The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1905-04-18

powers of the state and after consider
ing that point concluded that the pres
ent case did not fall within the police
power. He said:
The question whether this case is valid
as labor law. pure and simple. may be
dismissed in a few words. There is no
reasonable ground for interfering with the
liberty OF persons or the right of free
contTact by prescribing hours of labor in
bakery. Bakers are in no sense wards
OF the state. Viewed in the light of a
purely labor law with reference however
10 the question OF health, we think that
neither the safety. the morals nor the well
rare OF the public which is not in the
shghtest degree affected by such an act.
Police Limit Passed
1t is question Of which of two powers
or rights shall prevail-the power OF the
state to Iegislate or the right of the in
ulNldual 10 liberty Of person and freedom
OF contract. The mere assertion that the
subject relates TO the public health does
not render the enactment valid. The act
must nave a more direct relation as the
means TO an end. and the end itself must
De appropriate and legitimate before an
act can be held to be valid which inter
feres with the general right Of an in
d1vldual TO be free in his person and in
ms power TO contract 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 especial
~ unhealthy one and said that men
could not be prevented from earning a
living for their families. He concluded:
1t seems to us the real object and pur-
pose was simply to regulate the hours OF
labor between the master and his en-
ployes, among men sui juris in a private
business not dangerous in any degree to
morals or in any real or substantial de-
gree TO the health Of the employees. I'm
der such circumstances the freedom of
master and employe 10 contract with each
other IN relation to their employment and
In denning the same cannot be prohibited
or interfered with without violating the
FEDERAL constitution.
On the Other Side
Justices Holmes and Harlan both de-
l1vered dissenting opinions and JUS
tees White and Day concurred in Jus
tice Harlans views. Justice Harlan
said:
do not stop 10 consider whether any
particular view Of this economic question
ton is one about which there is room
Tor doubt and for an honest difference Of
opinion. No one can doubt that there
are many reasons based upon the expert
ence OF mankind in support of the theory
that, all things considered. more than ten
hours steady work each day from week
TO week in bakery or confectionery es-
adjustment may endanger the health. i'm
pair the usefulness and shorten the lives
OF the workmen. II such reasons exist
that ought TO be the end of this case. for
the state is not amenable to the judiciary
in respect of its legislative enactments
unless such enactments are plainly. pal
pably beyond all question inconsistent
with the constitution of the United States.
We are not to presume that the state
OF New York has acted in bad faith. Nor
can We presume that its legislature acted
without due delibera ton or that il did not
determine this question upon the fullest
attainable information and for the COM
mon good. We cannot say that the state
has acted without reason or that it's ac-
ton is mere sham. Our duty, then. IS
to sustain the statute as not being In con-
fiict with the federal constitution, for the
reason-and such is an all sufficient rea-
son-it is not shown to be plainly and
palpably inconsistent with that instru-
rnent. Let the state alone in the manage
ment of its purely. domestic affairs so long
as IL does not appear beyond all question
that il has violated the federal constitu-
ton. This view necessarily results from
the principle that the health and safety of
the people of a state are primarily for
the state to guard and protect and is not
a matter ordinarily to concern the national