Evening star., 1937-03-30
THE POLITICAL
MILL
BY G.. GOULD LINCOLN.

SCdteS mace history Dy announcer TO
decision yesterday, upholding the con-
stitutionality of the state of Washing
tons minimum wage act for women and
children. At the same time it reversed
decision of the court made long ago
in the case of Adkins VS.. the Children's
Hospital, which denied Congress the
right to fix minimum wages for women
in the District of Columbia. The de-
cision in the case involving the Wash
ington state law seemed also to be a
reversal of the courts recent decision
holding invalid the New York law setting
up minimum wages for women and
children-a decision which was reached
also by to decision. The change
in the attitude of the court was due to
shift in the opinion of Associate Justice
Roberts. In the New York case, the
Associate Justice stood with Associate
Justices Sutherland, Van DeVanter, Nc
Reynolds and Butler. In the washington
case, he sided with Chief Justice Hughes
and Associate Justices Brandeis, Stone
and Cardozo.
X X Xxx
How far the Supreme Court is willing
to 60, however in granting to the federal
government power to deal with minimum
wages and other conditions as they
affect labor, is still to be determined. No
decision was handed down, for example,
in the Wagner labor relations act, which
is federal statute. That is the decision
for which the administration has been
eagerly waiting before proceeding with
the rest of its program as it relates to
labor and industry. The law sustained
Yesterday nv thp court in IFS & d
decision is a state law
The decision in the Washington mini
mum wage law is regarded as distinct
victory for the new deal. New deal vic
tories did not stop there in the courts
decisions of yesterday. The court unani-
mously upheld provisions of the railway
labor act, requiring railroads to engage
in collective bargaining with their
workmen. This, seemingly, might give
some indication of the decision in the
Wagner labor relations act. However,
the Wagner act does not apply to rail-
road workers, and railroad workers are
engaged in interstate commerce. The
court yesterday also upheld the consti-
tutionality of the revised FraZier-Lemke
act authorizing three-year moratorium
on farm mortgage foreclosures. The de-
ClSlOil III ILLS CdSe WAS ulldlIillOuS. Lie
original act was held unconstitutional
two years ago by unanimous court.
No sooner were the decisions of the
court announced yesterday than there
Immediately rose widespread specula-
ton as to what effect, if any, they would
have on the fight over the Presidents
bill to increase the membership of the
Supreme Court-a measure designed to
infuse new blood" and to obtain more
liberal interpretations of the Constitu-
ton The general impression prevailed,
however, that there would be no let up in
the fight, on the part of the administra-
ton. Indeed, there is no secret that the
President returned from his trip to
Georgia confident that in the end he
would succeed in putting the bill through
both Senate and House.
The implication, if there is any, from
the decisions of the court yesterday
would seem to be that the court as now
constituted is not without liberal lean
ings; that when the laws are SO written
as to conform with the provisions of the
Constitution, the court is perfectly will
ing to uphold them. Undoubtedly this
argument will be advanced by those who
are opposed to the Presidents court bill
and who charge him with an attempt to
pack" the court so as to bring about
decisions which he desires.
II *4
The opposition to the Presidents court
bill today took on renewed vigor as an
aftermath of the fiery denunciation of
the measure by Senator Carter Glass
rf Notion.
wide radio hook-up, the veteran states
man from the Old Dominion raked the
proposal to increase the membership of
the court from stem to stern, and poured
vitriol upon the heads of those who are
advancing it. The speech of Senator
Glass had been awaited with much in
terest. His characterization of the
court bill and his attack upon its pro-
moters left nothing to the imagination.
A voice from the past, that of the late
Speaker Joe" Byrns of Tennessee, in op-
position to packing the court, has been
resurrected by opponents of the Presi-
dents plan to fail the court bill. 1t
was his contention that the American
people would never stand for packing"
the Supreme Court.
Discovery of an interview with Speaker
Byrns, carried in numerous American
newspapers on January IA, 1885, and of
a letter written IL days later in which
he proudly alluded to the position he
had taken against enlarging the Su-
preme Court, shows that he, like Sena-
tor Henry F. Ashurst of Arizona. chair
man of the Senate Judiciary Commit
tee, was in ignorance of the plans the
President had in mind of bending the
court to his will
At the time Speaker Byrns gave out
his interview, the Supreme Court had
under consideration the constitutionality
of the Roosevelt law suspending the
gold clause in contracts. He said he
could not conceive of the Supreme Court
holding that law unconstitutional and
it was upheld later by five-to-four de-
cision. However, he said that if the
Supreme Court should rule adversely
Congress could enact corrective legisla-
ton.
II don't believe in enlarging the Su-
preme Court to get verdict said Mr..
Byrps. THAT may be talked about, but
it will never get anywhere. If you ever
start that sort of business, you set
precedent that will be very harmful. I
don't think the country would stand for
that. I know I wouldn't"
X X
On January 26, 1885, Mr. Byrns wrote
to a friend who had expressed anxiety
over reports current in Washington that
the administration might seek to in
Of