The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-04-18
10 HOUR BAKERY LAW INVALID
u. S. SUPREME COURT nv ERSES
THE COIRT or APPEALS.

law ITOUlDUlnH an NlllIl'NN' W -
from working more than ton hour day
or sixty hours week whs to-day ueolieu
by the Supreme Court to be void az in vio-,
lation Of the freedom Of contract guarSh-
ted by the Constitution.
The appeal was brought by Joseph
Iochner. a Utica baker, who was con-
yicted by the Oneida County Court OF
violating the law. end the Appellate Di-
vision of the New York Supreme Court
affirmed the Judgment by a court divided
? 10 1. The Court OF Appeals likewise
affirmed the sentence and the validityot the
law by a bare majority Of 4 10 3. Judge
Alton b. Parker delivering the opinion OF
the court. The decision reversing the judg'
rnent OF the New York Court OF Appeals
WAS also by a bare majority OF 10 4,
Justice peckham. In delivering the ma
ioritv opinion, said the mandate OF the
statute that no employee shall be required
or nerrnitted to work was the substantial
equivalent Of an enactment that no EN-
ployee shall contract or agree TO work more
than ten hours per day, and as there was no
proyision for special emeTg encies the statute
was mandatory in all cases. II was not an
act merely fixing the number OF hours
which should constitute a legal day s work.
but absolute prohibition upon the employer
permjtting under any circumstances more
than ten hours work 20 be done IN his estab-
Iishment. The employee was forbidden
even to earn any extra money 10y working
overtime. -,
The statute necessarily interfered with
the right of @ ntract between employer ana
employee, which was part Of the liberty
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
which included the right 10 purchase or
sell labor unless there were circumstances
which excluded the right There were,
however, certain powers existing in the
sovereignty Of each State in the Union,
somewhat vaguely termed police pow
ers, the exact description and limitation
of which had not been attempted by the
courts. These powers, broadly stated
and without at present any attempt at a
more specific limitation, related to safety
health, morals and general welfare OF the
public.
Both property and liberty we're held on
such reasonable conditions "a might be
imposed by the governing power OF the
State in the exercise of these powers, and
with such conditions the Fourteenth Amend
mept was not designated to interfere.
The State, therefore, had power to prevent
the individual from making certain kinds
contract ana III Itkulh " AlGlll AA1 4 W
eral Constitution offered no protection
But when the State, in the exercise Of its
police powers, had passed an act which
seriously limited the right to labor or the
right Of contract in regard to their means
Of livelihood between persons, both en-
ployer and employee, it became Of great
Importance to determine which should pre-
vail-the right Of the individual to labor
for such time as he chose or the right Of
toe State to prevent the individual from
laboring or from entering into any contract
TO labor beyond a certain time prescribed
by the State.
The court had recognized the existence
and upheld the exercise Of the police power
Of the States In many cases which might
fairly be considered as border ones. among
them being the affrmance Of the Utah
law limiting TO eight the number Of hours for
mine Ia borers and smeters and the Kansas
eight hour law in both Of which there was
provision made for emergencies. The
Massachusetts vaccination law, decided
at this term was another instance. But
there must Of course, be limit 20 the
valid exercise Of the police power by the
State, for otherwise the Fourteenth Amend
nent would have no efficacy, and IL would
he enough to say of any State legislation
that il conserved the morals. the health
or safety Of the people 20 ma Ike II valid.
The claim Of the police power would be a
mere preteXt and become another and de-
luAlN9 name lot LIle supreme NbNtI NlkIllN
of the State to be exercised free from con-
stitutional restraint:
The question, therefore, said Judge
Peckham was whether the New York law
was fair, reasonable and appropriate eX-
eTcise OF the police power, OF an unTeasOn-
able, unnecessary and arbitrary inter-
ference with the right Of the individual
10 his personal liberty OF 70 enter into these
contracts in relation to labor which might
seem 10 him appropriate or necessary for
the support Of himself and his family.
OF course the liberty Of contract relating
to labor included both parties to II. The
one had as much right % purchase as the
other to sell labor. As a labor law pure
and simple il was invalid There was
no reasonable ground for interfering with
the liberty Of person or the right OF free
contract by determining the hours Of labor,
In the occupation Of a baker.
There Was 10 contention that bakers
Hs class, were not equal in intelligence
and capacity 10 men OF other trades OF
me- nual occupations. or that they we're not
able TO Gssert their ri gifts and care for them
solves without the protecting arm Of the
State interfering with their Independence
Of judgment and Of action They were in
no ser Sc the wards Of the State. The
interest Of the public, therefore, was not
affected Clean and wholesome bread
did not depend on the hours the baker
labored, ard the Limitation Of the hours
81 labor did not come within the police
power on that ground. The act must
nave more tlTNCN Iflhll'lll 10 IllI nc Dfdllns
Rs near 70 an end and the end itself must
he appropriate and legitimate before il
could he w id
I'VE think, SAYS the 81 mon that the
limit Of the police power has been reached
and passed in this case. There Is In our
judgment no reasonable foundation for
holding this 10 be necessary OF appropriate
Is a health law 10 safeguard the public
health OF the health Of the individuals who
ere following the trade Of baker II this
statute be valid, there would seem 10 be no
length 20 which legislation OF this nature
might 60. Tie trade Of a baker was not
such an unhealthy one as would authorize
the State In interfering with his hours Of
labor, said the Justice.
Labor in any department OF life might
possibly carry with IL seeds Of unhealthi-
ness, but pursuing that principle would
put every occupation under the power Of
the Legis lature, and no trade occupation
or mode Of earning ones living could
escape.
on the same line Il was contended that
Il was 10 the interest Of the State that its
population should be strong and robust,
and any legislation TO that end would be
valid as health laws, enacted under the