OCR Text |
Show THE. COMPACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION A STUDY IN INTERSTATE ADJUSTMENTS. FELIX FRANKFURTER AND JAMES M. LANDIS (Yale Law Journal) (May, 1925 - Vol. XXXIV - No. 7) The Constitution is naturally acclaimed as the creative achievement of statesmen bent on maintaining the cooperation of the States and on forming "a more perfect Union*" But in the creation lurked the seeds of inevitable contest between the new Union and its constituent members. Con- troversy over the spheres appropriate for action by States or Nation began in 1789; it is rife today.1 In 1900 the people of the Australian States "agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth", and for twenty- five years an uninterrupted process of conflict, discussion, and adjustment has followed, centering around the respective scope of action of States and Commonwealth.3 Only yesterday the question of the extent of control over industrial relations by the Commonwealth government divided the High Court of Australia and brought the States into sharp conflict with the Common- wealth. ^- Ever. since the Canadian Provinces "federally united into one Dominion,"5 the public, legislatures and courts have been grappling with ¦^¦Thus those who fully agree on the civilized standards for child-life that should prevail in the United States are in disagreement as to whether State or Federal action is the most sustained and fruitful method for achieving the desired results. See e.g. Frankfurter, Child Labor and the Court (July 26, 1922) 31 New Republic, 248, and editorial reply thereto, States Rights and Children, ibid. 24l editorial in New York World, Dec • 8, 1924; Waite, The Child Labor Amendment (1924) 9 Minn. L. Rev. 179- See also Hearings before Sub-Committee of Committee on Judiciary of U» S» Senate, 67 Cong. 4th Sess. Jan. 10-15, 1923, passim; Report No. 395, 68 Cong. 1st Sess; Abbot, The Child Labor Amendment (I92i|) 220 N> Amer. Re*v» 223. ^Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900) 63 & 6k Viet, c* 12; Records and Debates of Australasian Convention (1898) passim. • 3see-Higgins, McCulloch v* Maryland in Australia (I9O4) 18 Harv. L* Rev. 559; Haines, The Constitution Act of Australia (1917) 30 Harv. L. Rev. 5955 Keith, Notes on Imperial Constitutional Law (192L|.) 6 Journ. Comp» Ii©g» 193; Moore, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (2d ed» 1910); I Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence (1901) 319; Atkinson, The Political Systems of Australia (1920) ch. 2. ^Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. Adelaid S. S. Co. Ltd. (1920) 28 C#L.R. 129; Same v. Same (1921) 29 C.L.RV ij.96, commented on in (1922) k Journ. Comp« Leg. Pt. ks p» 107 • Special leave for appeal to the Privy* Council was denied in (1925) A. C. 170, commented on in (1923) 5 Journ. Comp. Jbeg. Pt. 3, p. 278. ^British North America Act (I867) ?0.& 31 Viet. c. 3. |