Evening star., 1937-03-30

quincy II. II. Co. VI. MCGUIRE, supra
p. $40.
The point that has been strongly
stressed that adult employees should
be deemed competent to make their
own contracts was decisively met
nearly 40 years ago in Holden vs.
Hardy, supra, where we pointed out
the inequality in the footing Of the
parties. We said I'D. 39D:
THE Legislature has also recognized
the fact, which the experience OF
legislators in many States has cor
roborated, that the proprietors OF
these establishments and their opera
tives do not stand upon an equality,
ana that their interests are, to a
certain extent, conflicting. The for
mer naturally desire to obtain as
much labor as possible from their
employees, while the latter are often
induced by the fear Of discharge to
conform to regulations which their
judgment, fairly exercised, would pro-
nounce to be detrimental to their
health or strength. In other words,
the proprietors lay down the rules
and the laborers are practically con-
strained to obey them. In such
cases self Interest is often an un-
safe guide, and the Legislature may
properly interpose its authority"
State Retains Interest
In Welfare of Employe.
And we added that the fact that
both parties are of full age and
competent to contract does not neces-
sarily deprive the State of the power
to interfere where the parties do not
stand upon an equality, or where the
public health demands that one party
to the contract shall be protected
against himself" The State still re-
tains an interest in his welfare, how
ever reckless he may be. The whole
! is no greater than the sum of all the
parts, and when the individual health,
safety and welfare are sacrificed or
neglected, the State must suffer"
1t is manifest that this established
principle is peculiarly applicable in
relation to the employment of womer
in whose protection the State has 8
special interest. That phase of the
subject received elaborate considera.
ton in Muller VS.. Oregon 1908), zoe
U. S. 412, where the constitutional
authority of the State to limit the
working hours of women was sus-
tanned. We emphasized the consid.
Grafton that "Woman's physical struc.
ture and the performance of materna
functions place her at disadvantage
in the struggle for subsistence anC
that her physical we'll being becomes
an object of public interest and care
in order to preserve the strength anc
vigor of the race" We emphasized
the need of protecting women against
oppression despite her possession Of
contractual rights. We said thai
though limitations upon personal anc
contractual rights may be removed by
legislation. there is that in her dispo.
sition and habits of life which will
operate against q full assertion Of
those rights. She will still be where
some legislati to protect her seems
necessary to secure real quality o1
right" Hence she was properly
placed in class by herself, and legis.
lation designed for her protection
may be sustained even when like
legislation is not necessary for mer
and could not be sustained" We
concluded that the limitations which
the statute there in question "placec
upon her contractual powers, upor
her right to agree with her employer
as to the time she shall labor" were
mot imposed solely for her benefit
but also largely for the benefit Of all.
Again, in Quong Wing vs. Kirkendall
223 U. S. SO, 50, in referring to 8
differentiation with respect to the EN-.
| ployment Of women, we said the four
teenth amendment did not interfere
with State power by creating "f1c.
titious equality" We referred to rec.
ognized classifications on the basis o.
sex with regard to hours O. work anc
in other matters. and we observed that
the particular points at which tina,
difference shall be enforced by legis.
lation were largely in the power of the
| oUdIC III ldICl IuIAl6S IAlAo SOul
sustained the regulation of hours o1
work of women employees in Riley VS.
Massa chusetts, 232 U. S. 671 fac.
tories), Miller VS.. Wilson, 236 U. S
373 (hotels), and Bosley VS.. McLaugh.
lin, 236 u S. 385 (hospitals).
Observations of Taft
and Holmes Are Recalled.
This array Of precedents and the
principles they applied were thought
by the dissenting justices in the Adkins
case to demand that the minimum
wage statute be sustained. The va.
lidity of the distinction made by the
court between a minimum wage anc
a maximum Of hours in limiting lib.
erty of contract was especially chal.
lenged. 261 U. S., p. 564. That chal.
lenge persists and is without any
satisfactory answer. AS Chief Justice
Taft observed: In absolute freedom
of contract the one term is as i'm.
portant as the other, for both entel
equally into the consideration giver
and received, restriction as to tht
one is not greater in essence thar
the other and is Of the same kind
One is the multiplier and the othel
the multiplicand." And Mr.. Justice
Holmes, while recognizing that 9Th.
distinctions Of the law are distinc.
tions Of degree" could perceive Mt
difference in the kind or degree o.
interference with liberty, the onl,
matter with which we have any
concern, between the one case ane
the other. The bargain Is equal,
affected whichever half you regu
late" Id, p. 500.
One Of the points which was pressed
by the court in supporting its ruling
in the Adkins case was that the stand
ard set up by the District of Colum
bia act did not take appropriate &C
count of the value of the service