New-York tribune., 1905-04-18
LABOR NOT RESTRICTED.
CONTRACTS INVIOLABLE.
Right Of State to Fir Hours of
Work Denied by Supreme Court.
TFRoM THE TRIBuSE nuRRAu.l

washington, April 11.--"lhe general right 60
make a contract in relation 90 his business is
part Of the liberty oF the individual, protected
by the Fourteenth Amendment 20 the federal
Constitution. Under that provision no State
car deprive any person Of iFe liberty or prop
srty without due process Of law. The right 20
purchase sell labor is part Of the liberty pro-
tseted b. this amendment, unless there are
circumstances which exclude the right"
This declaration was made by Justice Peck
ham to-day in delivering the opinion by which
the Supreme Court OF the United State held the
New-York State Jaw making ten hours days
work and sixty hours a weeks work In bakeries
N that State unconstitutional. Justices Harlan.
White, Day and Holmes dissented. Justice Har-
Ian declaring that no more important decision
had been rendered in the last century.
WIDE SCOPE OF THE DECISION
According 70 the decision no State can pre-
scribe the hours OF labor in any occupation
within its boundaries. unless such occupation
can be shown 10 be unhealthful. While the
court was not called on to consider the question
of federal legislation, it must it is thought fol-
low that Congress is equally impotent under the
Constitution. The decision appears to affirm in
advance the unconstitutionality Of the eight
hour law which labor unions have long besought
Congress 10 enact, and 10 invalidate all State
laws which hx the hours of labor in healthful
occupations
From the opinions delivered by members OF
the court it appeared that law fixing the
hours OF labor in an occupation proved 10 be
unhealthful would be held 10 be within the
mowers Of q state because ii followed the right
of State 10 safeguard the health Of its citizens,
but il was made evident that in the judgment
of the court no arbitrary limit would be placed
OF the working day in hoalthful occupations. be-
a7,va
OF contract between individuals.
The opinion dealt entirely with the constitu-
,ionsl question involved. Justice Peckham said
that the law was not an act merely fixing the
number Of hours which shall constitute a legal
DAYS work but absolutely prohibited an en-
ployer permitting more than ten hours work
10 be done in his establishment under any cir
cunstances- He continued:
The employe may desire TO earn the extra
money which would arise from his working more
than the prescribed time, but this statute Ior-
bids the employer from permitting the employe
10 earn IT, Il necessarily interferes with the
right OF contract between the employer and en-
rIoves concerning the number OF hours in which
The latter may labor in the bakery or the en-
ployer.
The Justice referred 10 the exceptions coming
under the head OF the police powers Of the State.
and after considering that point at length held
that the present case did not fail within the
police power. He continued:
The question whether this act is valid as q
ishor law pure and simple may be dismissed IN
few words There is no reasonable ground
for interfering with the liberty OF persons or the
right Of free contract by determining the hours
oi labor IN the occupation OF q DakeE bakers
are in no sense wards OF the State Viewed In
the light OF a purely labor law. with no reference
whatever TO the question OF health, we think
that law like the one before us involves neither
the safety. the morals the welfare OF the
public and that the interest OF the public is
- I'D 1rv- -arnh m
act II is question Of which Of two powers or.
rights shall preVail-the power OF the State
legislate the right OF the individual TO liberty
OF person and freedom or, contract Ihe mere
assertion that the subject relates TO the public
health does not necessarily render the enactment
valid. The act must have a more direct relation
as a means TO an end, and the end itself must
he appropriate and legitimate. before an act can
be held 10 be valid which fnterferes with the
general right OF an individual TO be free in his
person and in his power TO contract in relation
10 his own labor. We think the limit of the
police power has been reached and passed in
this case.
He quoted statistics 10 show that the trade OF
a baker is not an especially unhealthy one, and
said men could moi be prevented from earning
living for their families. concluding as fol-
lows:
It seems 10 US that the real object and purpose
was simply 10 regulate the hours OF labor be-
tween the master and his employees all Delng
men sui juris. I'm a private business not Danger
Gus in arv degree to morals or in any real and
substantial degree to the health Of the employees
Under such circumstances the freedom OF master
lation 10 their employment and in defining the
same cannot be prohibited or inteTfeTed with
without violating The federal constitution.
FOUR JUSTICES DISSENT.
Justices Holmes and Harlan both delivered
dissenting opinions and justices White and Day
concurred in Justice Harlan's views. He said
in part:
do not stop TO consider whether any par
,fc,IIar view Of this economic question presents
tbe soun6er theory The question is one about
which there is room fer debate and for an non
est difference OF opinion. No one can ooupt ulaI @
there are many reasons, based upon the eN-
perience of mankind, in support OF lhe theoTy
thar an things considered, more than ten hours
steady work each day from week 10 week, M IN q
bakery or confectionery stablshment, may en-
danger the health. impair the usefulness ana
shorten tie lises Of the workmen'
Il such reasons exist that ought 10 De me ~,
END Of this case for the State Is not anlenaDle
% The judiciary in respect Of Its leslslaufe
enactments 1nless such enactments are piAlliy'
pslpably beyond All questions lnconslsle@I1I @ WIN WIN
the Constitution OF the United States. we are
not 10 presume that the State or New I oI<
hae acted in bad faith. Nor can we assume @ LIIa'
its legislature acted without Que dellDeIatlotl' M
or that ii cid not determine TINS question uPS-l
the fullest 'attaiua bic information. and Tor the
common good. We cannot say that the sac
las acted without - 1on or that us acuoh is
= mere sham our Suty. then. IS 10 sustain
the statute as not being in eonhict WIN ne thS
celeral Constitution, for the Teason--S1la sueh
is an al sufficient TeasOD-it is not sE'wI 70 @ 70
plainly ard pably inconslsteil VIII t'I.1t "a "a
errlsr1erf Let the state alone IN me manage
f1eut a. its purely domestic ahairs' SO lohs
"A II Goes not appear beyond all quesuoh lnel
Il has violated tie federal Constitution IhIs I
view recessarllv results from the principle that
the health and safety OF the people o. 80 80
are primarily for the State 70 guard ana pro pro
tect and are not matters orolnarliy o. SOi~0'' -
o7