Evening star., 1923-03-14

make a statement indorsing the bill
and urging its passage. The com
nittees OF both Houses unanimously
recommended the legislation. The
constitutional question raised by the
proposal was frankly considered by
the committees. With full conscious
ness OF the issue. after consideration
of the objections now urged, Con
gress, without opposition IN Inc
House, and with only twelve nays In
tioral grounds) deemed the legisla-
ton here assailed within it's consti-
tutional competence and required by
the proved needs Of the District.
TN addition to all these grounds
which moved and justified congress
gress is now vindicated by the results
OF over four years OF the actual op-
Grafton Of the law and ten years of
extensive experience with such legfs-
lation in California. Massachusetts.:
Minnesota, Oregon, Washington and
Wisconsin,"
Claim 1t IL UncOnstftutional.
The appellees in their brief. which
was also the basis for oral argument.
said their contention is that minimum
wage law is unconstitutional because
'it is price-f1xing law, directly in
terfertng with freedom OF contract
which is a. part of the liberty OF the
citizen guaranteed in the fifth amend
ment. and our position is that no ex-
ercise OF the police power tustifles
the fixing OF prices either of property
or Of services; that the amount OF the
charge received or paid In exchange
of money for property or labor IN
called a matter affecting the public
health, morals or safety and thus
brought within scope of the police
power.
IF a wage-fxing law Is constitu-
tional. then it must necessarily be
because the liberty and property
clauses Of the Constitution do not
inhibit the fixing of prices every
where for all articles and services
that are the subject OF bargaining,
tion in principle between the power
to fix a charge for services and the
power to fix the prices for houses,
chattels or goods of any kind. We
believe 1t is settled by the decisions
of this court. Interpreting the Con
stitutior. that the permanent fixing
of prices in private business is not
within the power OF the legislative
body.
1.-The reason fo- this. as we believe
has also been settled, is that the Con-
stitution itself has laid down certain
in establishing private ownership of
property and individual liberty; that
these fundamental principles cannot
themselves be declared to be inimical
to the public health, safety, morals or
welfare, and changed under the guise
OF an exercise Of the police power"
Three Points Discussed.
"In taking up in detail the authori-
ties on the question. there will be
icn tn, hoir r1n Nojp tc
First: By long line OF decisions
1t is now settled that the protection
of liberty and property guaranteed
in the fifth and fourteenth amend
ments includes freedom OF contract.
Second: That a general wage law,
permanent in operation. applying to
all or to particular industries not af-
fected with a public interest. is uni
formly assumed or conceded In the
decisions of this Court to be inhibited
by the fundamental guarantees of
liberty and property established in
Third: That the inhibition against
wage laws Is not removed by having
such laws apply to women alone and
excluding men.
THE argument OF counsel for ap-
pellants in support of the validity
said to rest upon any decision of this
court. except that assuming this law
to be within the scope of the police
power. he relies upon the rulings
many times made and not disputed
here. that Congress has a wide dis
cretion in exercising an admitted
power. But the question here is not
one OF discretion in determining the
extent to which Congress may go in
legislating for the public health
police power. At the very base OF
the discussion is the question of the
power to act at all. The question is
whether the fixing of the price OF
labor is within the police power al
all-not whether it is proper exercise
of that power.
"It will not do to say that the fix.
ing of prices is done as health
measure and therefore it comes with
IN the police power and the consti-
tutional guarantees do not apply. BY
the same token it might be said thai
the mere existence of freedom OF
contract or private ownership OF
property. guaranteed by the Consti-
tuition, are themselves, inimical to
health, morals or safety and there
fore Congress has a wide discretion
to restrict or eliminate them.
"On the other hand. every conten.
tion of counsel for appellants In sup.
port of the validity of the law is
answered in the decisions of this
court. Forbidding that term in the
GOutrdCI DcI"ctn employer ana EN-
ploye by which the price is fixed by
the parties has no more relation tc
health or morals than forbidding the
term of the contract between EN-.
ployer and employe by which one
agrees not to be q member of an as.
ISOLATION of workers.
"And the direct relation to health
or morals does not exist when the
contract is made by men, and equally
it does not exist when the contrac,
is made by women. The question be.
fore the court being one Of power
because of the limitations upon legis.
lative power in the constitutional
guarantees, the statistics or opinions
which induced Congress to believe
the law desirable, have no more con.
trolling weight on the question thar
they would have on the question Of
the validity of law requiring EN-.
ployers to hire none but union men
or a law forbiddtng them to hire
aliens. or an act of Congress such a.
the child labor tax law"
STUDENTS OPPOSE FACULTY.
HAVANA, March 1.-THE students
of Havana University have made new