The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1904-12-06
AGAINST EIGHT HOUR LAW
New York Court Of Appeals Declares
It Unconstitutional.
DEClSl0NAFTER YEARS OF DEBATE

The Night Hour Labor Law" as e Has
Been known, and That Has Been in
Courts For Long Time, Decided by
Final Test Case Of Contractors Suit
Judge Haight Dissents.
Albany, N. Y-By a decision in the
action Of the People ex rel. Cossey,
appellant, VS.. Controller Grout, Of New
York, the Court Of Appeals declared
unconstitutional chapter 415 Of the
Laws Of 1897 (the labor law, which
prohibits contractor from employing
his men more than eight hours day
onscify. county, or State work.
Since its enactment in 1897 this
statute has been almost continually
before the courts. Other phases have
been passed upon, bur this is the first
time that the Court Of Appeals has ex-
pressed its views fatty on the eight
hour provision
The action was brought by Harry
C0ssey to compel payment BY the City
Of New York Of y28,21J for six sc0ws
manufactured for the Street Cleaning
Department. Payment was refused
on the ground that he had violated the
terms OF his contract in employing his
men over eight hours q day. Cossey
did not deny this. but contended that
the law was unconstitutional. The
Court OF Appeals reverses the lower
courts and grants the appellants APP
plicafiou, though not entirely on the
arguments advanced by his counsel,
With Judge Haight alone dissenting,
Ehe court arrives ait this conclusion,
but by different routes. Judges
O'Brien, Martin and Vann hold that
The law is unconstitutional in that 1t
depriyes an individual! Of property
without due process OF law. Chief
Judge Cullen, with Judge Werner con-
curing, bases his opinion as to the
laws unconstitutionality on the result
In the Rogers case, making their decis-
ion one Of precedent.
Chief Judge Cullen takes the ground
that the principle involved is precisely
similar to that in the action of the
People ex rel. Rogers VS.. Coler The
latter was the earliest case that arose
under the labor law, and in deciding
The courts held that the statute was
unconstitutional in SO far as 1t involved
The prevailing rate of wages" Judge
Cullen says, comparing the two cases.
This difference in circumstances
would not justify distinction in prin-
ciple, and therefore the decision in the
Rogers case must control the disposi-
tion Of the present case unless the Rog-
ers case has been everthrown by sub
sequent cases III this court or in the
Supreme Court Of the United States"
The rest of his opinion is devoted to
discussion Of the other cases under
The labor law, from which he decides
that the conclusion in the Rogers case
stands and applies in the action under
discussion.
iii his conclusion the Chief Judge
says:
Il fear that the many outrages Of la
Dor organizations or of some of their
members have not only excited just
Indignation, but at times have fright
ened courts into plain legal inconsis-
lencies and into the enunciation of doc
irines which, IL asserted in litigations
arising under any other subject than
labor legislation, would meet scant
courtesy or consideration.
'sThe decision about to be made can
therefore stand only on one ground,
The unconstitutional interference Of
the Legislature with the right of the
municipality. That proposition hav-
Ing been explicitly decided In the Rog-
ers case, / feel it my duty to follow it,
regardless Of my own opinion on the
question" &c., !.
Judge O'Brien says.
Zone Of the grounds upon which the
Rogers case rests is that the statute
there considered and now before us
deprived the contractor of his property
without due process OF law, and the
learned Chief Judge, as | understand
the opinion, asserts that this ground
has been entirely swept away by the
case Of Atkins VS.. Kansas, in which
the United States Supreme Court at
firined the conviction Of a contractor
for violating the eight-hour law OF that
State.
n do not concur in that view. In my
opinion, the Kansas case does not de-
eide or sweep away what we held in
the Rogers case and should hold in
this case, namely that the statute in
question violates the Constitution Of
the State, in that it deprives the re-
lator in this case, as it did In the
Rogers case, Of his property without
due process of law.
In hiE dissenting opinion Judge
Haight holds that the constitutionality
of the law can be sustained by the fact
that ii is a police regulation In the In
Eerest OF public health and morality.