Montana labor news., 1938-02-03

tAtNA1o0A Law Il y D>-
fore the Supreme Court of
Montana, in Part As Follows:
l have the honor to appear here
today on behalf of the Montana
Federation of Labor. l would feel
it a still greater honor to sit as a
member of the Court and pass upon
the fundamental issue that is being
presented to it.
A proper solution of the question
presented, namely the constitution
atty of the eight-hour law, is not
difficult. The trail has long since
been blazed, for the Supreme Court
of the United States has already
held the eight-hour day and the
minimum wage laws constitutional.
To contend against the constitu-
tionality of the eight-hour day is as
reactionary as it was to arrest and
imprison men who gathered to-
gether in England to endeavor to
better their working conditions. To-
day it is difficult to believe that
courts that claimed to be decent,
that pretended to be humane and
to administer justice, could have
self-righteously sentenced men to
prison for gathering together to
form unions. 1t was necessary, how
ever, when the trade unions were
formed in England, to combat that
cruel, inhuman attitude of the courts
and OF the government masquerade
ing as humane Institutions admins
tering justice,
But the world moves on, and no
set of men, nc group, however
large, in fact nothing, ear stop the
progress of the world; nor can any
thing stop the operation of funda-
mental principals which have the
Supreme Power of the universe
back of them, because principles
are eternally vigorous, active and
indestructible, and the opposition of
the confused and clouded minds of
men only serve to make them more
transparent and understandable to
those who think and see clearly.
To prove that that is so, let US
consider for a moment the history
and trend of the cases upholding
legislation limiting the hours of la
Dor. In 1896, the State of Utah
passed a law limiting the hours of
labor in underground mines to eight
The constitutionality of this law was
attacked upon the ground that it
was an interference with the liberty
of employers in their right to make
their own contracts for labor with
their employees. In other words,
the constitutionality of the law was
attacked upon the theory that it
c%ontravened the provisions Of the
18th Amendment to the Constitu-
ton of the United States. But the
Supreme Court of the United States
in Holden V. Hardy, 1863 U. S. 800,
held that under the police power
the state has a right to enact this
legislation, and that it c%ontravened
no provisions Of the Constitution of
the United States.
A little later, in 1905, the court
took a different stand as to bakers,
where a ten-hour law for bakers
was held unconstitutional, but JUS
tees Harlan, White, Day and
Holmes dissented. In that case, JUS
tice Harlan said. Let the state alone
in the management of its purely
domestic affairs so long as it does
not appear beyond all question that
it has violated the Federal Consti-
tuition"
But then in 1903, the Supreme
Court of the United States, in the
case of Muller ". Oregon, 208 U. S.
412, held constitutional a law limit
ing the hours of women in laundries
and mechanical establishments.
Then, again in 1918, similar legis-
lation declaring that eight hours
should constitute a days work for
women in telegraph offices, millin-
cry and dressmaking establishments,
was attacked as unconstitutional and
in violation of the 14th Amendment
to the Constitution of the United
States, but the Supreme Court of
the United States, in the ase Of
Lawley v. Walker, 232 U. S. 718,
held the law not repugnant to any
provisions of the Constitution, and
held it constitutional.
Then in 1915 a law of the State
of California limiting the hours of
labor for women in hotels and mer-
camille establishments was attacked
as unconstitutional, but the Supreme
Court of the United States, in the
opinion written by Mr.. Justice
Hughes, held the law valid and con-
stitutional.
Then in 1917, in the case of Bunt-
ing v. Oregon, 243 U. S. 426, an
Oregon statute covering both men
and women in mill and manufac-
turing establishments, limiting their
hours of labor, was upheld by the
court, and that case overruled the
Lochner case.
Finally, in the case of West Coast
Hotel Company v. Parrish, 308 U. S.
379, decided in 1887, wherein the
constitutionality of the minimum
wage law Of the State of Washing