The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1911-04-13
8-HOUR LAW VOID
Supreme Court Declares It
Unconstitutional.
LOWER COURTS REVERSED
Opinion Says 1t is Special Lsgisla-
ton and Pittsburg Contractor
is Absolvsd From Fines
For Violation.

Philadelphia. April IL. - Justice
Stewart. OF the state supreme court
delivered an opinion declaring uncon'
stitutional the act of July 20. 1877,
known as the eight-hour law. This de-
cison reverses the superior court In
sustaining the quarter sessions court
of Allegheny county. which upheld
the constitutionality of the act and i'm
posed a fine on the contractor for VIC
latiOn thereof.
The appellant was John f. Casey,
who employed men for more than
eight hours a day under contract
with the city of Pittsburg for the con
struction Of a filtration plant in 1908.
Casey was fined $50 by the lower
court, and took an appeal to the SUI
perior court ON the ground that the
act of July &c, 1897. regulating the
hours Of mechanics. working men and
laborers in the employ of the state or
municipal corporations therein, or 9th
erwise engaged on public work by re-
stricting such employment to eight
hours a day. making a violation there
of misdemeanor and fixing the max
imum penalty at $1,000 fine. was un-
constitutional.
The superior court, in an opinion
by Judge Orlady. decided the law TO
be constitutional. but the supreme
court reverses the judgment OF the
superior court as well as the court OF
quarter sessions of Allegheny county.
and orders the discharge of the de
PENDANT, holding that the eighthour
law offends against section I. article
8, OF the constitution. which forbids
special legislation regulating labor.
The decision of the supreme court
Wil ave farreaching effect In Phil
adelphia, where the eighthour law
operates on all municipal work. ac-
cording to Assistant City Solicitor Fin
letter. who, however. qualified his
statement by saying that he had not
read the full text of the decision.
III municipalities. Notwithstanding
the clear distinction between their
governmental and proprietary pow
erg, are nevertheless TO be regarded
in whatever they do as instrumentali-
ties aud agents of the sovereign pow
err" says Justice Stewart. then 1t
follows that inasmuch as the state,
like the individual, can limit the hours
o. labor OF its own employees. It may
impose what regulation it chooses
upon Its subordinate subdivisions,
since the servants of the latter are
tbs servants of the former.
III, however, the distinction Is TO
be allowed, and municipalities with
respect to matters not political and
governmental, but proprietary and pri-
waite, are to be regarded as private cor
porations with corresponding powers
and duties. then the inquiry must be
whether the act in question is a spe-
cial or general law
The cases show cOnclusively that
With rs municipal corporations exist
IN this dual character, and that also
those concerns which are not govern
mental and political, they enjoy the
rights and are subject to the duties
which attach to private corporations.
Under the doctrine asserted In all our
cases the city of Pittsburg, in con-
structing its filtration plant as a ne
cessary part of its water system, was
not exercising q right Of sovereignty.
was not therefore an agent or instru-
mentality of the state, but was acting
as a private corporation.
"The classification here attempted
is not with a view to meet the wants
OF municipal corporations as disiin-
guishable from other corporations. but
to ameliorate labor conditions, and 1t
rests on neither distinction nor diff
ference"