Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1903-12-06
THE KANSAS LAW.
Eight Hours Constitute a Day, Says
the Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court
decided that Eight Hour law, as pro-
provided by the statutes of Kansas is
constitutional, and in brief that the
the Eight Hour law for employees on
public works is valid The case comes
up ON appeal from the Supreme Court
Of the state Of Kansas, which also
affirmed the validity Of the law.
The case was that Of w. W. Atkins,
plaintiff in error, against the State Of
Kansas, and in general terms the con-
stitutionality of the law vas contest
ed. Atkins alleged the act violated the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Consti-
tuition, in that it denied him due pro-
lection of the law.
An important point in the de-
cision is that the State can pre-
scribe the conditions Of work.
Stating the case the United States
Court says:
THE complaint in it's first count
charged that Atkins contracted with
the municipal corporations of Kansas
City to construct a brick pave
ment and having hired George Reese
did unlawfully require him
to work ten hours each calendar day
upon said labor.
Made to Work Ten Hours.
1.-THE second count charged that pc
unlawfulIy hired Reese to labor on the
basis of ten hours as constituting a
days work by contracting to pay the
current wages for said work, which
in that locality was $3.50 per day, and
unlawfully exacted and required of
him that he work ten hours each
calendar day in order to be entitled
to the current wages of $3.50 per day.
State Can Regulate Labor.
Whatever may have been the mo-
tives that controlled the enactment
of the statute in question, we can inn
agine no possible ground to dispute
the power of the State to declare that
no one undertaking work for it or
for one of it's municipal agencies shall
permit or require an employe on such
work to labor in excess of eight hours
each day, and to infiict punishment
upon contractors who disregard such
regulation.
ut 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.
IF it be contended to be the right
of eevry one to dispose of his labor
upon such terms as he deems best
as undoubtedly it is-and that to make
it a criminal offence for contractor
for public work to permit or require
his employee to perform labor upon
that work in excess of eight hours
each day is in derogation Of the lib
erty of employee and employer, it Is
sufficient answer that no one is en-
titled of absolute right and as a par
of his liberty to perform labor for The
State, and no contractor for public
work can excuse violation of hi:
lawful agreement with the State b,
doing that which the statute of thu
State under which he proceeds dis
tinctly forbids him to do.
Courts Must Not Interfere.
$50, also, If it be said that a stat
ute like the one before us is mischiey
GUS in it's tendencies, the answer il
that the responsibility therefor rest
upon legislators, not upon the courts
No evils arising from such 1egislat
ion could be more far reaching thai
those that might come to our system
of government if the judiciary, abar
5doning the sphere assigned to it b
the fundamental law should enter tn
domain of legislation, and upo1
grounds merely of justice or reaso
or wisdom annul statutes that ha
received the sanction of the people
representatives. We res
our decision upon the broad groul
that the work being of public cha
acter, absolutely under the control {
the State and it's municipal agent
acting by it's authority, It is for tn
State to prescribe the conditions u
der which it will permit such wor
to be done. It's action touching sue
a matter is final, so long as it dos
not, by it's regulations. infringe IL
personal rights of others-and tn
has not been done.
THE judgment OF the Supren
Court OF Kansas Is affirmed"
-eosa
A White Front.
Farrer's jewellery store has bio
somed out in new coat OF Will
paint. The result is most gratifyir