which have
been made in factories with standards
less favorable to labor than those Of
the original State. No such control
over production in another State rests
In. any State or comes within the
meaning Of Commerce" as it has
been defined In the precedents Of the
Supreme Court Of the United States.
tCopyrisht. 1879