The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-04-29
STATE EIGHT.HOUR LAW VOID.
UNANIMOUS DECISION or. THE
COURT or APPEALS.


ALBANY, Apru ZS.-lhe Court oIhppe3ns
which had already declared Unconstitutional
,hs Prevailing Rate Of Wages law and the
cnt-s,one law as affecting work on public
contracts has now declared thu Eight-hour
lsw also void.
The case was the People against the
Orange County Road Construction Com
oany, indicted for violation Of the law.
county Judge Beattie sustained demurrer
10 the indictment. the Appellate Division
reversed him. and now itself Is reversed
The Orange County Road Construction
Company was indicted for having required
one James Toohey and others to work ten
hours day on tho improvement OF high
way through the town OF New Windsor,
Orange county, ON contract with the.
county. William Van Nance, an Orange
county lawyer, and l.. Latin Kellogg.
Abram 8. Rose and W. ID. Guthrie CT New
York, we're attorneys for the defence.
Messrs. Kellogg and Rose werc retained
by the construction company but really
appeared for the contractors Of New York.
Mr. Guthrie was employed in the case by
+. H. Hartman, who Is the president Of
the Orange County, Road Construction
Company. .-,..
bv Judge Cullen and is concurred in by
Judges Werner. vann, Bartlett, Haight and
Martin, and Chief Judge Parker. Judge
Werner and Chief Judge Parker, however.
In a separate memorandum say they con-
cur in all Of Judge Cullen's opinion with
ihe exception of the inference that the
state cannot enforce such a law through
IMPRISONMENT upon con viction for viola
ton. Judge Cullen's opinion says:
It seems to me to be entirely clear that the
statute cannot be upheld az an Exercise OF
the police power vested in the legislature.
/ should think the proposition too plain tor
decmetic then say that tie question Is set
tied BY the decisions both Of this court and
the Supreme Court q the United state tate e..
tessed by the citizen and az his cellngs
or yocntions must be pursued v Serx pLoss ns,
accurately its extent. still It is subject 70
reco snized limitations In the Interest Of
would otherwise be the right Of private
s'.en Ct he aSof Which womsn and
or persons Of immature years shall be aiioTed
to perform and prohibit altogoth:er thelf
may limit the hours Of employment Of adults
in unhealthy wor. and II may be that Gould
sr labor me N al cSns. But while i Is
orally for the Legislature to Determine what
laws and reenietions are NEEDED rS p'S SnT
fort and safety. such measures must have
some relation to these ends.
with ns the sa cbaracter Of The work. the age s.I
or condition OF the employees. not even the
the employer HYt spp sts, only oy
a Municipality. What possible bearing on
the health or security OF the empioyses or
is Is Executing a contract for the CONSTRUCTION
or performances OF n state or munictpaI Mork'
The defendant might DO ccnstr rlS n IN .ne
or for its own use In this work II gould re.
Guire labor for. as many hours a day as u
Yet the same action. Involving .exsctly the
snme character OF work: When do ,s,, 20 perr
icrmsnee Of . sSnt u,,n wtn 'ne p"o'e IL oy
biddns NJ d, S. ali ss.es h.psric5%ancs Of phy:i;
i iSe t went foar Would Be- constitItiona that
concession would not sustain the validity OF
the b act Wee Ss'o II tSe statute l. tn. arbitrary
t;sctina with the state and with other
employers .t.s
In Gulf, &C.. r. r. Co. VS.. Ellis (iss, U. 8:
1907, a statute which authorized the award
OF Judgment In actions against railway
companies OF costs not given In suits against
other defendants was held void a. violat-
teed bv The Federal Constitution. in that
il singled them out from all citizens and
CORPORATIONS. II was there said: -Classin-
cation for legislative purposes must have
some reasonable basis upon which TO stand
But arbitrary selection can never be justi;;
fed by calling II classification. The equal
protection demanded by the Fourteenth
Amendment forbids this" To the same
effect IL Getting VS.. Kansas City stock
Yards Company 0es y. g.; ~. ana tne
sewer Pine Company mot yet reported)
in the latter Of which cases II was held that
statute OF Illinois which forbade business
combinations for certain purposes WAS
void because there was excepted from its
application agriculturists and 1--we stock
dealers. The same doctrine has been re-
Gently held by this court In the matter OF
Pell ji7i NY, IS; see PEG. ex rel. Tyroler vs..
Warden, 1877 n. Y. iie; Colon VS.. Lisk,
i5s ". Y, 1887. -t.
and that the Legislature may prescribe rules
As a general proposition thisis doubtless true.
do ns sss Of iss employees Those employees
must comply with the msndate o. the LeGis.
Il. . foreman Or ihs ssss q
more than eight hours. work day from the
dischsTse him even though his contract Of
employment was FOL. definite term. In the
S ais 1 master sa but sovereign. assume that
S,ould 90 further and make the hey, violation h Of
exclusive y with them. The section reads:
Any person or cor poration who. contract
ing with the State or municipal cor poration.
email require moro than eight hours work
for a days labor guilty Of
niisdemeahor."
Now while as have said. II the State
Itself prosecut6s a work IL may dictate every
detail OF the service required In its peri orni-
snce; presor ibe the wages Of workmen. their
hours " labor ana the articular individuals
Who may he employed, no suoh right exists
where IL has let out the performance Of the
work TO contractor unless II p reserved
by the contract. The state In this respect
stands the same as its citizens. Its rights
nrc Just us great as those OF private citizens.
bat uu greater. - 10.
valid exercise Of the police power or because
the work was beinR done for the State. TO
sustain " some other ground must be fourd
on which IL may rest Only one Is suggested;
0h the same day upon which the section OF
III" Penal Code before us became n law there
wus enacted chapter 4l5 OF the Law OF 81,
known as the Labor Law, BY section, OF
that net II was provided that eieht hour.
should constitute q legal days work for all
classes OF employees la this state except
those engaged IN farm and domestic labor
unless otherwise provided by law. II wus
further provided thai this should not prevent
Az avrce pent for oycrw.rk for extra com.
pcnsation. By chapter Sol OF the Lawn OF
1900 this sctlnn was amended 20 as to with
oraw from the exception provided BY VOL
done by or for tho Sthte or a municipal cor
potation or by contractors or sub-con-