The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-05-02
The Court of Appeals on the Eight.
Hour Law.


The Court OF Appeals has just decided
chat the provision Of the Penal Code
adopted in 1897. providing that any
person or corporation who, contracting
with the State or municipal corporation,
ahall require more than eight hours work
for a days labor is guilty OF q
misdemeanor, is unconstitutional and
void on the ground that it is not valid
exercise of the police power vested in the
Legislature, because it has no possible
bearing on the health or security OF the
employees or on public health, and be-
cause 1t makes an arbitrary distinction
between persons contracting with tho
State and other men.
Judge CULLEN who writes the opinion
Of the court. cites the decision Of the
Supreme Court Of the United States in
the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fs Railway
Company case, where the court held that
4 statute Of Texas authorizing costs
against railway companies not allowed
In suits against other defendants was
unconstitutional as violating. the equal
protection Of the law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal
Constitution; and he also cites the de-
cision of the same court in the Kansas
City Stock Yards Company case. where
Il was held that Kansas statute, provid-
ing penalties for violation Of it's pro-
visions. only as against certain stock
yards, receiving more than specified
number of cattle per day, was unconsti-
tutional as in conflict with the equal-pro-
lection clause OF the Fourteenth Amend
ment.
The court also cites the recent de-
cision Of the Federal Supreme Court
holding that the Illinois Trust statute Of
1893 is unconstitutional because 1t ex-
cepts from it's operation agriculturists
or livestock dealers
Judge CULLEN says the same doctrine
has been recently sustained by our own
Court Of Appeals in the Peal case. where
the Court held that an amendment Of
the Transfer Tax law was unconstitu-
tional because it did not impose a tax
on all estates in remainder, but only upon
q limited class Of remaindermen.
Judge CULLEN says If the State itself
prosecutes a work. it may dictate every
detail Of the service required in it's per-
Torrance, but no such right exists
where it has let out the performance of
the work to contractor, unless it is re-
newed by the contract.
This decision is undoubtedly sound
law. and it is great thing for the country
that our highest Federal court and our
highest State court unite in the view that
unreasonable class discrimination or arbi-
trary selection can never be justified.
An interesting fact recalled to mind by
this decision is that some Of the city
authorities not long since altered an ex-
listing contract which contained no re-
strictions and inserted therein, upon the
demand OF some labor leaders, the eight
hour restrictive clause, thereby imposing
q loss upon the city of about one million
dollars. This was not nonfeasance: it
was either misfeasance or the betrayal
Of the city's contract rights.
In the light of this decision of the
Court Of Appeals the question now arises
whether the persons who bartered away
the city's rights are liable in an action
for the money lost, or whether the remedy
must be sought in some other way.