The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1917-03-20

| Washington, March 19.-The ma jority opinion of the supreme court
 upholding the Adan1son law, as de-
 livered by Chief Justice White, fol-
 lows:
 Was there power in Crongress un- der the circumstances existing to deal
 with the hours of work and wages of
 railroad employees engaged in inter-
 state commerce? is the principal ques-
 tion here to be considered.
 'Its solution as we'll as that of other
 questions which also arise will be
 classified by brief statement of the conditions out of which the controv-
 ersy arose.
 | 1.-TWO systems controlled in March, T1916, concerning wages of railroad
 employees: One, an eight hour stand ] ard of work and wages with addition
 al pay for overtime, governing on about 15 per cent. of the railroads; :; the other stated mileage task of 100
 miles to be performed during 10 hours
 with extra pay for any excess, in force
 on about S5 per cent, of the roads. | ''The organizations representing the employees of the railroads in that
 month made formal demand on the i employers that, as. to all engaged in
 the movement of trains except passen- ger trains, the 100 mile task be fixed
 for eight hours, provided that it was
 not so done as to lower wages. and 1 provided that an extra allowance for overtime calculated by, the minute at l 1 1-2 time the rate of the regular hours service be established.
 "The demand made this standard obligatory on the railroads but option l T.. 4 1nff ~ifr11 fn
 the employees to retain their existing
 system on any road if they elected to do so. The terms of the demand were
 as follows except the one which re- i served the option which is in the mar ! gin, and others making article 1 ap- plicable to yard and switching and 1 hostling service:
 l Article 1. Cal In all road service
 one hundred miles or less, eight hours l or less will constitute a day except
 in passenger service. Miles in excess | of 100 will be paid for at the same rate per mile. 1 "(b( On runs of 100 miles overtime will begin when the time on duty ex- ceeds the miles run divided by 12 1-2 miles per hour.
 l "(d) All overtime to be computed
 on the minute basis and paid for at
 time and one rhalf times the pro rata
 rate. l '(e) No one shall receive less for eight hours or 100 miles than they now received for .nfnimum day of
 100 miles for the class df engine used
 or for service performed.
 1 "(f) Time will be- computed contin-
 uously from time required for duty
 until release from duty and responsi-
 bility at end of day or run.
 'The employers refused the demand
 and the employees through their or
 ganization by concert of action took
 the steps, to call a general strike of
 all railroad employees throughout the country f 1 The chief justice then reviewed the efforts of President Wilson to bring the parties into conference, the fail- l by congress and enactment of the
 statute whose validity the court has been called upon to consider. The 1 court further referred to the court l proceedings and continuing, said: Stating it's desire, to cooperate with the parties in their purpose to 1 expedite the cause, the court below,
 briefly announcing that 1t was of op- inion that congress had no constitu- 1 tional power to enact the statute, en- | joined it's enforcement, and as the re- l suit of. the direct appeal which fol- l lowed, we come, after elaborate oral
 and printed arguments, to dispose of the controversy.
 | "AH the propositions relied upon
 the arguments advanced ultimately come to two questions: First, the en- i tire want of constitutional power to deal with the subjects embraced by the statute, and second, such abuse of the power if possessed as rendered it's 1 exercise unconstitutional. We will
 consider these subjects under distinct propositions separately.
 "1. The entire want of constitution al power to deal with the subjects em- I braced by the statute.
 There must knowledge exerted by
 the determining whether as exercised it was constitutional, and we must thence settle a dispute on that ques-
 tion before going further Only an eight hour standard for work and wages was provided is the contention on the one. side, and in substance only I a scale of wages was provided in the argument on the other. We are of l the opinion that both are right and
 in a sense both wrong in so far as it is assumed that the one excludes the l other Both provisions are equally
 mandatory.
 However, there is this very broad
 difference between two powers exert ed. The first, the eight hour stand ard, is permanently fixed The second,
 the fixing of the wage standard re- sulting from the prohibition against l paying lower wages, is expressly Him. i ited to the time specified in section two (of the law). It is therefore not ]! permanent but temporary, leaving the employers and employees free as to the subject of wages to govern their re- llations by their own agreements after
 the specified time.
 l rConcrete1y stated therefore, the | question is this: Did congress have l power under the circumstances to pro- vide a permanent eight hour stand ard and to create by legislative action a standard of wages to be operative upon the employers and employees for | such reasonable time as it deemed necessary to afford an opportunity for {, the meeting of the minds of employ
 CTS and employees on the subject of
 wages?
 1 Coming to the general considera- i tions we put the question as to the 1 eight hour standard entirely out of view on the ground that the authority
 to permanently establish it is so clear ! " sustained as to render the subject 1 not disputable.
 i "what was the extent of the power