Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/409

 382

The Green Bag

there would be better reason for declar ing it invalid, for as the Court said, it is so drawn as to prohibit labor even for so limited a period as an hour during the time. The Court does not con demn what might be regarded as a rea sonable limitation. On the contrary, it intimates that if it were considering a statute limiting the number of hours per day during which a woman might work, the arguments put forth to sus tain it would be appositive and persua sive. Upon this phase of the law, the case seems clearly distinguishable from others we have called attention to, but the Court seems to have overlooked that phase which, it seems, should have been controlling. In Burcher et al. v. People, 41 Colo. 495, 1907, the Court declared an act limiting the hours of employ ment in certain establishments invalid for the reason that the legislature had not, pursuant to a provision of the Col orado constitution, declared that work in such establishments was dangerous or unhealthy. The Court seems to have regarded this as an evasive at tempt to throw a legislative duty upon it, whereas it would seem to have been more in accord with rules of construction to hold that the fact that the hours were limited implied the fact that the labor was unhealthy when pursued for too many hours. 3.

LAWS WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT PERSONS ENGAGED IN DANGEROUS AND UNHEALTHY EM PLOYMENT.

Most courts now hold that laws which are confined to the protection of those laborers who are engaged in work which is dangerous and unhealthy are not repugnant to the Constitution. It is no longer open to question that the legislature can make rules for the regula tion and management of a business which is attended by danger to the health

or safety of employees. State v. Cantwell, 179 Mo. 245, 1903. This has been done in most states. In some, where manufacturing is carried on to a large extent, provision is made for pro tection against dangerous machinery, for cleanliness and ventilation of work ing rooms, for the use of sanitary ap pliances, etc. In others, where mining is the principal industry, provision is made for ventilating shafts, for safe means of hoisting and lowering cages, etc. These statutes have been usually enforced by the courts of the states as constitutional measures. They clearly show that the police power may be ex ercised to protect the welfare of the em ployee himself. If it is within the power of the legislature to adopt such means for the protection of the lives of its citizens, it is difficult to see why pre cautions may not also be made for the protection of their health and morals. As was said in Commonwealth v. Beatty, supra, "The length of time a laborer shall be subjected to the exhaustive exertion of physical labor is as clearly within the legislative control and dis cretion as is the governmental inspec tion of boilers, machinery, etc., to avoid accidents, or of sanitary conditions of factories and the like, to preserve the health of the laborers." The leading case upon this subject is that of Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 1897, which affirmed the decision of the Utah court in State v. Holden, 14 Utah 71, 1896. The act provided that the period of employment for all workingmen in all underground mines and all other institutions for the reduction and refining of ores or metals shall be eight hours per day except in cases of emergency, and it was held constitu tional. The Court said, "While the general experience of mankind may justify us in believing that a man may engage in ordinary employments more