Evening star., 1936-11-21
Member of the Associated Press.
One More Chance.

The remarkable situation presented by
the unanimous decision of the Sixth U. S.
Circuit Court of Appeals holding valid
the Ohio minimum law for women
and children may be understood through
a brief resume of the recent history OF
minimum wage legislation.
A five-to-three decision of the United
States Supreme Court. Justice Brandeis
not participating. invalidated the District
minimum-wage law in the famous Ad-
kins vs.. Childrens Hospital case.
New York later enacted a minimum
wage law for women and children in the
confident expectation that it differed
from the invalidated District law so fun
damentally-in methods if not in objec-
tives-that the objections of the Supreme
Court in the Adkins case were sufficiently
overcome. But the New York Court OF
Appeals decided in effect, that there was
fundamentally no difference and by
majority of one held the State law in
valid. On appeal to the Supreme Court,
the New York court was upheld IN
five-to-four decision and the law de-
elared unconstitutional in an opinion
that created more adverse comment than
any other court opinion of recent years.
That decision. in the words of the
President, seemed to create 'no-mans
land" where neither the States nor the
Federal Government could trespass by
legislation, despite the plain fact that
the people in the States, not only en-
ployes but employers as well, were anx-
ious for the benefits Of such legislation.
In answer to the argument that the New
York law differed from the District law,
Justice Butler, speaking for the majority.
declared that: The decision Gin the
Adkins case) and the reasoning upon
which it rests clearly show that the State
is without power by any form of legisla-
ton to prohibit change or nullify con-
tracts between employers and adult
women as to the amount of wages to
be paid Chief Justice Hughes, with the
minority, refused to accept the Adkins
decision as controlling.
Now comes the Sixth U. S. Court of
Appeals with a unanimous decision up
holding the Ohio law. The Associated
Press quotes the opinion OF the court
as pointing to a difference between the
District and New York and the Ohio
statutes. But the point is that the Ohio
tot tllto nF ha 1ou
modelled on the New York legislation, is,
with the exception of the preamble,
identical with the New York law.
The explanation may be that the ma
Jority of the United States Supreme
Court, In the New York case, accepted
the finding of the New York court that
there was no real difference between the
New York and District statutes, thus
making the Adkins case controlling;
whereas the circuit court has established
to its own satisfaction that there is a
fundamental difference, as claimed, be-
tween the District and the New York and
Ohio statutes, which does not make the
Adkins case controlling. Be that as 1t
may, there is presented hope for another
test by the Supreme Court of minimum
wage legislation. A change of single
vote in the Supreme Court would
establish validity of such legislation and
make unnecessary the proposed constitu-
tional amendment. BY one method or
another, minimum wage legislation will
be validated. 1t is as inevitable, in this
age, as the changing seasons of the year.
5 The college graduate used to talk
about Commencement Day" He is now