The Hattiesburg news. (Hattiesburg, Miss.) 1908-1917, 1912-11-22

ployment in bakeries to sixty hours
a week, and ten hours a day, under
the New York laws, 1897, is an arbi-
trary interference with the freedom
to contract guaranteed by the United
States constitution, fourteenth amend
ment, which cannot be sustained as a
valid exercise of the police power to
protect the public health, safety and
morals, or general welfare. A care
J full consideration Of that case fails to
show US that 1t should control the case
before US. It seems that the statute
omitted the exception in the Missis-
sippi statute, which is in the following
words, except in cases Of emergency,
or where public necessity requires"
It will be noted that in the case OF
Holden v. Hardy, supra, the Utah
statute contained this exception. Mr..
Justice Peckham in Lochner " New
York, states that "the mandate of the
statute that no employee shall be re-
quired or permitted to work, is the
substantial equivalent of an enact
ment that no employee shall contract
per day, and as there is no provision
for special emergencies, the statute
is mandatory in all cases" And in an
other portion of the decision, in re-
ferring to the Utah statute above men
toned, he said: ut will be observed
that even with regard to that class of
labor the Utah statute provided the
cases of emergency wherein the pro-
visions of the statute would not APP
ply. The statute now before this court
has no emergency clause in it, and if
the statute is valid, there are no cir
cumstances and no emergencies under
which the slightest violation of the
provisions of the act would be inno-
cent" 1t will be noticed also that the |
decision in Lochner V. New York, |
supra, was not unanimous. four of the !
distinguished members of the bench, |
Mr.. Justice Harland, Mr.. Justice |
White, the present eminent chief JUS
tice, Mr.. Justice Day and Mr.. Justice
Holmes dissenting. Both Mr.. Justice
Harland and Mr.. Justice Holmes wrote
dissenting opinions.
Mr. Justice Harlan in his dissenting
opinion said: Granting, then, that
there is a liberty of contract which
cannot be violated even under the
sanction of direct legislative enact
ment, but assuming as according to
settled law we may assume, that such
liberty of contract is subject to such
regulations as the state may reason
ably prescribe for the common good
and the well-being of society, what
arc the conditions under which the
judiciary may declare such regulations
to be in excess of legislative author
ity and void, Upon this point there
is no room for dispute; for the rule
is universal that a legislative enact
ment, federal or state, is never to be
dlsregarded or held invalid unless it
be, beyond question, plainly and pal
pably in excess Of legislative pow
er. 80
ut is plain that this statute was
enacted to protect the physical we'll
being of those who work in bakery
and confectionery establishments. 1t
may be that the statute had its origin,
in part, in the belief that EMPLOYERS
and employees in such establishments
were not upon an equal footing, and
that the necessities Of the latter often
them to submit to such ex-
actions as unduly taxed their strength.
Be this as it may, the statute must be
taken as expressing the belief of the
people Of New York that, as a general
rule, and In the case of the average
man, labor in excess of sixty hours
during a week in such establishments
may endanger the health of those who
thus labor. Whether or not this be
wise legislation It is not the province
Of the court to inquire. Under our
systems of government the courts are
rot concerned with the wisdom or
'olicy Of legislation. So that. in de-
the question of power to
interfere with liberty of contract. the
court may inquire whether the means
devised by the state are germane to
IN end which may be lawfully accom-
1lished and have real or substantial
'elation to the protection of health,
ls involved in the daily work of the
persons, male and female, engaged in
bakery and confectionery establish
nents. '" take leave to say that
he New York statute in the particu-
ars here involved, cannot be held to
,e in conflict with the fourteenth
amendment, without charging the
cope of the amendment far beyond |
is original purpose, and without |
bringing under the supervision Of this