Evening star., 1937-05-24
Message
(Continued From First Page.)

(COntlnued From First Page)
small minority, the whole story Of
Our Nation proves that social
progress has too often been fought
by them. In actual practice it has
been effectively advanced only by
the passage of laws by State
Legislatures or the National Con-
gress.
Today, you and I are pledged to
take further steps to reduce the
lag in the purchasing power Of in
dustrial workers and to strengthen
and stabilize the markets for the
farmers products. The two go
hand in hand. Each depends for
Its effectiveness upon the other.
Both working simultaneously will
open new outlets for productive
capital. Our Nation so richly en-
dowed with natural resources and
with a capable and industrious
population should be able to devise
ways and means of insuring to all
our able-bodied working men and
women fair days pay for fair
days work. A self-supporting and
self-respecting democracy can
plead no justification for the ex-
istence of child labor, no economic
reason for chiseling workers wages
or stretching workers hours.
Enlightened business is learning
that competition ought not to
cause bad social consequences
which inevitably react upon the
profits of business itself. All but
the hopelessly reactionary will
agree that to conserve our pri-
mary resources OF manpower,
Government must have some con-
troll over maximum hours, mini
mum wages, the evil Of child labor
and the exploitation OF unorgan-
ized labor.
Refers to Old Opinion.
Nearly 20 years ago in his dis
senting opinion In Hammer vs..
Dagenhart, Mr.. Justice Holmes
expressed his views as to the power
of the Congress to prohibit the
shipment In interstate or foreign
commerce Of the product Of the
labor Of children in factories be-
low what Congress then deemed
to be civilized social standards.
Surely the experience of the last
20 years has only served to REIN
force the wisdom and the right
ness Of his views. And, surely II
he was right about the power Of
the Congress over the work Of chill
dren in factories, it is equally right
that the Congress has the power
over decent wages and hours in
those same factories. He said:
Il had thought that the pro-
priety Of the exercise of a power
admitted TO exist in some cases was
tor the consideration of Congress
alone and that this court always
had disavowed the right to intrude
Its Judgment upon questions Of
policy or morals. It Is not for this
court to pronounce when prohibi-
tion is necessary to regulation if it
ever may be necessary-to say that
it Is permissible as against strong
drink but not as against the prod
uct of ruined lives.
''The act does not meddle with
anything belonging to the States.
They may regulate their internal
affairs and their domestic COM
merce as they like. But when
they seek to send their products
across the State line, they are
no longer within their rights. If
there were no Constitution and no
Congress their power to cross the
line would depend upon their ;
neighbors. Under the Constitu-
ton such commerce belongs not
to the States, but to Congress to
regulate. 1t may carry out its
views Of public policy whatever in
direct effect they may have upon
the activities Of the States. In
stead of being encountered by .
prohibitive tariff at her boundaries
the State encounters the public
policy of the United States which
1t is for Congress to express. The
public policy Of the United States
Is shaped with q view to the
benefit Of the Nation as . whole.
The national welfare as
understood by Congress may re-
quire q different attitude within
its sphere from that of some self
seeking State. It seems to me en-
tirely constitutional for Congress
to enforce its understanding by all
the means at its command"
Declared Impractical Distinctions.
Mr.. Justice Brandeis. Mr.. Justice
Clark and Mr.. Justice McKenna
agreed. A majority Of the Supreme
Court, however, decided 5-4 against
Mr.. Justice Holmes and laid down
. rule of constitutional law which
has ever since driven into tnprac-
tical distinctions Ill attempts to
assert tho fundamental power Of