Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/337

 292

mean trade competition. The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Holmes in Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92, 44 Northeastern Reporter 1077, 35 L. R. A. 722, 57 Am. St. Rep. 443, giving a larger meaning to the • term is not approved. From the holding that plaintiff has a cause of action Justices Wilkin and Cartwright dissent, principally on the ground that the company had a right to cancel the policy for any reason it pleased and that the threat to do a lawful act cannot be unlawful. POLICE POWER. (BAKERS-EMPLOYES— REGULA TION OF HOURS OF WORK—CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE—LIBERTY OF CONTRACT.)

NEW YORK COURT OF AITEALS In People v. Lochner, 69 Northeastern Reporter 373, the New York Court of Ap peals had before it the question of the con stitutionality of laws 1897, c. 415, art. 8, sec. no, p. 485, providing that no employé shall be required or permitted to work in a biscuit, bread or cake bakery or confection ery establishment more than 60 hours in any one week, or more than ю hours in any one day, unless for the purpose of making a shorter work day on the last day of the week, nor more hours in any one week than will make an average of 10 hours per day for the number of days during such week in which such employé shall work. The section is followed by a number of provisions relative to the cleanliness and general sanitary con dition of bakeries. Chief Justice Parker de livered the mam opinion. The statute was defended as a health regulation, and there fore a valid exercise of the police power. After citing many cases as to the extent of the police power, notably that of Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 18 Supreme Court Reporter, 383, 42 L. Ed. 780, in which a Utah statute providing an eight hour day for miners was upheld, and People i Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 43 Northeastern Reporter, 541, 31 L. R. A. 689, 52 Am. St. Rep. 707, in which a statute forbidding barbers to work on Sundays was also sustained, the chief justice declares that the statute in question was enacted with the intention to promote the public health.

"It is but reasonable to assume from this statute as a whole that the Legislature had in mind that the health and cleanliness of the workers, as well as the cleanliness of the workrooms, was of the utmost importance, and that a man is more likely to be careful and cleanly when well and not overworked, than when exhausted by fatigue, which makes for careless and slovenly habits, and tends to dirt and disease. If there is opportunity— and who can doubt it?—for this view, then the Legislature had the power to enact as it did, and the courts are bound to sustain its action as justified by the police power." Justice Gray, in a concurring opinion, says that it is true that a-tendency has been grow ing in the direction of excess of paternalism in government, and the courts have rather hastened to uphold legislative interference with the pursuits of citizens upon any plaus ible pretext. But the Legislature has, and should have, the broadest authority to ex ercise a police power of internal regulation in the direction of protecting the peace, the safety and the health of the community, and in this law he thinks may fairly be perceived a statutory regulation reasonably promotive of the public health. Justice Vann, concurring at considerable length, cues various medical authorities which declare that the occupation of a baker is peculiarly conducive to pulmonary dis eases. Justice O'Brien in dissenting, indulges in a somewhat desultory criticism of the statute, saying that it is class legislation, that it is impossible to perceive what connection the number of hours that the workmen are em ployed can have with the healthful quality of the bread they make, and that while the Legislature may no doubt define what shall constitute a day's work, it cannot prohibit parties from making agreements on the subject for themselves. Justice Bartlett also dissents. The fact that the statute is found codified under the title "Labor Law," is productive of some difficulty in regarding it as a health regulation, but one which the majority does not find insurmountable.