The daily banner. (Cambridge, Md.) 1897-2008, 1917-01-10
HEAR R,R, SIDE IN
8-HOURARC(jEaEn1
Justices Quiz Lawyers on Right
Of Congress 10 Fix Wages.
THE HEARING IHJS TODAY
Railroad Attorneys Declare Law Is NOT
a Regulation of Interstate Com
merce, But Merely a Wage Fixing
Statute.

Washington, Jan. 10.-The legal bat
tie over constitutionality OF the Adam
son eight-hour law continued in tne
supreme court, with attorneys for bJ>h
sides frequently being inter1ogatel
frmo the bench by the justices.
The attack of the railroads upon the
law was virtually closed. and today
the government lawyers will make
final arguments in it's defence.
In presenting the railroads case
Walker D. Hines, their chief counsel
laid stress on the argument tat the
law is not a constitutional regula ion
BY congress Of interstate commerce.
but merely a wage-fXing statute. He
merely denied that congress had TINS
right to fix wages, and contended there
il no analogy between rate and wage
fixing.
Chief Justice White and other Just
Ices frequently interrupted him. just
ice Whites questions were apparent!
designed to draw out argument regard
ing the comparative authority of con
gress to prescribe wages as well as
rates.
= "Can congress authorize Interstate
commerce commission to fix raiiro7o
wages?" asked Justice Day. Mr.
Hines replied 1t was doubtful un'es'
wages were abnormally low and shouit
interfere with transportation.
Asking if the brotherhoo5s' wage con
tracts were feed prior to 1913, Justic'
Brardeis said:
"Shouldn't this court take juaic'a
notice Of the fact that there has beer
a great increase in the cost of living
since those wages we're fixed?"
Mr.. Hines said this fact "w3uti TO
Justify the court in holding that evi
existed which would justify congress
in exercising power, even if 1t hat
that power"
H 4here is no power, there can b'
no Justification for its attempted exer
else" the chies justice observed.
Congress has not power to pre-
scribe wages. because they Rave NJ
substantial, relation to safety and Ell
cheney in this case" replied Mr.. Hines
"The direct object was for the bene
At of particular cases." he contfnue1
"Any effect on public interest is Incl
dental"
"Then you argue that this is regu
lation of wages and Of priv7te re'a
tons between employers and enu'oye
remote from service?" asked Justic.
Pitney.
at is a most remote regu'a+ion
commerce." Mr.. Hines answered. H.
said the law undoubtedly woul1 cause
increased rates.
When Mr.. Hines said the law I'll no
limit service to an eight-hour d7y
but merely fixed ware standard PR
viding for overtime, Justice B--anisl
asked:
isn't It a historical feet th"t in tn,
introduction of the legislative poe.
OF reducing the hours of labo-. m n.
Of the states BEEN in fixing what /;
number of hours loud be a stan1arl
day and later in thn progress Of 'egis
lation there came an actual proh:b.tiSI
of more?"
Mr. Hines replied the courts had TO
80 construed the laws.
aAnd isn't it fact that wen thu
legislation was introduced. there nove!
was a suggestion that the ru"p"se o
the legislation was to fix WAGES ant
not to reduce hours" conti-ucd Tus CT
Brandeis. "Thev didn't increas
wages much" renliel M. Hines.
Chief Justice White refe~re1 t. tn,
Oregon ten-hour d"y law, nov await
ing the courts decision. TIE orNg-f
law, Mr.. Hines responded, PIE -cr'ba
an overtime penalty not in the Adam
son act.
John G. Johnson, of Phi'adelphfa
was chosen to close the case for tn
railroads.