The bee., 1905-04-20
RIGHT OF
CONTRACT
Upheld by the Supreme Court o
United States.
STATUTE RESTRICTING HOURS OF
LABOR IN NEW YORK IS INVALID.

y
ham the Supreme Court of the
United States held to be uncon-
stitutional the New York State
law making ten hours a days
work and sixty hours a weeks
work in bakeries in that State.
Justice Harlan declared that no
more important decision had
been rendered in the last cen.
fury.
The opinion was handed down
in the case of Lockner VS.. the
State of New York, and was
based on the ground that the law
interferes with the free exercise
of the rights of the contract be-
tween individuals.
The law involved in the case
is Section ITO of the New York
State labor law, prescribing the
hours of labor in bakeries in the
State. Lockner is baker in the
city of Utica and was found
guilty of permitting an employee
to work in his bakery more than
sixty hours III week and fined
$50. The judgment was affirmed
by the New York Appellate
Court.
ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION.
Today's opinion dealt entire
ly with the constitutional ques-
ton involved. Justice Peckham
said that the law is not an act
merely fixing the number of
hours which shall constitute a
legal days work, but an absolute
prohibition on the employer, per-
uniting under no conditions
more than ten hours work to be
done in his establishment. 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 forbids the en-
ployer from permitting the EN-
ploye to earn it. 1t necessarily
interferes with the right of con-
tract between the employer and
employees, concerning the num-
Der of hours in which the latter
may labor in the bakery of the
employer. The general right to
make a contract in relation TO
his business is part of the liberty
of the individual protected by
the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Federal Constitution.
"Under that provision no
State can deprive any person of
life, liberty or property without
due process of law. The right
to purchase or TO sell labor is
part Of the liberty protected by
this Amendment unless there
are circumstances which exclude
the right
The Justice referred to the ex-
ceptions coming under the head
of the police powers of the
State, and after considering that
point at length, concluded that
the present case did not fall
within the police power.
IN FEw wopnc
''The question whether this
act is valid as a labor law pure
and simple may" he says, ''be
dismissed in a few words. There
is no reasonable ground for in
terfering with the liberty of per-
sons or the right of free contract
by determining the hours of
labor in the occupation of a
baker. Bakers are in no sense
wards of the State. Viewed in
the light of purely labor law,
with no reference whatever to
the question of health, we think
that a law like the one before us
involves neither the safety, the
morals nor the welfare of the
public, and that the interest of
the public is not in the slightest
degree affected by such an act.
1T is question which of two
powers or rights shall prevail
the power of the State to legis-
late, or the right of the indivl.
dual to liberty of person and
freedom of contract. The mere
assertion that the subject relates
to the public health does not
necessarily render the enact
ment valid. The act must have
a more direct relation as means
to an end and the end itself
must be appropriate. and legiti-
mate before an art can ..ho hcId