# McLean v. Arkansas

Supreme Court of the United States
211 U.S. 539
MCLEAN v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas
No. 29. Argued: Nov. 30, 1908 --- Decided: Jan. 4, 1909
Liberty of contract which is protected against hostile state legislation is not universal, but is subject to legislative restrictions in the exercise of the police power of the State.
The police power of the State is not unlimited and is subject to judicial review, and laws arbitrarily and oppressively exercising it may be annulled as violative of constitutional rights.
The legislature of a State is primarily the judge of the necessity of exercisiig the police power and courts will only interfere in case the act exceeds legislative authority; the fact that the court doubts its wisdom or propriety affords no ground for declaring a state law unconstitutional or invalid.
In the light of conditions surrounding their enactment this court will not hold that the legislative acts requiring coal to be measured for payment of miners' wages before screening are not reasonable police regulations and within the police power of the State; and so held that the Arkansas act so providing is not unconstitutional under the [p540] due process or the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is not an unreasonable classification to divide coal mines into those where less than ten miners are employed and those where more than that number are employed, and a state police regulation is not unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because only applicable to mines where more than ten miners are employed.
81 Arkansas, 304, affirmed.
The facts, which involved the constitutionality of the Arkansas coal miners' wages act, are stated in the opinion
Mr. Daniel B. Holmes for plaintiff in error:
The act violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by restricting the right to contract, by taking property without due process of law, by unlawful discrimination and by denying to certain operators and workers in coal mines the right of civil liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Such a statute acts as a restriction upon the liberty both of employer and employed. Ritchie v. People, 155 Illinois, 88; In re Morgan, 58 Pac. Rep. 1072. The right to purchase or sell labor is one of the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578; Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161; State v. Haun, 61 Kansas, 146; Ritchie v. People, 155 Illinois, 88, and cases cited; Ramsey v. People, 32 N. E. Rep. 364; State v. Wilson, 61 Kansas, 32; In re House Bill, No. 203, 39 Pac. Rep. 432; Whitebreast Fuel Co. v. People, 51 N. E. Rep. 853; State v. Loomis, 115 Missouri, 316; Godcharles v. Wigentan, 6 Atl. Rep. 354; Braceville Coal Company v. People, 35 N. E. Rep. 62; State v. Julow, 129 Missouri, 163; Ex parte Kubach, 24 Pac. Rep. 737.
The act herein in question is not a proper or valid exertion of the police power of the State. State v. Haun, 61 Kansas, 146; People v. Warden &c., 51 N. E. Rep. 1011; Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 757; [p541] Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 137; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 589; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 57; People v. Gilison, 98 N. Y. 108; Live Stock Dealers' Association v. Crescent City Association, 1 Abb. U. S. 388; S. C., 15 Fed. Cas. 652.
The courts have often placed limitations upon the power of the State to interfere with ordinary private business under the guise of an exercise of the police power. In re Aubery, 78 Pac. Rep. 900; Horwich v. Laboratory Co., 68 N. E. Rep. 938; Liquor Co. v. Platt, 148 Fed. Rep. 902; Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N. E. Rep. 41; Iron Co. v. State, 66 N. E. Rep. 1004; Fisher Co. v. Woods, 79 N. E. Rep. 837.
The act is clearly unconstitutional and void because of the classification which it adopts of operators and laborers in mines where ten or more men are employed underground, leaving operators and laborers in all other mines free to make their own bargains and contracts for labor therein. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150; Cotting v. Kansas City Stockyards Co., 183 U.S. 79; State v. Haun, 61 Kansas, 146.
Mr. James Brizzolara, Mr. Henry L. Fitzhugh and Mr. William F. Kirby, Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, submitted:
The sole object of this statute is to protect the miner; to see that he is honestly paid for his labor, and to prevent fraud in the measurement of coal mined. The Arkansas screen law is substantially the same as, we might say almost identical with, the statutes of other States. § 8786, Dig. Mo. Stat., 1899; chap. 82, Acts of Legislature W. Va., 1891; §§ 4000–4005, Gen. Stat. of Kansas, 1899; § 7840, Rev. Stat of Ind., 1897; State v. Peel Splint Coal Co., 36 W. Va. 802; Wilson v. State, 61 Kansas, 34.
There can be no liberty of contract when such contract is in conflict with the public welfare. The State's right to exercise its police power in restraint of liberty of contract has been recognized in a large number of instances. [p542] Patterson v. Enders, 190 U.S. 169; Harbinson v. Knoxville Iron Co., 183 U.S. 13; In re Considene, 83 Fed. Rep. 157; Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113; Pierce v. Kimball, 9 Maine, 54; State v. Moore, 10 S. E. Rep. 143.
The statute is not void because of the classification adopted, which is reasonable and proper. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U.S. 205; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Paul, 173 U.S. 404; Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U.S. 680; New York Ry. Co. v. People, 165 U.S. 628; Mason v. State, 179 U.S. 328.
See also the following decisions upon the right of the legislature to discriminate between different classes of corporations and individuals. Ford v. Chicago Milk Shippers' Association, 155 Illinois, 166; Harding v. Am. Glucose Co., 182 Illinois, 551; Re Oberg, 21 Oregon, 406; State ex rel. Chandler v. Main, 16 Wisconsin, 399; Mo. Pac. Ry. v. Humes, 115 U.S. 512, Sullivan v. Hong, 82 Michigan, 548; Covington Ry. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578; New York Ry. v. Bristol, 151 U.S. 556; Brown v. Dakota, 153 U.S. 391; Lowe v. Kansas, 163 U.S. 81; Duncan v. Missouri, 151 U.S. 377; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 133.
Equal protection is not denied where the law operates alike upon all persons similarly situated. Watson v. Nervin, 128 U.S. 578; State v. Schlemmer, 42 La. Ann. 8; State v. Moore, 104 N. C. 714; Ex parte Swann, 96 Missouri, 44; Barbier v. Connelly, 113 U.S. 32; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 709; Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68; Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26; Kentucky Ry. Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321; Magoun v. Ill. Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 282.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse