The San Francisco call., 1903-12-01
EIGHT-HOUR LAW
IS HELD VALID
United States Supreme
Court Passes on Kan
sas Statute.
Chief Justice Fuller and Two
Associates Dissent to
Opinion.

WASHINGTON. Nov. 3o.-The United
States Supreme Court to-day affirmed
the constitutionality Of the eight-hour
law OF the State Of Kansas, regulating
labor on public works. Justice Harlan
said in handing down the opinion that
if the statute were mischievous the re-
sponsibility rested with the Legislature
and not the courts. Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Brewer and Peck
ham dissented.
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 be-
half OF the State. or by any county or
city or other municipality in the State.
II also prohibits contractors from re-
Quiring Iaborers 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 to-
day was that of ". W. Atkins VS.,
the State OF Kansas. Atkins had
contract with the corporation OF Kan
sas City, Kans., for paving. and he
was charged with requiring a workman
named Reese 10 labor ten hours day.
He was prosecuted in the State courts,
where the 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 in violation Of the
first section Of the fourteenth amend
rnent TO the constitution. in that it de-
MED 10 him protection of the law and
deprived him of his property without
due process.
JUSTICE HARLAN'S OPINION.
Referring 10 the only other decision
of the court on the eight-hOur question,
thar Of Holden VS.. Hardy, in which the
court sustained the law Of Utah, fix
ing an eight hour day for miners en-
ployed underground, Justice Harlan
called attention ID the fact that while
in the Utah case private interests were
involved, the present case involves en-
ployment on public work only. The
opinion was based on the theory that
the municipalities Of the State are
creations Of the State: that work for
them is OF a public character and does
not infringe on the personal liberty OF
any one. He then added:
whatever may have been the motives that
controlled th. enactment Of the stature in Ques
tion we can imagine no possible ground 10 dis
pute the power OF the state to declare tnaI no
one undertaking work for IL or Tor one OF
its municipal agencies shah permit or require
any emplove en- such work 70 labor IN excess
OF eight hours each day, ano 10 innict punish
rnent uuon contractors who disregard such
regulation. IL cannot be deemed a part OF
the liberty of the contractor that he Be al
lowed 10 do public work in any mode he may
choose 10 adopt without regard 10 the wishes
Of the state On the contrary II belongs 10
the state. g s the guardian and trustee for Its
people 10 prescribe the conditions upon which
il will permit public work to be done NO
court has authority 70 review its action IN
that respect. Regulations on this subject sug
gest only considerations Of public policy and
with such considerations the courts have no
concern.