Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/410

 Limitation of Hours of Labor

383

it would therefore be a "mere^meddlethan eight hours per day without in jury to his health, it does not follow some interference with the right of the that labor for the same length of time individual." The following cases are opposed to is innocuous when carried on beneath the surface of the earth, where the the affirmative rule in whole or in part. operative is deprived of fresh air and The act considered in Low v. Rees Printing Co., 41 Neb. 127, 1894, was sunlight, and is subjected to foul at mosphere and a very high temperature, declared invalid because it discriminated or the influence of noxious gases, gener against farm and domestic laborers and ated by the process of refining or smelt because it violated the right of the par ing." The decision was based chiefly ties to contract with reference to com on the ground that the statute was a pensation for their work. Finally we regulation of the public health and have the case of In re Morgan, 26 Colo. partly on the ground that the laborer 415, 1899, confirming an opinion given and employer do not stand on an equal to the legislature in In re Eight Hour ity and that the former needs protection. Law, 21 Colo. 29, 1895. The statute Other cases in accord with the general was one affecting miners and was sim rule are Short v. Mining Co., 20 Utah 20, ilar to the one considered in the case of 1899, and In re Boyce, 27 Nev. 299, Holden v. Hardy, supra. The whole 1904. In the last case the Court said opinion of the Court rests upon the nar row view that the police power cannot that it is within "the power and discre tion of the legislature to enact the be extended to protect the individual statute for the protection of the health himself. It says that this kind of labor and the prolongation of the lives of visits its consequences upon the laborer workingmen affected and the resulting himself and not the public; that the law infringes the right of contract in private welfare to the state." Here, at the dividing line between the business from which no possible injury cases, we wish to call attention to that can result to the public; and that it is phase of the case of Lochner v. New class legislation. This brief review of the cases dealing York, supra, not before considered. In that case it was stated arguendo that with laws regulating and limiting hours the law limiting the hours of a baker of labor shows that the courts recognize was valid because the conditions under the necessity for a progressive applica which he works are unhealthy. But tion of new rules to the rapidly changing the Court said that the trade of a baker conditions of modern social, political is not unhealthy to that degree which and industrial life. The police power must expand as the complexity of our would warrant interference on his be half. The Supreme Court, as we have social system increases. The accident seen, had previously, in the case of of our finding certain laws novel ought Holden v. Hardy, supra, recognized not, therefore, to conclude our judg the exception we are here considering, ment against them. The tendency of and its decision in the bakery case in the courts is to keep abreast of the no way contravenes that holding. The times, and we can only hope that the Court simply found, whether rightly gradual expansion and development of the police power will be along the lines or wrongly, that there are no circum stances connected with the work of a that will secure the best interests of the baker calling for such a law, and that public and the individual. Cleveland, Ohio.