The Forest Republican. [volume] (Tionesta, Pa.) 1869-1952, 1905-04-19
NEW YORK BAKERY LAW
Declared Unconstitutional by
U. S. Supreme Court.

Case Involved Was That of Joseph
Lochner Of Utica, Who Was Fined
Under the state Law For Permitting
EmpIoye to Work over Sixty Hours
Week-Four Judges Dissent.
Washington, April 1S.-In an opin-
Aon by Justice Peckham, the supreme
court of the United States held to be
unconstitutional the New York state
law making 10 hours a days work
and 60 hours weeks work in bak-
cries in that state.
The law involved is section 10 Of
the New York state labor law, pre-
scribing the hours of labor In baker
les in the state. Lochner is baker
in Utica and was found guilty of per
mitting an employe to work in his
bakery more than 60 hours in a week
and fined $50. The judgment was af-
firmed by the New York appellate
courts. Chief Justice Parker of the
court of appeals held that the meas
ure was within the police power of the
state. :.
Act Is an Absolute Prohibition.
The opinion dealt entirely with the
constitutional question involved. JUS
tice 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 permitting under any
circumstances more than 10 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 pre-
scribed time, but this statute forbids
the employer from permitting the en-
ploye to earn it. 1t necessarily inter-
feres with the right of contract be-
tween the employer and employees con-
cerning the number of hours in which
the latter may labor in the bakery of
the employer.
"The general right to make a con-
tract in relation to his business is
part of the liberty of the individual
protected by the 14th amendment to
the federal constitution. Under that
provision no state can deprive any
person of life. liberty or property with.
out due process of law. The right to
purchase or to sell labor is part of
the liberty protected by this amend
ment unless there are circumstances
which exclude the right"
The justice referred to the excep-
tions coming under the head of the po-
lice powers of the state and after con-
sidering that point at length, conclud'
ed that the present case did not fall
within the police power.
Right of Contract lnfringed.
"The question whether this act is
valid as a labor law. pure and simple,
may" he said, "be dismissed in a few
words. There is no reasonable ground
for interfering with the liberty of per.
sons or the right of free contract by
determining the hours of labor in the
occupation of 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 af-
fected by such an act.
ut Is a question Of which of two
powers or rights shall prevail-the
power of the state to legislate or the
right of the individual to liberty OF
person and freedom of contract. The
mere assertion that the subject relates
to the public health does not necessar-
lily render the enactment valid. The
act must have more direct relation
as a means to an end and the end It
self must be appropriate and legiti'
mate before an act can be held to be
valid which interferes with the gen
eral right of an individual to be free
in his person and in his power to con
tract in relation to his own labor
We think the limit of the police power
has been reached and passed in this
case"
He quoted statistics to show that the
trade of baker is not an especially
unhealthy one and said men could not
be prevented from earning living
for their families.
He concluded: at seems to us that
the real object and purpose was simply
to regulate the hours of labor between
the master and his employees, all be
ing men sui juris, in private bust
ness not dangerous in any degree tC
morals or in any real and substantial,
degree to the health of the employees
Under such circumstances, the free
dom of master and employe to contract
with each other in relation to theii
employment and in defining the same
cannot be prohibited or interfered
with without violating the federal con
| stitution."
Justices Holmes and Harlan both de
livered dissenting opinions and Jus
tices White and Day concurred in the
views of Justice Harlan.
High Dive Record Broken.