The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-12-01
.EIGHT-H0UR LAW
DECLARED VALID.
Decision by the Highest Court
in the Land.
OPINION BY JUSTICE HARLAN
UTAH CASE REFERRED 10 IN
THE DECISION.

Washington, Nov. SO.--The United
! States supreme court today affirmed the
/ cOnsutuuonaity Of the elght-huur law
/ OF the state Of KANSAS regulating la00r
[ on public works. justice Harian SAID
I IN handing down the opinion that iL
\ the statute is michievoUs the respOn-
siDilty rests win the legislature and
not with the courts. Cher Justice Fut-
\ Ter and Justices Brewer and Peckham
/ disseuted.
/ The Kansas law whose validity was
called into question in the suit was en-
acted ia 1851, and provided that eight
hours should constitute a days work
/ Tor WOrkmen employed by or on behalf
/ Of the state, or Dy any county or city
3 or other municipality in the state IL
also prohibits contractors IrOm reQuir-
/ ing labOrers engaged on work FOR the
state to perform more than eight hours
labor in day. Both nne and impris-
onment are provided for violation Of
the law.
The case decided today was that Of
/ w. A. Atkins VS.. the state Of Kansas.
Atkins had a contract with the cor
poratlOn OF Kansas City, Kansas, L0r
/ paving, and he was charged with re-
quiriug a workman named Reese to
I labor ten hours day. he was prose-
cuted in the state courts, where tne
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 i'm violation of the first section Of the
( 18th amendment to the constitution in
that it denied him due protection Of the
/ law and deprived him Of his property
without due process.
Referred to Utah Court.
Referring to the only other decision
n
ton, that Of Holden VS.. Hardy, in which
I the court sustained the law of Utah
/ fixing an eight-hour day for miners enl-
! ployed underground, Justice Harlan
called attention to the fact that while
/ in the Utah case private interests were
involved, the present case involves en-
ployment on public works only.
The opinion was based on the theory
/ that all the municipalities of a state
/ are the creations Of the state; that work
/ for them is of a public character and
/ does not interfere with the personal I'D
1 erty of any one. He then added:
Whatever may have been the mo-
t tives that controlled the enactment OF
/ the statute in question, we can imagine
no possible ground to dispute the power
/ of the state to declare that no one
undertaking work for it or for one OF
/ its municipal agencies shall permit or
I require an emplOye on such work 10
/ labor in excess of eight hours each In
/ the day, and to indict punishment upon
contractors who disregard such a regu-
/ latiOn. Tt cannot be deemed a part Of
the liberty Of any contractor that he be
allowed to do public work In any mode
/ he may choose to adopt without regard
\ to the wishes of the state. On the con-
/ trary il belongs to the state, as the
| guardian and trustee Of its people,
/ to prescribe the conditions upon
which it viii permit public work
I to be done No court has au-
Ithority to review its action in that
| respect. Regulations on this subject
/ suggest only considerations Of public
policy and with such considerations the
/ courts have no concern.
Question of Public Policy.
Taking up the question of public poll
/ icy Justice Harlan said.
! IF il be coutended to be the right
/ of anyone to dispose Of his labor on
[ such terms as he deems best-as un-
! dOubtedly it is-and that to make it a
/ criminal Offense for a 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 en-
plOyes and employer, it is sufficient an
sWer that no one is entitled, Of absO-
/ lutte right and as part Of his liberty,
/ to perform labor for the state; and no
/ contractor for public work can excuse
a violation of his lawful agreement
/ with the state by doing that which the
/ statutes under which he proceeds dis
/ tnctly forbids him to do it.
$50, also, if it be said that a statute
/ like the one before us is michievous in
/ it's tendencies. the answer is that the
/ responsibility therefor rests upon the
/ 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
/ eminent if the judiciary, abandoning
/ the sphere assigned to 1T by the tunda-
/ mental law. should enter the domain
/ Of legislation and upon grounds merely
I Of justice or reason or wisdom annul
! statutes that had received the sane
/ ton Of the peoples representatives.
/ We are reminded by counsel that it is
/ the solemn duty of the courts in cases
! before them 20 guard the constitutional
rights Of the citizens against merely
! arbitrary power. That is unQuestiOn-
| ably true. But IT is equally true-in-
deed. the public interests imperatively
| demand-that legislative enactments
/ be recognized and enforced by the
courts as embodying the wiz Of the
I people unless they are plainly and
culDably beyond an question in viola
/ ton of the fundamental law Of the
/ constitution. 1t cannot be affirmed by
the statute of Kansas that it is plainly
/ inconsistent with that instrument-in
/ deed, its constitUtionauty is beyond all
/ question"
: on the validity Of a~similar statute,
affecting private employment, Justice
/ Harlan said:
Whether a similar statute applied
/ to 1aborers or employees In purely pri-
/ vate work would be constitutional is
/ question of very large import which
we have no occasion now to determine
I or even to consider
To Cure a Cold in One Day
p rT.1-@ ~. five Tlr,arrr Tlfffrafne TIA h1afe