The Hawaiian gazette., 1903-12-22
EIGHT HOUR LAW UPHELD.

The United States Supreme Court. In
decision Just handed down, upholds
the constitutionality. of the eight-hour
law of Kansas, which is very similar to
| the law passed in Hawaii by the legis-
lature of 1903. The ruling is important,
coming as IL does upon the heels of a
decision by the New York Supreme
| Court in which n similar law, to regu-
late labor on public works, was de-
| clared invalid. Chief Justice Fuller
and justices Brewer and Peckham dis
sent from the majority opinion of the
United States Supreme Court.
| The Kansas law was enacted in 1891
and provided that eight hours should
constitute days work for workmen
| employed by or in behalf of the state,
! county, city or other municipality. 1t
| also prohibits contractors requiring la
borers engaged on work for the state to
perform more than eight hours labor
| In "A day.
The case decided was that of w. w.
| Atkins, who has a contract with Kan
sas City, Kan, and was charged with
| requiring the workmen to labor ten
hours day. The state courts decided
| against him and Atkins carried the case
to the federal supreme court alleging
| the statute to be in VioiatiOn of the
section Of the fourteenth amendment of
! the constitution in that ii denied him
| due protection of law and deprived him
of his property without due process.
The opinion of the Supreme Court
was based on the theory that all munic-
ipalities are the creation of the state,
that work for them is of public char
acter and does not infringe on the per-
sonal liberty of any one.
Justice Harlan, who wrote the opin-
ion, declares:
Whatever may have been the mo-
tives that controlled the enactment of
the statute in question we can imagine
no possible ground to dispute the power
of the state to declare no one undertake
ing work for 1t or for one of its munic-
ipal agencies shall permit or require
an employee on such work to labor in
excess OF eight hours each day and to
inilict punishment upon contractors
who disregard such regulation. 1t can
not be deemed part of the liberty OF
any contractor that he be allowed to
do public work in any mode he may
choose to adopt without regard to the
y
1t belongs to the state, as guardian ana
trustee for it's people to prescribe the
conditions upon which it will permit
public work to be done. No court has
the authority to review it's action in
that respect. Regulations on this SUBJ
ject suggest only considerations of pub
lie policy, and with such considera-
tons the courts have no concern"
AS to the question of public policy
Justice Harlan said: IF it is contendei
to be the right of everyone to dispose
of his labor upon such terms as he
deems best-as undoubtedly il is-and
that to make it a criminal offense for
contractors for public work to permit
or require his employees TO perform
labor upon that work in excess of eight
hours day is derogauion of the lib
erty of the employees and employer, it
is sufficient answer that no one is en-
titled by absolute right and part of his
liberty to perform labor for the state;
and no contractor for public work can
excuse the violation of his lawful
agreement with the state by doing that
which the statute under which he pro-
ceeds distinctly forbids him to do"