Evening star., 1937-03-03

that the child #
labor amendment =
was rejected by . }$S i
35 States within ,z#
three years after %:
it was submitted
by a two-thirdS r,r;d I,wrence
vote of Congress.
In other words, action on the child
labor amendment came within about
the same period of tilhe as has
elapsed with respect to other amend
ments that have zen submitted.
What has been confusing about
the record on the child labor amend
ment is that proponents of the refo
revived the issue in State legislatures
in 1898. Just about nine years after
the original submission. Since 1924,
% States have ratified the anne
ment-22 of them since 1880 that
what has happened is tn equivalent
OF a second submission.
Many Change Views.
It was President Roosevelt's inclu-
sion of the child labor re m in the
N. R. A. in 1898 which gave impetus
to the movement for a constitutional
amendment, and it is interesting to
note that among the % States which
have ratified are any which oriGi-
nally rejected the amendment.
AS for the record on rejection of
the child labor amendment by States,
it appears that since 1888 there have
been a total of Al reiections OF
these, II came in 1888, seven in 1884,
l9 in 1885 and four in 1886.
The interval of about nine years
when the issue was relatively dormant
would naturally Re regarded as having
ended the fight for that period. II
the child labor amendment had con-
tanned a clause such as has been
tackled on to other amendments
requiring ratification within seven
years after submission in order to be
operative. there would have been no
controversy today as to the length
of time it takes to get amendments
to the Federal Constitution through
the States.
hCdsOhaUAC AhCAAShts
There is, indeed, some question
whether the present child labor pro-
posal would be valid as part of the
Federal Constitution if eight more
States should ratify it. One point in
dispute is whether State once haV-
ing rejected ratification may change
its mind. Most authorities argue that
ratification is the final step and that
refusal to ratify is merely refusal to
act, and hence does not prejudice the
final position Of a State. The other
point, namely, that action must take
place within a reasonable time after
submission by Congress to the States,
Is not so easy to determine. A Su-
preme Court decision-the case was
Dillon VS.. GloSs-iS often cited TO
support the contention that ratiflca-
ton must be within a reasonable
time to be valid. The unanimous
opinion Of the court follows in part:
I'VE do not find anything in Arti-
Gle v Of the Constitution which sug-
gests that an amendment once pro-
posed Is to be open for ratification
for all time, or that ratification in
some Of the States may be separated
from that in others by many years
and yet be effective. We do find that
which strongly suggests the contrary
First, proposal and ratification are not
treated as unrelated acts, but as
succeeding steps in single endeavor.
the natural inference being that they
are not to be widely separated in
time.
Secondly, 1t is only when there IS
deemed to be necessity therefor
that amendments are to be proposed,
the reasonable implication being that
when proposed they are to be con-
sidered and disposed Of presently.
Involves Period of Thought.
Thirdly, as ratification is but the
expression of the appreciation of the
people and is to be effective when had
in three-fourths of the States, there
IS fair implication that it must be
sufficiently contemporaneous in that
number of States TO reflect the will
Of the people in all sections at rela-
IilC SaIlIC ILL., hAllS4l, Va
course, ratification scattered through
long series of years would not do"
The Supreme Court took occasion
at the same time TO point out that
several amendments to the Federal
Constitution which had been SUBJ
mitted by Congress were still not
ratified, and that they were submitted
O long time ago-tWo of them in 1889
and one in 1910 and one in 1861
and that 1t would be absurd to argue
that the States could take further
action now.
Since 1924. when the child labor
amendment was approved by Con-
gress, the placing of seven-year
limit on ratification or rejection has
become an established precedent with
respect to other proposed amend
n1entS.
Resubmission Advised.
For these reasons it would appear
that champions of child labor re-
form probably would be better off if
they asked Congress to pass at this
session another resolution Of Submis-
sion. This would afford also an op-
portunity TO rephrase the proposed
amendment so as to remove many Of
the objections that have arisen dur
ing the last 13 years Of debate The
present proposal, for example. would
give Congress the right to regulate
labor under l8 years OF age. If the
Limit were 16 years or under the
measure would get more support. Like
wise, if a definite limitation could
be written into the amendment elimi-
mating any possible power TO Con-
gress to exercise what is known as
youth control" or TO impose any re-
struction on education, religious or
otherwise, much Of the church op-
xanritinx, 70 tha nhilE La hnr annnnd-