CHAP. 6.—MINIMUM WAGE FOR WOMEN IN UNITED STATES 41

Mrs. Millie R. Trumbull, secretary-inspector of the Industrial
Welfare Commission of Oregon, writes under date of March 19, 1928:
Oregon still carries on through the industrial welfare commission the wage
‘egulations established in 1919. We do not have any prosecutions, however, as
that would precipitate the determination as to the unconstitutionality of the
“lause under the United States Supreme Court decision. We have been very
Lortunate in being able to settle most of the cases in the office through informal
hearings, We emphasize the expense of going into courts and also point out
shat all prosecutions in violation of the order result in the fine money going
into the treasury, a civil suit being necessary to collect the overtime for the
tomplainant, We suspect, however, the fact that the wages are so low ($13.20
2 week for an experienced adult woman) has much to do with the situation.
. The position of the Division of Industrial Welfare of California is
similar but seems somewhat stronger. Mrs. Katharine Philips
Edson, chief of the division, writes on March 24, 1928:
We are enforcing the law with considerable success. There has been practically
 no break in the minimum wage legislation of the State in any industry
*Xcept the canning industry in southern California. They are paying a higher
Dlece rate than those fixed by this department but they have refused to conform to
‘he audit system. They obey the overtime regulations and conform to all the
fequirements of the department but have not cooperated with the commission
{0 reference to this audit system.
This commission issued an order for the motion-picture industry,
effective March 16, 1926, making rules for working conditions and
hours, and proportionate rates for overtime, but not prescribing any
"Xpress minimum wage.” Influential groups of employers cooperate
With the commission and are disinclined to undertake a legal fight,
although their chances might be good. The Merchants and Manufacturers’
 Association of Los Angeles on March 20. 19928. writes:

Although there is some legal doubt as to the constitutionality of this law in
the face of recent Supreme Court decisions, ne test case has been brought in
the State of California and so long as the operations of this law appear to be
Successful to industry as we now view them, I doubt if any such legal action
will be taken.
The limits of the present compromise are, however, narrow. Prof.
W. G. Beach, of Stanford University, in his letter of March 20. 1928,
statoa «

The California commission is at present working upon what may be called a
tautious policy because of adverse court decisions in regard to laws of this
character. Thus far it has been able to obtain the approval of manufacturers
In the State, and as a consequence there is apparently no immediate likelihood
of the law itself being attacked. The result is that minimum wage conditions
are much better in most occupations than before the operation of the law.
However, it is altogether probable that if the commission were to attempt any
more radical measures than it has used thus far, the manufacturers would in
Rll DProbability attack the law itself. The result is that the commission does
18 much ag it can and still retain the general approval of the manufacturers—
darticularly the larger ones. On the whole these manufacturers seem to feel
‘hat the law itself has many advantages from their own point of view in so far
38 it regulates the basis of competition for all of them alike.
The situation in the State of Washington is similar. The employers
 cooperate. Prof. Theresa McMahon, of the University of
Washington, in Seattle, writes in a letter received in March, 1928:
Under the new régime no conferences have been called, so the old wage remains
undisturbed. It is really lower than the minimum fixed by bargaining conditions
 for women workers in department stores and laundries, ete. * * .%

American Labor Legislation Review, New York. June, 19268, p. 128.