Amador ledger., 1910-01-07


the operator is deprived of fresh air and
sunlight, and is frequently subjected to
foul atmosphere.
1.-THE right to limit the hours of labor
generally was not involved in Holden
VS.. Hardy. No such right was asserted.
II was however decided that the parti-
cular occupations affected by the act
possessed such elements Of danger and
risk to the employe that the legislature
might reasonably conclude that in such
occupations restriction Of the time Of
labor was necessary for the protection of
those engaged in such labor.
The limitations OF the doctrine are
we'll illustrated by the subsequent de-
cision in Lochner VS.. New York, 1913.
u. S. 81, in which the court, reversing
the decision OF the court of appeals of
New York in People VS.. Lochner, 1T
NJ Y. lass, declared invalid law
limiting the hours OF labor OF bakers.
The real ground for that decision is we
think to be found in the following ex-
tract from the opinion .of Mr. Justice
Peckham - We think that there can be
no fair doubt that the trade of a baker
in and of itself is not an unhealthy one,
to that degree which would authorize
the legislature to interfere with the
right of labor, and with the right OF
free contract.
1t follows, from comparison OF these
two decisions, that in determining
whether an act limiting the hours of
labor in any occupation is in violation
of the federal constitution, the primary
consideration is whether or not the
occupation possesses such characteris-
tics of danger to the health Of those
engaged in it as to justify the legislature
in concluding that the welfare of the
community demands restriction.
| And this brings us to the petitioners
contention that the act is violative of
the provisions ..the state constitution
respecting special legislation. 1t is
commended that the act violates sub
division 2 of sec. Is of article in that
it is special law for the punishment
of crime or misdemeanor created by
said act; that it violates section Fl of
article in that it grants to citizens or
classes of citizens privileges or i'm
munities which are not upon the same
terms granted to all citizens; that il
violates section / of article | as not
being of uni form operation.
These various specifications are in
effect directed to the same point, namely
that the law arbitrarily acts in its
operation against special class of per-
sons. 1t is, OF course, unnecessary to
cite any authorities in support of the
proposition that law is not special
or lacking in uniformity merely because
it does not apply to all persons within
the state. An act to be general in its
scope need not include all classes of
individuals in the state; it answers the
constitutional requirements if it relates
to and operates uniformly upon the
whole of any single class
Abel VS.. Clark, 8 Cal. 226.
The classification created for the pur-
pose of legislation must of course be a
reasonable one. But in view of the de-
cision in Holden VS.. Hardy, based as it
was upon the fact that the occupations
covered by this act were so peculiarly
dangerous as to justify special regula-
ton, how can it be said that the legis-
lature in selecting these occupations and
applying to them provisions designed to
protect the health of those engaged in
them was making class of persons ar
bitrarily selected from the general body
of those who stand in precisely the same
relation TO the subject of the law. The
very grounds which led the supreme
court of the United States to hold that
the Utah statute did not deprive and
person of life, liberty or property with
out due process of law requires the con-
clusion that the Legislation was not
special within the meaning of our state
constitution.
The appellant relies with great con-
fidence upon the decision of the SUI
preme court of Colorado, in re Morgan,
So Pac III, In that case it was held
that an act similar to the one under
consideration was unconstitutional, this
conclusion being baesd upon the ground
among others that the law was class
legislation. We have not access to the
constitution of Colorado, and are not in
formed of its precise terms regarding
general and snecial lani elafinn. II rnau