Connecticut western news., 1917-03-22

tices Day, Pitney, McReynoIds and Van Devanter Dissent. With farrea ching consequences as re- gards future contests between capital and labor in interstate commerce the supreme court by to vote held the AdamsOn eight hour law constitutional.
 It was made quite clear in the ma | iority opinion and also in the dissent ing opinion of Justice McReynolds. that compulsory arbitration of disputes which may threaten the country with paralyzation of commerce lies within the power of congress.
 In his oral opiniOn--that of the ma 1 jorty-Chief Justice White declared that in the face of public necessity em- plOyees of a corporation enga ged in such a public business as railroading had no more right to strike than "sol- diers in the ranks in the presence Of an l enemy" had the right to desert. When Congress Has Power.
 Briefly summed up. the line Of thought actuating four of the five justices who
 
 that, while the question of wages and conditions of labor are essentially sub ject to agreements between employer and employee in view of the fact that the railroads are privately owned, yet when a failure to agree threatens the public with a calamity the public na- ture of the railroad business justifies congress in stepping in and solving the dispute by statute.
 A vigorous dissenting opinion was read by Justice McReynolds.
 ."Whatever else the act of Sept. 8, 1916, may do," he said, ''it certainly commands that during minimum pc riod of seven months interstate com mon carriers by railroad shall pay their employees engaged in operating trains for eight hours work a wage not less than the one established for a standard day-generally ten hours.
 "1 have not heretofore supposed that such action was a regulation of com- meroe within the fair 1ntendment of those words as used in the constitu, ton, and the argument advanced in support of the contrary view is unsat- isfactory to my mind. I cannot, there fore, concur in the conclusion that it was within the power of congress to enact the statute.
 "But, considering the doctrine now affirmed by a majority of the court as established, it follows as of course that congress has power to fix a maximum as well as a minimum wage for train menA to require compulsory arbitration of labor disputes which may seriously and directly jeopardize the movement of interstate traffic, and to take meas ures effectively to protect the free flow of such commerce against any combi- nation, whether of operatives, owners or strangers
 Four Justices Dissent.
 Besides Justice McReynolds, the dis senting justices were Pitney, Vande- vanter and Day. Justice McKenna, who agreed with the conclusion of the majority that the law was constitu- tlonaL did so on a different ground. that the law was a question of the regulation of hours of labor. This en- tire phase of the dispute was waved aside in the majority opinion as ex- i pressed by Justice White and concur | red in by Justices Holmes, Brandeis 1 and Clarke.
 The official lineup of the justices at 2:2O, as given by Clerk Maher of the supreme court, was that McReynolds dissented together with Day, Pitney and Van Devanter. McReynolds con- cede that congress had the wage fix ing power only, and his name did not at first appear on the court record as l dissenting.
 Maher's version, which is official, however, made the division 5 to 4, with Justice White and Justices McKenna, Holmes, Brandeis and Clark constitut- ing the majority in favor of the law.
 Justice Days Dissenting View.
 In his dissenting opinion Justice Day said that, while he was not prepared to deny to congress the right to fix wages of those engaged in the opera tion of passenger and freight trains, he would not agree that constitutional rights may be sacrificed because of public necessity nor be taken away be- cause of emergencies which might re suit in disaster or inconvenience to public or private interests.
 He asserted that he was not willing to admit that congress may when deemed necessary for the public inter- est coerce employees against their will to continue in service in interstate commerce. Nor would he agree, as de- clared in the majority opinion, that in matters of this kind congress can enact a compulsory arbitration law.
 Finally he said the act necessarily deprived the complaining railroad com panies of rights secured to them as well as others by one of the most es-
 '2ntial projections guaranteed by the federal constitution.
 Justice White ill the majority opinion | fODc1T1p6