Evening star., 1936-06-04
subsistence income for single woman
L..

subsistence income Tor a single woman
in New York City.
The law became the model for
others. New Jersey. New Hampshire.
Ohio, Connecticut. Illinois, Rhode
Island. Massachusetts,, all adopted
laws patterned after this one. Cali
fornia, Colorado. North Dakota, Ore
gon, South Dakota, Utah, Washing.
ton and Wisconsin all have minimum
wage laws for women and minors
which have been precarious ever since
the Adkins decision. But they have
fulfilled their function so well that
no one has sued for a decision.
in New York alone more than a
million women are affected by Mon
days decision. and its implications
reach out to women and minors
in Is additional States. In many
industries the laws were heartily vel
coined by employers, because they put
rock bottom to competitive wage
competition. The majority of laun-
dry operators were not paying women
10 cents an hour because they were
heartless brutes!
These things have nothing to do
with the legal aspects of the decision.
But they are social facts of political
Importance, and the decision will have
social and political consequences.
Law-But Whose Law?
The fve-to-four decision Of the
judges is disturbing. I'VE are a ma
ton governed not by persons but by
law" Yes, but whose law? Does
Chief Justice Hughes understand the
Constitution less well than Justice
Sutherland does? In this decision
one mans opinion overturned the
legislation of more than one-third of
the States in whose name the Supreme
Court has reversed other legislation?
There is apparently a territory out
side the range Of law, and for many
that territory is life itself.
The majority argument is disturb
ing. 1t is founded upon freedom of
contract and an eighteenth century
Interpretation of that phrase, which
one had thought expired in the nine
teenth. The same argument was
brought against all the protective leg
islation introduced so years ago in
Germany and England. But it has
not been heard elsewhere for a gen.
Grafton.
The decision is disturbing because
of its wide implications. If Govern
ment cannot protect its weakest men,
bers then all decent people must fight
for the strongest trade unionism and
contemplate a continual industrial
battle which can never be resolved in
law. Those who want neither social
legislation nor powerful unions are
simply Pumping for exploitation.
The decision is disturbing because of
possible public reactions. The great
danger exists that a revolt against the
decision will become a revolt against
the very institution Of the Supreme
Court, which for $50 years has helped
to stabilize the worlds oldest republic.
And republics are not. historically
considered, strong institutions. Our
country has no dynasty, no kingly
symbol of unity, no strong and ancient
civil service, no legend of ruling passed
from father to son, no Subtly organized
social hierarchy. no pomp of historic
ceremony built up into precedent. BY
such means are democracIes saved
from the tyranny of mobs, and if
any one thinks there can be no
tyranny Of the masses let him con-
template the Fascist relationships,
which are mass rule incarnate in a
single personality, with no quarter TO
minorities. No republic can last with
out standards. without some ultimate
authority to which to appeal. Repub-
lies perish by their own excesses.
We must face the reality Of a crisis
in government. If we do not face it
the Supreme Court may be under
mined, directly, or worse, by indirec-
ton.
Copyright. 1850