Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1906-12-21
EIGHT HOUR
LAW UPHELD
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA
DECLARES IT Is CONSTlTU-
TlONAl.

Helena, Dec. lS.-An opinion hand
ed down by the supreme court today,
written by Associate Justice Hollo-
way, holds that the eisht-hour law is
constitutional.
The Livingston Concrete Building a.
Manufacturing company was charged,
by an information, with violating the
provisions of the law, in that it per
mitted its employees to work on a mu-
nicipa contract longer than eight
hours.
A general demurrer was interposed
to the information and sustained by
Judge Henry. from which judgment
the state appealed.
Purpose Is Apparent.
The supreme court says that, while
perhaps the meaning of the law might
have been more clearly wOrded, sit is
apparent that the object and purpose
in view We're to prevent the employ
ment of laborer in any such employ
ments for more than eight hours in
day, that number of continuous hours
of labor being fixed by the statute as
the maximum for a days work.
"As it is the purpose of the statute
to conserve the health and promote
the happiness of workingmen, not to
curtail his capacity to earn money or
to set bounds upon the greed of en-
plOyment. the statute Is written IN
terms broad enough TO include within
its inhibition both the employer and
the employee.
Referring to the contention that the
statute does nothing more than to de-
fine working day the court holds
that its declared purpose is to impose
penalty upon every one who violates
the provisions of section l of the act.
And how may those provisions be VIC
lated? Manifesttly in no other way
than by the employee working more
than eight hours in day in any Of
the designated employments, or by
the employer causing him to do So
Referring to the statement that the
statute is harsh and arbitrary, in that
it limits the number of hours of labor
the opinion says: when the purpose
of the law is kept in mind, we think
this criticism cannot be made. The
object of the law is to conserve the
health and promote the happiness OF
the working men by such reasonable
regulations as will save them, in the
one instance. from over work, and in
the other. afford them ample time fol
rest. recreation and their physical ant
mental Improvement"
In reply to the respondents brief
insisting the eight hour amendmen
of the constitution was not prOperl.
submitted to the people and therefor'
not properly adopted. the court says
The Federal Case.
1T is entirely immaterial whethe
we have such amendment in effect o
not, for this question involves the con
struction of statute with reference t.
the 14th amendment to the constitu
ton of the Unied Staes," the opinion
going on to say that every feature G
it has been before the supreme coul
of the United States and passed III
on The federal case is cited an
summarized thus: THE court di
posed of The controversy by saying tia
the statute is not inconsistent wit
the constitution Of the United State
and indeed, it's constitutionality is b.
yond all question:
in the opinion of this court, chal
ter so, of the laws of 1905, is vail
legislative enactment, capable of b.
ing enforced. The information state
public offense."
The judgment of the district coul
is reversed and the case remandei
with direction to vacate the judgmer
and order sustaining the demurre
and to overrule the demurrer to tn
information.