Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1916-09-26
HUGHES REPLIES TO
Wilson'S ARGUMENT
Adamson Measure Merely
Change in Schedule of
Wages lie Tells
0hioanS
ALSO REVIEWS THE
80 CENT GAS CASE

DAYTON, O.. Sept 26.-Charles E.
Hughes. addressing an audience in
Memorial Hall last night. replied to
statements IN President Wilson's
speech OF Saturday in connection
with the passage OF the Adamson
law.
Mr.. Hughes characterized as most
regrettable" the reference made by
President Wilson 10 the eighty-cent
gas case IN New York as an instance
where the courts had refused to de-
clare rate-hxing law unconstitu
tional in advance OF determining how
it would operate.
1T has been sought to draw an
analogy" Mr.. Hughes said, between
such a case and legislation in ad-
vance of inquiry. The courts have
nothing to do with the question of the
wisdom OF policy OF legislation. CUES
lions Of constitutionality come before
the courts after the legislature has
acted, presumably with knowledge OF
the facts and upon careful inquiry
The Eight-Hour Day.
President Wilson's declaration that
he considered the eight-hour day as a
principle that was not arbitrable, was
commented on as follows:
II is said that the principle was
not arbitrable Il is a very eX-
traordinary statement, for eigh-
teen years ago believe, in the
passage of the act to promote
Cancellation and arbitration with
respect to disputes between IN
terstate commerce employees and
carriers. there was provision
made for arbitration with respect
to hours OF labor. conditions of
employment. as well as Of wages.
And In a bill which ! believe was
signed during this administration,
in July, 1918. the same provision.
In. / believe, substantially the
same language was re-enacted In
the law providing for arbitration
with respect to wages. conditions
of employment and hours OF la
Tor.
OF course, the question whether
in a particular case that cOndi-
ton exist which should provide
for a certain number OF hours of
labor Is question requiring the
most earnest consideration. SUIT
no one IN this controversy TO
which ] am now referring. had
any idea OF establishing an eight
hour work day. The principle OF
the eight-hour work day is not IN
any way involved.
Wage Schedule Changed.
I protest against any ondeavor
10 confuse the thought of America
by talking about an eight-hour
work day when nothing OF the
: sort has been enacted. nothing OF
the sort has been proposed. and
the only thing that was proposed
or enacted was a change in the
schedule of wages.
II there is anything more re-
markable or regrttable than the
effort 20 nave il appear that an
eight hour work DAY is involved
IL is an attempt TO draw an anal
Ogy between the case of legisla-
ton OF that description and the
action of our courts in dealing
with rate cases.
10 has been stated, for example,
that when a rate is fixed by law
as a railroad rate, or as tele-
phone rate. and II is attacked as
unconstitutional. because conds-
catory. that the Supreme Court of
the United States has stated that
ID would not declare the measure
unconstitutional until the effect
OF the operation of the rate had
been disclosed.
II las been sought TO draw an
analogy between such a case and
legislation in advance of inquiry.
Now. our system Of government
requires the careful study OF
facts, Of a full understanding. and
it is of the utmost importance
that the thought Of our people
should be kept clear with respect
10 the workings Of the various de-
partments of the government
The courts have nothing 10 do
with tho question of the wisdom
or policy OF legislation.
Questions Of constitutionality
como before the courts after the
legislature has acted presumably
with knowledge OF the facts and
upon careful inquiry. The ques.
ton that comes before the court is.
whether after a legislature has pre-
sumabh done its full duty in oN-
aiming the facts. dealing with the
facts according 10 its Judgment the
crf ~ fha I aeria f4fttr, ah,stfI D.. Il,