The evening bulletin. [volume] (Maysville, Ky.) 1887-1905, 1903-12-01
United States Supreme Court De-
clared Valid the Kansas Act
Regarding Public Works.
The LAW WAS ENACTED IN 1901.
1t Prescribes Penalties For COntrac-
tors Who Permit or Require Their
WOrkmen to Work Longer.
Both Fine and Imprisonment Are Pro-
Vided For Violation of the Law
Justice Harlan Delivered
the Opinion.

Washington, Dec. 1.-The supreme
court of the United States Monday
sustained the validity of the Kansas
act prescribing eight hours as a law
full days work on all public works,
and prescribing penalties for contrac-
tors who permit or require their work
men to work longer.
The Kansas law, whose validity was
called into question in the suit, was
enacted in 1901 and provided that
eight hours should constitute a days
work for workmen employed by or on
behalf of the state, or by any county
or city or other municipality in the
state. 1t also prohibits contractors
from requiring laborers engaged on
work for the state to perform more
than eight hours labor in day. Both
fine and Imprisonment are provided
for violation of the law. The case de-
cided Tuesday was that of w. w. At
kins, vs. The State of Kansas. Atkins
had had a contract with the corpora
ton of Kansas City, Kan, for paving
and he was charged with requiring
workman named Reese to labor ten
hours a day. He was prosecuted in
the state courts, where the decisions
were uniformly against him. Atkins
appealed from the decision of the state
supreme court to the federal supreme
court, alleging that the statute is in
violation of the first section of the
14th amendment to the constitution;
that 1t denies him, due protection of
the law and deprived him of his prop
erty without due process.
The opinion was based on the the
DRY that all the municipalities of a
state are the creations of the state;
that work for them is of public char
acter and does not infringe on the
personal liberty of any one. He then
added:
Whatever may have been the mo-
tives that controlled the enactment of
the statute in question, we can i'm
agine no possible ground to dispute
the power of the state to declare that
no one undertaking work for it or for 4
one of its municipal agencies shall
permit or require an employe on such
work to labor in excess of eight hours
each in the day and to inflict punish
ment upon contractors who disregard
such regulation. 1t can not be deem
ed part of the liberty of any contrac-
tor that he be allowed to do public
work in any mode he may choose to
adopt without regard to the wish of
the state. On the contrary, it belongs
to the state, as the guardian and trus-
tee for its people, to prescribe the con-
ditions upon which it will permit pub
lie work to be done No court has
authority to review it's action in that
respect. Regulations on this subject
is suggest only considerations of pub
lie policy. And with such considera-
lions that courts have no concern"
Taking up the question of public
policy, Justice Harlan said:
IF it be contended to be the right |
of every one to dispose of his labor
upon such terms as he deems best
as undoubtedly it is-and that to make
a criminal offense for contractor for
public work to permit or require his
employees to perform labor upon that
work in excess of eight hours each
day is in derogation of the liberty of
employees and employer, it is sufficient
answer that no one is entitled, of abb
solute right and as part of his lib
eTty, to perform labor for the state;
and no contractor for public work can
excuse a violation of his lawful agree
ment with the state by doing that
which the statute under which he pro-
ceeds distinctly forbids him to do"