*1 Nor attached. once it has responsibility preserving with freedom contract there interference as one con- of New York transfer a resident imposing The to transfer right of escaping liability. dition The non- ownership, is not affected. stock, inherent the transferor gets good title, though transferee resident immunity clause; of the has breached all the terms transferee, becoming a stock- since the non-resident there subjected liability, can holder, statutory of discrimination. claim just costs. judgment should be affirmed, Loughran Crane, J., O’Brien, Hubbs, Ch. Lehman, JJ., concur. Finch, Judgment affirmed. People Joseph of the ex rel. State New York L. against Frederick
Tipaldo, Appellant, Morehead, Borough as Warden Prison Brook City lyn, Respondent. 3, 1936; 22, January
(Argued decided March *2 Arthur Levitt appellant. L. Miller Nathan women violates the wages for adult fixing Legislation the Fifth and Four protected by freedom contract the Federal Constitution. Amendments teenth U. Adair v. Hospital, 525; 261 S. v. Children’s (Adkins States, United 174; U. v. States, Coppage 208 S. United 239 U. S. Prudential Raisch, 33; Truax v. 14; 236 U. S. 516; Sardell, U. v. 269 Cheek, Murphy 257 S. Ins. Co. v. U. Mfg. Co., West-Nelson 273 530; Donham v. S. U. S. U. Ribnik v. Banton, 418; McBride, S. 657; v. 273 Tyson Relations, Industrial 350; v. Court 262 277 U. S. Wolff 235; v. Standard Oil 278 U. S. 522; Co., Williams U. S. Commission, Works, v. Industrial Folding Inc., Furniture Co. Court Topeka Laundry v. Rep. 991; 300 Fed. v. Relations, 1041; 237 Pac. Stevenson Rep. Industrial background 201 The factual Rep. 628.) W. Clair, St. N. Laws, of the Labor Law (Cons. in section 550 recited exceptional ch. 31; 584) ch. L. involves new 1933, U. Hospital, Children’s 261 S. (Adkins circumstances. v. of con 525; Kansas, 1.) U. S. Freedom v. 236 Coppage of the con because one simply tract cannot be denied is a is a Such discrimination tracting woman. parties guaranteed by of the laws protection of the equal denial Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Case, Labor Tax 1; 236 U. Child Kansas, v. S. (Coppage U. Mahon, Co. S. 20; 259 U. Coal v. 260 Pennsylvania S. 393.) York Hotel Associa Campbell J. for New State
Charles 1933, (L. Law Wage curiæ. The Minimum amicus tion, contravenes the adult 584) women, so far as it affects ch. of the Constitution Amendments Fifth and Fourteenth 261 Hospital, v. Children’s United States. (Adkins 235 Relations, Industrial v. Court Packing Co. 525; U. S. Wolf Donham 530; 269 U. S. 522; Sardell, v. Murphy 262 U. S. McBride, Ribnik v. 657; 273 U. Mfg. Co., S. v. West-Nelson 418; Folding U. S. Banton, v. 350; Tyson U. S. Fed. Commissioner, 300 v. Industrial Works, Inc., Furniture Rela Industrial Laundries v. Court 991; Topeka Rep. 161 Minn. Claire, 12; 119 Kan. Stevenson v. St. tions, Raisch, 1; 236 U. Truax v. Kansas, v. S. 444; Coppage 516; 257 U. Cheek, Prudential Ins. Co. v. S. 33; 239 U. S. 332; 243 U. S. Fort Smith & Western New, Wilson v. 235 U. Mills, R. S. R. Co. v. *3 (Henry Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General Epstein, J.
John and John C. F. X. McGohey, Benjamin John Heffner York Mini of for The New counsel), respondent. Crary power. Law is a valid exercise of the Wage police mum York, 502; Arkansas, v. New 291 U. McLean v. S. (Nebbia 316; 4 Wheat. 539; Maryland, 211 U. S. McCulloch v. 197; 193 U. States, Securities Co. v. United S. Northern 11; Mugler Kansas, 197 U. v. Massachusetts, S. Jacobson v. Atkin 623; 313; U. Minnesota 136 U. S. v. Barber, 123 S. v. 207; 191 U. v. Kansas, Young S. O’Gorman & Hartford Co., 251; States, Ins. 282 U. S. United 157 U. S. Frisby v. 160.) Levine &
George Interborough Sup X. Coat Apron amici curiæ. The enactment Association, Inc., al., et ply Minimum was a exercise of Wage proper of the Law It does not contravene State. police of of the Constitution the United Fourteenth Amendment (Nebbia York, U. S. v. New States. of a manager is the Ch. appellant J.
Crane, borough in the of laundry operating establishment he was three other individuals Brooklyn. Together with county for the viola- grand Kings indicted jury (Laws for Women Wage tion of Minimum Law charged He was 29, 1933). ch. in effect 1933, 584, April employee adult woman paying with the crime of to an wage less than that promulgated Industrial Com- byjthe missioner as the minimum mandatory wage applicable in engaged to such a woman employment, viola- 565, 2, (Cons. tion section subdivision of the Labor Law ch. this Laws, 31). By corpus proceeding 'habeas relator seeks to test the of his arrest and legality imprison- raising as the before the court the ment, only question constitutionality of the for the violation of which statute, he has been held for trial. His contention is that contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment of the Con- law 6, United and article section States, I, stitution Constitution of the State of New of which York, both are the same this particular. provisions 584 of the 1933, attacked, Laws of thus Chapter “An Act to amend the labor entitled, law, relation the determination establishment of minimum standards for wage minors, provision thereof.” imposition for the for the penalties violation applicability questioned. the law as to minors is not determining The act provides machinery trade industry, women in or business branch thereof or class work therein *4 or but shall gainfully which women minors employed, include domestic in the of the employer service home (Labor on a farm.” subd. Law, 551, or labor § ”wage defines an and unreasonable oppressive act subd. to be a is both less than 551, 7) wage which (§ and rendered and the fair reasonable value the services of living less than sufficient to meet the minimum cost mean wage 8) for health. “A fair shall necessary (subd. the value wage a and commensurate with fairly establishing of the service or of service rendered. In class wage the fair minimum the Commissioner and the wage circumstances board take into account all relevant (1) or class of service affecting the value of the service as like considerations rendered; be (2) may guided by guide would a suit for the reasonable value court in a request are rendered at rendered where services service without contract to the amount of the of an wages paid be consider the wage (3) may paid; like comparable by the State for or character work fair wage maintain minimum employers voluntarily who standards. declared to Section 552 reads as follows: hereby against any employer employ any for public policy an or minor in in this at occupation woman an state as defined section wage unreasonable oppressive con- any of the article and fifty-one five hundred and for or or in relation to tract, agreement understanding be null and void.” such shall employment establishment of rest of act for the provides hearings, for the determination wage board, of the Com- directory and for the order wage, regarding payment missioner thereof. which the 2, subdivision violation of 565,
Section reads as follows: imprisoned, relator has indicted and been corporation or agent any or the officer “Any employer or minor woman agrees or pays pay who woman or to such applicable less than the rates employee order shall minimum fair mandatory minor under a conviction a misdemeanor and guilty than more of not than nor fifty fine less punished of not less than or by imprisonment hundred dollars two fine such both ninety more than days ten nor ** imprisonment, from materially differs this act do not see wherein We v. Children’s in Adkins Congress ruled the act held that it was 525), U. wherein S. Hospital (261 19, chapter Wage 1918, Act of September Minimum interference unconstitutional 960), U. S. was (40 Stat. *5 interpretation of contract. liberty with Court Supreme United States by the Federal Constitution follow its duty in bound us; arewe binding upon find inapplicable. We they unless decisions difference material between act of Congress and this York Legislature. act of New State The act of it is was to Congress, said, protect from conditions from wages inadequate which were resulting maintain of living. decent standards The Attorney-General’s brief it in these words: The purpose states statute in the Adkins case was guarantee a wage based solely the necessities of the workers. The statute did wages provide any not to have relationship to was all earning power; applicable vocations and not * * * - character work. As contrasted the New York statute, Wage this Minimum Law wages definite provides a standard paid. provides the worker is to at least the value of the services rendered.”
This is a in phraseology difference not principle. York stated, prohibits The New above act, oppres- sive and unreasonable which wage, means both less than value of fair and reasonable the services rendered and less than to meet the minimum sufficient cost for health. The act of living necessary Congress had one wage; this State act has added standard, living another, minimum wage value. The must reasonable include has vague both. was before not been made any What elements, therefore, One of the the fair fixing clearer. which was is the matter the basis the con- very wages act. Forcing payment at a gressional make reasonable value does not inapplicable principle ruling the Adkins case. this The distinctions between case and the Adkins case methods and the exercise details, time; are differences to fix legislative employment not should follow the law as given, same. We come or are speculate changes sup- as to the have come to economic in the last posed to have conditions move the to a further Supreme decade which Court The Adkins ruling. its case has been consideration of
239 rulings forgotten. was over nor its lightly passed v. Court Packing cited and followed in Co. of Wolff v. Sardell 522); Murphy Industrial Relations U. S. (262 S. (269 Banton U. 530); Tyson (273 U. S. & Brother v. 657); Mfg. Donham v. West-Nelson Co. U. S. 418); (273 (277 Minne Ribnik v. McBride v. 350), U. S. Near sota (283 697). U. S. similar our own
When minimum
laws
somewhat
the courts
challenged
have been
since the Adkins case
have felt bound
to declare them unconsti
by that decision
tutional
of the
involved
principles
without re-examination
v. Court
Laundry
these
Co.
particular
(Topeka
statutes.
Folding Furniture
12;
Industrial
119 Kan.
Relations,
991;
Works,
Rep.
v.
Fed.
Inc.,
Commission,
Industrial
300
v.
Stevenson v. St.
Minn.
Holcombe
Clair,
444;
cf.
Creamer,
The order below the writ reversed, should and the the Laws as 584 of prisoner discharged, chapter 1933, under which he unconstitutional held, U. S. Hospital to Adkins v. Children’s (261 according 525). held in (dissenting). appellant J.
Lehman, corpus By writ of habeas custody under indictment. his commitment. challenges legality proceedings he charges, appellant, told, The indictment we are manda- disobeyed a manager Spotlight Laundry, Commissioner under issued the Industrial tory order, 31), ch. com- Laws, of the Labor Law (Cons. article 19 law women minimum wage known as the monly (Laws certain 584) prescribing 1933, minors ch. employees certain adult wages for conspired appellant laundry; the said laundry time book the said entries make false adult the said making appear the purpose wages,” the amount did in fact receive women employees Commissioner. the Industrial ordered to finds its roots in the indictment wrong charged statute, and the appellant attacks the statute as unconsti- *7 and void. The objections tutional State raises no to the of the attack. form concedes that the appellant’s detention is lawful if only the statute is constitutional. the only question That is presented upon this appeal. i. wage laws, Minimum laws which e., require employers to women pay and children them a employed by shall which not fall below fixed amount, been have enacted by foreign countries; many and, the United sixteen States, States have enacted such also, statutes. the of the So, Congress United States 1918 the provided fixing of minimum children the District of U. Columbia. S. (40 Stat. 960, 174.) eh. Such a statute constitutes a restriction on of protected by freedom contract the Fifth and Fourteenth of Amendments the Constitution of the United States. ground, Supreme On that Court of the United States (261 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital U. S. 525), decided provisions of statute, the Federal there challenged in so they applied least far as adult women, at violated the constitutional limitation upon legislative power. We are told under that decision and for the same reasons the Supreme which induced Court to Federal declare the unconstitutional, statute we are bound to declare the York statute New void unconstitutional. can
There be no doubt that the determination in that case that legislative Federal statute transcended the of the District Congress Columbia, over made further argument futile statutes enacted by various were States, objections, which the same open should be sustained courts of those States. Supreme Court of must the United States construe provisions of the Constitution and its definition invio- rights late of the guaranteed by the Constitution and division restriction must powers thereunder A accepted by all other of the State country. courts court may question. previously have decided the same
241 Court of Supreme no effect after decision Such otherwise the Constitution has construed United States question again arises the same all, when which binds Supreme decision of the must follow the court it in a State Laundry opinion. (Topeka its own regardless Court Steven- Relations, 12; 119 Kan. Court Co. v. Industrial Moritz, Minn. 444. Cf. v. Clair, Sparks St. son v. is not there, decision, The effect Wash. arguments measured force persuasive system of administra- orderly for under support it; of last law, is the of the court tion of the function finally conflicting cogency resort pass *8 considerations. weight conflicting and the of arguments or lack unanimity is not measured the of effect aby majority for the decision of court, of unanimity Mr. one becomes the decision of the court. So Justice Adkins case, who dissented forcibly Holmes, to the decision a and concurred on precedent bowed similar ground purport. that alone later decisions of Sardell, 269 U. 530. Cf. Donham (Murphy v. S. v. Mfg. Co., West-Nelson 273 U. S. a mean,
That that court course, does last resort again not reconsider the when it question same may In contrary and then reach conclusion. presented, a changed wider broader information or light experience, weight given that should, reasonably, conditions, change and error conflicting considerations may may A be amended only become manifest. Constitution in manner a court which under the provided therein, but charged duty construing Constitution is change when convinced Constitution its construction willing perpetuate That courts not been error. have convinced its they construction after have been system to our unsoundness, strength has been source of government. of constitutional The Attorney-General, under argues this the statute now upon appeal, objections consideration is from the free the earlier ”Wage legislation, Supreme Minimum which the Court, in the Adkins held to be in violation case, of the pro- but Constitution; urges, also, visions of the time experience have demonstrated the soundness of the dis- Supreme and that the Court would senting opinions there, now if the now objections decide same were differently Supreme Court would decide presented. What the now though rests and even should purely conjecture, we might assume that a court under circumstances base such properly conjecture, decision we should hesitate venture such an certainly uncharted start our consideration of the treacherous sea. We challenged upon assump- of the statute here validity tion that the construction placed upon Constitution Supreme Court the Adkins case decision views personal attack in that court. Our open only then irrele- soundness of that construction become uncon- vant, they might, perhaps in so far as even except our dictate conclusion as to how far such construc- sciously, should carried. tion now Law, appellant 19 of the Labor Article hereby in section
attacks, provides, *9 for against any employer to be public policy declared in occupation or minor in an this woman any employ wage and unreasonable as defined oppressive at an state fifty-one any of the article and hundred and section five for or in relation to understanding agreement or contract, The definition null and void.” shall be employment such “ ‘ unreason- and oppressive in section 551 is contained ’ is both less than the wage a which able shall mean wage and less rendered fair of services and reasonable value neces- living minimum cost than sufficient to meet ” throughout ours 7). are (Italics sary (subd. for health ” “ as wage a fair section defines this The same opinion.) “ a commensurate wage fairly and ” 8). (subd. rendered class service value of the service or for manner in which The statute then provides ” “ wage minimum fair shall fixed where occupations “ * * * or substantial number women minors receiving wages are and unreasonable as defined oppressive ” in section five hundred fifty-one (§ 554) manner which occupations such employers “ ” or induced compelled pay wage so fixed. “ ” The statute unquestionably fixing statute. price Ordinarily the for like price paid to be labor, price goods, by agreement is determined of the parties primarily right concerned. The to fix agreement whether of labor prices, goods, part or of the freedom “ which person without due deprived of law.” process The attack upon the statute is directed to the mainly point that the State violates this constitu- tional guaranty whenever it to fix a fair attempts for adults who are fully competent to enter into contracts wages fixing price at a they willing accept, rather than reject employment offered to at such them wages. Inextricably interwoven in that attack are objec- tions based method of fixing minimum fair wages and the effect of the enforcement of payment of wages such in this provided statute. postpone We analysis provisions the minimum fair fixing ”wage and for enforcement of until we payment, have determined the extent of the to inter- State fere in any form manner with the free exercise right by adults of fix competent mental ability contract.
“ There is, course, no such as absolute freedom thing of contract. It is subject a great variety of restraints. But freedom of contract is, nevertheless, general rule and restraint legislative exception; the exercise *10 to authority abridge it be justified only can the exist- by ence of exceptional these cir- circumstances. Whether cumstances in present exist the ques- case constitutes (Adkins Hospital, to answered.” v. Children’s
tian Thus the case which the p. 546.) upon appel- supra, here it was held the State relies, authoritatively lant exceptional place under circumstances some restraint freedom of contract. The difference upon opinion only question the court concerned of whether the cir- cumstances were so as to exceptional justify, reasonably, restraints imposed.
The rules which consideration of the general govern liberty of a statute which restricts of contract validity to well established indeed, challenged too now. are, “ subject of contract to restrictions Liberty passed of the in the legislative branch Government safety, exercise of its health power protect (McLean Arkansas, v. 211 U. S. people.” welfare of due often process, has guaranty 539, shall not be held, demands law only been and that means unreasonable, arbitrary capricious, real substantial relation to the shall have a selected obtained.” v. sought (Nebbia People, to be object fix Liberty to contract 502, 525.) price U. S. from fix liberty differ its nature other labor does not employment though, may conditions terms and more restriction there encroach conceded, competitive the essentials of our economic seriously might circumstances system. Thus, perhaps, in matters restrictions contracts reasonably justify however, Here, too, might be insufficient here. less vital the State has been justified instances where many there are police its power restrictions under reserved imposing is, The difference then for the welfare. general legislate whatever degree. Undoubtedly, at one of most, with the of state must be consistent power reserved limitation of that power. of the constitutional intent destroy be construed so as power reserved cannot destroy nor to be construed limitation, is the limitation aspects. must be They in its reserved essential *11 245 (Home Building other.” harmony with each construed 398, 439.) U. S. Blaisdell, Loan Assn. v. & must of rules that we background general these the Labor Law now of article 19 of analyze provisions challenged. set of article in section 550 has Legislature
The for the which in its called opinion forth the conditions power employ- exercise of reserved State: in the in trade and industry ment of and minors York low and wages unreasonably of New at state the services with the value of commensurate fairly concern. grave is a public rendered matter vital in the state gain women and minors Many employed equality a level of of New York are not as a class regard bargaining employers with their ’ ‘ wage applied fair and freedom of contract as standards, is illusory. to their relations with their Since employers from obliged of such workers are large percentage very wages and others support their week week themselves are, are or in part they who them in whole dependent upon circumstances, forced to by reason their necessitous are them. accept wages Judged by any whatever offered fixed reasonable are cases standard, wages many are often wages chance and the caprice accepted found no fair value of the service to bear relation to the gain employed rendered. Women and minors inefficient, harsh overreaching to the subject peculiarly unregulated competition or ignorant and under employers the effective where exists for adequate machinery wage of minimum fair stand- regulation and maintenance as set ards, the standards such exist tend absence of least In the conscionable employers. minors, women and effective minimum rates for wages by unscrupulous lowering employers constant against of unfair competition constitutes a form serious other the purchasing reduces employers, industry. workers threatens the stability evils oppressive, unreasonable and unfair they affect women and minors employed in the state New *12 York are such as to render imperative of the exercise police power of state for protection industry and the women and minors employed therein of the public interest of the community large at in their health and in well-being the prevention of the deterioration of the race. In the considered judgment of the legislature this article is constitutional.” does not appellant challenge these findings fact Legislature, nor he does in challenge the statements “ ” factual brief submitted by the respondent
sustain and amplify findings. these reason- Though no man, able can today, doubt mental women capacity in this though, happily, few country there are vestiges of the ancient law which between discriminated men and entering women and incapacitated women from independent industrial, upon or professional business careers, yet is notorious that in competition the free they such careers are a at with men. disadvantage in custom, reason be found ancient may prejudice, or in difference. training physical may Whatever reason, willing are patent the fact often women than accept forced to lower for service compensation or occupation. wages receive the same If constitute men “ rendered,” a fair and reasonable value of the services employer arbitrary require it would be an perhaps “ than wages such less though more even pay living necessary the minimum sufficient to meet cost of supra.) Hospital, health.” Adkins Children’s v. (Cf. and reasonable If are both less than the wages ” of the rendered and less than sufficient services value health, some living necessary meet the minimum cost of inequality oppression element bargain. found to enter into the of results From fixed vicious chain wages so suffers, or underpaid health of follow. The their families or com- a burden they must become public certainly munities. That is a matter of the might engage well the attention concern and which unjust unscrupulous that an Legislature. clearly employees the services of his employer should obtain * * * value payment less than the bear community should services rendered and that who True, employers all of his cupidity. burden In unre- unscrupulous. pay inadequate wages such afford to strained can seldom competition competitors. his beyond increase his costs those number of per- Thus if considerable any occupation “ oppressive sons are and unreasonable employed at *13 of their wages by those the weakness willing profit may be driven to employees, scrupulous employers more the however desirable pay wages. Competition, same by the one use generally, becomes unfair when practices unjust though unlawful, not are which, can force his injurious to his or to the employees public, them to avail themselves competitors compel the wall or It has held in same been cases many practices. Legislature may, within -undersuch circumstances proper is in restrain such That limits, practices. interest of proper competition. wages does not oppressive stop
The vicious result of through- earner. It extends underpaid wage even with the out degree beyond even industry and in lesser one reason or another industry. Labor which for as to be known deficient in has come bargaining power “ wages to obtain labor which fails cheap is, labor,” of the services rendered. commensurate with the value where that, community Just as has experience shown flourish, cannot so free labor peonage slavery exists, or wages where oppressive even industry, community, or is not to those bargaining power, deficient in indirectly wages unreasonable to believe that such affect others. but of all very substantially wages nevertheless At least the Legislature might so find. It cannot then be that the conditions which gainsaid Legislature found exist call for some remedy. Indeed, does appellant seriously argue otherwise. The question real here is whether the remedy applied is reasonable and presented requirements of “due complies process,” Supreme defined without Court, which there may restriction upon of contract. liberty Here we examine the profitably prevailing opinion in Adkins v. Children’s to determine Hospital (supra) whether statute now under consideration is subject objections to the which dictated the conclusion of the In court in that case. that case the statute provided fixing for the of standards of minimum for women adequate in any occupation supply to * cost necessary * * to women living workers to maintain them health to protect their morals.” No other standard there prescribed. was was there said that while differences men and must physical [between women! be recognized appropriate cases, legislation fixing or take them may properly hours conditions work account, accept into we cannot the doctrine that of mature sui age, juris, require may subjected their could not liberty restrictions of contract which *14 in similar lawfully imposed be the case of men under ” that statement (p. circumstances 553). accept We implications. with all its to restrict Legislature greater has then no All equally than of men. are women liberty all, and, regard to the in protection law,
entitled be can of contract is the and restriction liberty rule, was justified only by circumstances. What exceptional less, the court can mean that. None the said by only in legislation health, physical as in relation to just be properly differences between men and women fields, in other legislation into account so taken required disregard Legislature cannot reasonably from differently affect women conditions which actual whether the conditions in each case is The test men. those conditions of whether remedy regardless justify must of course be men or women. Classification affect outworn' not theories conditions, actual upon based Adkins In the case the or superiority. inferiority sex require could Legislature whether question was sufficient to wages to women pay their morals, to protect health and good maintain them rendered. The value of the service regardless of the in its is unreasonable requirement court held such a that women. it is confined to nature and not because justified can be employers question In this is whether case “ oppres- which are wages compelled pay legislation that There is here contention sive.” restrict Legislature may ground is on the justified not restrict the liberty of women where it could liberty that women are not has found Legislature men. The in bargaining with equality as a class a level of wage standards, to minimum fair regard their employers ‘ ’ to their relations with applied freedom contract as ” there 550). illusory (§ Undoubtedly their is employers than less men paid that women are ground for the belief may also be That of men groups occupations. most Perhaps they, true. entirely oppressive legislation. Upon similar too, protected should pass. called we are not now question has not Legislature that here the sufficient to out point or sexes. Since groups discriminated between unlawfully unrestrained in the reasonably be found might a dis- class at as a forces, women of economic play welfare, general to the injury resultant advantage, adopt legislation, might in its discretion Legislature to meet adapted them, which confined to The distinction them. affecting peculiarly conditions *15 health the protect to assumed need is based the of protecting the need women but or morals “ ” public contracts against oppressive wage the evil of conditions imposed upon women because of economic in this as in the peculiarly affecting case, women. So question Adkins the case, the fundamental whether remedy is and appropriate. reasonable In the the Adkins case the court said law forbids “ — parties having capacity two lawful under penalties — as to freely to contract one another for which one shall render service respect price to the other in where both private employment a purely though even willing, anxious, agree, to perhaps consequence to surrender desirable oblige be to one with the engagement dispense services other might of a That criticism (p. 554). desirable employee it has no statute; application here, the earlier applied to might shown, Legislature we for, as have than the wages less find of a contract acceptance and less than the for services rendered reasonable value from its nature be must living cost of healthful than wage earner rather induced necessities of the “is desirable.” employment by any opinion that “ fixed the board need price Then the court said: earning or capacity have relation may happen of hours which the number employee, of the work, place the character day’s constitute the or or the circumstances be done, where the work while it has no other and, surroundings employment; of the * * * the employee, the necessities of support basis to resources independent of any no account takes 555). objection does not Again, this (p. she have” has, as we have challenged. now to the statute apply employee.” of the than the necessities other basis shown, fair relation bear no which Its basis is rather employee, of the earning power capacity to the day’s to constitute may happen number hours the work of the where place the character work, surroundings employ- circumstances or or the done, *16 ” ment; in words, other relation to all those conditions might enter the compensation into measure of fair for the value services, are not in wages; fair and when addition, they are insufficient to the health of maintain the employee, such wages are detrimental the general welfare.
The next in source of the case Adkins is the invalidity uncertainty of the standard to applied fixing the minimum wages which must be made. the formula There “ to be applied necessary living was the cost of to women workers to maintain them in health and protect their morals.” Here the formula applied fixing wages to be is “ ” “ that of a fair i. statute, a e., defined wage fairly and commensurate the value ” service or class of 8). service rendered subd. (§551, The necessities of the do not enter into that employee standard. under to fix True, statute, jurisdiction wages dependent is made the wages finding to a substantial paid number women or minors is less * * * than necessary minimum cost of living health (§ 551, subd. 7), though, Supreme but as the even Court has pointed out, necessary living cost of not “ precise unvarying sum,” obviously there must be yet a point certainty where determination with reasonable possible are less than cost necessary Thus living good to maintain a health. woman objection the standard in considered in the.statute postpone Adkins here. case has no We application might be raised objections consideration whether similar statute present to the to be under the applied standards objections completed analysis until after we have case. set forth in the in the Adkins opinion law takes It is further that opinion said the con- party one only account of the necessities of com- tract. the necessities of ignores sum, only a certain pelling him not less than pay it, irrespec- earning but capable employee whether the of his business to sustain the ability tive burden, leaving course, him, privilege abandon- generously going on his business as alternative at a loss. ing * * * *17 him at least the sum compels pay It to fixed the needs but it, requires any event, employee in because of value from the equivalent employee. no service undertakes to solve but one half of the problem. therefore half is the establishment of a corresponding The other efficiency, part and this forms of standard the policy in the although practice of the former half legislation, failure, must lead to ultimate in without the latter accord- with inexorable law that no one can ance the continue than he out more indefinitely puts take without * * * exhausting supply. the To the ultimately fixed exceeds the fair value of extent that the sum a rendered, compulsory it amounts to exaction services partially indigent for the of a employer support from the upon for whose condition there rests him no person, therefore, effect, and peculiar responsibility, arbitrarily if which, belongs shifts to his shoulders a burden it to any- body, belongs society (p. 557). as a whole objections Here we reach the crux of the in the which, of the rendered the earlier statute opinion Supreme Court, it is arbitrary here, too, and unreasonable and evident Legislature, statute, recognized the new these objections sought provide remedy a which should Assuming be free from them. it possible . measure, statute, accordance with the provisions ” rendered, of the of service value service class requirement employer it is clear that a shall not be does not permitted to less than such value pay compel employee a sum which employer pay that the capable earning,” fairly not nor can it said ability law compels payment irrespective of burden, exception perhaps business to bear the with of a through practices business which can exist only business unsound, economically are unfair and be able to bear burden ordinarily paying must An to the business. compensation given for service than the employer that, than less pays who less the burden living, places upon society cost of healthful the business. legitimate part of costs paying from the appears That these differences are vital “ The for it continues: opinion case, itself in the Adkins any other, which, this more than perhaps feature of statute is that exacts invalidity it the puts stamp purpose from the arbitrary payment his having a basis no causal connection engages business, employee or the contract or the work the out, already to do. The declared basis, pointed extraneous rendered, the value the service but *18 pre- a get circumstance that needs to employee health and subsistence, scribed sinn of insure her money to ” case. morals in this (p. 558). opposite The exact true “ The requirement implicit moral in contract every and the employment, viz., that the amount to be some service to be each other rendered shall bear to ” in ignored relation just equivalence, completely the earlier here. Indeed ignored statute. not “ the moral aims do is to that what statute to declare ” requirement employment implicit every contract through by agreement be where parties cannot excluded Indeed, suffer. general may exclusion the welfare such expressly and the court went further in the Adkins case one under considera- that a like the out statute pointed there held objections might subject tion not be to the requiring employer an to “A statute insuperable, saying: regular intervals, and at pay prescribed pay money, with even rendered, pay the services the value pay obtained the extent relation to from benefit fair But a statute service, would understandable. things of these regard any without
prescribes payment from apart relation to circumstances solely by it and affected contract of business employment, the work it, done under is so clearly of a product naked, exercise arbitrary that it cannot allowed to stand under the Constitution of the United ” States (p. 559).
We assumed, have so that the far, provisions fixing wages fair are a standard which provide applied can be officers. by administrative That now assumption must be tested by analysis the statute itself. statute does not require every shall minimum employer pay “ fair ” nor that at and to wage, peril his avoid criminal is a prosecution, employer must determine what any “ An wage. wage only must such a pay where wage particular such a has fixed for a service been or class in a particular of service adminis- industry by trative and where made order, a further order has been requiring industry pay employers so wage when, fixed. only Such order made on the basis of possession information of Minimum Industrial Commissioner or the Director Wage opinion any is of Bureau, Commissioner occupa- minors in substantial number of tion or and unreason- receiving oppressive occupations hundred fifty-one.” able defined in five section order to make an summarily proceed Even then he report board to fixing must wages, appoint but *19 for wage fair rates of minimum establishment 554). occupation (§ such women or minors such of not be composed must Wage The Minimum Board in any employers representatives than more three repre- number of equal occupation or occupations, ocupa- occupation or in such employees sentatives of the persons disinterested more than three tions and not “ of its sixty days Within representing public. including a report submit shall wage board organization a fair standards wage minimum as to its recommendations occupations or occupation minors for or the women appointed board was wage which the wage standards “ wage 555, a That means 4.) subd. (§ investigate.” the value of the commensurate with and fairly a establishing In rendered. or class service service of service under service or class wage fair any board without wage and the the commissioner this article evidence or pro- rules of any technical being by bound circum- all relevant take into account (1) may cedure or service of the service class of affecting value stances as like considerations (2) may guided and rendered, the reasonable value guide a court a suit for would at are rendered rendered where services services the amount contract request of an without and consider wage paid, (3) of the to be character comparable in the state for work like or fair who maintain minimum by employers voluntarily (§ 551, 8). standards” subd. fair services It is said that the standard of value It is true application. too indefinite accurate agreement, is ordinarily by competitive value determined fix a required and value plain, the Board here, Courts from the fixed such agreement. different value fix are at values when there juries required times have price-fixing is no market statutes price, many by public interest, been affected a occupations sustained exist. The though there, too, difficulty may same fixing if exists for is met some reasonable basis difficulty becomes wages. a of the Board report Wage Before when hearing, only effective there public must a can Commissioner, hearing, has approved, after such 556 and (§§ fixing wage.” order made directory for only Even then the order remains 557.) thereafter, mandatory nine months. made can be At any only hearing. (§ 560.) but public new directory wages, time an order such whether fixing after must be or has in effect a there mandatory, year, been fifty wage upon petition reconsideration In addition (§ more residents of the State. *20 board, .the by there is industrial right of review from ón any ruling holding courts a question or embodied in decision or any included order law (§ commissioner or director 563), upon such the reasonableness of any review rule or order be may challenged. (Labor Law, art. so
An order made seems to all comply respects with Legislature The requirements. constitutional has set a guide standard which must the administrative officers. cannot Though applied the standard be mechanically, to admit of is sufficient most cases conclusions rea- evidence and which sonably presented drawn from the of rules of application can be tested reason. by and a hearing persons statute all affected provides of the reasonableness of the conclusions judicial review drawn. There cases may, quite possibly, exceptional can be from produced, where evidence drawn. conclusion can Then logically any person of the finding. attack the reasonableness No such may is made, report attack here and an examination its Wage shows evidence to ample support Board conclusion.
Doubtless, application statute, hardship in the Argument be made may individuals at times arise. the free are best corrected wrongs play economic Doubtless consideration has of economic forces. in many of the courts cases where the conclusion dictated have been declared restricting competition statutes is system Our based economic unconstitutional. of contract say liberty we and when competition, justified only by exceptional can be restriction rule and that. None the mean just circumstances, probably we reason- reasonable limits and restrictions within less, Legislature as the long and so justified, grounds able determine it must limitations those does not exceed for restrictions that must be the price whether expected the results justified if the court said that restrictions. from such .It permit it must also prices, of minimum fixing permits problem is prices. of maximum fixing *21 only Legis- hold in this case the We simple. so for fix minimum women prices might lature the by the limited field covered statute within because advantage of the economic have taken employers some public injury. Competition to the women weakness has at illusory, it has been times found, been there, to the injury general and has worked at times unfair could fixing prices a law maximum welfare. Whether so as to justified by compelling circumstances ever be Price fixing reasonable not involved. render law so long contract must remain unrestrained .it by free In each case the test injure public does not welfare. and in conformity is whether the restriction is justified process.” to due it interesting this case
Here, may observe challenged or has the fairness of employee or it wage may injustice. fixed claims result of a Wage agreed Board the amount unanimously upon wage No laundry industry. person appeared hearings wage at to the so No public object fixed. sought a order person by appeal review Industrial Board. order been in force for has several for and there has been no a recon- years application in support Even this brief appeal, sideration. association of owners by of the law has been filed trade attacking is the law laundries, only person charged has been with concealment who appellant In cir- the law. such false entries of disobedience of far said at least in so hardly that, cumstances can or the the statute business, as concerns the laundry are orders fixing order unfair unreasonable. When occupations in other fixing wages issued women they called decide whether courts evidence. justified reasonable and though primarily enacted statute, told that this We are eventually result women, may protection for the them; employ employers prefer for some injury to than for less men if can male employees obtain they That employees. adult male requires the law at efficiency can be obtained less than equal employees wage fixed women and minors con- findings to the contrary trary experience to common Under these Legislature. circumstances, *22 Legislature might reasonably the is one which objection If truth it should that sub- appear any disregard. fixing have of of men because orders price stantial number might be con- any industry, supplanted No that the orders were unreasonable. vincing evidence appellant. has been made the by such contention told orders work hard- may further that such We are has statute pro- in some districts. The ship to industries differentiate wage 5. A against may that. board vided according occupation classify employments any recommend rendered and service to the nature employ- for different minimum fair rates appropriate may board also recommend wage A ments. judgment if in the localities wage varying rates with differentiar make such local conditions board an unreasonable discriminar and do not effect
tian proper (§ locality.” against any tian is not- permissive, differentiation is argued may true, permissive right be but a That mandatory. mandatory where failure becomes differentiate There as elsewhere be unreasonable. it would exercise subject judicial is review. of the Board judgment urged objections by considered all We have though to us, perhaps have occurred or which appellant objections these rests exclu- some the consideration Doubtless some Legislature. persons sively some women may There may hardship. suffer Some greater efficiency. other women replaced by economically unsound, may which are businesses, may be the hardships individual discontinued. Such but competition, greater restriction result kind result also of the same hardships that com- where competition, especially unrestrained unfair overreaching other tainted with petition objec- these Legislature weighed The doubtless practices. should say so that a court are not tions, weighty they are over- they find Legislature reasonably could not benefits. countervailing anticipated balanced by Can declared unconstitutional such statute be seeks to Legislature courts? The conditions which might rea- Legislature The remedy imaginary. exercise oppressive sonably find that are caused they conditions that removal such of'liberty contract, devised remedy necessary general welfare. though conditions, calculated to end those train other evils. in its perhaps remedy may carry or to to employers is on the not unfair remedy whole hardship. individuals suffer employees; though have Other to our own countries with traditions similar *23 con- adopted analogous remedies more drastic to meet ditions. of contract upon liberty The restriction use of that against directed a harmful and unfair perhaps legislative upon The constitutional limitations liberty. not they may must be enforced but by court, meaning. Liberty beyond extended their zealously like other forms of must contract, liberty, fear that guarded against State, invasion but the fubure unreasonable the State encroach individual cannot legislation the liberties of the upon of the State, justify present powers limitation upon in the Constitution. not expressed clearly implicit grounds of upon may be restrained Liberty upon each case general must decide welfare. Courts in this presented the facts presented; facts there Legis- that the saying case do find any ground we the limitations lature has acted or transcended arbitrarily its powers. costs. The order should be with affirmed, concur JJ., Hubbs and Finch, Crane, O’Brien, J.; opinion Ch. dissents in J., Crouch Lehman, concur. JJ., Loughran, Ordered accordingly.