Evening star., 1939-08-13
Reviews History Of
Child Labor Law
By Frederic J. Hdskin.

tuition. In the six Legislatures of Con-
necticut, Massachusetts,, Delaware, South
Dakota, Tennessee and Texas resolutions
were introduced providing for ratifica-
ton, but, because of combination of
reasons, they failed of adoption.
To date % States have ratified the
amendment, which provides that Con-
gress shall have power to limit, regulate
and prohibit the labor of persons under
18 years of age" but this number is
eight short of that required to make such
legislation part of the basic law of the
Nation.
The struggle for the limitation Of child
labor in the United States goes back for
many years and has passed through
various phases. One of the reasons
which is believed to have prevented ad-
ditional ratifications in the current year
has been difference of opinion over Ger
tain legal questions. These questions
have called forth the best legal talent of
the country and the fact that there has
not been final and complete determina-
ton is presumed to have induced delib-
Grafton on the part of the Legislatures
The legal questions go to the founda-
tions Of American constitutional law In
1887 Kentucky ratified the amendment,
but question was raised as to the legal
ity of this action, because, previously, a
former Legislature of the State had re-
jected the amendment. Opponents of
child labor regulation took the position
that State could not recall prior deci-
sion. Also, in 1887, Kansas ratified the
amendment, but opponents of that ac-
tion raised the question that too long
time had elapsed since the submission
of the amendment to the States in 1924,
when Congress voted to submit it to the
States.
Actually, Congress refused to set any
time limit on the time in which ratifica-
tion should be completed, although it had
done so as to previous amendments. no
tably the prohibition amendment, which
would have lapsed had not a sufficient
number of the States approved it within
seven years.
These cases were carried to the Su-
preme Court of the United States and,
last May, were both ruled upon. The
high court took the position that wheth-
er State may ratify after a previous
rejection or whether State Legislature
may regard the issue as dead are not
legal questions, within the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court, but rather politi-
cal questions to be determined by the
legislative branch of American polity.
AS to the Kansas action there was
third question raised. 1t appears that
the vote was so evenly divided that the
action in favor of ratification came from
the casting vote of the Lieutenant Gov
ernor in his capacity as presiding officer
OF the Kansas Senate. The question was
raised that the State constitution de-
limited the types of legislation which
could be decided by that officers casting
vote and that ratification of an amend
ment to the National Constitution did
not fall among such types That matter
recently was decided by the Kansas
courts in favor of the ratification.
But all this litigation, pending until
recently, has had the effect, it is asserted,
OF delaying the action of other States.
Further, the pendency of the wages and
hours law in the Federal Congress, which
would, in some sort, overlap the pur-
poses Of the child labor amendment, is
presumed TO have had a retarding ef-
feet.
On the vital question of the right of
State to ratify after it previously has
rejected an amendment much has been
MADE OF the fact that a similar situa-
ton arose earlier in American history.
The 14th amendment failed of ratifca-
ton by States which still were under
Southern political domination, but, upon
advent OF Reconstruction control these
States reversed their previous position.
Congress called upon William E. Seward.
as Secretary of State-the officer who
must proclaim amendments-to rule on
the question. He returned the States
as having duly ratified.
The amendment has been pending
long time. In 1924, the year of submis-
sion, but one State, Arkansas, ratified.
In 1925 Arizona, California and Wiscon-
sin acted favorably. The amendment.
it was feared, was going to fail through
desuetude, even though there was no
time limit. But in 1888, probably as a
part OF the rise of certain sort of lib
eralism under the New Deal there was
rush to ratify. Thirteen States came
into line and there has been a steady
building up ever since Nevada, as well
as Kansas and Kentucky, acted in 1897,
1t is not to be forgotten that American
children are not solely protected as to
factory and other labor by the prospects
OF Federal child labor legislation. There
is but one State in the Union which does
not have some form of age limitation for
chlldrens labor. That is Wyoming where
conaltlons are such that, so far, no prob
lem exists. The great majority of the
States have laws which regulate the labor
OF children through a 14-year minimum.
Iexas, California and Maine have a Is
year minimum. Ten States provide a
lo-year minimum, including the inpor-
tant industrial States of Ohio, Pennsyl-
Vanla, New York, Connecticut and Rhode
Island
In 1916 Congress passed the Keatine-
Owen bill which prohibited labor of chill
dren under 16 and IA years. as to certain
categor1es OF work. This law had been
IN operation for 275 days when the Su-
preme Court of the United States, in
the famous case of Hammer versus Da-