The Daily Missoulian., 1917-02-08
W hat the Ada,,,so,,
L6,v u
tFrom the New Republic.)

tFrom the New Republic)
Solicitor General Davis in opening the argument
for the government in support Of the Adamson act
of service and wages. and contended congress has
power to regulate both.' Mr. Justice Day Is re.
ported asking the solicitor general DO you claim
the power in fixing wages as in fixing rates?"
to which Mr. Davis is reported a. replying 1--WE do"
II the government has conceded that the Adam
son law is regulation Of the hours Of labor and a
wage raising act smplyas II It read that for eight
months after January railroad employees engaged
In interstate commerce should not work more than
eight hours and should for such work day receive
an advance OF 20 per cent In wages-the legal de-
fense of the act has been nsedlessiy complicated.
Plainly the act is not hours Of labor statute
1t does not restrict the number Of hours that rail-
way employees shall labor Nor il the act wage
raising law simply. A fair analysis shows it to be
an act requiring experiment to obtain informa-
ton, which is to be made public through a COM
mission for the OF employees, railway managers
the government and the public; SO that the results
may be persuasive in bringing to an agreement that
party to threatened strike whose position is proved
to be untenable
general transportation strike was threatened.
No one knew what the merits Of the controversy
were Apparently the subject matter Of the dispute
was so intricate that the legislature was at least
titled to assume that could know, without
some actual experiment being made. The act on
Its face merely provides for experiment. In lay
Ing down the eight hour day as measure of days
pay. and requiring that wages be not reduced the
act determined the general outlines of the expert
ment. The act then provided for the appointment
1f ~
experiment within reasonable and appropriate
time-not less than six, more than nine months
after the act takes effect. Thirty days after the
report is rendered by the commission, the provision
prohibiting reduction in wages comes to an end.
The railroads may then reduce wages they please.
The employees may strike. But all parties will have
the commissions report for advisory purposes The
form and operation of the act is consistent only
with the theory of an experiment. 1t provides for
an actual trial. the results of which will be to sup
ply indispensable information to the contestants
and to the public
1t will no doubt be argued that II the act merely
directed an experiment. why require the wages at
the old rate to be paid to the employees? Why
not merely hold up the wages and have them paid
at future time, If the commission ordered?
There several objections to such plan. 1t
would have provoked the charge that the act was
in fact wagefixing statute, pure and simple, be-
cause it would have provided. after the experiment
had been made for the payment over Of the higher
wage. # the money were not actually paid over at
any time the experiment would have lacked reality
1t would have been mere matter of keeping books,
and therefore the incidental changes which the pay
ment OF the higher wage would tend to produce,
might be lacking. The wages which the expert
ment calls for to be actually paid over not at
all because the legislature is fixing wages claim
ing to exercise any such power, but solely because
this step is necessary in order to see the expert
ment through and to make 1t real.
1t may be urged that it would have been fairer
for the public to the cost OF the experiment
at least to have required the interstate commerce
commission to raise rates in order to reimburse the
railways Perhaps. But congress undertook to say
that the cost of this experiment texcept that the
commission and Its incidental expenses) should be
borne by the railways themselves. The court
not say that the cost Of such experiment
improperly thrown upon the railroad Once
the railroads is not confiscatory and that such an
experiment is proper subject of legislation, that
the act may itself be due process" then throwing
this cost on the railroads is not different from
placing on the railroads the cost OF new safety ap-
pliances. the cost OF methods Of keeping
validity of which has been sustained. The railroad
is protected far it be by the courts,
through the rule that the cost of the experiment