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

shoulders a burden, which, if it be
longs to anybody, belongs to society
as a whole.
Not Based on Value.
The feature of this statute, which
perhaps more than any other puts
upon 1t the stamp of invalidity, is
that it e1acts from the employer an
arbitrary payment for a purpose and
upon a basis having no casual con
nection with his business or the con-
tract or the work the employe en-
cages to do.
The declared basis is not the value
Of the service rendered. but the ex-
traneous circumstance that the en-
ploye needs a prescribed sum Of
money to insure her subsistence,
health and morals.
THE ethical right of every worker
man or woman. to a living wage may
be conceded One of the declared and
important purposes of trade organiza-
tions is to secure it, and with that
principle and with every legitimate
effort to realize it in fact none can
quarrel; but the fallacy of the pro
posed method of obtaining it is that
it assumes that every employer is
bound at all costs to furnish 1t. The
moral requirement implicit in every
contract of employment that the
amount TO be paid and the service to
be rendered shall bear to each other
some relation OF just equivalent is
completely ignored.
The necessities&of the emp1oye arc
alone considered, and these arise out
side of the employment, are the same
when there is no employment, and as
great In one occupation as in another.
Certainly the employer, by paying q
fair equivalent for the service rem
dered, though not sufficient to support
the employe, has neither caused nor
contributed to her poverty. On the
contrary, to the extent of what he
pays he has relieved it.
''In principle there can be no diff
ference between the case Of selling
labor and the case of selling goods.
If one goes to the butcher, baker or
grocer to buy food he is morally en-
money, but he is not entitled to more.
Held Not Fair.
"If what he gets is worth what he
pays, he is not justified in demanding
more simply because he needs more;
and the Shopkeeper having dealt
ton is not concerned in any peculiar
sense with the question of this Gus
toners necessities.
SHOULD a statute undertake to IN
vest in commission power to deter
mine the quantity of food necessary
for individual support and require the
shop-keeper if he sells to the individ-
ual at all to furnish that quantity a {
not more than a fixed maximum II
would undoubtedly fall before the
constitutional test The fallacy OF
any argument in support of the val
idity of such statute would he
quickly exposed. The argument !n
support of that now being considered
is equally fallacious, though the
| weakness of it may not be so plain.
"A statute requiring an employer TO
pay in money, to pay at prescribed
regular periods, to pay the value OF
services rendered. even to pay with
| fair relations to the extent of the
benefit obtained from the service
would be understandable. But a.
statute which prescribes payment
without regard to any of these things
and solely with relation to circum-
| stances apart from the contract OF
| employment, the business affected by
1T and the work done under it is
so clearly the product of a naked, ar
bitrary exercise of power that 1t can
| not be allowed to stand under the