Court Opinion

ID: 9418326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:21:23.314737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:01.014228
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice McReynolds,
dissenting.
Whatever else the Act of September 3, 1916, may do, it certainly commands that during a minimum period of seven months interstate common carriers by railroads shall pay their employees engaged in operating trains for eight hours’ work a wage not less than the one then established for a standard day — generally ten hours.
I haVe not heretofore supposed that- such action was a regulation of commerce within the fair intendment of those words as used.in the Constitution; and the argument advanced in support of the contrary view is unsatisfactory to my mind. I canñot, therefore, concur in the conclusion that it was within the power of Congress to enact the statute.
*389But, considering the doctrine now affirmed, by a majority of the court as established, it follows as of course that Congress has power to fix a maximum as well as a minimum wage for trainmen; to require compulsory arbitration of labor disputes which may seriously and directly jeopardize the movement of interstate traffic; and to take measures effectively to protect the free flow of such commerce against any combination, whether of operatives, owners, or strangers.