Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1903-12-02
United States Supreme Court Up
holds Constitutionality of Eight
Hour Labor Statue.
VALIDITY is AFFIRMED.
Kansas Enactment Is Declared Not Con-
trary to Public Policy-Employer
Is Held Guilty.
PRIVATE WORK is NOT TOUCHED.

Washington, D. c., Dec. 1.-The Unit
ed States supreme court affirmed the
ccnstitutonality of the eight-hour law
of the state of Kansas regulating labor
on public works. Justice Harlan said
in handing down the opinion of the court
that if the statute is mischievous the
responsibility rests with the legislators
and not the courts. Chief Justice Fuller
and Justices Brewer and Peckham dis
sented
The Kansas law, whose validity was
called into question in the suit, was en-
acted in 1891, 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
state. 1t also prohibits contractors
from requiring laborers engaged on work
for the state to perform more than
eight hours labor in a day. Both fine
and imprisonment are provided for viola
ton of the law.
The case decided was that of w. W.
Atkins versus the state of Kansas At
kins had a contract with the corporation
of Kansas City, Kan. for paving and
he was charged with requiring work
man named Reese to labor ten hours q
day. He was prosecuted in the state
courts, where the decisions were uni
formly 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
fourteenth amendment to the constltu-
ton in that it denied him due protection
of the law and deprived him of his prop
erty without due process.
The opinion was based on the theory
that all the municipalities of state are
the creations of the state; that work for
them is of public character and does
not infringe on the personal liberty Of
anyone, and that it belongs to the state,
as the guardian and trustee for its peo-
pie, to prescribe the conditions upon
which it will permit public work to be
done.
Question of Public Policy.
Taking up the question of public policy,
Justice Harlan said:
II it De contended to be the right of every
one to dispose Of his labor upon such terms
he deems best-as undoubtedly 1t is-and
tractor for public work to permit or require
his employees to perform labor upon that
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 absolute right and part
of his liberty, to perform labor for the
can excuse violation of his lawful agree
ment with the state by doing that which
the statute under which he proceeds dis
tinctly forbids him to do.
Concerning the principal plea of the
plaintiff against the law the court holds
that its constitutionality is beyond all
question.
Does Not Take Up Private Employment
On the point of the validity of a similar
statute affecting private employment,
Justice Harlan said:
Whether a similar statute applied to
laborers or employees in purely private
work would be constitutional, Is q question
OF large import, which we have no occasion
now to determine even to consider.