A 20th Amendment?

In 38 states, legislatures convene this month. Before them will come for ratification the proposed 20th Amendment to the Constitution-the Child Labor Amendment. It involves the proposition that Congress should have the power to pass a law uniform for the entire country regulating or prohibiting child labor. In many cases it will precipitate a sharp fight.

Federal Child Labor Legislation.

In 1916, Congress passed a law forbidding the transportation of the products of child labor in Interstate Commerce. In 1918, after the law had been in operation for nine months, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.

In 1919, Congress passed a second law placing a prohibitive tax on the products of child labor. In 1922, the Supreme Court declared this law likewise unconstitutional.

Congress then concluded it must have an amendment to the Constitution in order to regulate child labor, since the Constitution as it now stands does not specifically grant the power to the Federal Government.

The Proposed Amendment (text in full):

SECTION 1--The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate and prohibit the labor of persons under 18 years of age.

SECTION 2--The power of the several states is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of state laws shall suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by Congress.

Progress of the Amendment. Such an Amendment was recommended by President Coolidge in his first message to Congress, 13 months ago. On Apr. 26, last, it was passed by the House by a vote of 297 to 69. On June 2, it was passed by the Senate by a vote of 61 to 23. It then went to the states, 36 of which must ratify it before it can become part of the Constitution.

It first came up in the Arkansas legislature and was there ratified. Since then it has suffered steady reverses; the legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina and Louisiana declined to ratify it. This is not surprising, since the South has usually been backward in the regulation of child labor. Then, in the general election on Nov. 4, it was placed in referendum before the people of Massachusetts. They voted against it 3 to 1. This referendum was'merely advisory and is not binding on the Legislature although it practically insures the rejection of the Amendment by the Legislature. The National Association of Manufacturers was active in urging its defeat. So was part of the Catholic Church. Cardinal O'Connell of Massachusetts sent out a letter opposing the Amendment which was read in the Catholic churches on three successive Sundays prior to the election.

Proponents and Antagonists. The advocates and antagonists of the measure are very mixed groups. President Coolidge, having indicated his approval of it, has since not cared to risk his prestige in its support.

In favor of it are the National Child Labor Committee, the American Federation of Labor, the Federal Council of Churches, the National Educational Association and numerous women's organizations, including the American Association of University Women, the National Council of Catholic Women, the National Council of Jewish Women, teachers, busi- ness and professional women, the National League of Women Voters, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, the Y. W. C. A.

Opposed to it are the National Association of Manufacturers, the Mod- eration League of Pennsylvania, the Sentinels of the Republic, the Women's Constitutional League of Maryland, the National Grange, the American Farm Bureau Federation and many business and commercial organizations throughout the country.

The opponents of the Amendment have made great headway. Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, Honorary Chairman of the League of Women Voters, told her pro-Amendment following: "The amendment is as good as dead and buried and the obsequies performed, unless something is done about it and done quickly." Experienced observers were inclined to confirm her prediction. The opponents of the Amendment have succeeded to a marked degree-and this may be said without implying that they are wrong-in generating a real fear of its consequences. Fear is a tremendously important political asset. Fear of the League of Nations helped to give Mr. Harding his tremendous ma- jority in 1920; fear of Mr. LaFollette helped to give Mr. Coolidge his victory in 1924. In pushing the idea of the evil consequences of the Child Labor Amendment to the fore, its opponents have placed its proponents entirely on the defensive. Consequently the arguments against the Amendment should be given first.

Anti-Amendment: The arguments which have been used against the Amendment include:

1) It would deprive states of their legitimate rights and invest the Federal Government with another burdensome duty which could better be performed locally.

2) It would place a great problem and expense of enforcement on the Federal Government as the Prohibition Law has done.

3) All states now have laws regulating child labor and the standard of these is rapidly improving.

4) It would intervene between parents and their children-declaring in effect that parents are unwilling or unable to care for the best interests of the children.

5) It could be terribly abused by Congress which, under the Amendment, could prohibit the labor of all persons under 18 years of age.

6) It would be the opening wedge to Federal control of education and is aimed at the eventual abolition of Parochial schools.

7) It would be used to prevent farmers from having the assistance of their children in the work.

8) It would prevent children from doing chores at home.

9) It is socialistic, communistic, Bolshevistic.

Pro-Amendment. There is but one principal argument which has been used for the Amendment. Child labor is a social and economic evil, un- healthful for children and a hindrance to their education; the aim of the proposed Amendment is to prevent work for those too young and to prevent too long hours, night work and dangerous work for older children.

To the arguments of the enemies of the Amendment, its upholders counter thus:

1) Child labor is too important an evil to allow it to be held off by the formal argument of State's Rights. The Amendment curtails State's Rights only insofar as it would set a minimum standard.

2) The expense of enforcement would be comparatively small for the kind of legislation contemplated. The cost of enforcing the first Child La- bor Law for the nine months it was in operation was only $111,000.

3) The state laws are unequal, some are inadequate and a great many are full of loopholes in the form of exceptions, etc.

4) No one has any idea of passing a law under the enabling amendment which would step between parents and children.

5) All lawmaking powers can be terribly abused. Congress is not likely to abuse the power of regulating child labor any more than the State Legislatures.

6) It has nothing to do with education. A Catholic priest assisted in drawing the amendment.

7) and 8) The proposed Amendment is purely an Enabling Act and therefore does not exempt farm work and domestic duties. These ex- emptions properly belong in the act passed under the Amendment. Ex- cept for work in the sugar-beet fields, and in gardening, children do not suffer from these duties and the idea that they would be prohibited is ridiculous.

9) Bosh!