Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

political, and social were in hopeless conflict, threatening civil war. They had frequently flamed into rebellion, while commercial rivalries and resentments threatened the disintegration of the social fabric. A central government was absolutely essential to the general welfare, but its creation was a most formidable task whose performance was possible only by confining its prerogatives rigidly to national affairs-affairs affecting the people as a whole, as distinguished from those concerning the inhabitants and citizens of the different localities. The effort succeeded after many months of patient and seemingly hopeless effort, and the experiment triumphed only because it was founded upon the bed rock of local self-government.

Let me call your attention to some words of wisdom upon this subject which fell, less than two weeks ago, from the lips of the President of the United States. On Decoration Day, at Arlington, surrounded by the monuments of the dead, upon an occasion dedicated to the memory of those who died that the nation might live, he used this language:

Our country was conceived in the theory of local self-government. It has been dedicated by long practice to that wise and beneficent policy. It is the foundation principle of our system of liberty. It makes the largest promise to the freedom and development of the individual. Its preservation is worth all the efforts and all the sacrifices that it may cost.

It cannot be denied that the present tendency is not in harmony with this spirit. The individual, instead of working out his own salvation and securing his own freedom by establishing his own economic and moral independence by his own industry and his own self-mastery, tends to throw himself on some vague influence which he denominates society, and to hold that in some way responsible for the sufficiency of his support and the morality of his actions. The local political units likewise look to the states, the states look to the nation, and nations are beginning to look to some vague organization, some nebulous concourse of humanity, to pay their bills and tell them what to do. This is not local self-government. It is not American. It is not the method which has made this country what it is. We cannot maintain the western standard of civilization on that theory. If it is supported at all, it will have to be supported on the principle of individual responsibility. If that principle be maintained, the result which I believe America wishes to see produced inevitably will follow.

There is no other foundation on which freedom has ever found a permanent abiding place. We shall have to make our decision, whether we wish to maintain our present institutions, or whether we wish to exchange them for something else. If we permit some one to come to support us, we cannot prevent some one coming to govern us. If we are too weak to take charge of our own morality, we shall not be strong enough to take charge of our own liberty. If we cannot govern ourselves, if we cannot observe the law, nothing remains but to have someone else govern us, to have the law enforced against us, and to step down from the honorable abiding place of freedom to the ignominious abode of servitude.

The President concludes:

We have demonstrated in the time of war that under the Constitution we possess an indestructible union. We must not fail to demonstrate in the time of peace that we are likewise determined to possess and maintain indestructible states.

That is not the language of a state-rights Democrat, nor the fervid utterance of a public official appealing through the Congressional Record to his constituency upon a theme congenial to them. It is the formula of our scheme of government, voiced by its official head in warning against our sinister drift from its eternal

verities, and outlining the inevitable consequences of the absorption of the state by the national authorities.

I used to be a Democrat when I knew what democracy was, and if this message of Mr. Coolidge is not democracy, then I am in my dotage. It is sound doctrine for any party, a doctrine to which we must adhere if this nation shall continue for the future that majestic course which it has pursued since its foundation.

My friend has demonstrated the truth of the Shakesperian epigram that:

In law what plea though tainted and corrupt,

But seasoned with a gracious voice, obscures the show of evil.

The candid advocates of this measure do not speak of it as he does. They tell us that its purpose is to nationalize our children. Victor Berger says so. A lady who enjoys the very suggestive, and perhaps very appropriate, name of Mrs. Helbent so declares. In the common parlance of the rank and file, it is the evident purpose, and must be the logical consequence, of this amendment, when it shall reach the stage of vigorous administration, to place under the domination of a federal bureau some 35,000,000 citizens of the United States under the age of eighteen years. This will not come at once, of course-revolutions of this sort never do. But the measure is an instance of what is called boring from within. Once it is ratified, the work will begin, and once begun, it will continue. Never in all the history of humankind has absolute power been conferred upon men or seized by monarchs but that sooner or later it has been exercised. I defy the gentleman to cite a single instance in history where unlimited authority has been wielded within the limits of justice and moderation. When our Constitution was finally framed, it was replete with checks and balances. Many objected to these because they were surplusage. “We are a liberty-loving and sensible people," they said. "We will not abuse power because it is unlimited. The restraints of public opinion and the lessons of the past will be at all times effective." "But," Mr. Madison said, "let us, in addition to those already agreed upon, enact, a bill of rights by appropriate amendments. Unrestricted power is always dangerous." His adversaries, who objected that a government of delegated powers needed no declaration of rights, were reminded that the original declaration of the English people encountered similar opposition. Madison carried the day. Since the Constitution has been in operation crises have arisen when, but for the safeguards of the great bill of rights embodied in the first ten amendments, the liberty of the citizens and the rights of the individual, both to person and to property, would have been jeopardized, if not destroyed. Time has thus vindicated the foresight of these far-seeing statesmen.

And, in this connection, let me emphasize the fact that the child labor amendment, if ratified, being later in date than the first ten amendments, will be superior to them, and the rights guaranteed thereby will be subject, if not

subordinate, to any legislation which Congress may enact to make this proposed amendment effective.

My friend says that all that is asked by this amendment is to endow the sovereign nation with the same powers that the states possess, and I was much surprised when he added that every state in the Union had the power wholly to prohibit the labor of persons under the age of eighteen. Never too old to learn. I deliberately affirm that no state in the Union has such power, and cannot have, without material changes in their constitutions. What? Our legislature, meeting here at the end of this street, can enact laws prohibiting all persons under age from engaging in any employment whatever? It is preposterous. Yet this is the sort of argument with which the amendment is advocated. No legislature of any constitutional government upon this continent possesses, or should possess, that power. Yet it is deliberately proposed to delegate it to the federal government.

Let me forecast some results of this measure should it receive your approval. I do not wish to appear sensational, not even in the opinion of my opponent, yet he said something about the child labor act which the Supreme Court very properly set aside. He reminded you that under its operation nothing revolutionary occurred. Certainly not. These gentlemen were very cautious. They had good reason to anticipate the probable decision of that court, and before going to extremes, they ceased gazing at the rainbows and looked down upon their feet for awhile. Hence they became temporarily prudent, and trod the path of moderation. What they did then affords no measure for what they would attempt to do once the Supreme Court can no longer pass upon the validity of child labor legislation.

In the decision invalidating the act, that court, speaking through Mr. Justice Day, said:

The far-reaching result of upholding the Act cannot be more plainly indicated than by pointing out that if Congress can regulate matters intrusted to local authorities by prohibition of employment of individuals in interstate commerce, all freedom of commerce will be at an end, and the power of the states over local matters will be eliminated, and thus our system of government will be practically destroyed.

This is not the frenzied declamation of some excited opponent of this amendment. Am I therefore unreasonable when I affirm that in view of this judicial decision, which warns us that such statutes, administered according to their terms, will result in the destruction of our system of government; that this amendment, whose operation can be limited neither by presidents nor judges, would inevitably produce the same results? The mere fact that it is an amendment, instead of a statute, only emphasizes the certainty of the consequences of its due administration.

Legislation and authority both grow by what they feed upon, and a swelling army of applicants desiring to aid in the administration of the law sooner or later gathers as employees of the government for that purpose. It is my deliber

ate conviction that this amendment is the child of propaganda inspired by socialism and fostered by bureaucracy; that it is proposed to do here what is being done in Russia.

Loyola said, "Give me the custody or control of the child until he reaches puberty and you may have him for the remainder of his life." The Soviet government paraphrases this wise reflection when it announces that, "If we nationalize the child, the next generation will insure the cause of bolshevism." Don't think for an instant that bolshevism is quiescent anywhere. It is active throughout the world. It works sometimes directly, sometimes insidiously, but it is always active.

Every association inimical to the government, or some feature of it, or to the prevailing social system, every movement committed to a change of, or revolution in, our political and industrial conditions, is behind and actively supporting this amendment. Its inspiration is not love or sympathy for children, but the potentialities which the administration of the measure may unfold for revolution, both social and actual. The American Federation of Labor is, as a matter of course, its champion, but its purpose is wholly selfish and economic. It proceeds upon the theory that whatever limits the volume of labor will enhance its value. In other words, that by decreasing the supply you increase the demand; wages rise, and the workman prospers accordingly.

But there are others. We have been going through a process during the last thirty or forty years of what, for the want of a better term, I might call uplift, promoted by a large class of people in the world who expect to go to Heaven by repenting of other people's sins. They propose to make you and me good by legislation; they propose to regulate us from the ground up, beginning with the cradle and ending after dissection. There is not an activity within the realms of imagination which is not, or is not designated to be, regulated by law. In the process of righteousness by statute, bureaus are created in order to enforce the law; these prescribe our apparel, when to put it on, when to take it off, what to eat, what to do, what to think, what to teach our offspring-in fact, our lives are regulated from one end to the other. We have so many laws that we have become the most lawless people on earth.

I might refer to the incident of an inmate of an asylum pointed out to a visitor. The attendant said, "That is the worst case we have here; he is a hopeless lunatic, and besides, he has St. Vitus' dance." The visitor said, "What is the matter with him?" The attendant replied, "Oh, for a week he tried to observe all the laws." These chronic reformers support the amendment by instinct.

Now let me refer to the phraseology of this amendment for a moment. You have heard it read. It states that Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age-no child mentioned. Perhaps there are some married women present who are not eighteen years of age. Are they children? Are boys and girls eighteen years of age

children? Yet they call this a child labor amendment. Congress shall have power to limit, shall have power to regulate, it shall have power to prohibit the labor of all persons under eighteen years of age. Do you tell me this does not carry with it the authority absolutely to prohibit all forms of industry to the prescribed class, "employment" or "labor"-call it what you please; golf, if you want to—by a central government located on the coast. It is our government, yes, but exercising its jurisdiction and administering its laws over a continent-covering republic by a bureau one million strong.

My friend says that there is no analogy between the Volstead Act and this. Yet when I was in the Senate discussing that act, we were assured by the hundreds of associations then lobbying for it, and now lobbying for this, that it did not mean absolute prohibition; that its administration wouldn't cost much; that its enforcement was easy; all Uncle Sam would do would be to turn off the spigot and the public would do the rest, and that the states would still retain their jurisdiction concurrently with that of the federal government—they would trot in harness. Cost! Why, it has cost us thirty millions, or about that, for the current year, and I presume that next year the entire navy will be enlisted for the suppression of the traffic. You know, I know, and everyone knows that this country is prohibition by law, and anti-prohibition in fact. Why deny it? It has cost us millions; we have an enormously increasing bureau, and its only result has been to make the nation safe for hypocrisy. Personally, I believe in prohibition, and I want to see it enforced, but I am not shutting my eyes to the unwelcome fact that it cannot be done. The only effectual solution of the problem is an aroused public opinion that is militant to prohibition; and you will never make men good by legislation, try all you please. It is a ghastly failure of the centuries.

The amendment continues: "The power of the several states is unimpaired by this article, except that the operation of the state laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by Congress." That reminds me of Henry Ford, who says if you buy one of his cars, you can have any color you want provided you choose black. Of course, the general power of the states is unimpaired except where it comes in conflict with congressional legislation. It is not necessary so to declare. That is the fact. It has been so decided many times by the Supreme Court of the United States. That phrase is simply molasses to catch flies. Once this amendment is passed, the power of the state, the power of the parent, and of the local public over the person or the up-bringing of the child is transferred bodily to the national authority.

How will you enforce it? My friend says it is not a law-it is merely an enabling act. That is true in a sense only: it will require legislation for its enforcement. But unfortunately the Constitution, and the laws passed thereunder, and treaties made pursuant to the authority of the United States are by the organic act made the supreme law of the land. The amendment, when ratified, is law, supreme law, organic law, changeable only by another amend

« AnteriorContinuar »