The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-04-18
Supreme Court Holds 1t
Unconstitutional.
CASE FROM NEW YORK
Tour Of the Justices Dissent, and One
of Them,. Harlan, Declares That
No More important Decision
Has Been Rendered in the
Last Century.
lBy the Associated Pregs.l

Washington, April 17.-In an opin-
ion by Justice Peckham, the Supreme
Court of the United States today held
to be Unconstitutional the New York
State law making ten hours a, days
work and sixty hours a weeks work
in bakeries in that State. Justices
Harlan, White, Day and Holmes dis
sented and Justice Harland declared
that no more important decision had
been rendered in the last century.
The opinion was handed down in the
case of Lockner VS. The State of New
York and was based on the ground
that the law interferes with the free
exercise of the rights of contract be-
tween individuals. The Court of APP
peals of the State upheld the law and
affirmed the Judgment of the trial
court holding Lockner gui(. Judge
Parker wrote the opinion of the New
York Court of Appeals supporting the
la wand the court divided four to
three on the question of validity.
Lockner is a baker who was found
guilty of permitting an emp}oye to
work in his bakery more than sixty
hours in week.
Justice Peckham said that the law
is not an act merely fixing the num-
Der Of hours which shall constitute a
legal days work, "but an absolute
prohibition on the employer permit
ting under any circumstances more
than ten hours works to be done in
his establishment. He continued:
1T necessarily interfered with the
right of contract etween the employer
and employees. concerning the number
of hours in which the later may labor
in the bakery of the employer. The
general right to make a contract liz
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 without due Fro
cess of law. The right to purchase
or to sell laor is part of the liberty
protected by this amendment unless
there are circumstances which exclude
the right"
The justice referred to the excep-
tions coming under the head of the
police powers of the State and after
considering that point at length con-
cluded that the present case did not
fall within the police power.
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-
son or the right of free contract by
determining the hours of labor in tile
occupation of a baker. Bakers are in
no sense wards of the State Viewed
in the light of a purely labor law with
no reference whatever to the question
of health we think that a 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 not in the slightest degree
affected by such an act. IL is a ques-
ton of which Of two powers or rights
shall prevail-the power of the State
to legislate or the right of the individ-
ual to liberty of person and freedom
Of contract. We think the limit of
the police power has been reached
and passed in this case"