The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-04-18
DECISION ONE, OF
VAST 5lMPO ORTANCE
.Reverses Judge Parker, Who W'lhtlo'
Sustained Verdict Against
Man Who Permitted En-
ploye to Work More
Than 90 Hours asWeek
in His Bakery.
= =. ~. Z. !. = -.
fRx u a ssoclaltsi Prsasl

5svyAsHINGTON,aAp 17.---In an opinion
by Just tice Peckham, the Supreme Court
Of the, United States to- day held to b. be
unconstitutional & the New York State;
law. making ten hours q day. work and
sixty hours o week s work In bakeries In
that State. Justices Harlan. yhito, Day
and Holmes .dlssented and j Justice Har-s
Ian declared that9no more impor rtant dee
Scisio,, had been Grend dered in the last cen-55
itrry. s @ f ssSs i5s
{ Tho opinion was handed down In the.
case u OF I.ockner We. the State Of New
York, and was based on the ground that
the law interiors with the free exercise,
~ sthe rights 81 contract between indi-i3
aviduals. rhe Court II Of Appeals Of tho
5State upheld the law: and affirmed the
Judgment OF the trial court, hold ing Lock-
tnerI g1,ilt Judge Parker wro to- the 5opin-g
ion OF the New. York Court Of Appeals
supporting the, law and the court divided
Sfoup to three on the quest ion Of validity
sLockner. y "a baker, who was s1ound guilty
aof permitting an employe to work in his
bakery more than six hotlrs in. 9 week:
$s The Opinio on
Justice Peokham said that the law is
not an act merely fixing the number OF
hours w which shall const titute Ia legal days
work \. but Il an 9 olptes skprohib bition on
the employer permitting under any cir
lcun1stances more than ten hours work
to be done IN his establi lish He con-
,tinued :'I tsnecessnr lily inter fered ith the
right 4ofi contract between the employer
and employees. conc cerninge the number Of
hours in which the latter may slab bor$ In
the bakery OF the enpio oyer The general;
fright to NAL kc ns con III in8 8relat lion TO-
his business IS part OF the ! liberty of the
Individual protected by the forrt rteenth
.amendme entH to the Federal Cons stitutiOn.$ y
that proysion3 state car, deprive Il @
any person Of life, liberty or property
without due process OF law. T he right
to pure hase or to sell Ia Dor. ie part Of;
the liberty: protected by this amend. X.
ment & unless there arc as circumst tanccsS
which exclude the right, "$ II s5s
3s,3 The Justice referred to the exceptions
coming under the head OF the police
powers of the State and Saf ter consid iderings
that point at length, concluded that & the
present case did not fall wi hin the police
power. s55,.s a Il
..Sis.,T lie Squestion whether this act is valid.
as a labor law; pure and simple. he said
"may be dismissed inGa feW,swords q TT here
is no reasonable ground fortt interfering
with the iberty of. person & or the rig hit
OF FREQ contract BY d etermin ing the hours
OF labor III the Socc upatl lon OF q toak ker.
Bakers arc In noss sense wards OF the
State. Viewed in the light OF "a purely
labor la a.w wi til no ref Terence swha tevers to
the esquestions OF health, we tnlnk tina TIA
law llkeat the one before us involved mel th-.5
err the safety. the morals nor the welfare
OF the public and that the Interest of the
public Is not; in the slightest degree af-5
fectcd by such 8anfs act. IA question Of
which two powersfor rights shall prevail.
the powers:of the State to leglslate forf
OF the Individual to liberty iot
person tand freedom OF contract. We
think tho limit OF the police power has
been reached and passed in this case