Los Angeles herald., 1890-08-06
EIGHT-HOUR LAW.
Declared Unconstitutional by the Su-
preme Court.

preme NOurC.
City Attorney Mcfarland yesterday
received notice that the Supreme Court
had decided the eight-hour ordinance
unconstitutional. The ordinance makes
it misdemeanor for any contractor on
public Improvements to work his men
more than eight hours per day, and a
clause to that effect is inserted in all
contracts. The matter was brought to
an issue, some months ago, by the ar
rest of ofKuback, who had the contract for
one of the new school buildings. He
was found guilty before the Justices
court, and fined $15. He took an appeal
to the Superior Court, where the case
was argued at some length by CityAttor-
ney M'Farland whose brief was printed
at that time, and he was sustained by
the Superior Court. An appeal was
then taken to the Supreme Court, where
the case has since been pending.
The following is the opinion Of the Su-
preme Court, as received yesterday:
1t is claimed in support of the petition
that this ordinance was unconstitutional
and void. We think this objection is
we'll taken. 1t is simply an attempt to
prevent certain parties from employing
others in lawful business and paying
them for their services, and is direct
infringement Of the rights of such per-
sons to make and enforce their contracts.
Ii the services to be performed were
unlawful or against public policy, or the
employment was such as might be unit
for certain persons, as for instance, fe-
males or infants, the ordinance might
be upheld as sanitary or police regula-
ton but we cannot conceive OF any the
ory upon which the city could be justi-
fled in making it misdemeanor for one
of it's citizens to contract with another
for services to be rendered because the
contract is that he shall work more than
limited number of hours per day. Mr..
Cooley in his work on Constitutional
Limitations says:
''The general rule undoubtedly is that
any person is at liberty to pursue any
lawful calling and to do so in his own
way not ercroachinS upon the rights of
others. This general right cannot be
taken away. 1t is not competent there
fore to forbid any person or class OF per-
sons. whether citizens or resident aliens,
offering their services in lawful business
or to subject others to penalties for en-
ploying them. But here, as appears
elsewhere, it is proper to recognize dis.
tinctions that arise in the nature OF
things, and under some circumstances
to inhibit employmentst to some one class
by leaving them open to others. Some
employments, for example. may be ad-
missible for males and improper for fe-
males, and regulations recognizing the
improperly and forbidding women en-
gaging in them would be open to no rea..
sonable objection. J The same is true OF
young children whose employment In
mines and manufactures is commonly
and ought always to be regulated. And
some employments in which integrity
is OF vital Importance it may be, proper
to treat as privileges merely, and to re-
fuse the license to pursue them to any
who are not reputable"
For these reasons we hold the ordinance
so far as it attempts to create criminal
offense to be void and that the petitioner
should be discharged.