Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1923-04-09
States Are Involved,

States Are Involved.
The states of California, Kansas,
New York, Oregon, Wisconsin and
Washington obtained consent of the
supreme Court to intervene in the
case friends of the court, having
wage fixing statutes of their own
While the validity of none of the
state minimum wage laws was di-
rectly under attack in the case. the
decision was regarded as of vital i'm
ptrtance, counsel agreeing that If
Congress had no constitutional right
to enact such a law in the District
or Columbia, the right of the state
legislatures to do 50 was called into
question
The constitutionality Of the federal
enactment was challenged on the
ground that it abridged the freedom
Of contract for personal services, and
therefore beyond legislative discre-
ton. 1t was defended as a police
regulation to promote public health
and the safety, morals and welfare
OF the people.
Today's decision was made by a
Justice Holmes and Justice Sanford
dissenting and with Justice Brandeis
taking no part in the proceeding.
Justice Holmes delivered a separate
dissenting opinion, asserting that. in
his Judgment, Congress had the power
to pass the law, which the majority
of the court had declared invalid.
Held Price-Fixing Act.
The opinion of the court held the
minimum wage act to be a price-fix-
ing measure and a restriction upon
the right Of contract The opinion
covers eighteen printed pages, and
went at length into all the previous
decisions of the court touching in
any way upon the question.
In the course of the opinion Mr..
Justice Sutherland said:
The law takes account of the ne
cessities of only one party to the con-
tract. 1t ignores the necessities of
the employer by compelling him to
pay not less than certain sum not
only whether the employe is capable
of earning it, but irrespective of the
ability Of his business to sustain the
burden.
"Within the limits Of the minimum
sum he is precluded under penalty of
fine and Imprisonment from adjusting
compensation through the differing
merits of his employees. 1t compels
him to pay at least the sum fixed In
any event, because the employee needs
it, but requires no service of equiv
alent value from the employee. 1t,
therefore, undertakes to solve but
one-half of the problem.
THE other half is the establish
ment of a corresponding standard OF
efficiency and this forms no part OF
the policy of the legislation. although
in practice the former half without
the latter would lead to ultimate fail
ure in accordance with the memorable
law that no one can continue indefi-
nitely to take out more than he puts
in without ultimately exhausting the
supply.
The law is not confined to the prea1
and powerful employers. but EN-.
braces those whose bargaining power
may be as weak as that of the en-
ployes. 1t takes no account of peri
DDS of stress and business depression
of Gripping losses which may leave
the employer himself without ade-
quate means of livelihood, to the ex.
tent that the sum fixed exceeds the
fair value of the services rendered
it amounts to a compulsory exactior
from the employer for the support OF
a partially INDECENT person for whose
condition there rests upon him no Pc
culiar responsibility, and, therefore
in effect, arbitrarily shifts to his