New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-11-30
KILLS EIGHT HOUR LAW
COURT OF APPEALS Ac1S'
robor L,arp Observation-Disclosures
ucL+ flame Dissents.

-. >ro,. AZ a decision 'o-u"' ..,,ant
-, paon,s * rel. CosseE' apf lro,,,.t
controller Scout OF NeW-'oiN CHAPTER
.n,sals declared uEcors'i' w.. I.uA which
e a., Laws OF 1897 one ia"o- - his men
,,,,i,s = contractor from ei''f e.. county or
-. ,ha1. eight hours uas ' :, 1897 this
''oi' - c,nce rs enactment IA -, a.,
state work 'ii''e =, continually before the
s'alu'e ~ ,,rases have been passeu ~
courts - e.. ,,n,e that the Court Oh APpe"1
tbs is l'e - ;.e views fatty Oh the elsh' "o"'
has expressed l's
provision o,,,,t bv Harry Cossey to
iHe ,. by the City OF NeW-1oih Vi
eos ~ Tor six scows manufactures ho4
go cleaning Department aE i'ienC 49,,
- - the ground that he had FioiA'e0 'Ne
- =. his contract iE employing Hla i'e'-
- ig,, hours a day. Cossey ol" hoN 800
I'd" s - tbat the law was unconstitutional
gY,e Court OF Appeals reNerses tl'e -,
- o-ants the appellants application thoush
Aii0 S., :, ~, arguments advanced by his
counsel .,. +ba co,,,.t
.,.as = This conclusion, but by dlHereht
.,as Judges O'Brien, Martin and Nann hoId
RAJ the law is unconstitutional in tha1 II oe-
,rives an individual o. property "A'iIout u"e
-,,ocess Of law Chief Judge Cullen win 'uuee
Werner concurring, bases his opluIon as " 'ii7
laws unuonsttUtionaIity on the tesU1- - ''Ae
-,ogars case making The decision ~he OF pIece-
5ent. CHER judge cullen taxes Inc siouHo '"''
,ba nrin,ip.e involved il this case Is preClseiy
i,iiar 10 tIat IL the action OF he FeopIe eA rel
-. az, coier The latter was the earliest
,.asa tnaI arose under the iabor law ana III oe-
,iaine the counts held that the statute was uh-
-, 4orai III s. fan as it involves the pre-
-, 49,, - ~ wages" Judge Cullen says, COM
caring the two cases:
mis- difference IN circumstances would not
i.,I+Il, a distinction IL principle, and therefore
he aecison IA Inc Rogers case must cohlrol the
;s,,,sit on Of the present case unless the Rogers
,asa has been overtnToHn by subsequent cases
M This courJ or in the supreme Court OF me
United states.
The rest Of his opinion is devoted TO dis
c,,ssion of the other cases under me labor law.
from which he holds that the conclusion in the
Rogers case stands and applies in the action
under discussion IN mis- conclusion the chief
judge says:
fear that The many outrages Of labor organ
izatlo!s or Of some OF their members, nave not
ouiv excited just Indignation but at times nave
frightened courts INFO plain legal inconsistencies
ana into the enunci4tion OF doctrines WhIch; u
asserted III utlSations arising under any olhef
subject than labor legislation, would meet scalt
courtesy consideration
The decision about 10 be made can therefore
e. =
interference Of the legislature with the right OF
lhe municipality. That proposition having been
explicitly decided il the Rogers case. leeI 1t
my duty to follow il. regardless OF my own opln-
ion the question.
Judge O'Brien says:
One 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, ana
The learned chief judge. as ! understand the
opinion asserts that this ground has been en-
1irely swept away by the case of ATKINS agI
Kansas in which the United States supreme
Court affirmed the conviction Of a contractor Tor
violating the eight hour law Of that state 90
not concur in that view. In nay opinion, the
Kansas case does not decide or sweep away
what we held in tha Rogers case. and should
hc!l IN this case-namely. that the statute in
question violates the constitution Of the State
IN that il depriyes the TelatOr III this case, as it
did in the Rogers case of his property without
due process OF law.
In his dissenting opinion Judge Haight holds
that the constitutionality Of the law can be
sustained by the fact that it is a police regula-
ton in the interest Of public health and mo-
raiitv