New Britain herald., 1917-03-20

department of justice contsnded brief ly. that the Adanson act ls oonsti- tutional and enforceable, both as an ''hours of service and. wage fixing statute, under Congress. broad and supreme constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce Power of congress to fix wages and also to prevent srfkes. in insuring :unobstruct- ed transportation and movement of commerce, was especially maintained.
 The railroads contended, generally that the act is void because grossly in excess of congress- commerce regu- lation authority. They asserted also that 1t ts indefinite uncertain. unwork- able. incapable of application without Judicial interpretation, fixes no stand ard for computing the amount of wages. Is mere temporary expedient and experiment, interferes with con- stitutional liberty of contract and takes railroad property without 'due process of law" Also they insisted It Is class legislation, benefittng only 16 per cent.-and those the highest paid-of railroad employees, and pre- scribes excessive penalties. The roads denied that congress, in regulating commerce, has the right to fix em- ployes' wages; contended that the law is "soleiy and primarily . wage fix Ing law and not limit employment to 8 hours daily. Especially the rail- roads attacked section 3 of the bill. providing for the immediate tempo rary increase, as taking of property without due process of law.
 Power of congress to fix wages was the basic principle contested. Tho department of justice maintained that for public interest in unobstruct- ed transportation, in efficient, safe train operation by conserving energy of operatives and having them paid fair wages. Congress has authority to fix hours of labor and wage standards.
 To the charge that the temporary increase takes railroad property with out due process" the federal author ities contended congress has such pow CT in preventing stoppage of com merce by strike or otherwise. Dis turbance of existing wage contracts and negotiation of new ones, 1t was in- sisted. should not render the law void, congress- authority being supreme.
 That the law is workable and con- ceded by the railroads so to be was asserted. By substituting an S-hour standard for the present general freight service standard of ''one hum dred miles or less, ten hours or less'' as a day's work. the federal attorneys said the law could be made operative either by speeding up trains to cover the 100 miles in. 8 hours or by. paying overtime. Formulas to put this 12 II miles per hour speed basis'' into ef- feet were submitted to the court for possible adoption in sconstruing and giving effect to the law.
 Discrimination in favor of train operatives only and the best paid oi these was said rot to be arbitrary and the penalties not unreasonable.
 Wage regulation. the railroads con- tended. was beyond congress- author ity and not analogous to it's rate regu- ratee must result from wage increases the railroads declared. Extension of congressional authority to wages they charged. would impair rights o1 private operation and also interfere with freedom of contract.
 In the litigation. the federal gov eminent was represented by Solicitor General John W. Davis, Assistant Attorney General G. Carroll Todd and E. Marvin Underwood, and Frank Hagerman of Kansas City. Mo-. a spe- cial assistant. The railroads repre- sentatives were Walker D. Hines, chairman of their general committee of counsel; John G. Johnson of Phila- delphia, and Arthur Miller of Kansas City, attorney for the Missouri. Okla homa and Gulf receivers.