Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1917-01-10
RAILROAD ATTORNEYS TELL SU.
PREME JURIsrs CONGRESS
EXCEEDS AUTHORITY.
GOVERNMENT MAKING
CLOSING PRESENTATION
Justices Often Interrupt Lawyers =, to
Ask Questions-Brandeis Gives Evil.
dence Of Leanings in Favor Of
Adamson Law-Cases to Be Sub
mitted Soon.

Washington, Jan. 10. The great
legal battle over the constitutionality
of the Adamson law continued in the
supreme court with attorneys for both
sides frequently being Intercepted
from the bench by the justices.
The attack of the railroads upon the
law was practically closed and today
the government lawyers are making
their final arguments in its defense.
In presenting the railroads case
Walker ID. Hines, the chief counsel,
laid stress on the argument that the
law was not a constitutional regula-
ton by congress of interstate COM
merce, but merely wage fixing stat
ute He denied that congress had the
right to fix wages and said that there
was no analogy between the rate and
wage fixing.
Justices Often Interrupt.
Chief Justice White and other Jus
tees frequently interrupted him. Jus
tice Whites questions were apparent
~ designed to draw out argument re-
garding the authority of congress to
prescribe wages as we'll as rates.
Can congress authorize the inter-
state commerce commission to fix rail-
road wages" asked Justice Day.
Mr.. Hines replied that it was doubt
full unless wages We're abnormally low
and should interfere with transporta-
ton. After asking If the brother
hoods wages contracts were fixed prior
to 1913 Justice Brandeis added:
Shouldn't this court take judicial
notice of the fact that there has been
a great increase in the cost of living
since these wages were fixed?"
Disputes Power Of Congress.
Mr.. Hines answered that the fact
would not justify the court in hold
ing that evil existed which would JUS
tify congress in exercising a power
even if il had that power
IF there is no power there can be
no justification for its attempted ex-
ercise." the chief justice observed.
Congress has no power to prescribe
wages because they have no substan-
tial relation to safety and efficiency in
this case" replied Mr. Hines. THE
direct object was for the benefit Of
particular cases. ANY effect on public
interest is incidental"
Then you argue that this is reg
ulation of wages and of private rela-
tions between employers and employees
remote from service?" asked Justice
Pitney.
1T is most remote regulation Of
commerce." Mr.. Hines answered. He
added that the law would undoubtedly
cause increased rates.
6randeis Points to History.
When Mr.. Hines said the law did not
limit service to an eight-hour day, but
merely fixed a wage standard provid
ing for overtime, Justice Brandeis ask
ed:
Isn't it a historical fact that in the
introduction of the legislative policy of
reducing the hours of labor many
states began in fixing what number of
hours should be r. standard day and
later in the progress of legislation
there came an actual prohibition Of
more?'
Mr. Hines replied that the courts
had not so construed the laws.
And isn't it a fact when the legis-
lation was introduced there never was
a suggestion that the purpose Of the
legisla ton was to fix wages and not to
reduce hours" continued Justice
Brandeis.
They did not increase wages much"
replied Mr.. Hines.
Chief Justice White referred to the
Oregon ten hour day law, now before
the court awaiting decision.
The Oregon law, Mr.. Hines respond
ed. prescribes an overtime penalty not
in the Adamson act.
Final Aroi,nnepfs MAZDA
Final arguments over the constitu-
tionality of the Adamson law were
heard today. with Special Assistant At
torney General Haserman closing the
case for the government.
Maintaining the power of congress to
pass the law, Mr.. Hagerman said it
could be operated like the interstate
commerce commission temporarily reg
ulates rates.
Us there any law Of that kind?"
asked Justice Mckenna.
ITS done by the interstate commerce
commission in daily practice" said Mr..
Hagerman.
There is no claim that this law Is
confiscatory," the attorney continued.
Congress acted in it's discretion, dis
erection with which the judiciary has no
power to interfere"