Evening star., 1937-03-30
A Great Decision.


In social legislation in this country was
written yesterday in the minimum wage
decision and that by that decision the
Supreme Court fortified its weakest spot,
thereby Strengthening its position in the
face of the most dangerous attack ever
leVeled against its own independence and
the independence of the Federal judici-
ary. The decision, at least, is historic
and its implications are of far-reaching
Importance, not only in the field of
minimum wage and maximum hour
legislation in the States, but as they
affect the position of the court under
the peculiar circumstances of the day.
Consider the nature of that position.
More than twenty-three years ago the
States of Washington and Oregon en-
acted minimum wage legislation for
women and children and the State Su-
preme Courts of Washington and oregon
subsequently upheld the laws as valid.
In 1918 Congress enacted a somewhat
SllIl1ItiI law iOl lilt DISlIllO VI SOlullIUld.
After being sustained in the District Su-
preme Court and declared invalid by the
District Court of Appeals, the case
reached the United States Supreme Court
fourteen years ago and was invalidated
by a fve-to-three decision, Justice
Brandeis not participating. Gases in
1oo of hr;7 Arly
similarly reached the Supreme Court and
were invalidated on the strength of this
ruling case-Adkins VS.. Children's Hos
pital. Then New York, and later Ohio,
enacted minimum wage legislation that
took cognizanCe of the courts objections
to the District of Columbia law. The New
York court, by a majority of one, held
the New York law invalid and the Su-
preme Court sustained the lower court,
FIVE e-to-four. In the meantime the Ohio
law, similar to the New York statute,
was upheld by a three-judge Federal
Circuit Court in unanimous opinion.
Such decisions, as President Roosevelt
co PAoiAiPeAy oeAAo, PAoSSSA cAAS EO"NA Va
minimum wage and hour regulation for
women and children in a legalistic no
mans land The hands of the Federal
Government we're apparently tied by the
N. R. A. decision. The hands of the
States were now tied-plainly tied by
those personal economic predictions"
of individual jurists whose points of view
were so manifestly at variance with what
majority of the people in the States
concerned wanted to do and felt, with
ample judicial backing, that they could
do
That position left the Supreme Court
and even the Federal judiciary exposed
to attack based not on legalistic reason
ing, but on hard, common sense. 1t was
' the sort of attack most difficult to de-
fend, for 1t was aimed at the courts
weakest spot. Cleverly utilized by the
proponents of the Presidents court
packing plan, it was pictured as the
sort of thing that would be remedied by
that plan.
With the assistance of Justice Roberts,
Chief Justice Hughes has skillfully led
the court out of an untenable and
perilous position by the bold maneuver
of admitting that the court was wrong
in the District of Columbia decision
wrong in its reasoning, wrong in the
light of it's own previous and subsequent
decisions. And coming out of a tight
corner he has placed the court in
stronger position by emphasizing the
freedom and the rights of the States to
move in those directions from which
progress had apparently been barred
by the court itself. He has reaf1rmed
and re-emphasized the powers of the
court as being confined to judgment as
to the possible "excess of legislative
power" and not concerned with the
wisdom of the policy adopted" Times
without number" he quoted, I'VE have
said that the Legislature is primarily the
. Judge of the necessity of such an enact
ment, that every possible presumption is
! in favor of its validity, and that though
the court may hold views inconsistent
with the wisdom of the law, it may not
be annulled unless palpably in excess Of
legislative power"
And, seemingly, Chief Justice Hughes
has affirmed not only the right of the
States to enact minimum wage and
maximum hour legislation for women
and children, but has indirectly sug-
gested the possibility of extending such
regulation: THE argument that the leg
islation in question constitutes an arbi-
trary discrimination, because it does not
extend to men, is unavailing. The court
- has frequently held that the legislative
authority, acting within its proper field,
is not bound to extend its regulation in
all cases which it might possibly reach"
The Chief Justice has taken away
much Of the propelling force that lay
back of the Presidents plan. The de-