Evening star., 1937-03-29
Decision 0verthroWs Action
Which Denied Congress
Right to Fix Women's Pay
In District of Columbia.
FOUR JUSTICES CONCUR
WITH CHIEF JUSTICE
Opinion in Washington State Case
Also Is, in Effect, Reversal of
Position Taken by Court in In
validating Similar Act in New
York.
BY JOHN II. CLINE.

1dhllls Oil dullOSG ICSSoClitCb
step of specifically overruling an earl
Ter decision, the Supreme Court today
upheld the constitutionality of the
State of WaShington's minimum wage
law for women and children. The vote
was to f.
The opinion by Chief Justice Hughes
said "our conclusion is that the case
of Adkins VS.. the Children's Hospital
should be and is overruled.'
The Adkins case, long regarded as a
legal landmark, denied to Congress the
power to fix minimum wages for
women in the District OF Columbia.
The ruling in the Washington State
case is also, in effect, reversal OF the
position taken by the court when it
invalidated a similar law in New York
State last year.
Justices Roberts, Brandeis, Stone
and Cardozo sided with the Chief JUS
tice in upholding the legislation. The
dissenters, Justices Sutherland, Van
Devanter, McReynolds and Butler, had
been joined by Justice Roberts in the
adverse ruling on the New York law
Close to Public Interest.
What con be closer to the public
interest than the health of women and
their protection from unscrupulous and
overreaching employers" Chief Justice
Hughes asked in speaking for the ma
jority of the court.
And if the protection of women is
a legitimate end of the exercise OF
State power, how can it be said that
the requirement of the payment of a
minimum wage fairly fixed in order to
meet the very necessities Of existence
is not an admissible means to that
end"
The Capital Immediately hummed
with speculation over whether the de-
cision would have any effect on Presi-
dent Roosevelts proposal to enlarge
the tribunal if justices over 10 do not
retire.
Realignment Speculation.
Coming in the midst of the contro-
Versy over this proposal, designed to
secure a more liberal Interpretation OF
the Constitution, the unexpected rul-
Ing in the Washington case also
aroused speculation as to whether 1t
forecast a permanent realignment of
the so-called conservative and liberal
division in the court.
Most of the criticism of the tribunal
during the Senate Judiciary Commit
tees hearings on the Presidents plan
has been aimed at the five conservative
members of the court. One OF the
principal contentious of administra-
ton witnesses was that, since law
is presumed to be constitutional, the
opinion of four members of the court
that a particular statute is valid should
lead the others to give it the benefit
of the doubt and approve its legality.
1t was pointed out, however, that
the present decision involves q State
law, and does not necessarily indicate
the ma jority of the court is now willing
to give the Federal Government the
broad legislative power the President
deems necessary to efectuate the OBJ
jectives of the New Deal.
The decision on the New York law
last June l caused President Roosevelt
to remark that mo mans land had
been established by the "ourt in which
neither the States nor Federal Gov
eminent could function.
Again, in opening his personal fight
for reorganization of the Supreme
Court, Mr.. Roosevelt referred to the
New York decision in these words:
"It pleased the personal economic
predictions Of majority of the
court that we live in a nation where
there is no legal power anywhere to
deal with its most difficult practical
problems-a no mans land of final
futility."
Unable to Be Reconciled.
Discussing the ruling in the Adkins
case, Chief Justice Hughes said:
with full recognition of the ear
nestness and vigor which characterized
the prevailing opinion in the Adkins
case, we find it impossible to reconcile
that ruling with these well.considered
declarations"
He was referring to the argument
in the minority opinion in the New
York case.
What can be. closer TO the public
interest than the health of women
and their protection from overreaching
and INSCRIPTIONS employers?" Hughes
continued. And if the protection OF
women is a legitimate end of the ex-
ercise of State power, how can it be
said that the requirements Of the
payment of the minimum wage fairly
(see MINIMUM WAGE, Page A-2D
+