64 HARVARD LAW REVIEW vantage with competitors in the states with low standards. The large development of cotton manufacturing in the South, to cite the most conspicuous example, was said to be due to the employ- ment of cheap child labor.®^ The protest that the "unfair com- petition" of other states would be ruinous repeatedly defeated sal- utary state measures proposed for the protection of the children.^ Because the products met in competition in interstate commerce the states were powerless to protect themselves. Ohio and Massa- chusetts, calling attention to the immoral competition of other states, formally memorialized Congress to act.^ The matter was stressed in the debates in Congress, the Congressional hearings, and the Committee Reports.^^ The Senate Committee Report stated:^ "So long as there is a single State which for selfish or other reasons fails to enact effective child-labor legislation, it is beyond the power of every other State to protect effectively its own producers and manu- facturers against what may be considered unfair competition of the pro- ducers and manufacturers of that State, or to protect its consumers against unwittingly patronizing those who exploit the childhood of the country. This is true because the States have delegated to Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and have thus deprived them- selves of the power to prohibit the sale within their own borders of products of the child labor of other States." {People v. Hawkins, 157 N. Y. I (1898); People v. Haynes, 198 N. Y. 622 (1910); Opinion of the Justices, 211 Mass. 605 (1912).) It was precisely to avoid such interstate friction as developed in child-labor matters that the Constitution was adopted. Would, then, upholding the Child Labor Law result in so much standardiza- tion that "our system of government would be practically de- stroyed? " The question is important, for preservation of local autonomy in local affairs is vital. Under the tests suggested, standardization would result only so far as necessary to the legitimate exercise of federal power to cure a genuine interstate commerce evil. It would result, moreover, ^ 51 Cong. Rec. 1047, 1054; 53 Cong. Rec. 12308. « See 6 Report, supra, 152, 160, 176, 178, 179, 194, 196; 53 Cong. Rec. 1807, 3026, 12208. " 45 Cong. Rec. 5245; 53 Cong. Rec. 1002.
- See House Report 1400, 63d Cong. 3d sess. 7-9.
- » Senate Report 358, 64th Cong. 21.
