Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1897-10-13
KANSAS EIGHT HOUR STATUTE yIR-
TUALLY KNOCKED OUT.
WoRKMEN HAVE NO REDRESS.
IF THEY VIOLATE THE LAW THEY
CANNOT SUE UNDER 1T.
Decision Is by Judge Wells, of thu
Court of Appeals, In a Marshall
County Case-A Joke on
IEnatius Dom
nelly.

Topeka, Kas., Oct. 12.-(Special.) Judge
Wells, of the Kansas court of appeals, has
rendered n decision which practically rem
derS the eight-hour law dead letter. The
opinion was rendered in the case OF Bill
ingsley VS.. board of commissioners of Mar
shall county. Billingsley was given a con-
tract to do some work for the cbInty. He
worked ten hours a day on the job. When
he finished IL, he claimed that under the
law, eight hours was days work and he
put in a claim for surplus time amounting
to two hours a day. The board refused to
pay the claim for overtime and he attempt
ed to enforce It's collection In the district
court. That tribunal ruled against him and
he appealed to the court of appeals. Now
this court has affirmed the decision of the
lower court. In his opinion Judge Wells
says:
I'm the consideration of this question, let
us assume, as claimed by the plaintiff in
error, that the object of the so-called eight
hour law is: First, to shorten the hours
of labor; second. to give the unemployed
a chance to get work; and then inquire
how either of these objects is to be aided
by allowing one man to do day and
half's work each day, and then collect for
the excess. 1t seems to us that the al
lowance of the plaintiffs claim would di-
rectly tend to defeat both. 1t is familiar
rule that thing may be within the letter
OF statute and yet not within the statute,
because not within its spirit or intention.
But in this case the claim of the plaintiff
is not within the letter of the law. The
law referre ed to makes it unlawful for any
county or contractor to require or permit
any person to work more than eight hours
per day. except in cases of extraordinary
emergency. In this case there was no claim
of any such emergency. We are, therefore,
presented with this alternative:
Either plaintiff in error violated the let
ter and spirit of the law in question, and
now insists on being paid for doing so; or
that chapter does not apply to cases of
this kind. Each Of these positions is equal
| ly fatal.
ut is an elementary principle of law
| that person cannot base a cause of ac-
| tion upon his own wrong. In the case at
bar, If the services came within the scope
| of said law, then it was unlawful for the
| plaintiff to work more than eight hours
day, and it was unlawful for the commits
| sioners to allow him to do so; and he, by
| his act, violated the law and subjected the
| commissioners. If not himself. to GRIM
| inal prosecution. He now asks to profit
| by It,"
The court then afiirms the decision of the
Marshall county district court.
| Several leading lawyers whose attention
was called to the decision to-day claim
that 1t practically renders the eight hour
law dead letter unless the supreme court
reverses the opinion of the appellate court.
1t is claimed that all labor is employed
by contract, either written or implied, and
that, under the above decision, a laborer
| who works more than eight hours for any
period of time cannot recover for surplus
time because he helped to violate the law
and is. therefore. barred from any benefits
under 1t. The only way that the law can
apply is where an understanding is had in
advance between employer and employe
| This kills the intent of the law, for the
employer is not required to employ an
| eight hour advocate. If he hires one to
work and wants to work him overtime,
the employe will either have to do so with
out additional pay or quit his job and he
has no redress whatever under this opin-
ion. This will likely block the plans Of
the policemen and firemen in large cities
OF bringing suits to recover for overtime