Twin city review. [volume] (Champaign, Ill.) 19??-1929, 1924-11-07
The Supreme Court and the
Minimum Wage

the attorneys from several of them
pleaded before the court in favor Of
the District Of Columbia law
We are now in position TO consider
the. line Of reasoning adopted By the
magfity in the present ease, A. TO
the jlst point, il i rather difficult 20
understand WHY the law i'm question
has no reference TO contracts Of pub
lie interest. The law empowers q
minimum wage hoalt to iN a living
wage. which will keep a Woman lu
health and preserve. her morals, Ii
would appear 10 be very much MAJ.
ter Of public interest whether CT not
the 1880 women In the District Of
| Columbia, which number, approx
mately. are affected by the ruling, are
/ enahied 10 get a living wage. Not
/ only do they make up a considerable
part # the public, but the public
must he Very Intimately concerned
with the question Of whether CT not
| these women are receiving Wage
which keers them In sufficiently rood
| health to be healthy motheis Of a
| healthy generation. Similarly II
would appear that the maintenance Of
a xage necessary to preserve wom-
ans morals is decidedly a matter Of
public interest. Yet Justice Suther-
/ land holds that the law does not come
within the exceptions of the general
rule forbiddine legislative interference
with freedom of contract in that IL
does not touch on contracts Of public
interest.
TIE second point assumes that an
Iemployer and woman employee are
on an equality Of bargaining power
that to prevent an employer from
paying less than living wage to
her and TO prevent her from accept
ling, less than such wage, If she
wishes, are unjustitiable restrictions
ON the liberty of contract guaranteed
by the Constitution. The enuneiation
Of such doctrine by the Supreme
Court in the year 1923 carries one
back to the spirit OF Adam Smith and
the laissez faire ideas Of the British
manufacturers of more than a century
ago. The trend of legislation, of pub
lie opinion, and even of Supreme
Court decisions for many years has
been in the direction of recognition
Of the fact that between an employer
with a job to give and an employee
with very little choice but TO accept,
there is and can be no equality of
contractin gpower. 1t is bit sur
prising to come upon evidence OF a
Hack of recognition Of such a fact
after a quarter century Of legislation
based on its recognition. The fact
that such inequality exists between
employers and employees, has been
recognized by the Supreme Court in
".i55..den y. Hardy, 1918, In Muller v.
Oregon, 1905. and was tacitly recog-
nized by half the court in Stettler V.
O'Hafa in 1917.
The court makes distinction In
this connection between legislation
protecting the health of women and
! that affecting such matters as wages.
Thus it seems to approve decisions
and laws which limit the number Of
hours of labor, because this is direct
| ~ concerned with health and since
women are physically weaker than
men the state ms justified in protect
ling them. But the court believes that
no such inequality between men and
women exists with regard to civil
and contractual relationships, and
points TO the 10Th Amendment as evil
deHce. Hence a law fixing minimum
wages for women discrlmlnates IN
favor of women in a fashion which
assumes they are not on a par with
men in such relationships. Hence,
presumably, such a law denies the
equal protection of the law Ruaran-
teed by the Constitution, and Is class
Legislation. Are there not very init
mate connections between the protec
ti0n Of health and the wages of wom
en- receive? Does not the law in
question specifically mention a wage
which will keep women in health?
On this point Chief Justice Taft, in
his dissenting opinion, sneaks clear
Is. at 1.-THE COURT appears TO me to
eNaggefate the importance of the
wage term Of the contract as more
inviolate than It's other terms" He
points out also the inequality Of bar
gaining power existing between en-
ployer and employee to justify legisla-
ton recognizing this fact. II seems
to be established Go the satisfaction
of most neople that women do not, for
many reasons, have the same ability
as men 10 protect themselves in bar
gaining for working conditions. Lack
Of organization, the brevity Of their
industrial life, the large numbers Of
them ready to compete for unskilled
jobs, the tradition Of lower wages,
the presence Of many women working
only Tor pin money and undertaking
those who must earn living, these
and other factors have convinced most
people that women in industry need
more protection than men get. But
he majority Of the Supreme Court
Ln--..----- - D. Il