The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1905-04-20
TEN HOUR LAW INVALID
New York Statute Declared Uncon-
stitutional by Supreme Court.
VIOLATES 18TH AMENDMENT

Decision Says tie Law lnterferes
With Making Contract Between en-
poyer and Employe, Which Is Part
Of the Liberty Of individuals.
Washington. April IS In an opinion
| BY Justice Peckham the supreme court
Of the United States held TO be- uncon-
sttutonal the New York state law
making 10 hours a days work and 90
hours weeks work In bakeries In
that state Justices Harlan. White.
/ Day and Holmes dissentcd. and Justice
Harlan declared that 4 more impor-
tant decision had been C.ndered in the
last century
The opinion was handed down in the
case of lOchnor IS. the state OF New
York. and was based on the ground that
the law intcrfercs with the free exer-
else Of the rights Of contract between
individuals The court Of appeals OF the
STATE upheld the law and affirmed the
mdemcnt of the trial court holding
Lockncr guilty. Judge Parker wrote
the opinion Of the New York court OF
appeals supporting the law. and the
court divided four TO three on the ques-
ton NJ validity
The law involved in the case IS sec
ton 40 of the New York state labor
law prescribing the hours Of labor in
bakeries m 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 week and fined $50 The judg-
mcnt was affirmed by the New York
appellate courts
The opinion dealt entirely with the
constitutional question involved. Jus
tlce Po,kham said that the law is not
IN act merely fixing the number OF
hours which shall constitute legal
days work. but an absolute prohibition
on thc employer permitting under any
circumstances more than 10 hours
worl. POP be done in his establishment
lie continued.
The employe may desire to earn tbs
extra money which would arise from
his working more than the prescribed
time. but this statute fOrbids the EN-
ployer from permitting the employe to
earn il. II interferes with the contra {
between the employer and employees
concerning the number OF hours In
which the latter may labor in the bak-
cry of the employer The general rights
10 make a contract in relation to his
business is part of the liberty OF the
individual protected by the lith amend
mcnt TO the federal constitution.
The question whether this act ia
valid as 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 a baker. Bakers are in
no seAse wards OF the state Viewed
in the light OF purely labor law. with
no reference whatever 10 the question
OF health we think that law like tho
one before MS involves neither the safe
~. the morals nor the welfare Of the
public. and that interest Of the public
IS not in the slightest degree affected
by such an act
He concluded: 1T seems to us that
the real object and purpose was simply
to regulate the hours Of labor between
the master and his employe. all being
men sui juris. in a private business.
not dangerous in any degree to morals
or in any real and substantial degree
TO the health OF the employees. Under
such circumstances the freedom OF mas
ter and employe to contract with each
other In relation 10 their employment
and in defining the same cannot be
prohibited or interfered with without
violating the federal constitution"