Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1917-03-19

tore Congress acted.
White IN his opinion concluded
"We say that the contention that
The act was void and could not be
made operative because OF the I'M
variability Of its provisions is with
out merit, since we see no reason TO
ioubt that If the standard fixed by the
act were made applicable and a can
I'D effort followed to carry il out, the
result would be without difficulty ac-
complished II is true that IL might
follow that in some cases that because
Of particular lines of employment OF
exceptional surroundings some change
might be necessary but these eNcep-
lions afford no ground for holding
the act void because its-nrovisions are
not susceptible in practice OF being
carried out
"Being of the opinion that Congress
had the power TO adopt that act IN ques-
ton. whether IT be viewed ~ direct
fixing Of wages to meet tho absence of n
standard on that subject resulting from
tho dispute between the parties or as
the exortion of power by Congress which
IL undoubtedly possesses TO prov de by
appropriate legislation for compulsory
81
resulted from its authority TO protect
interstate commerce in dealing with
a situation like that which was before
tive conclude that tho court below
erred in holding the statute was not
within the power of Congress- TO enact
Rnd in restraining its enforcement and
its decree therefore must be and H. isI
reversed and the cause remandcd with
directions TO dismiss the bill, and 1t Is sol
ordered"
White did not stick 20 manuscript. His
statement Differed materially from
the printed opinion.
"All the propositions, he ruled,
'relied upon and arguments advanc-
cd ultimately come 10 two questions:
First the entire want OF constitution
al power to deal with the subjects
embraced by the statute and second, |
such abuse OF the power II possessed /
as rendered its exercise unconstitu-
tional." White said in part "We will |
consider these subjects under distinct /
propositions separately.
First is the entire want Of consti- |
tutional power TO deal with the sub |
jects embraced by the statute.
There must be knowledge OF the |
mower exerted before determining |
whether as exercised Il was constitu- |
tional and we must hence settle the /
dispute on that question before go |
ing further. Only an cight-hour ]
standard for work and wages are |
provided is the contention on the one |
side and in substance only a scale
OF wages was provided
I'VE are Of the opinion that both
are right and in sense both wrong
insofar as It is assumed that the ono
leads 10 the other One provision
OF section one that eight hours shall
be deemed n days work and the
measure or standard Of days work
leaves no doubt about the first
proposition. As 10 the second. this
Is equally true because or the pro
Vision OF section three. forbidding any
lowering Of wages as result OF ap-
plying The eight hour standard es-
tablisbed by section one during the
limited period prescribed in section |
two.
Both provisions are equally man
datory
III Il be said that the second. the /
depriving Of all power to change the
wages during the fixed period. is but
ancillary 20 the first command the
standard OF eigth hours. that would
not make the prohibition as to any
change of wages any the less a fix
ing OF wages. II certainly would not /
change the question OF power unless /
d Il could he assumed that the legisla- /
tive power 10 fix one thing. the |
standard OF hours could be enforced |
by exerting the power TO do another. |
AK the wages although there was no
legislative authority 70 exert the lat
ter power
The doing Of one thing which IS
authorized cannot be made the source
OF an authority to do another thing
which there Is no power 20 do
III 10 deprive employer and employe
OF the right 20 contract for wages and
10 provide that a particular rate OF
wages shall be paid for a specified
time is not a fixing OF wages, Il 81 diff
cult 10 see what would be.
Coming 10 the general consideration
by which both subject must be con-
frolled 10 simplify the analysis for the
purpose OF considering the question Of
Inherent power. VIC put the question
as 70 the eight-hour standard entirely
out OF view on the ground that the au-
fhority to permanently establish IL is
so clearly sustained as to render the
subject not disputable.
what was the extent OF the power,
therefore, OF Congress 70 regulate
considering the scope OF regulation
which government had the right 70 eX-
ctr with reference TO interstate com
merce carriers when Il came TO eXer-
else its legislative authority TO regu-
late commerce? Is the matter 10 be
decided? That the business Of com
mon carriers by rail Is in a sense
public business because Of the interest
or society In the continued operation
ano rlghtful conduct of such business
nna lnat the public Interest hegets n
pubic right Of regulation TO the full
LEM necessary 10 secure and project
~ - eeltled by so many decisions
''ave ana federal, and is ulustrated
~ SUN continuous exertlon Of state
SUI leueral legislative power To lcave
~ iVohl lot question on the suhtec,
y y also equally true that the rieb, ,o
hA ps agreement between tho carrtc,
ana IT'S employees a standard of wee.
- control their relations is nriresr
ny private, the establishment -
guiding effect to such agreed on stond
ard is not subject to be controlled y,
prevented by public authority.
But taking all these propositions a,
undoubted IN the situation which Nv
have described and with which IN
act of Congress dealt be taken int
view, that is. the dispute between tn
employers and employees as 10
80 i If I,f g.