Evening star., 1936-06-02

the legislators 10
what has already been decided by
the courts and an apparent readiness
to take chances with the writing Of
laws that give temporary applause.
On its face, the United States Su-
preme Court has agreed with the
Court of Appeals of New York State
that the existing law governing min
imum wages is unconstitutional. But
actually an examination of the opin-
ion rendered this week by the Su-
preme Court of the United States
and the opinion rendered in the Ia
nous Adkins case a couple OF decades
ago shows that those who drafted the
law in New York State did not heed
the warnings of the Supreme Court
given when the District of Columbia
Law was rejected.
Discrimination Banned.
Briefly, there is nothing in any of
these opinions which precludes the
passage of a State law governing MN
imum wages. But it is apparent, first,
that the law must apply equally to
men, as we'll as women, and that the
legislature must prescribe a Stand-
ard that does not unreasonably take
away the property of the business
that does the employing. In other
words, there can be no discrimination
as between sexes especially since
men and women come into compeU-
ton in many lines Of trade and oc-
cupational endeavor.
Also, it is apparent that the ques-
tion Of what constitutes living wage
or a subsistence wage must be ap-
preached more definitely from the
standpoint of health and the exercise
by the State of its police power than
from the standpoint of what does or
does not constitute proper wage for
a group of employees in the light OF
the services they render.
Indeed. it is conceivable that there
must be an area within which mini
mum wages can be established as a
protection to the individual, but at
the same time reasonable area al
lowed within which the employer and
employe can bargain for adequate
wages.
Related Statutes Upheld.
The latest opinion of the Supreme
Court brings out the nature of the
responsibilities of the State. 1t is con-
ceded, for instance, that regulation OF
the hours and conditions Of labor both
for men and women is right of the
State government. The United States
Supreme Court has upheld such
statutes that relate to regulation Of
hours Of labor and working conditions.
But there is nothing to show that
the Supreme Court would declare
invalid a properly written law that
established minimum wages as mat
ter of State regulation. Thus the
Supreme Court speaking through JUS
tice Butler yesterday said:
The New York act prohibits an
oppressive and unreasonable wage
which means both less than the fair
and reasonable value of the services
rendered and less than sufficient to
meet the minimum cost of living nee
essary for health. The act of Con-
gress District of Columbia minimum
wage law declared invalid in 1929,
had one standard, the living wage;
this State act has added another, rea-
sonable value. The minimum wage
must include both. What was vague
before has not been made any clearer"
Delegation of Power Involved.
This shows that the United States !
Supreme Court merely reaflrms what |
1t has said in many cases over long |
period of years, namely. that when |
power is delegated to a commission |
by the legislature-and in this case |
1t is a State commission empowered |
to fix Wages-there must be such a |
careful definition of standards as to |
remove the matter from any pos
sibility of arbitrary or capricious ac-
ton. It is inconceivable that such
law as would establish a commission |
with the right to fix minimum wages
In different occupations according to |
a comprehensive standard cannot be |
written by lawyers who are versed in |
constitutional law
The differences of opinion in the
8 to case show how closely the JUS
tices came again as in 1923 to uphold |
ing a statute governing minimum
wages and it would seem possible
outcome that New York State will in
the not far distant future try again
with the writing of a statute that
does conform to the principles laid
down by her own Court of Appeals
and by the Supreme Court.
(Copyright, 1850