No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The federal Child Labor Law was declared unconstitutional in Hammer v. Dagenhart by a vote of five to four. It forbade the transportation in interstate or foreign commerce of the product of any mine or quarry “in which within thirty days prior to the time of the removal of such product therefrom children under the age of sixteen years have been employed or permitted to work,” with similar prohibitions covering the products of mills and factories in which children under fourteen were employed or children under sixteen were employed more than eight hours a day. The majority opinion misinterpreted the statute and assumed that it permitted goods “to be freely shipped after thirty days from the time of their removal from the factory,” whereas it permitted only the shipment of stock on hand thirty days after children had ceased to be employed. The law was so framed as to avoid the necessity of proof that children coöperated in the making of specific articles produced in a factory in which children were employed, and yet to remove any ban on shipment from an establishment which for thirty days had employed only adult labor.
2 (1918) 247 U.S. 251. See Gordon, Thurlow M., “The Child Labor Law Case,” 32 Harvard Law Review 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Green, Frederick, “Social Justice and Interstate Commerce, 208 North American Review (September, 1918) 387Google Scholar; Jones, William Carey, “The Child Labor Decision,” 6 California Law Review 395CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parkinson, T. I., “The Federal Child Labor Decision,” The Child Labor Bulletin, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 89 (August, 1918)Google Scholar; and Powell, T. R., “The Child Labor Decision,” The Nation, vol. 107, p. 730 (June 22, 1918)Google Scholar, and “The Child Labor Law, the Tenth Amendment, and the Commerce Clause,” 3 Southern Law Quarterly 175. See also editorial notes in 86 Central Law Journal 441, 17 Michigan Law Review 83, and 27 Yale Law Journal 1092. For articles on the subject written prior to the decision of the Supreme Court, see Gleick, H. C., “The Constitutionality of the Child Labor Law,” 24 Case and Comment 801Google Scholar; Green, Frederick, “The Child Labor Law and the Constitution,” Illinois Law Bulletin, no. 2, p. 3Google Scholar; Hull, Henry, “The Federal Child-Labor Law,” 31 Political Science Quarterly 519Google Scholar; and Parkinson, T. I., “Brief for the Keating-Owen Bill,” The Child Labor Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 4, pt. 2, p. 219 (February, 1916)Google Scholar, “Constitutional Prohibitions of Interstate Commerce,” 16 Columbia Law Review 367, and “The Federal Child Labor Law,” 31 Political Science Quarterly 531.
3 The majority consisted of Chief Justice White and Justices Day, Van Devantes Pitney and McReynolds; the minority, of Justices McKenna, Holmes, Brandeis and Clarke.
4 (1918) 245 U. S. 618.
5 (1917) 245 U. S. 136.
6 (1918) 245 U. S. 493. See 18 Columbia Law Review 270, 31 Harvard Law Review 1031, and 16 Michigan Law Review 379.
7 (1918) 247 U. S. 21. See 27 Yale Law Journal 1094.
8 (1918) 246 U. S. 500. See 87 Central Law Journal 4.
9 (1918) 246 U. S. 498.
10 (1918) 246 U. S. 147.
11 For general articles on the decisions grouped under this head see Hinman, George E., “Legal Phases of State Income Taxation of Miscellaneous Corporations,” 3 Bulletin of the National Tax Association 41, 67Google Scholar; and Powell, T. R., “Indirect Encroachment on Federal Authority by the Taxing Powers of the States,” 31 Harvard Law Review 572, 721, 932CrossRefGoogle Scholar, “State Excises on Foreign Corporations,” Proceedings of the National Tax Association, 1918, and “The Changing Law of Foreign Corporations,” 33 Political Science Quarterly 549.
12 (1917) 245 U. S. 178. See 3 Bulletin of the National Tax Association 99, 18 Columbia Law Review 168, and 16 Michigan Law Review 264.
13 (1918) 246 U. S. 135. See 3 Bulletin of the National Tax Association 178, 16 Michigan Law Review 447, and 27 Yale Law Journal 1074.
14 (1918) 246 U. S. 146.
15 Note 8, supra.
16 (1918) 247 U. S. 132.
17 (1918) 247 U. S. 421.
18 (1917) 245 U. S. 292. See 3 Bulletin of the National Tax Association 99, 18 Columbia Law Review 483, 31 Harvard Law Review 805, and 3 Southern Law Quarterly 230.
19 (1892) 145 U. S. 1.
20 (1918) 246 U. S. 450.
21 (1918) 247 U. S. 165. See 87 Central Law Journal 4, and 27 Yale Law Journal 1096.
22 (1918) 246 U. S. 1.
23 (1917) 245 U. S. 298. See 86 Central Law Journal 41, and 31 Harvard Law Review 659.
24 The case seems to go further than Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland Ry. Co., (1915) 242 U. S. 311, and to hold that the Webb-Kenyon Law applies even though the state prohibits neither receipt nor possession. See 2 Southern Law Quarterly 118–124.
25 (1918) 246 U. S. 58.
26 (1918) 245 U. S. 484.
27 (1918) 246 U. S. 424.
28 See Railroad Co. v. Maryland, (1875) 21 Wall. 456; Ashley v. Ryan, (1894) 153 U. S. 436; and Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Stiles, (1916) 242 U. S. 111. But see State v. Western & Atlantic R. Co., (1912) 138 Ga. 835, 76 S. E. 77, and note in 26 Harvard Law Review 539.
29 (1918) 247 U. S. 105.
30 McGinnis v. California, (1918) 247 U. S. 91, and Same v. Same, 247 U. S. 95.
31 (1918) 247 U. S. 477. See 2 Minnesota Law Review 339.
32 (1918) 246 U. S. 343; 31 Harvard Law Review 1164. This case is also considered in the section dealing with police power. Justices Van Devanter and McReynolds dissented, but without indicating upon what ground.
33 (1917) 245 U. S. 192.
34 (1918) 246 U. S. 263.
35 (1918) 245 U. S. 541. See 86 Central Law Journal 285, and 31 Harvard Law Review 1036.
36 (1918) 245 U. S. 547.
37 Virginia v. West Virginia, (1918) 246 U. S. 565. See Powell, T. R., “Coercing a State to Pay a Judgment,” 17 Michigan Law Review 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also 12 American Journal of International Law 619, 31 Harvard Law Review 1158, and 16 Michigan Law Review 617. For a discussion of the problem written before the decision of the court, see Coleman, William C., “The State as Defendant under the Federal Constitution,” 31 Harvard Law Review 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 For a case that has some bearing on the question whether the federal government may tax income from state securities and from state salaries, see Peck v. Lowe, page 73 infra, note 65.
39 Of these 67 cases, 39 were concerned with the general police power, and 28 with the control over public utilities.
40 Six of these involved requirements on carriers.
41 (1917) 245 U. S. 60. See Field, S. S., “The Constitutionality of Segregation Ordinances,” 5 Virginia Law Review 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also 85 Central Law Journal 422, 18 Columbia Law Review 147, 3 Cornell Law Quarterly 133, 31 Harvard Law Review 475, 21 Law Notes 162, 16 Michigan Law Review 109, 2 Minnesota Law Review 57, and 27 Yale Law Journal 393.
42 (1917) 245 U. S. 304. See 52 American Law Review 275, 31 Harvard Law Review 658, 4 Iowa Law Bulletin 116, 16 Michigan Law Review 386, 2 Minnesota Law Review 232, and 27 Yale Law Journal 575.
43 (1918) 246 U. S. 88. See 86 Central Law Journal 313, and 27 Yale Law Journal 850.
44 Note 32, supra.
45 (1917) 245 U. S. 6. See 85 Central Law Journal 331, 18 Columbia Law Review 155, 16 Michigan Law Review 124, and 27 Yale Law Journal 401.
46 (1918) 246 U. S. 434.
47 (1918) 247 U. S. 490.
48 (1918) 246 U. S. 457.
49 (1918) 246 U. S. 178. See 31 Harvard Law Review 1036, 16 Michigan Law Review 438, and 27 Yale Law Journal 1095.
50 Cited in notes 12, 13 and 14, supra.
51 Note 13, supra.
52 Note 10, supra.
53 Note 16, supra.
54 (1910) 216 U. S. 400.
55 (1918) 247 U. S. 350.
56 Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co., (1907) 207 U. S. 20.
57 See 12 American Political Science Review 451.
58 (1917) 245 U. S. 288.
59 (1917) 245 U. S. 54. See 3 Bulletin of the National Tax Association 77, 85 Central Law Journal 441, 31 Harvard Law Review 786, 62 Ohio Law Bulletin 533, and 3 Virginia Law Register n. s. 775. On the general subject, see Charles Carpenter, E., “Jurisdiction over Debts for the Purpose of Administration, Garnishment, and Taxation,” 31 Harvard Law Review 905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Mr. Carpenter does not mention the principal case, although it was discussed in a note in the Harvard Law Review two issues before the publication of his article.
60 (1917) 245 U. S. 217. See Maxey, C. C., “Is Government Merchandising Constitutional?” 52 American Law Review 215.Google Scholar See also 86 Central Law Journal 21, 3 Cornell Law Quarterly 287, 16 Michigan Law Review 263, 46 Washington Law Reporter 202, and 27 Yale Law Journal 824.
61 (1918) 247 U. S. 339.
62 (1918) 247 U. S. 347.
63 (1918) 245 U. S. 418. See Fairchild, F. R., “The Economic Nature of the Stock Dividend,” 3 Bulletin of the National Tax Association 162.Google Scholar See also 86 Central Law Journal 104, 18 Columbia Law Review 63, 31 Harvard Law Review 787, 805, 2 Minnesota Law Review 284, 3 Southern Law Quarterly 67, and 27 Yale Law Journal 553.
64 Among other interpretations put upon the meaning of the word “income” as contained in the statute were the decisions that it does not embrace alimony (Gould v. Gould, 1917, 245 U. S. 151) nor a transferor assets from one corporation to another which is the sole owner of the transferring corporation (Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 1918, 247 U. S. 330) nor a sum received by a stockholder in excess of the par value of his stock on the dissolution of the corporation, where such excess was due to increases in value during a long period before the effective date of the statute, which increase had reached its height before the act became effective (Lynch v. Turrish, 1918, 247 U. S. 221). Various accounting problems raised by the application of the statute were passed upon in Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U. S. 179, Goldfield Consolidated Mines Co. v. Scott, 247 U. S. 126, Hays v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., 247 U. S. 189, and United States v. Biwabik Mining Co., 247 U. S. 116, all decided in 1918.
65 Note 21, supra.
66 Note 17, supra.
67 (1918) 247 U. S. 354.
68 (1918) 246 U. S. 242.
69 (1917) 245 U. S. 20. See 2 Minnesota Law Review 373, and 3 Virginia Law Register n. s. 777.
70 (1918) 245 U. S. 366. The “Selective Draft Law Cases” is the title given by the official reporter to Arver v. United States and five other cases decided in the same opinion. See 24 Case and Comment 821, 6 California Law Review 222, 4 Iowa Law Bulletin 122, 16 Michigan Law Review 376, and 27 Yale Law Journal 575.
For other cases involving interpretations or applications of the Selective Draft Law, see Jones v. Perkins, 245 U. S. 390; Goldman v. United States, 245 U. S. 474; Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U. S. 480; and Kramer v. United States, 245 U. S. 478, all decided in 1918. In the Kramer case the contention was raised that the indictment was defective in that it did not state that the defendant who had failed to register was a citizen of the United States or a person not an enemy alien who had declared his intention to become such a citizen. The contention was held unfounded in view of the fact that all persons between the designated ages were required to register under the law and it was stated that the defendant was between the designated ages, thus holding that those not liable to service may still be required to register.
71 (1918) 247 U. S. 3.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.