EIGHT HOUR LAWS. Statutes making eight hours a day's labor for workmen, la-• borers, and mechanics.
Acts regulating the hours of labor for wo men and children are generally upheld; Coro. v. Mfg. Co., 120 Mass. 383; Com. v. Beatty, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 5; State v. Buchanan, 29 Wash. 602, 70 Pac. 52, 59 L. R. A. 342, 92 Am. St. Rep. 930; but contra, Ritchie v. Peo ple, 155 Ill. 98, 40 N. E. 454, 29 L. R. A. 79, 46 Am. St. Rep. 315, where the Massachu setts case was expressly disapproved. See Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 207, 24 Sup. Ct. 124, 48 L. Ed. 148; LIBERTY or CONTRACT. Such statutes have been upheld in three classes of cases: (1) Occupations injurious to the health of employs; (2) occupations in which women and children are employed; (3) occupations involving the public safety and welfare. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383, 42 L. Ed. 780.
An act providing that In contracting for municipal work the contractor should bind himself not to accept more than eight hours as a day's work to be performed within nine consecutive hours or, except in case of ne cessity, not to employ any one for more than eight hours in twenty-four consecutive hours, was held not to violate either the federal or the New York constitution; People v. War ren, 77 Hun 120, 28 N. Y. Supp. 303; People v. Beck, 10 Misc. 77, 30 N. Y. Supp. 473, re versed on other grounds in People v. Beck, 144 N. Y. 225, 39 N. E. 80.
Other courts have held that statutes lim iting a day's work for all classes of mechan ics, servants and laborers (except. farm an domestic workers) to eight hours are invali as interfering with the constitutional , rigi to contract ; Low v. Printing Co., 41 Ne 127, 59 N. W. 362, 24 L. R. A. 702, 43 Am. 5 ReP. 670; In re Bill Providing That Eigl Hours Shall Constitute a Day's Labor, Colo. 29, 39 Pac. 328; City of Cleveland Const. Co., 67 Ohio St. 197, 65 N. E. 885, t
L. R. A. 775, 93 Am. St. Rep. 670; Fiske People, 188 Ill. 206, 58 N. E. 985, 52 L. R. 291; State v. McNally, 48 La. Ann. 1450, Soutiv. 27, 36 L. R. A. 533. And a simil; municipal ordinance was held invalid ; E parte Kuback, 85 Cal. 274, 24 Pac. 73.7, L. R. A. 482, 20 Am. St. Rep. 226; City Seattle v. Smyth, 22 Wash. 327, 60 Pac. 112 79 Am. St. Rep. 939.
icy act of congress of August 1,• 1892, tl employment of all laborers and mechanil employed by the States, the Distri, of Columbia or by any contractor upon ar of the public works of the United States ; the District of Columbia 'is limited to eigi hours in any one calendar day, except i cases of extraordinary emergency. A via tion of this act is made punishable by fir and imprisonment or both. The act was u; held; Ellis V. U. S., 206 U. S. 246, 27 Su: Ct. 600, 51 L. Ed. 1047, 11 Ann. Cas. 58 A :statute somewhat similar was passed Jux 19, ,1912. A similar statute of Kansas w; held not to infringe the freedom to contrac nor • deny equal protection, of the law; Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 207, 24 Sup. C 124, 48 L. 198, affirming State v. Atki: 64 Kan. ,174, .Am. St. Re: 30, A statute limiting, to ,eight hours day's., work for men underground mine or in refining or reduction ; metals, is constitutional; Holden v. Hard; 169 U. 5, 366, 18 Sup. Ct. 383, 42 L. El 70, affirming State v. Holden, 14 Uta 71, 46 Pac. 756; 37 L. R. A. 103; coign In , re Proidding that. Eight Hours sha Oonatitide.,a .Day's Labor,. 21 Colo. 29, f: 328., • The emergency which permits days ; more than eight hours'., work is somethir more th.n contemplated emergencies nece sarily inhering in work S. v. GA bish, 222 TY.,S. 257, 32 Slip: Ct. 77, 56 L.' EI 190. See TABOR LAWS.