Montana labor news., 1938-01-13

f@ ~ ftN tAha0fNo
The case of the Eight Hour Store
Law by the state against the Safe
way Stores, Inc, was argued before
the Montana Supreme Court last
Thursday. The Safeway Stores, ac-
cused of violating the eight-hour law
by employing John Larango of Liv-
ingston for a period of more than
eight hours on February %, 1897,
filed a demurrer which was upheld
by the district court. Attorney Gen
eral Harrison j. Freebourn appealed
the case to the Supreme Court. Mr..
Freebourn and First Assistant At
torney General Enor K. Matson pre-
pared and filed an exhaustive brief
on behalf of the state. In the oral
argument before the court last
Thursday, Mr.. Matson appeared and
argued the case on behalf of the at
torney generals office. Safeway
Stores commended that the law was
unconstitutional in that it interfered
with the liberty of contract and that
it was discriminatory in that it did
not apply to cities and towns under
$500 in population. In his argument
Mr.. Matson charged the Safeway
Stores with inconsistency in attack
ing the law, while at the same time
claiming that it was in favor of an
eight-hour law and also in arguing
that the Supreme Court had no jur-
isdiction, while in the same breath
claiming that it desired a ruling on
it from that high court.
Mr., Matson contended that the
liberty of contract between employ
er and employee was largely an
imaginative theory and not an actual
fact because most employees, be-
cause of economic necessity, were
compelled to accept what was Of
fered to them in order to keep body
and soul together and that freedom
to contract must give way to the
right of the state to exercise its
police power for the public health,
public peace and order, economic and
general welfare. Aside from i'm
proving the employment situation
such a law tends to promote moral
ity and to improve the physical and
intellectual condition of workmen
and enables them the better to dis
charge the duties of citizenship. He
said that in order to hold the law
unconstitutional the Supreme Court
would have to hold contrary to the
decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States, contrary to the
opinions of a long line of liberal JUS
tees of that court, such as Harlan,
Holmes, Brandeis, Stone and Car
dozo, Chief Justices White, Taft and
Hughes, and others, contrary to
sound reason, and contrary to the
presumption that the law was con-
stitutional, which was not overcome
by any facts presented by defend
ants.
Against the claim that the law
was discriminatory MI. Matson said
that there were many reasons why
the legislature might not think it
best to include towns under $500 in
population and he mentioned a num-
Der of them. The right to draw a
line and the place to draw it, he said
was within the sound discretion of
the legislature and the courts should
keep their hands off. He said that
similar laws drafted on a popula-
ton basis had been upheld by the
courts and that the Supreme Court
of the United States, as we'll as Mon
tana, had often said that the legis-
lature was free to recognize degrees
of harm and degrees of benefit, to
make tentative advances and v
the most fragrant evils first and need
not cover the whole field at once but
that regulation may be based upon
practical necessities determined by
population.