Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1937-04-22
Old Wage Law for
Women Held Valid
Continued from Page ~

CONTINUED from Page ~
to promote the public health, the
public safety, the public morals and
the general welfare; that the state
under certain circumstances may reg
,;,ate hours of labor of women (Mul-
Ter ". Oregon, 2O8 U. S. 412; Riley ".
Massachusetts, 232 U. S. GID and
of minors in certain occupations
(Sturges g. Burn Manufacturing Co.
v. Beauchamp, 23l U. S. 32O) and
of men engaged in hazardous en-
ployments (Holden V. Hardy, 1859 U.
S. 366: Bunting W Oregon, 243 U. S.
426) and of men employed on pub
lie work (Aitkin V. Kansas, 191 U.
s. 2O7). l may regulate conditions
of labor and the time of payment OF
employees Patterson V. Bark Eudora,
Ice u. S. 1863; Erie Railroad Co. ".
Williams. 233 u. S. 685), and the
medium of payment Knoxville Iron
Co. V. HARRISON, 1873 U. S. ID; Nc
Lean V. Arkansas, 211 U. S. $500.
The court declared that the lib
erty of contract guaranteed by the
constitution is not freedom from
reasonable regulation, but freedom
from arbitrary restraint. If the
limitation imposed is a reasonable
regulation to safeguard the public
interest it is valid.
Court Humane Toward Women.
The court pointed out that women
are not on an equality with men in
hot fhnf in
cases the wages received are insult
ficient to pay the cost of living, that
such conditions more or less newt
ably result in injuries to the health
of employed women, in immortality
and in dangers to the well being OF
future generations. These consider
ations, in the opinion of the court,
were amply sufficient to justify the
act
In the case of Miller V. Minimum
Wage Commission, las MINI. 262,
the validity of the act was assumed
and various orders issued by the
commission Hereunder were upheld.
In the case of State V. Allyn, $50
MINI. 1913, it was held to be error
for the lower court to refuse to re-
ceive evidence that a certain order
of the commission had not been
served on defendant, who was
charged with a violation thereof
Again the court assumed that the
statute was valid and it found no
fault with the order, but only with
the exclusion of evidence of failure
to serve the order.
No Part of Law Held Invalid.
In the case of Stevenson V. ST.
Clair, 161 MINI. 444, which was de-
cided in 1925, the court held the act
valid as to minors. Plaintiff in the
case being a minor, this was the only
part of the act before the court.
Prior to the rendering of the decis-
ion in this case the Supreme Court
of the United States had held inva-
lid as to adult women a similar min
imum wage law passed by congress
for the District of Columbia adkins
V. Children's Hospital, 261 U. S. $3.50.
Commenting on the effect of this
case the Supreme Court of this state
said:
VIC Uldy dSSQlllS, lOI lllS
pose of this decision, that the
Adkins case renders the part of
our act fixing minimum wage
for women repugnant to the Fed
eral Constitution, -
You will note, however, that the
validity of that portion of the Min
nesota act pertaining to adult women
was not before the court. Conse-
quently the statement quoted above
is dictum. The Supreme Court of
this state has not at any time, either
before or after the decision in the
Adkins case, held invalid any por-
ton of the state minimum wage law
On March 20, 1887, the Supreme
Court of the United States, in the
case of West Coast Hotel Company
V. Ernest Parrish and Elsie Parrish,
passed upon the validity of the mini
mum wage law of the state of Wash
ington. In common with the mini
mum wage act of Minnesota the
Washington act authorizes a COM
mission to establish standards of
wages for women and minors en-
ployed within the state. Without TAX
ing time to analyze the act it is
sufficient to say that the Washing
ton act raises substantially the same
questions as to constitutionality as
does the Minnesota act If the one
act is constitutional the other also is
constitutional In this case the SUI