Bryan morning eagle. [volume] (Bryan, Tex.) 1898-1909, 1905-04-19
LABOR STATUTE VOID.
Supreme Court Holds New York Law
10 lie Unconstitutional.
PROHIBITS OVERTIME
Four Members Of the Highest Judi
ciary In the Nation DO Not CO.
ineids In the Opinion as
4 Handed Down.

washington. April iS.-In declaring
the law OF New York state prescribing
sls hours as a days work and sixty
h4grs a weeks work TO be unconsti-
tutional. Justice Peckham OF the Unit
ed States supreme court. who handed
down the decision, helf that n
n act merely fixing the number OF
hours which shall constitute a legal
days work. but an absolute prohibit
ton OF the employer permitting under
any circumstances more than ten
hours 10 DO done In his establishment
He continues "The employe may de-
would arise from his working more
than the prescribed time. but this stat
ute forblfs tho employer from permit
ting the employo 10 earn T.. II nee
essarily interferes with the rights OF
contract between employer and en-
loyes. concerning the number OF hours
byhich the latter may labor IN the
Ky OF the employer. The general
ulk2 make a contract In relation to
scsss IL part Of the liberty OF
Edividuai protected by the four
teefth amendment TO the Federal con-
stitution.
Under that provision no state can
Deprive any person OF life. liberty or
property without due process OF law.
The right 10 purchase or 10 sell labor
r. part OF the liberty protected by this
amendment unless there are circum-
stances which exclude the right"
Tho Justice referred TO the cxcep
tons coming under the head Of the po-
lice power OF tho state. and after con-
siderinE that point al length. con-
eluded that the present case did not
fall within police power.
The question whether this act Is
valid as a labor law. pure and simple.
said he. may be dismissed In a few
words. There IL no reasonable ground
for interfering with the liberty OF
persons OF the right OF free contract
by determining the hours OF labor In
the occupation 81 baker Bakers are
IN no sense wards Of the state. Viewed
IN the light OF purely labor law with
no reference whatever 10 the question
OF health. we think that a law like the
one before US involves the safety. nor
the morals. nor the welfare 81 the pub
Nc interest
1T Is question 81 which OF two
powers or rights shall prevail-the
power 81 the state 90 iegislate or the
right of the individual 10 liberty ~
person ana freedom OF contract The
Istre assertion that tho subject re-
isl4s 90 the public health does not nee
cssarily render the enactment valii.
The act must have a more direct rcl1-
ton AZ a means 90 an end and the end
itself must be appropriate and lcgit-
innate before an act can De held 20 be-
valid which intcrfcrcs with the gen
crul right 81 an individual 20 be- free
On hts person and his power 90 contrast
IN relation 60 his own labor We think
the limit Of the policy power has been
reached and passed iu this case"
lie quoted the statistic 90 show that
the trade 81 n baker o. not an espe-
cially unhealthy one and said men
could not be- prevented from earning "a
living FOR their families. lie conclud-
ed. 1T seems o. us that the real OBJ
sect and purpose was simply 90 reEu-
late the hours of labor between the
master and his employees an being mon
sul juris Ia a private business not dan
rerous In any degree 90 morals or in
any real and substantial degree 90 the
health auf the employees
Under such circumstances tho free
dom % master and employo 90 COM
tract with each other in relation 20
their employment and defining th
same. cannot be prohibited or inter- |
ferred with vithout violating the fed |
eral CONSTRUCTION
Justice Holmes ana Harlan both de-
ilverod dissenting opinions and Justice !
White and Day concurred IN Judge |
Aarlans views.
~ law involved IN the case Is Sec
uof 10 ~ the New York state labor |
law prescribing the hours of labor In |
bakierles IN the states. Lochnor II n |
bakAr In the city OF Utica and was
found guilty Of permitting an employe |
20 work IN HIS bakery more than sixty |
hours IN week and nned $50. The |
Judgment was affirmed by the New |
York /. appellate court. The opinion |
dealt entirely with the constitutional |
question involved.