1935 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 9367

[June 5, 1935]

[Beginning at the top line of the second column]

Mr. WALSH. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Mississippi whether it is agreeable to consider at this time two amendments which I have offered.

Mr. HARRISON. It is.

Mr. WALSH. I submit the amendments, which relate to subparagraph (d) on page 81. The explanation of the amendments will be found on page 8333 of the Congressional Record of May 28, 1935.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendments.

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 81, line 12, after the word “Federal”, it is proposed to insert the words “or State”, and in line 16, after the word “child”, it is proposed to insert a period and strike out the words “in violation of the law of a State.”

Mr. HARRISON. I have no objection to the amendments.

Mr. McNARY. Will the Senator from Massachusetts state the purpose of his amendment?

Mr. WALSH. I will ask the Senator to read with me subsection (d) on page 81, which is under the title of “Definitions”:

Nothing in this act shall be construed as authorizing any federal—

One of the amendments provides for the insertion of the words “or State” in that place, so as to read:

(d) Nothing in this act shall be construed as authorizing any Federal or State official agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this act, to take charge of any child over the objection of either of the parents of such child, or of the person standing in loco parentis to such child, in violation of the law of a State.

The second amendment would strike out the last phrase “In violation of the law of a State.” Some States have no such law.  The purpose of the amendments is to conserve the rights of the individual from invasion by State as well as Federal Authority.

I may say that the amendments have been presented by representatives of the Christian Science religion, who feel very strongly upon the subject, and I believe many other religious bodies join with them in urging that this protection of the home is an established principle that should be preserved in this act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.

     The amendments were agreed to