The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-03-20
BY Five to Four Highest Court
Decides In Favor, of Validity
Of Eight-Hour Law
DECISION ONE OF
FAR-REACHING EFFECT
May Mean That Compulsory
Arbitration to Prevent Iying
Up of Nations Commerce
May Be Resorted to in F u,ure

baEnlI&tVD. @aAith IT, w iNIA
reaching consequences as regards fu-
fure contests between capital aui "a
Dor in interstate commerce, the su-
prerNe court touay Uy A 80 /
vote. held the Adamson eight-hour
Law constitutional
II was made o..tte clear in the ma
Sority opinio.. and also In the dig
Eentng opinion OF Justice Mercy
nolds, that compulsory arbitration Of
disputes which may threaten the
country with lyzation Of com
merce. lies within the power OF CON
Eress-
In his oral opinion---that of the
matority--Chief Justice White de-
clared that in the face OF public ne
cessity employees of It corporation eu-
gagged in such a public business as
raiiroading had no more right TO
strike than soldiers in the ranks. in
the presence OF an enemy had the
right 10 desert
Briefly summed mp. the line of
though actRating four ~ the five juS-
fises who concurred IN the p1ajority
opinion is thai, while the question 81
wages and conditions Of labor are
essentially sUhioct to agreements be
tween employer aaI ennplose, In view
- - - -a'l lads ATE pri-
saNel, owned. vet ~hen q faffffre 70
lenity. the public nature of the rail-
road business iustifes congress In
stepping IN ard solving tho dispute
ny statute
McReyno,ds DIsssntS
4 vigorous dissenting opinion was
read by Justice McReynolds.
Whatever else the act of Septenn-
her 5. 1915. may DO he said. 1T
certainly commands that during
Astr tv.tty n
afrsta,e common carriers by railroad
shall paw their employees engaged in
pAeratinz trains for eight hours work
= wage not less than the one then es-
tsAlished for a standard day-generai-
L. ten hosts.
II have not heretofore supposed
such action was a regulation OF com
merce within the fair intendment Of
s*ose wers~ a. used IN the const3tu
ejon: and the argument advanced in
sai ppars Of the contrary view IL un-
satisfactory 70 ny 7nind. cannot.
therefore, concur in the conclusion
that Il was within the power of con-
s. ess TO enact the statute.
.sBut, considering the doctrine now
ilir,ned by a majority Of the court
established, II fellows a. a matter
course that congress hiss power to
q ma xifnura a. veil As a minimum
age for trainmen. to require eompu'-
~ arbitration Of labor dispute
nieh mav sericuSlr and dire tiY
opardize the movement of inter
ate traffic. and so tsko measures of-
rtively 70 protect the free TOW Of
s>f commerce against any combine
+, II. whether of operatives. owners.
strangers
senting justices were Pitney. Van
anter and bay. Justice Mckenna,
agreed with tho conclusion Of
majority that the law was con-
utional. did SO on different
und. that TIL law was question
the regulation of hours of labor.
entire phase of the dispute was
red aside in the majority opinion
expressed by Justice White and
U rod n hv Justices Holmes Nc
ma Rraieis and Clarke
yv'thont Merit.
usttce White, In his opinion, con
- I'VE say that the contention
the act MAS void and could not
made operative because OF the un
liability of it's provisions is with
merit, since We see no reason TO
sbt that if the standard fixed ny
a act were made applics ole and a
add effort followed TO carry It out.
Ne result would he without difficulty
scomplshed. 1t is true that il might
Slow that in some cases that. be-
ause OF particular terms of employ
t1ent or exceptional surroundings.
some change might be necessary. but
these exceptions afford no ground for
holding the act void because It's pro-
visions "ra not susceptible in prac-
tjre Of being carried out.
Being OF the opinion that congress
had the power to adopt the act in
n 0uestion, whether 1t be viewed as
direct fixing of wages To meet the alb
oen~a Of standard on tina tsubject
resulting from the dispute between
the parties as as the exertion of pow
81 nv congress which it undoubtedly
pos.essed 80 provide by appropriate
icrislation for compulsory arbitration
"a power which inevitably resulted
from Its authority to protect inter-
efate commerce in dealing with a sit
untIon like that which was before II
Eve conclude that the court below
.Arr<xss ylns Kidding the statute was not
within the power of congress To enact
and In restraining Its enforceme
and It's decree the refore must be. aud
n II Ii, reversed aud the cause remand
a with directions to dismiss the bill.
rad II is so ordered
Justice White did not stick to his
& nanuscript His statement differed