Evening star., 1937-03-30
-HE text Of the majority opinion
Of the Supreme Court in the
Washington minimum wage
Il case aS delivered nv Chief JUS


Of the Supreme Court in the
Washington minimum wage
L case. as delivered by Chief JUS
toe Hughes, follows:
This case presents the question OF
the constitutional validity of the
minimum wage law of the State OF
Washington.
The act entitled Minimum Wages
for Women" authorizes the fixing
Of minimum wages for women and
minors Laws of 1913 Washington
chapter 174; Remlngton's revised
statutes 1882, section 1923 ct seq.
It provides:
Section l. The welfare of the
State of Washington demands that
women and minors be protected from
conditions of labor which have a
pernicious effect on their health and
morals. The State of Washington,
therefore, exercising herein its police
and sovereign power declares that
inadequate wages and insanitary con-
ditions Of labor exert such pernicious
effect.
Section 2 It shall be unlawful to
employ women or minors in any in
dustry or occupation within the State
of Washington under conditions OF
labor detrimental to their health or
morals; and it shall be unlawful to
employ women workers in any in
dustry within the State of Wash
ington at wages which are not ade-
quate for their maintenance.
Section 3. There is hereby Gre
ated a commission to be known as
the industrial Welfare Commission
for the State of Washington, to es-
conditions of labor for women and
minors employed within the State
of Washington as shall be held here
under to be reasonable and not detrl-
mental to health and morals, and
which shall be sufficient for the decent
maintenance of women"
Machinery Set Up to
Ascertain Pay and Conditions.
Further provisions required the
commission to ascertain the wages
and conditions of labor OF women
and minors within the State. Public
hearings were to be held. If after
Investigation the commission found
that in any occupation, trade or in
dustry the wages paid to women were
Inadequate to supply them necessary
cost of living and to maintain the
workers in health" the commission
was empowered to call conference
At representatives of employers and
aAuployes together with diSlnterested
1ersons representing the public. The
inference was to recommend to the
commission, on its request, an eStl-
mate of a minimum wage adequate
for the purpose above stated, and on
the approval of such a recommended
ton it became the duty of the COM
mission to issue an obligatory order
fixing minimum wages. Any such
order might be reopened and the ques-
ton reconsidered with the aid of the
former conference or new one. Spe-
cial licenses we're authorized for the
employment of women who were
physically defective or crippled by
age or otherwise" and also for ap-
prentices, at less than the prescribed
minimum wage.
BY a later act the Industrial We'll
fare Commission was abolished and
its duties were assigned to the Indus
trial Welfare Committee consisting of
the director of labor and industries,
the supervisor of industrial insurance,
the supervisor of industrial relations,
the industrial statistician and the
supervisor of women in industry. Laws
of 1921 CWashington) chapter 7;
Remington's revised statutes (1932),
sections 10840, 10893.
Chambermaid Sued
To Collect Difference in Wages.
The appellant conducts a hotel The
appellee Elsie Parrish was employed
as chambermaid and with her hus-
band) brought this suit to recover the
difference between the wages paid her
and the minimum wage fixed pur-
suant to the State law. The minimum
wage was S145O per week Of 48 hours.
The appellant challenged the act as
of the fourteenth amendment OF the
Constitution of the United States. Inc
Supreme Court of the State, reversing
the trial court, sustained the statute
and directed Judgment for the plain
tiffs. Parrish vs. West Coast Hotel Co.,
1875 washington SOL. The case is here
on appeal.
The appellant relies upon the de-
cision of this court in Adkins VS.. Chill
dren's Hospital, 261 U. S. 525, which
held invalid the District OF Columbia
minimum wage act which was at
tackled under the due process clause
of the fifth amendment. On the argu-
nent at bar, counsel for the appellees
attempted to distinguish the Adkins
case upon the ground that the appellee
Aas employed in hotel and that the
Husiness of an innkeeper was affected
with q public interest. That effort at
distinction is obviously futile, as it
appears that in one of the cases ruled
by the Adkins opinion the employe
was woman employed as an elevator
operator in a hotel. Adkins VS.. Lyons,
26l u S. 525, at p. 542.
The recent case of Morehead VS..
New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U. S.
b87, came here on certiorari to the
New York court which had held the
New York minimum wage act for
women TO be invalid. A minority OF
this court thought that the New York
statute was distinguishable in a ma
terial feature from that involved in
the Adkins case and that for that and
other reasons the New York statute
should be sustained. But the Court
of Appeals of New York had said
that it found no material difference
between the two statutes and this
court held that the meaning OF the
statute" as fixed by the decision OF
the State court must be accepted
here as if the meaning had been spe-
ciflcally expressed in the enactment" ."
ID, p. 609. That view led to the affirm
ance by this court of the judgment