Public Opinion

There was a law in the District of Columbia prohibiting the employment of women at less than $16.50 per week ($858 per year). Passed by Congress, signed by the President, the law was thrown out as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in what was virtually a 5-4 decision.

It is already clear that a large majority of the nation condemns the decision and distrusts the reasoning which supports it.

It is argued that the decision courageously upholds freedom-of-contract. But many are inclined to condemn the Court for " upholding the freedom to starve."

Justice Sutherland, who wrote the decision, questioned the economic soundness of the law. But it has never been the province of the Court to question the wisdom of legislation.

The point is made that since women have the vote, there should not be special legislation for women. But, as Mr. Taft said in dissenting from the decision, the Nineteenth Amendment did not abolish the physical inequalities of women.

The layman seems to believe that if there is enough law on the side of this Minimum Wage Law for Mr. Taft, there is enough for him.