The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1905-05-10

the Centurv--The Case of Lochner vs..
the State of New York Settled For.
everyday Aztec, Eight Hour Law Also
Washington, D. C.-The Supreme
Court of the United States held to be
unconstitutional the New York State
law making ten hours a days work and
sixty hours a weeks work in that
State.
The decision was rendered by JUS
tees Peckham, White and Day. JUS
tees Harlan and Holmes dissented.
"No more important decision than
this has been rendered in the last cen
tury." was the comment of Justice
Harlan in his dissenting opinion. He
declared the decision Of the Supreme
Court as read by Justice Peckham to
be an interference in State rights that
was not warranted.
The decision vas handed down in
the case of "Lochner versus the State
of New York." and has been pending in
different courts for several years. The
Importance of the case has been clearly
recognized. The lower courts all up
held the law, and this last decision
must result in the notification of al
legislation along similar lines.
The decision Of the United States
Supreme Court was based OF the
ground that the law interferes with the
free exercise of The rights Of contract
between individuals. The right to
purchase or to sell labor IS part of the
liberty protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Federal Constitu-
ton, unless there are circumstances
which exclude the right" is the word
ing of part of the decision.
The Court of Appeals Of the State of
New York upheld the law and affirmed
the judgment Of the trial court holding
Lochner guilty. The decision of the
New York Court of Appeals was writ
ten by Judge Parker, and the court
divided four to three on the question
of validity.
The sixty-hour-a-week law is chapter
415 of the New York Laws of 1900, and
prescribes q ten-hour day except where
it may be desired to work for a longer
daily period in order to procure a
shorter day at the end of the week.
Sixty hours for the week is the limit
prescribed by the law, however, in all
biscuit, bread or cake bakeries or con-
fectionery establishments. A violation
Of the law is described as a misde-
meanor.
Joseph Lochner, a baker Of Utica, n.
T., was charged with permitting an
employe to work extra hours, as he
wished to learn to make cake. Loeb
ner, who conducted a non-union shop.
was arrested at the instance of the
trades unions of Utica and on convic-
ton paid a fine of $50. In a short time
another case was made against him.
but this he fought on the ground that
the law was unconstitutional.
To-day's opinion dealt entirely with
the constitutional question involved.
Justice Peckham stated that the law
''is not an act merely fixing the num-
Der of hours which shall constitute a
legal days work, but an absolute pro-
hibition Of the employer permitting IN
der any circumstances more than ten
hours work to be done In his estab-
lishment." 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 employs to
earn it.
"The general rights to make a con-
tract in relation to his business is part
Of the liberty Of the individual protect
ed by the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Federal Constitution. Under that
provision no State can deprive any per-
son Of life, liberty or property without
due process of law. The right to pur-
chase or sell labor is part of the liberty
protected by this amendment unless
there are circumstances which exclude
the right"
Justices Harlan and Holmes each de-
livered dissenting opinions, Justice
Harlan saying, in part:
mo II can doubt that there are
many reasons, based upon the expert
ence of mankind, in support of the the
DRY that, all things considered, more
than ten hours steady work each day,
from week to week, in a bakery or
confectionery establishment may: en-
danger the health, impair the useful
ness and shorten the lives Of the work
men. q Let the State alone in
the management Of its purely domestic
affairs, so long as it does not appear
beyond all question that it has violated
the Federal Constitution"