New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-01
EIGHT HOUR LAW VALID.
Supreme Court Upholds States
Right to Regulate Labor.

Washington, Nov. 30.-The United States supreme
Court to-day affirmed the consttutionahty OF tne
eight hour law OF the State of Kansas, reg
labor on public works Justice Harlan nahaso
down the opinion. Chief Justice Fuller ana JUS
tees Brewer and Peckham dissented The Kansas
law the validity of which called into question
enacted in 1891, and provided that eight n'N's
should constitute days work for men eHPioSeu
by or on behalf of the State, or by any county VI
city or other municipality In the state. IL also
prohibits contractors from requiring laoorers en-
gagged work for the State 10 perform NUTS
than eight hours labor in day. Fine ana I'M
prtsonment are provided for violation OK the law.
The case was that of W. w Atkins against the
State of Kansas. Atkins had a contract with the
corporation of Kansas City. Kan. for paving a
street. and he charged with requiring a man
named Reese to work ten hours day he was
prosecuted in the State courts where the decisions
were uniformly against him. He 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 Fourteenth
Amendment the Constitution in that 1t denied
to him due protection OF the law and deprived him
of his property without due process,
Referring to the only other decision OF the court
the eight hour question that Of Holden against
Hardy in which the court sustained the law OF
Utah fixing eight hour day for miners employed
underground Justice Harlan called attention 10
the fact that while in the Utah case private In
terests were involved, the present case involves
employment public works only.
municipalities Of State are the creatures or the
State, that work for them is of pubic character
and does not infringe on the personal liberty OF
any one. He added
Whatever may have been the motives that con-
can imagine no possible ground 10 dispute the
power OF the State 10 declare that no one under
agencies shall permit or require an employe on
day. ana to Inlet punishment upon contractors
who disregard such regulation It sannot 6e
ne be allowed to DC pubs wogk IN any mode ne
of the State On the contrary. it belongs TO the
State, as the guardian and trustee for It's people.
| NIT public work to be done. No court has author
ny 70 1eS US aGSen o iTas Te5eG s az NUN
lie policy. and with such considerations the courts
Taking UP the question Of public policy, Justice
Harlan said
IF it be contended to the right Of every one to
dispose of his labor upon such terms as he deems
criminal offence for a contractor for public work
to permit or require his emPloye 70 perform labor
is in derogation Of the liberty q empIoye and en-
titled Of absolute right and part OF his liberty
to perform labor for the State. ana no contractor
full agreement with the State by doing that which
the statute of the State under which he proceeds
50, also. If it be said that statute like the
swer is that tie responsibility therefor rests upon
legislators, not upon the courts No evils arising
from such legislation could be more far reaching
than those that might come to our system OF gov
erpmeut if the Judiciary abandoning the sphere
assigned to II by the fundamental law, should
the domain OF legislation, and upon grounds merely
of justice wisdom annul statutes that
had received the sanction OF the peoples repre-
sentatives. We are reminded by counsel that il is
the solemn duty OF the courts in before them
TO guard the constitutional rights OF the citizen
against merely arbitrary power, That is unques-
tionably true. But it is equally true-indeed the
public interests imperatively demand-that legisla-
tive enactmentS be recognized and enforced by the
courts embodying the will OF The people. unless
they plainly and palpably beyond al question.
in violation of the fundamental law of the consttu
ton 1t cannot be affirmed of the statute of Kansas
that 1t is plainly inconsistent with that instrument
indeed. its nstutionality is beyond all question
On the point of the validity of a similar statute
affecting private employment. Justice Harlan said
Whether similar statute, applied TO laborers or
employees In purely private work, would be const-
tutiona is a question of very large import, which
have occasion to determine or even 70
consider.