THE CHILD LABOR LAW CASE 63 no power to examine into the motives of the legislature. Weber v. Freed}^ As Mr. Justice Holmes put it: "But I had thought that the propriety of the exercise of a power admitted to exist in some cases was for the consideration of Congress alone, and that this Court always had disavowed the right to intrude its judgment upon questions of policy or morals." In Fletcher v. Peck^'^ it was held that a statute good on its face could not be impeached by proof that votes for it had been pro- cured by bribery or corruption. As was said in In re Kollock,^^ " The act before us is on its face an act for levying taxes, and although it may operate in so doing to prevent deception in the sale of oleomar- garine as and for butter, its primary object must be assumed to be the raising of revenue." Proof that there is a large local problem, therefore, is not suffi- cient to show that there is not a genuine interstate problem. With these principles in mind, how shall the supposititious cases in the doubtful class be decided? Closing the channels of inter- state commerce to the products of non-union labor must be held ultra vires, according to Adair v. United States^^ and Coppage v. Kansas.^° As to products of sweat shops, of night work by women, and of work by women and children at less than minimum fixed wages, we may not now have sufficient facts to judge. The basis of federal action in the Child Labor Case, which the majority held insufficient, is, however, shown by the legislative history of the act. The situation which finally compelled Con- gressional action arose from the truly interstate character of the child-labor evil. The problem arose not solely because of the effect of transportation across state lines, but also because in the federal system are comprised states each with divergent interests, and the nation with its interest in the people as a whole. Years ago Congress ordered an investigation, and a bulky report was printed styled "Report on Condition of Woman and Child Wage Earners in the United States." ^^ It appeared that the child-labor regulations of the states were not uniform, and that manufacturers in high standard states, whether correctly or not, felt at a disad- " 239 U. S. 325, 330 (1915)- " 6 Cranch (TJ. S.) 87, 130, 131 (1810). »8 16s U. S. 526, 536 (1897). " 208 U. S. 161 (1908). •» 236 U. S. I (1915). " Sen. Doc. 645, 6ist Cong.
