The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-04-18

to the fact that many Of the laws Of TINS
claimed to he tho police power Tor the pur-
nose II protecting public health or welfare
are in reality passed from otheE motives
We are justified in Saying so when, from
The character Of the law and tho subject
upon which IL legislates u Ia aPpan3nt thst
tie public health or welfare bears put the
most remote relation TO the law. The puT-
pose Of statute must be determined from
the natural and legal effect OF the language
emplC yed and whether II Is az y not re-
pr qnant to the constitution Of the Unitsd
State, must be determined from the natural
effect of such statutes when put into opera
ton, and not from their proclaimed purpose
The court looks beyond the mere letter OF
the law in such cases.
Of the hours Of labor as provided for in this
section Of the statute under which the
indictment was found and the plaintiff In
error convicted has no such direct relation
to. and no such substantial effect upon,
the health Of the employee as TO JUSTIFY
us in regarding the section as a health law,
IL seems to US that the real object and
purpose was simply to regulate the hours
Of labor between the master and his en-
ployee in private business, not dangerous
In any degree TO morals or in any real and
substantial degree to the health OF the
employee. Under such circumstances the
freedom of master and employee TO con-
tract with each other in relation TO their
employment and defining the same, cannot
be prC .bited or interfered with without
violating the Federal Constitution.
justices Harlan, White, Day and Holmes
dissented. Justice Harlan in an opinion,
said that no more imp ortant and lar reach-
ing Judgment had been handed down by the
court in the last hundred years. 1t worked
a revolution in The relationship between the
court and the states in what had hereto
fore been considered purely domestic AFFAIRS
Of the States He denounced the new
doctrine as far reaching and dangerous
which would surely cripple the powers OF
the state.
Joseph Lochner was convicted in the
Oneida County Court in 1902 OF a mlsde-
meanor, in having violated section no.
Article 8, Of the Labor Law passed in 1897.
That section read:
mitted to work in biscuit, bread or cake
bakery or confectionery establishm ent
more than sixty hours in any one week,
or more than ten hours in any one day,
unless for the purpose OF making shoTter
work day on the last day Of the week, nor
more hours IN any one week than will make
an average Of ten hours per day. Tor the
number OF days during such week In Whlch
such employee shall work.
Lochner was boss baker, and allowed
EMPLOYEES
day. William S. Mackie and Smith NJ.
Lindsey appeared before the Court OF
Appeals in October, 1903, to argue Loeb
ner's appeal from the decision OF the
Appellate Division, Fourth Department,
which court had affirmed Lochner's con-
viction. Assistant District Attorney
Timothy Curtin argued the case in behalf
Of the People, and the Court Of Appeals,
Judge Parker writing the main opinion,
upheld the lower courts, on the broad
ground that the section in question was an
exercise Of the general police power Of the
Legislature relating 70 the public health,
and therefore violated no provision OF the
State or Federal Constitution. The United
States Supreme Court has now reversed
that judgment holding that the section
violates the freedom Of contract guar
anteed to citizens by the Federal Consti-
tuition. similar freedom is guaranteed
by the Constitution Of this state.
In LOchner's behalf it was contended
at Albany that section ITO violated this
freedom VI contract; that II was not a proper
exercise Of police power, since ~ its terms
IL did not pretend 70 refer TO the matter Of
health, and actually had no connection
with the public health; that II unjustly
Disseminated against bakers a. compared
with other trades, and lastly, that il un-
justly conferred special privileges upon
certain bakers.
Judge Parker based his opinion on the
view that the section came absolutely
within the police power Of the Legislature
as a health measure and therefore did not
violate the first section Of the Fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution q the
United States, which provides that no
person OF State shall make OF enforce any
law which shall abndge the privileges OF
immunites OF citizens, or which hall
deprive any person Of life, liberty or property
without due process Of law, or deny 10 any
person the equal protection Of the laws,
Judge Parker quoted from many Federal
opinions 70 show that the United States
Supreme Court held that safety OF
do not infringe upon the Federal Consti-
tuition. IL remained therefore, he said,
70 determine whether section 10 did pro-
vide for such a legal safeguard. After
a lengthy examination OF the law, he con-
Guided that the whole purpose Of Article
VIII. Of the Labor law, and every part Of
il, was 10 benefit the public, and came
therefore within the police power.
Judges Cray, Nann and Haight con-
CURED with Judge Parker, the first two
they concluded that section 10 was valid
statutory regulation, prOmotiye of the
public health, because Il compelled a mas
ter baker TO conduct his establishment in
such manner as to least AFFECT his prod
uct preJuuicially.
senting opinions, and Judge Martin con-
CURED with them. The Court thus stood
4 20 for aflirmance.
Judge O'Brien based his disscnting
opinion on the ground that the facts stated
in the indictment did not constitute a
crime, and that the demurrer intcrposed
by the defendant should have been sus-
tanned and Lochner discharged He said
in part:
1t will he seen from an examination Of
the law that there is no prohibition against
the act Of the servant himself in workin &
longer than the statutory time, He may