Evening Star Newspaper, April 1, 1937, Page 13

Wage Ruling Reached in December Court Votes Were Cast 3 Months Before Recent Decision. BY DAVID LAWRENCE. HE Supreme Court of the United States actually decided last December to uphold the mini- mum wage law of the State of Washington, and hence the ruling announced this week was in no way related to the controversy that has arisen since President Roose- * velt on Febru- ary 5 proposed to enlarge the : Supreme Court. This informa- tion, derived to- day from a study 4 of the sequence of events from the time the case involving the State of Wash- ington law was ¥ first submitted to ; the Supreme Court here until the written opinion was handed down, refutes the charges made on Capitol Hill by various partisans that the President’s attack on the court was “beginning to have some effect.” It is important from the stand- point of history that the truth should be known, for, if public clamor and political controversy were to cause justices of the highest court of the Jand to deviate from the principles of constitutional law as they honestly | understand them, then the tribunal would no lcnger be independent. Chronology of Case. The chronology in the Washington minimum wage case is in itsef, when presented, the best evidence of just what did happen. In April, 1936, tbe Supreme Court of the State of Washington decided that the minimum wage law con- formed to the Federal Constitution. In June, 1936, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed with the Court of Appeals of the State of | New York that the New York mini- mum wage law was in violation of the Federal Constitution. In October, 1936—two weeks before the presidential election returns were known—an application for review of the State of Washington law came to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the latter tribunal did not dismiss the petition and simply point to the ruling in the New York case, but noted on the docket its wiilingness to review the Washing- ton statute. This in itself indicated that the circumstances surrounding the Washington law were considered different than in the .New York case. In December, 1936, argument Was | completed before the Supreme Court | of the United States with respect to | the constitutiona of the State of Washington law hin a week after the completion of argument, as pre- scribed by the custom of the court, the justices put on record their indi- vidual ballots. The vote taken at the close of argument is for the pur- pose of determining which justices shall be assigned the task of writing the opinions, as the latter task often takes many weeks. To all intents and | purposes the Supreme Court made | its decision in December, but, due to the illness of Justice Stone, the writ- ing of the opinion and the inclusion of his vote was delayed until his return to the bench early in 1937. David Lawrence. THE EVENING STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C, News Behind the News Wallace Denounces Inflation Propaganda as De- partment Announces Rising Prices. BY PAUL MALLON. BITTER hater of price spiralists is Agriculture Secretary Wallace. When Federal Reserve Boarder Eccles denounced their current dirty work, Mr. Wallace immediately doubted the denunciation. A He implied these inflation-makers are helping to cause a vicious spiral and the situation is getting into the clouds. Mr. Wallace did not name any inflationary propagandists, but gave his hearers reason to believe he would like to get his haands on one. Just a friendly tip—he might walk out of his office door, turn the corner and go down the corridor to his United States Department of Agriculture office of information, press service, from which announcements have come lately with the following of- ficial headlines: “Higher hog prices expected this Summer.” “Higher Spring lamb prices than last year forecast.” “Cattle prices expected to average above 1936.” “Expect world wheat prices to continue at high levels.” And three or four others similarly contributing the only concrete evidence of inflationary propaganda now being circulated in Washington. * ok X K Such governmental predictions of future prices are extremely rare. The Government has always been content to estimate crops to the best of its ability, but generally leaves speculative price in- terpretation to unofficial speculators. Just why it has joined the inflationists in this instance is not clear to some who think they know many things going on in the Agriculture Depart- ment. Economists who have analyzed the announcements say there is rea- sonable ground for the predictions. Some are inclined to suspect lack of co-ordination between Mr. Wallace and his assistants. Others suggest that perhaps Mr. Wallace and his helpers are playing the same game as Commerce Secretary Roper and Labor Sec= retary Perkins on sit-down strikes. Mr. Roper denounces them on Mon- days, Wednesdays and Fridays, while Miss Perkins defends them Tues- days, Thursday and Saturdays. On Sundays every one gets a rest. After all, there is nothing safer in politics than being on both sides of & question. * kX% Governmental boosting of price hopes is all the more remarkable be- cause the long-sought goal of agricultural prices apparently has been reached. Since the war, all agricultural relief programs have been devised to achieve parity The A. A. A. experts here figure that farm prices as a whole reached 98 per cent of parity on February 15. On that midmonth date the index of prices received by farmers stood at 127. February prices by commodities, compared with the parity estimates computed for the month, follow: Commodity. Cotton, per pound (cents) - Corn, bushel (cents) _ Wheat, bushel (cents) Oats, bushel (cents) . Hay, ton (dollars) Beef cattle, hundredweight (dollars) Hogs, hundredweight (dollars) 9.19 9.60 Potatoes, bushel 130.2 922 These figures show most of the major crops have achieved the long- sought price goal. Price. 124 1036 - 1249 537 11.84 6.48 Parity. 165 854 1176 53.1 15.79 6.93 * x % ¥ ‘The extent of the “spiraling” that has been going on so far is dis- closed in current figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These show the cost of living is up about 10 per cent over this time last year, while farm prices are up about 25 per cent. Actual figures for the weeks ending March 20 this year and last were: This year. -- 944 87.9 85.6 87.6 Last year. 6.7 798 788 9.3 Manufacturing (1926 equals 100). * oKk % X What this means is: Despite the so-called inflation, prices are yet substantially -below a 1926 “normal,” but it may not be long before people again start talking about the high cost of living. Some prices are going faster than others No one, not even the Agriculture Department, is predicting where prices will go or how it will all work out ir the end, if there is one. (Copyright, 19 not controlling as to the power of & State to enact such a statute. * * *| “If the State Legislature and State Supreme Court find that the statute | is of a public interest, the Supreme | Court of the United States will ac- cept such judgment in the absence Stone's Vote Already Known. But since Justice Stone voted in June, 1936, to uphold the New York minimum wage law, his vote was & | foregone conclusion when the other | eight members of the Supreme Court of the United States recorded their views last December In other wo stice Roberts who really was deciding factor in overruling e minimum wage de- eision of 1923, came to his conclusion | in December in 1936, on the basis of the case as presented then and with- out knowing, of course, what the President of the United States would propose on February 5, 1937, whem he transmitted his surprise message to Congress proposing & reorganiza- tion of the judiciary. What may not be generally real- | {zed is that the Supreme Court of | the United States did not of its own initiative offer a judgment, but 1n‘ reality affirmed a decision already reached by the Supreme Court of the | State of Washington It is also | pertinent to note that in all the 20 | of facts to support a contrary con- clusion.” Prediction Come True. prediction of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington came true. Its distinction between the powers of Congress over what might virtually be called a Territory —namely, the District of Columbia— and the reserved powers of a State exercising its police power as & sov= ereign government gave the Supreme | Court of the United States an op- | portunity, in fact rather compelled | it, to examine anew the ruling made in the Adkins case of 1923. | It will be asked why, when a statute | of the State of New York came up | for review in June, 1936, just three months or more after the Supreme Court of the State of Washington | has acted, there was a refusal by the | Supreme Court of the United States to hold the New York law to be a valid exercise of constitutional power. The answer is that the highest | court of the State of New York ac-| cepted the Adkins case as controlling | The THE opinions of the writers on this page are their own, not necessarily The Star’s. Such opinions are presented in The Star’s effort to give all sides of questions of interest to its readers, although such opinions may be contradictory among themselves and directly opposed to The Star’s. Tempest in Teapot Court Commotion Held Obsolete in Face of Two Recent Decisions. BY MARK SULLIVAN. HE country is getting many in- terpretations of hat the Bu- preme Court did thi: week. Most are correct enough, though few go deep enough. In the welter, the average man may wish for a settlement in simple terms about the most important result of the court's action. The result is very important, indeed. Actually the step taken by the court last Monday, coupled with an- other step which the court took on January 4 last, has made obsolete most of the present commotion about the Constitution :nd the Supreme " Court. b Anc it hasg opened s broad § path by which 3 the humanitarian labor objectives can be reached without impair=- ment State | rights, without amendment o f the Constitution, & and without | change in the { Supreme Court. If Dedcratic leaders, seeing this path open, fail to take it, they will be abandoning their most cherished tradition and prin- | ciple—and doing so without excuse. Clarity will be aided by & brief statement of the history leadng up to Monday's decision In 1923 the Supreme Court said that a minimum wage law for women, enacted by Congress for the District of Columbia, was unconstitutional. | In 1936 the court said that a mini- | mum wage law enacted by a State, New York, was unconstitutional. | “No Man’s Land” Created. { This created a condition in which | there could be no minimum wage law anywhere, whether a Federal one or & | State one (excepting, of course, by | amendment to the Constitution). The comment President Roosevelt made was true; the court, by its two de- cisions, had created a “no man’s land.” | Many persons besides Mr. Roosevelt thought this as deplorable. There | was and is widespread feeling that a | minimum wage law is desirable. Many think such a law desirable for everye body; more think it desirable for women at least. Among others who deplored court’s attitude was the Republican | party and its presidential candidate, | Mr. Landon. The court’s decision | against the New York law was handed | down June 1 last year. Eight days | later the Republican National Con- vention met. To the convention Mr. Landon sent a telegram which took account of the court's decision. Gov. Landon said that he would favor “a constitutional amendment permitting States to adopt” minimum wage laws | for women. This incident is cited merely to show how widespread was the feeling that minimum wage laws were desirable. The court had made of Mark Sullivan. the | | bor. | by child labor, or goods made under | other sweatshop conditions. The freedom of States each to pass | them impossible. Now, what the court did last Monday was to reverse its previous position. Power of each State to enact such laws would seem enough. But many persons have held that minimum wage laws by States are not enough. They say there must be a Federal law cov- ering all the States uniformly. These persons state their argument thus: If a State passes a minimum wage law, factories in that State will just move to another State. Also factories in other States will send into the first State, for sale, goods made by labor not protected by a minimum wage law. This condition, 50 long as it existed, was a reasonable argument for having one uniform Federal law. But the condition has ceased to exist. It ceased to exist on January 4 last. On that day the condition was cor- rected by a decision of the Supreme Court sustaining what is called the Ash®@st-Sumners law. This law fis to the effect that when a State for- bids the sale of a certain kind of goods, it is thereafter unlawful for such goods to be shipped into that State from other States. The goods in the case which the ecourt passed upon were goods made by convict la- The same decision would cover, it is quite reasonable to infer, goods made by labor receiving wages lower than a fixed minimum, or goods made its own laws and achieve its own pro- tection has an advantage. Each State can outlaw exactly wh-t it wishes to outlaw. Each State an have its own standards. The new thing is that under the recent Supreme Court decisions each State can make its own standards effective. If one State wishes $15 a week as a minimum wage, it can abso- THURSDAY, APRIL lutely forbid manufacture or sale within its borders of goods made by labor having a lower wage. If another State t' ks the proper standard is $12 a week, or $10 a week, it can have the standard it desires. If one State thinks 16 years is a proper limit against child lapor, it can fix that age. 14 years, or 18 years, it can have the standard it desires. This flexibility of each State having its own standard has many advantages over a Federal law fixing one standard | for all the country. If what is sald aere is correct— and I think competent authorities would say it is—then there has been removed 8 very large proportion, almost all, of the reasons for either a constitutional amendment or a change in the Supreme Court. The way is now open and broad to bring about all the humanitariar labor objectives which have been the occasion of most of the commotion about the Consti- tution and the Supreme Court. The court, by its action last Monday, coupled with its action on January 4, | If anoth r State prefers | has largely changed itself. (Copyright, 1 50c Woodbury’s 50c Forhan's Tooth Paste 40c Squibb’s Tooth Powder_ __ Oc Jergen’s Lotion__ ___ Lge. Colgate’s Dental Cream____ 25c¢ Packer’s 1, 1937. We, the People Minimum Wage Decision Spurs Administration to Advance Court-Packing Date. BY JAY FRANKLIN. ! PTER Mr. Justice Roberts’ Easter Monday judicial egg-rolling on the Washington State minimum wage law, the New Dealers have 1oved up the date of final passage for the Roosevelt plan to pack the SBupreme Court from early July to the middle of May. They already count between 60 and 85 Senators for the judiciary bill and believe that the opposition to this reform is in a state of complete moral collapse. Their reasons for this belief are worth considering. They are, at pres- ent, & “one-man Supreme Court” consisting of Mr. Justice Roberts, with power to amend the Constitution at any moment. 8ince Mr. Roberts sided with the four conservative Jjustices to outlaw the New York State minimum wage law in the court's 5-to-4 decision of last Spring, his switch in favor of the Washington State minimum wage law shows how narrow and ca- pricious is the basis of any de- cision from the present tribunal. New Dealers are also amused to note that as recently at last Autumn, the court refused to grant a rehear- ing on the New York law, although it was requested on the very same grounds as those which led to the Easter Monday 5-to-4 flop for the ‘Washington law. The New Dealers also see the entire field of constitutional authority thrown into mad confusion by the court'’s record on minimum wage legislation. From 1912 to 1923, these minimum wage laws were entirely constitutional. From 1923 to 1937 they were unconstitutional, now they are constitutional again—always by a 5-to-4 margin. Furthermore, minimum wage laws are now constitutional on the West Coast and unconstitutional on the East Coast of the United States. How, ask the New Dealers, how can any one know Where he stands with respect to the validity of any social or economic legislation after conflicting decisions like these? * ko % From the political point of view, the court’s recent pro-New Deal decisions cut the heart out of the last-ditch defenders of the judicial oligarchy. For the main object of the defense is not to protect six nice old gentlemen from enforced superannuation or to maintain the court as “the bulwark of our civil and religious liberties.” Their object is to main- tain the court as an effective barrier to social and economic reform. The foes of the Roosevelt plan make no secret of their fear lest the court-packing proposal be followed by Federal legislation to regulate and restrain big business, to prevent anti-social speculation, to protect labor from overlong hours and sweated wages, to promote housing and to reform the evils of farm tenancy. If the court caves in to liberal legislation, even by a narrow margin, the motive of the opposition is weakened and the defense will lose interest in saving their mice old men on grounds of pure constitutional theory. This argument is supported by the jact that the court has sunk so low in the esteem of its self-proclaimed friends that they now propose a compulsory retirement age for judges, by constitu- tional amendment, instead of President Roosevelt's more humane and flezible system of allowing each overage judge to decide for himself whether he is fit to continue in office. Senator Wheeler of Montana defended what Senator McKellar of Tennessee termed the Supreme Court's “un-American secrecy” in its procedure on application for writs of certiorari on the extraordinary ground that since these applications were made mainly by “economic royalists.” they deserved no better treatment. And Senator Carter Glass of Virginia speaking over the radio on the court, opposed the Roosevelt plan for the even more fantastic reason that the change might help the Negro. * x & X Further evidence of the demoralization of the “Old Romans” is evident in the matter of the child labor amendment. Final ratification has been blocked, so far, on the argument that it would lead to “youth control” or to Federal “regimentation” of the religion and education of persons under 18 vears of age and would interfere with parental control in homes and on farms. The hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee are taking the form of a secret filibuster, with the supply of distinguished opposi- tion witnesses running pretty low and the administration pressing for a “put up or shut up” program of testimony. The New Dealers do not fear a serious filibuster on the floor of the Senate. The only two men who would have any personal mo- tive to conduct one are Wheeler of Montana and Burke of Nebraska. Senator Clark of Missouri is laying low and saying nothing, and shows signs of ducking out from under the issue. None of the other opponents has the physical strength or the vocal chords to stand the punishment (Copyright, 1037.) Pint Bottle Alco-Rex n RUBBING gl ALCOHOL AND A BOTTLE OF 100 ASPIRIN TABLETS 3¢ 39 33¢ 36° Combination Offer 50c Tube of KLENZO Dental Cream and o 49¢ Pint Bottle KLENZO 33¢ | biology | | world that | lier's, | the An American You Should Know John Collier Secured Place in Sun for Indian Race. BY DELIA PYNCHON. TOP robbing the Indlans” has been John Collier's war- cry for many years. Com- missioner of Indian Affairs Department of Interior, since 1933 John Collier has followed a long honorable and consistent path toward [ | developing social consciousness, com- munity spirit and self-respect among forgotten men and women. Words spill out of him as water from a broken levee. Utterly wrapped up in the subject at hand, Mr. Collier twines himself unselfconsciousl about the chat and has been f known to chew ruminatingly on his neckties. He has a purposeful light in his eve, and has carved a national niche for himself that he fits surpass- Born in A ta, Ga, in 1884, he had his education at Columbia i the Sarbonne, France, specializing ir nd psychology. Con: 1y since 1907 he has worked for what h calls merged and exploited groups.” For 12 vears he was a staff member of the Peoples e in New York City. Successively he helped orga the National Board of Motion Picture John Collier. ter Association, Child Health A tion, Civilian War Work and & com- and a must spent a year i he ca d beca American India He worked mounting co: stop robbing the Pue e to Wa the * into the schemes. Collier's work wa: 1 in favor of reating a ground e, self-respecting in col to the wooden store variety. Aided by Secre- tary of Interior Ickes, whose interest in and work for the Indians has been as old and as militant as has Col- they obtained approval. Congress gate ear Indian r nization act | passed by Co! In capsule form i serve Indian lands It provides for org: groups as tribes and « It enables the money for financing . It encourages edu the fr excercise of Pt. Rubbing Alcohol 1.00 Vitalis Hair Tonic 75c¢ Fletcher's Castoria 25c Beecham’s Pills 35¢ Hill's Nose Drops 25¢ Anacin Tablets_ Qt. Sunsweet Prune Juice _ __ years or more of litigation over the | and said the circumstances surround- minimum wege question the Supreme | ing the New York law and those sur- Court of the United States has never | rounding the District of Columbia reversed a decision on minimum wages ' law were virtually the same. It is a offered it for review by the Supreme custom of the Supreme Court of the Court of any State United States to accept the finding The sequence of facts is important. | of a State Supreme Court as to what In 1913 both Oregon and Washing- |is meant by an act of its own legis= | ton passed minimum wage laws. The |lature. Had Justioe Roberts, for in- Oregon law came before the Supreme | stance, wanted to vote to overrule Court of the United States in 1917 | the Adkins case in June, 1936, when and was upheld the New York law was before him, D. C. Law Passed In 1918. ‘;: jcoud 'rwth""g’ ‘_‘"'“ h“"etg"“;‘ 20 Meuswhile, {5 1918, the Distrivhol | oniee O t5e SeCEIL Of e Hew Columbia enacted a minimum wage | YOT< State Coutt of Aupesls, [ law. It came before the supreme‘l Challenge Remained. | Court of the United States in 1923, | 1t Temained, then, for some State | and, by a five to three decision (Jus- | Supreme Court to challenge the Ad-| tice Brandeis not participating), the | Kins ruling in a new case and thus District law was held invalid in what |10 effect bring about & review of | became known as the Adkins case. |that very decision of the Supreme But the State of Washington never | COurt of 14 years ago by the court | did regard the ruling in the Adkins | Of today. case as conclusive and kept on en- | forcing the statute. Twice, in law- | suits challenging the act, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. refused to be guided by the Adkins case, insisting that it did not apply. It is pertinent, therefore, to exam- ine the opinion of the highest court of the State of Washington, handed down in April, 1936, which reads in part: “The decision of the Supreme Court in Adkins vs. Children's Hospital is not controlling. The court in the Adkins case held that a minimum wage law enacted by Congress for the District of Columbia was uncon- stitutional in that it interfered with the freedom of contract guaranteed by the due process clause of the fifth amendment. The decision is not | conclusive as to the validity of a State statute enacted in the exercise of the police power of the State. “The police power of a State is one of its so-called reserved powers. A statute is a valid exercise of such power if it corrects a known and stated public evil and promotes the general welfare. Tested by such rule, the minimum wage law, although it | $1.25RoundTrip Saturdays and Sundays deprives the employer and employe % $1.50 Round Trip Daily—Goedfor3 Days to a certain extent of their liberty to | s N a O T contract, is valid as & ressonable ex- || o1 enes Disict 2300, teenonts 7370 | | ercise of the police power. The de- BALTIMORE & OHIO RR. ANTISEPTIC Both 590 for__ SPECIAL COUPON Bring This Coupon to Any LIGGETT DRUG STORE It Entitles You to Buy e Bottle of JONTEEL Cream of Almonds 60c Alka Seltzer 100’s Brewers Yeast Tablets 25c Carter’s Pills_ _ 75¢ Listerine Large Size ____ 35¢ Vick’s Vapo Rub Salve Dr. Scholl’s Zino Pads__ MEN Here is an opportunity, at no cost, to learn about PROBAK BLADES ¥% 25¢ % 49¢ One Blade Free ¢ after msine the FREE Blades, you are not satisfied, return the fuil package and we will refund the full purchase price. W; regard a tation that brings so many people prescription as a sacred trust. to usin their hour of pain and peril. Accuracy is the law with our Registered Pharmacists. We use the finest, purest, freshest drugs money can buy. If a prescribed ingredient cannot be obtained we tell the Doctor. Let Liggett’s fill your next prescription. Tooth Powder____ For on that slip of paper may 25¢c Mennen'’s hang relief from unbearable agony . .. the healing of a disease ridden body . . . even life itself. Liggett's filled over a million and a quarter prescriptions last year. Justone year in the 112 that have been devoted to building a repu- For 55¢ Pond’s Creams_________ 39‘ SEVEN STORES In Northwest Washington 14th and F Sts. 14th and K Sts. 13th and F Sts. 14th and H Sts. 7th and E Sts. 17th & Pa. Ave. Cor. Florida and Connecticut Aves. (Copyright, 1937.) Are you having RAZOR BLADE TROUBLE? BISMA-REX Reliable SATURDAY, APRIL 3 Antacid PITTSBURGH $550 McKeesport — Braddock Round Trip 5[4 50 Connelisville EFFERVESCENT REX- SELTZER TABLETS Its NEW—and can be bought only at Liggetts and Rexall Drug Stores. AN ANALGESIC ALKALIZER Tube of 8 Tablets Tube of 25 Tablets i At All Liggett Drug Stores Package of 5 PROBAK Junior BLADES FREE with each purchase of STAG or LAVENDER SHAVING CREAM Both 3 5c for SUNDAY, APRIL 4 See America’s Great Metropolis ONLY NEW YORK *375 BILLOWY SUDS * hfilfiysl’lhu Round Trip d 7:15 0. m. WACIEAR WATER RINSE ¢ LUSTROUS HAIR Two Blades Free Saturday) Alse o N Elizabeth, leave Washi :000. m. Returning, lea and Midnight, same day. Friendly service . . . low prices . . . free delivery . money-back guarantee 21 c .+« Registered Pharmacist 43 always in attendance. Mail “The Nation’s Neigh- borhood Drug Store” BALTIMORE orders filled promptly (add 107 for postage). HEADQUARTERS FOR CUT-RATE DRUGS Mailing Address: 801 14th St. cision of the Supreme Court of the | United States in the Adkins case is| }