The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1905-04-21
LAW NOT CONSTITUTIONAL
The U. 5. Supreme Court Upssts New
York's Ten-Hour Decision.
IMPAIRs THE RIGHT OF CONTRACT.
Law Involved In the Case Is Section liz OF
the New York State Labor Law Prescrib.
ing the Hours Of Labor In Bakeries 10 the
Stakeholder Is Baker In the City OF
Utica, and Was Pound Guilty.

etsos ono W 80 vaAe oess'Js
Washington, D. c. (SpeciaD.-ln an
opinion handed down Monday by JUS
tice Peckl1am the Supreme Court OF the
United States held to be unconstitutional
the New York State law making 10
hours days work and 20 hours weeks
work in bakeries in that State. Justices
Harlan, White, Day and Holmes DIS
sented
Justice Harlan declared that no more
important decision had been rendered
in the last century.
| The law involved in the case in Sec
ton ITO of the New York State labor
law prescribing the hours of labor IN
bakeries in the State. Lochner is a,
baker in the city of Utica, and was
found guilty of permitting an employe
to work in his bakery more than 90
hours in a week and fined $50. The
Judgment was affirmed by the New YORK
Appellate Court.
Mondays opinion dealt entirely with
the constitutional question involved.
Justice Peckham said that the law is not
an act merely fixing the number OF
hours which shall constitute legal days
work, but an absolute prohibition on
the employer permitting, under any clr-
cumstances, more than 10 hours work
to be done in his establishment. He
continued
"The employee may desire to earn the
extra money which would arise from his
working more than the prescribed time,
but this statute forbids the employer
from permitting the employee to earn
it. 1t necessarily interferes with the
right of contract between the employer
and employees concerning the number of
hours in which the latter may labor in
the bakery of the employer. The general
rights 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 de-
prive any person of life, liberty or prop
erty without due process of law. The
right to purchase or sell labor is part
of the liberty protected by this amend
ment, unless there are circumstances
which eclude the right"
The Justice referred to the exceptions
coming under the head of the police
powers Of the State and, after consid-
ering that point at length, concluded that
the present case did not fall within the
police power.
"The question whether this act is
valid as labor law pure and simple
may" he said, "be dismissed in few
words There is no reasonable ground
r. rs
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 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.
at is a question of which of two pow
ers or rights shall prevail-the power of
the State to legislate or the right of the
individual to liberty of person and free
dom of contract The 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 means to an
end, and the end itself must be appro-
pirate and legitimate before an act can
be held to be valid which interferes with
the general right of an individual to be
free in his person and in his power to
contract in relation to his own labor.
We think the limit of the police power