| Wilson v. New
(No. 797)
___ |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syllabus
| Opinion
[ White ] | Concurrence
[ Mckenna ] | Dissent
[ Day ] | Dissent
[ Pitney ] | Dissent
[ Mcreynolds ] |
| HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version |
Wilson v. New
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
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 cannot, therefore, concur in the conclusion that it was within the power of Congress to enact the statute. [p389]
But, 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.