Following the 1906 midterm elections, Indiana Senator Albert Beveridge was excited to return to Washington to introduce a bill that would prohibit child labor in the nation's factories, mines, and mills. He hoped the bill would curtail the unpopular practice and help rebrand his Republican Party as the nation's progressive party. The Party's old guard, however, proved uncooperative. Recognizing the unpopularity of child labor, they fought the bill on constitutional grounds and challenged Beveridge with a parade of horribles. If Congress could constitutionally regulate child labor, they asked, could it not also regulate the hours or wages of adults? Could it not prevent a man from joining a labor union? Or require it? One would have expected Beveridge—who opposed such regulations—to blunt that criticism with some legal distinction. Instead, he embraced it. Would Beveridge go so far as to claim that Congress could prohibit the interstate shipment of cotton picked by children, asked one Senator. “Yes,” Beveridge retorted, “or [by] a redheaded girl.”
Logan Sawyer is an assistant professor of law at the University of Georgia School of Law <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
For help at various stages of the project he thanks Brian Balogh, Dan Coenen, Charles McCurdy, Dan Ernst, Paul Heald, Nancy Leong, Stephanie Hunter McMahon, Tim Meyer, Willow Meyer, Cynthia Nicoletti, Laura Phillips Sawyer, Robin West, G. Edward White, David Tanenhaus and the anonymous Law and History Review reviewers. Nicholas Rolader provided able research assistance.