The Cordova daily times., 1918-09-30

territorial eight hour law in his cam paign against Delegate Sulzer have prompted the publication of pamph let containing the decision in the case ot the United States ys. the Northern Commercial Company and George A.. jury by the district court of the Fourth division An indictment was returned and the defendants demurred on the ground that the enforcement of the law would bo a violation of the four teenth amendment to the constitution of the United States.
 Lengthy and extended argument was had on the question, in which all members of the bar were requested by the judge to participate.
 Judge Bunnell. after careful gcon- sidcration of the authorities cited, ren- dered lengthy and exceptionally able decision. the meat of which decision is quoted hereafter verbatim. The portions of the decision which are omitted are. however. pertinent, i'm portant and intensely interesting.
 The Decision
 It is conceded that the organic act for the territory of Alaska. approved August 24, 1912, contains no provision. through the initiative, for obtaining an expression of the electors of the ter ritory concerning proposed Legislation, so it is apparent that a wholly unau- thorized act of the territorial legisla- turc of 1915 to ascertain by ballot the views of the electors was not binding upon the next succeeding legislature and should not be presumed to bind the courts. R. (. L., pp. A and 45. and cases cited. When a legislature thus attempts to act entirely beyond the scope of the organic act or Consu- tuition which gives 1t life, there is at least a suspicion that it was aCtuated by some undisclosed motive. See Lochner ys New York, 198 U. s. 60 and 62
 IL is as much the duty of the terri torial legislature to recognize the con stitution of the United States and the organic act for the territory in mak- ing laws as it is the duty of the courts to accept them as their rule and guide in passing upon the validity of statute.
 The important question for deter imitation as raised by the demurrers Is whether or not the act of the ter ritorial legislature under which this indictment is brought Is contrary to and in violation of the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the con stitution of the United States. If by it's enforcement 1t deprives any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or denies to any per son within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. it must be held to be unconstitutional. The question of the validity of the laws of the stat" lasislative bodies and of congress itself respecting labor is neither novel nor uniuue. The supreme court hos passed upon such questions so many times that 1t is now unnecessary to enter into a discussion of how each specific question has been determined IL is sufficient to know, for the pur- pose of ruling on these demurrers. 
 court has determined:
 First-Labor Is propertv.-Sl Slaugh- ter House Cases, 83 U. & 36.
 SeCond-Thc Ee0"-al riPh' ." mare a contract in relation to his business Is part of the liberty protected by the fourteenth amendment, and this in cludes the right to purchase and sell labor except as controlled by the state in the legitimate exercise of its police powers.-LoChner vs. New York, l9S U s. 45.
 Third police rower of 2 state enables it ito prescribe regulations to promote health. peace, mO""le. "'n- cation and good order of the people. and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the state. develop its resources and add to its wealth and prosrc"''y "-Barbier vs. Connolly. 113 U. s. 31.
 Fourth-The question of :he st1.e's police power is not involved in con tracts of employment between the state as an employer and its em- ploye.-Atkins vs. Kansas. 191 U. s. 207
 Fifth - Legislative enactments should be recognized and enforced by the courts as embodying the will of the people. unless they are plainly and palpably, beyond all question. in vio- latiOn of the fundamental law of the constitution Atkins vs. Kansas, 191 U. s. 223.
 The act in question undertakes in- nrtifiCially. as have shown, to make it a crime for any wage or salary earrer in this ter~i'""" '" '"hN~ "-'H ,-' employment more than eight hours in any one calendar day, except in cases when life or property Is in imminent danger. It is not promised, so far as I am able to discover, either in it's title or in the body of the act, upon any theory that labor of all kinds is injurious to health and dangerous to life and limb. nor that employment for more than eight hours in any one cal endar day ia calculated to be iniu~' ous to the health of all wage and sal ary eerners inimical to the ne"ca Of society detrimental to the wnrals of the inhabitants of the territory, a menace to the cause of education, or generally antagonistic to the general welfare of the community: and on the other hand. there is no intimation that by thus limiting the hours of employ ment. the industries of the ter-'torv