Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THE ATLANTIAN 11 WORKMEN’S WAGE * AND j THE CONSTITUTION. The decision of the New York Court j of Appeals declaring the workmen’s compensation act of that State un constitutional, on the ground that it violates the provision of the four teenth amendment prohibiting the taking of property without due pro cess of law, is generally deplored. This distinctively retrogressive inter pretation of the constitution finds ap proval only in ultrareactionary quar ters. Even conservative journals find the decision regrettable. It certainly creates a serious situation, for it erects a constitutional barrier, at least temporarily, across the path of a leg islative reform that is clearly demand ed by economic expediency and so cial justice. The effect must be to weaken still further popular respect for the constitution and the courts. The opinion delivered by the New York justices may be said, however, to exhibit the limitations of the ju dicial mind rather than to demon strate the rigidity of the constitution itself. A body of men more amena ble to the influence of "economic, philosophical and moral theores," would doubtless have worked out a solution of the problem presented to the court in the New York case. The justices who pronounced the work men’s compensation act unconstitu tional simply showed themselves un equal to the opportunity offered them. If is tolerably certain that if this issue is brought before other State courts, a different interpretation of the con stitution will be forthcoming sooner or later. There is wide divergence in the decisions of the courts on other questions of social legislation. The same lack of unanimity may be pre dicted with reference to workmen’3 compensation acts. The spirit of the New York de cision, by the way, is in striking con trast with that of the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Oregon case. In that opinion the propriety of interpreting the pro visions of our constitutions in the light of the requirements of social justice and progress was clearly recognized. The opinion of the court, as deliver ed by Justice Brewer, contains these pregnant words: “It. may not be amiss in the present case, before examining the constitutional questions, to notice the course of legislation as well as expressions of opinion from other than judicial sources. . . . The . . . legislation and opinions referred to . . . are significant of a wide spread belief that woman’s physical structure, and the special functions she performs in consequence thereof, justify special legislation restricting, or qualifying the conditions under which she should be permitted to toil. Constitutional questions, it is true, are not settled by even a consensus of present public opinion ... At the same time, when a question of fact is debated and debatable, and the extent to which a special constitution al limitation goes is affected by the truth in respect to that fact, a wide- T HIS is the logical house for you to trade with. Our goods are good goods—the best in their respective grades —that money can buy. Our stocks are great; our assortments, va ried. Our prices are al ways lower than else where. spread and long-continued belief con cerning it is worthy of consideration. We take judicial cognizance of all matters of general knowledge.” If the New York justices had given due weight to these considerations their ruling in the recent case would have been the reverse of what it was. Even the London Times expresses surprise at the reactionary attitude of American judges on questions of so cial legislation. Says the Times: “To read these decisions is to go back to a world which has for us as good as passed away. Their authors seem to think that freedom of employer and employed means doing what one wishes, not doing what one is order ed to do. They extol the value of such freedom. They hold that it is gone if grown up people are sent to prison or fined for working in their way, on their own terms and in their own hours. . . . Language which half a century ago was familiar here and which was then regarded as con taining the core of Liberalism is re peated with confidence and emphasis from the Bench of the Supreme Court and the State courts. Some of our judges are charged by certain labor members with being unsympathetic with trade unions. What would these critics say about judges, many of them elected by popular vote, who continue tu hold firmly to the doctrines ex pounded by early Victorian economists which trade unions were supposed to violate? It is notable that this exal tation of the value of individual lib erty in the relations of capital and labor has its special home, some would say its last refuge, in America.” It is, of course, inconceivable that the barrier to the improvement of the laws relating to workmen’s compen sation raised by the New York de- I cision will be allowed to stand. In some way a solution of the difficulty will be found, perhaps through a con stitutional amendment, more probably through a relational and progressive interpretation of the present provis ions of the constitution. Dr. Edward T. Devine puts the situation admir- i aMy in these words: “Prom their I different points of view every great J social interest; business, labor, I science, religion, and the home, will | arise to bear its testimony against the constitutional views embodied in this decision,, and will demand that i lawyers now exercise their ingenuity in devising some plan for restoring to the people the safeguards of which ; il. has deprived them. . . . We : cun not believe that in order to secure ; a rational compensation system it is necessary to amend the constitution in such a way as to deprive citizens of the guaranty of a ‘due process of law.’ We can imagine cases in which this right may tsill be worth preserv-' ing, though we do not remember that ; the State Legislatures, prior to the’ ’ adoption of the fourteenth amend ment, were especially pron to pass laws which restricted it; or that the ! amendment has notably served the 5 ' purpose of protecting life, liberty, or v; property from illegal and unjust ex propriation. Probably some other