The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1903-12-12
KANSAS tAW| upheld
BY ]. 5. SUPREME COURT
REGARDEDxsAs ;*NATIoNAL VIC
TORY; FOR LABOR LEGiS.
+ LATION.

Contractor Who Made Employs Labor
Ton Hours Loses His Suit. United
States Supreme Court Upho!ds
Eight hour Law Of Kansas. States
Have Right to Fix Work. Day Time.
Washington, Dec. 10.-The United
States. Supreme Court to-day decided
that the Eight Hour Law. as provided
by the statutes Of Kansas, IS constitu-
tional and in brief, that the Eight
Hour Law for employees on public
works is valid. The case came up on
appeal from the Supreme Court Of the
State Of Kansas, which also affirmed
the validity Of the law.
The following is the law:
Eight hours shall constitute a
days work for workmen employed by
or on behalf Of the State. or by any
county orr city or other municipality
in the State.
"Contractors are prohibited from re-
curing laborers engaged on work for
the State to perform more than eight
hours labor in a day.
Both fine and imprisonment are pro-
vided for violation 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 was contested.
Atkins alleged tina act violated the
Fourteenth Amendment to 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-
viii
Stating the case, the United States
Court says:
1.-The complaint in it's first count
charged that Atkins contracted with
the municipal corporation of Kansas
City to construct brick
pavement and having hired George
Reese * did unlawfully require
him to work ten hours each calendar
day upon said labor.
1.-THE second count charged that he
un1awfully 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.
Whatever may have been the mo-
tives that controlled the enactment of
the statute in question, we can i'm
ag1ne 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 require an employe on such work to
labor in excess of eight hours each
day, and to inflict punishment upon
contractor who disregard such a re2u-
lation.
ut cannot be deemed a part of
tho 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. 49, : - X
of every one to dispose of his labor
upon such terms as he deems best
as undoubtedly it Island that to make
1t a criminal offence for a contractor
for public work to permit or require
his employe to perform labor upon
that work in evcess OF eight hours each
day is in derogation of the liberty of
employe and employer, it is sufficient
answer that no one is entitled Of abso-
lutte right and as a 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
statute Of the State under which he
proceeds distinctly forbids him to do.
SO, also, If it be said that statute
like the one before us is mischievous
In Its tendencies, the answer is that
the responsibility therefor rests upon
legislators, not upon the courts. No
evil arising from such legislation could
be more farreaching than those that
might come to our system of govern
ment If the judiciary, abandoning the
sphere assigned to it by the funda-
mental law, should enter the domain
OF legislation, and upon grounds mer-
ely of justice or reason or wisdom
annul statutes that had received the
sanction Of the whole peoples rep
resentatives.
We rest our decision upon
the broad ground that the work being
OF a public character, absolutely I'M
der the control of the state and it's
municipal agents acting by it's author
lty, 1t is for the State to prescribe the
conditions under which it will permit
such work to be done. It's action touch
ing such matter is final, so long as it
does not by it's regulation, infringe the
personal rights Of others-and that has
not been DONE
"The judgment of the Supreme Court
of Kansas is AFFIRMED"