the opinion of diplomats; the permanent labor organization included in the treaty testifies to the importance which labor treaties are about to assume in the international social order and prove that in fact international settlement of labor questions is "a subject of negotiation" between nations.

Preeminently the question is a political one, for determination by the political power of the government. If the President and Senate decide that in justice to the interests of this country and to the world at large the United States should enter into such treaties, their deliberate opinion would undoubtedly have great, if not prevailing, influence upon the court that the subject was proper for negotiation, as against the supporters of a narrow doctrine of state rights.

The same facts which will mould public opinion to demand them will also prove that the treaties are legitimate subjects of negotiation. Dr. Andrews and Mr. Elkus have already told you what these are and if they prove convincing enough to cause the President to negotiate, and the Senate to approve a labor treaty, it is probable that, aided by the precedents, they will induce the Supreme Court to declare it constitutional.

[457]

THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LABOR STANDARDS RELATING TO CHILD LABOR

WR

W. H. SWIFT

Field Secretary, National Child Labor Committee

I rise.

E are at the end of a day's thinking. The whole
discussion has been such as to force thought.
to leave with you one idea.

to change my mind.

I very much hope that these labor planks will stand as a part of the treaty and that the whole treaty including the League of Nations will be adopted. I am sure that our people will approve its adoption. They are ready to try anything which promises peace and an opportunity to work out a better worldlife. I say this is spite of the very able argument made by Mr. Pepper this morning. That was to my mind an argument so ably and so skillfully made that one is not apt to hear its like twice in a life-time. For the moment, it almost forced me But that has passed; I feel better now. I am thinking of that part of the treaty which refers to the employment of children and am not thinking so much of the children of England, of France, of Italy or even of Belgium as of our own American boys and girls. It may be wrong, but I do think of our own first. The welfare of thousands, millions of American children will be promoted by the adoption of these standards by our national government. If adopted, the national government will undoubtedly take such steps as are necessary to insure that they are lived up to and to put then into active forceful operation in every section. We would be ashamed not to do it. Good manners and good morals would bind us to strict observaton. America could not break the faith. If our Constitution should stand in the way, we would change it. It is only semi-sacred.

As the matter now stands we are so proud of the fact that we are Americans, that we have helped to save or to win liberty for others, that we forget our own shortcomings and limitations. The fact that the national government may have limitations seems to have been overlooked in the day's dis

cussion. It is just that fact, the fact of limitations, which makes these international standards of vital importance to American children.

The fourteen-year age limit for employment and continuation schools up to eighteen have been referred to as if accepted and operating throughout our whole country. The fact is, that these standards are not accepted and enforced throughout our country. It is not at all certain that the Government of the United States can guarantee proper schooling for every child. The only serious attempt that has been made by the national government to this end has been to appropriate federal money for certain educational purposes and to fix the standards under which that money may be used. The federal government has taken no steps to guarantee that all the children are properly taught. Compulsory education is left to the different states. Coming in from the American field, where I have been traveling here and there, I tell you that there are thousands of American children who are not receiving proper schooling and who, although they will go to work at fourteen or younger and, in thousands of cases without even as much as a fifth-grade education, can not hope under state educational systems to see a continuation-school, much less. attend it. All our children will not be properly taught unless the national government gives attention to the matter. Perhaps the adoption of these international standards would compel the national government to enter this field. If so, it would be highly beneficial.

The same thing is true with child labor. It was found that the employment of children could not be well regulated by state laws. Congress enacted a national child labor law. You know what happened. Certain citizens of North Carolina said, "The act is no good", snapped their fingers in the face of the national law, and the Supreme Court said, "The act is no good".

A second national child labor law was passed by Congress. Again citizens of North Carolina have said, "No good" and the lower Federal Court seems to have said, "You are right and Congress is wrong". So that it is not at all certain, as the law now is, that the national government can prevent even an inhuman exploitation of childhood, or enforce proper stand

ards. In the state which I have named, children under sixteen years of age may be employed eleven hours a day and as late as nine o'clock at night.

As an American citizen, I do not doubt for one moment but that, if these international standards regulating the employment and education of children should be adopted, somehow, somebody, will devise some way by which we will not only live up to our international agreements but take care of our own boys and girls. The American people will not hesitate to amend the Constitution to that end if that is the only way.

[460]

SOME INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES AND ONE WAY
OF MEETING THEM

WM. P. MALBURN

Vice President, American Exchange National Bank of New York,
Formerly Assistant Secretary of the Treasury

B

EFORE the Great War the United States was a debtor nation, its indebtedness to Europe being estimated at $5,000,000,000, while it paid an annual tribute to Europe in the form of interest, dividends, freight charges, insurance, commission, etc. of $400,000,000 to $500,000,000. The United States had no difficulty in making this payment, because Europe needed food products and raw materials for her manufactures which we could supply more cheaply and with greater certainty than any other country. Consequently, an equilibrium was established between our obligations to Europe and her purchases from us. A country which is a large producer of raw materials, if it desires to dispose of those materials, should either be a debtor nation paying a large tribute to other countries or a large importer of the finished products of other countries. The United States paid its tribute in raw materials which it had to spare and which other countries purchased, because it helped us and them to maintain the equilibrium. It was not to our advantage to get out of debt, nor to the interest of Europe to have us free of obligations to her. Although the United States had increased greatly in wealth in recent years and had become richer as a nation than any of the nations of Europe, its debt to Europe was reducing but slowly, the natural tendency of a wealthy nation to pay its debts being offset largely by the willingness of Europeans to invest their money here where it would yield greater returns than if invested in their own countries and more certain returns than if invested in other parts of the world. However, there was a tendency, growing stronger in late years, to discharge that indebtedness, and, had the same conditions continued, it is probable that, in a comparatively