Evening star., 1937-04-01

the written opinion was handed
down, refutes the charges made on
Capitol Hill by various partisans that
the Presidents attack on the court
was beginning to have some effect"
1t is important from the stand
point of history that the truth should
be known. for, if public clamor and
political controversy we're to cause
justices of the highest court of the
land to deviate from the principles
of constitutional law as they honestly
understand them, then the tribunal
would no longer be independent
Chronology of Case.
The chronology in the Washington
minimum wage case is in itsef, when
presented, the best evidence Of just
what did happen.
In April, 1886, the Supreme Court
OF the State of Washington decided
that the minimum wage law con-
formed to the Federal Constitution.
In June, 1886, the Supreme Court Of
the United States agreed with the
Court of Appeals of the State Of
NEW UIh IlldI lilt INSW III n llilAlA~
mum wage law was in violation Of
the Federal Constitution.
In October, l936-two weeks before
the presidential election returns were
known-an application for review OF
the State of Washington law came
to the Supreme Court of the United
States, and the latter tribunal did
y; arI ciron1u
point to the ruling in the New York
case, but noted on the docket its
willingness to review the Washing
ton statute. This in itself indicated
that the circumstances surrounding
the Washington law were considered
different than in the New York
case.
In December. 1886, argument was
completed before the Supreme Court
of the United States with respect to
the constitutionality of the State OF
Washington law Within a week after
the completion of argument, as pre-
scribed by the custom of the court,
the justices put on record their lndl-
vidual ballots The vote taken at
the close of argument is for the pur-
pose of determining which justices
shall be assigned the task of writing
the opinions, as the latter task often
takes many weeks. To all intents and
purposes the Supreme Court made
its decision in December, but, due to
the illness of Justice Stone, the writ
ing of the opinion and the inclusion
of his vote was delayed until his
return to the bench early in 1887.
Stones Vote Already Known.
But since Justice Stone voted in
June, 1886. to uphold the New York
minimum wage law, his vote was a
foregone conclusion when the other
eight members of the Supreme Court
of the United States recorded their
views last December.
In other words, Justice Roberts,
who really was the deciding factor in
overruling the minimum wage de-
cision of 1923, came to his conclusion
in December in 1886, on the basis of
the case as presented then and with
out knowing, of course. what the
President of the United States would
propose on February 5, 1887, when
he transmitted his surprise message
to Congress proposing a reorganiza-
tion of the judiciary.
What may not be generally real
lied is that the Supreme Court OF
the United States did not of its own
initiative offer judgment, but in
reality affirmed decision already
reached by the Supreme Court of the
State of Washington. 1t is also
pertinent to note that in all the 20
years or more of litigation over the
minimum wage question the Supreme
Court Of the United States has never
reversed decision on minimum wages
offered it for review by the Supreme
Court OF any State.
The sequence of facts is important
In 1918 both Oregon and Washing
ton passed minimum wage laws. The
Oregon law came before the Supreme
Court Of the United States in 1917
and was upheld.
d. c. Law Passed In 1918.
Meanwhile, in 1918, the District Of
Columbia enacted a minimum wage
law 1t came before the Supreme
Court of the United States in 1928,
and, by a five to three decision Jus
tice Brandeis not participating), the
District law was held invalid in what
became known as the Adkins case.
But the State of Washington never
did regard the ruling in the Adkins
case as conclusive and kept on en-
forcing the statute. Twice, in law
suits challenging the act, the Supreme
Court of the State of Washington
refused to be guided by the Adkins
case, insisting that it did not apply
1t Is pertinent, therefore, to exam
Inc the opinion of the highest court
OF the State of Washington, handed
down in April, 1896, which reads in
part:
The decision of the Supreme Court
In Adkins VS.. Children's Hospital is
not controlling. The court in the
Adkins case held that a minimum
wage law enacted by Congress fol-
the District of Columbia was uncon.
stitutional in that it interfered with
the freedom of contract guaranteed
by the due process clause of the fiftf
amendment. The decision Is not
conclusive as to the validity OF 8
State statute enacted in the exercise
Of the police power of the State.
"The police power of State is one
Of its so-called reserved powers.
statute is valid exercise OF sucf
power if it corrects a known ane
stated public evil and promotes the
general welfare. Tested by such rule
the minimum wage law, although i
deprives the employer and employ,
to a certain extent of their liberty tx
contract, is valid as a reasonable ex'
ercise of the police power. The de-
cision of the Supreme Court of tht
United States in the Adkins case i