Montana labor news., 1938-02-03
Excerpts from Rankin's
.S-Hour Law Argument
CONTINUED from Page 81

Continued IRON Page 81
interpreted today by the Supreme
Court of the United States, states
may pass hours of labor laws under
the police power, and be constitu-
tional. To put it in another way,
we respectfully contend that this
court would have to overrule the
Supreme Court of the United States;
that is, refuse to follow the inter-
probation of the Constitution given
to it by the Supreme Court of the
United States, to hold this eight
hour day in Montana unconstitu-
tional.
Nor need anyone be fearful that
the Supreme Court of the United
States will change its opinion, be-
cause Justice Van Devanter has re-
tired and Mr.. Justice Sutherland
has announced his intention to re-
tire this month. In other words,
while the vote was five to four in
favor of constitutionality, when the
West Coast Hotel Company case
was decided in 1897, it is reasonable
to expect that there will be sever
to two who will declare hours of
labor laws constitutional when the
next case presenting a similar ques-
ton is taken before the Supreme
Court of the United States. 1t is
to be expected, of course, that even
at that late date, that Mr.. Justice
McReynolds and Mr.. Justice Butler
will cling to their antiquated views
apparently borne of a deep-seated
antagonism to labor, to which they
have SO long adhered.
1t cannot be said that Chief JUS
tice Hughes or Chief Justice Taft
are not conservative thinkers, and
if they, conservative as they have
always been, are convinced that
state laws limiting the hours of la
Dor are constitutional and not re-
pugnant to any provision of the
Constition of the United States, then
surely they must be constitutional
and no conservative need complain.
But my distinguished friend, Tom
Davis, who has attacked the consti-
nationality of the Montana eight
hour law On behalf of the Safeway
Stores, would have you bark back
to the dark ages from which civiliza-
ton has S % long emerged. In his
brief he argues that the law is i'm
constitutional under the Lochner de-
cision of 1905 (but which has long
since been ~overruled), and also that
it is unconstitutional because the
law exempts employers in cities
under $500, that it cannot be a
health measure. But he forgets that
police power does not confine itself
to measures for the protection of
health for it permits the states to
pass laws for the public safety and
general welfare.
My good friend Tom Davis must
bear in mind that the Montana eight
hour law was passed at a special
session of the legislature in response
to a proclamation which declared:
WHEREAS, The nation wide
economic depression has created a
serious emergency in this state, due
to widespread unemployment and
consequent indulgence and depend
ence of a large portion of the people
of the state; and
WHEREAS, Great distress exists
within the State of Montana, and
many citizens are in want for the
necessities of life, and many are
without employment, without means
of support and unable to care for
themselves and their families; :"
And the proclamation declared
that M of the purposes for which
the legislative assembly was con-
vened was ito enact a law limiting
the hours of labor" Not only did
the proclamation calling the legisla-
ture into session speak of unemploy-
ment emergency, but many other
laws and resolutions passed at the
special session speak of the emer-
gency.
ms - NJ NNT--IN