William Howard Taft

“ The United States attorney for the Western district of North Carolina not entering an appearance, but speaking as amicus curiae, suggested 'the want of jurisdiction because there is no allegation in the bill of a contract preventing the defendant from discharging the employe for any reason that might seem fit to it, and also because the case is not one arising under the internal revenue or other federal laws so as to give the court jurisdiction to pass on the validity of the law.' The court granted the temporary injunction and made it permanent by order of May 2, 1919. ”

“ We only state them in order that it may not be thought by our conclusion that we here decide them.
The lapse of time since the case was heard and decided in the District Court has brought the minor, whose employment was the subject-matter of the suit, to an age which is not within the ages affected by the act. The act, even if valid, cannot affect him further. The case for an injunction has, therefore, become moot and we cannot consider it. ”

“ Ct. 579, 47 L. ed. 709; American Book Co. v. Kansas, 193 U.S. 49, 51, 24 Sup. Ct. 394, 48 L. Ed. 613; Jones v. Montague, 194 U.S. 147, 24 Sup. Ct. 611, 48 L. Ed. 913; Fisher v. Baker, 203 U.S. 174, 27 Sup. Ct. 135, 51 L. Ed. 142. ”