In New York a law forbidding city con tractors to accept more than eight hours for a day's work except in cases of necessity is held not to abridge the privileges or rights of any citizens ; People v. Beck, 10 Misc. 77, 30 N. Y. Supp. 473 ; so with a law limiting hours of service on railroads ; People v. Phyfe, 136 N. Y. 554, 32 N. E. 978, 19 L. R. A. 441; and one forbidding the employment of women and children for more than ten hours a day ; Com. v. Mfg. Co., 120 Mass. 383; and an act providing that ten hours in twelve consecutive hours shall be a day's labor for railroad laborers and that an em ploys shall receive proportionate compensa tion for extra time was held constitutional where the rate of wages was not prescribed by the act and contracts other than by the day were not prohibited by it; People v. Phyfe, 20 N. Y. Supp. 461. But an act pre scribing a limit of ten hours for a day's work has been held unconstitutional ; Wheel ing Bridge & T. R. Co. v. Gilmore, 8 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 658; In re Eight-Hour Law Bill, 21 Colo. 29, 39 Pac. 328 ; as is an ordinance pre scribing eight hours ; Ex parte Kuback, 85 Cal. 274, 24 Pac. 737, 9 L. R. A. 482, 20 Am. St.
226 (where the act limited the restric tion of hours to women) ; and an act for bidding the execution of a contract between a corporation and an employs whereby the latter agrees in consideration of certain ben efits from the company, that if he elect to accept benefits when injured he will not look to the company for damages ; Cox v. Ry. Co., 1 Ohio N. P. 213.
The limitation of employment in bakeries to 60 hours a week and 10 hours a day, at tempted New York law (1897), is an arbitrary interference with the freedom to contract under the constitution, and cannot be sustained as a valid exercise of the police power ; Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 25 Sup. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133, reversing People v. Lochner, 177 N. Y. 145, 69 N. B. 373, 101 Am. St. Rep. 773.
The Utah statute forbidding the employ ment of workingmen for more than eight hours a day in mines, and in the smelting, reduction, or refining of ores or metals, is not unconstitutional ; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 18 Sup. Ct. 383, 42 L. Ed. 780; the Iowa Code, providing that railroads shall be liable for damages sustained by employs or others because of the negligence of the em ployes, and that no contract which restricts such liability shall be legal or binding, is within the legislative power to enact, and is not an unconstitutional interference with the liberty of contract; Munford v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 128 Ia. 685, 104 N. W. 1135. The Penal Code, providing that any person or I corporation who, having a contract with the state or a municipal corporation, shall require more than eight hours' work for a day's labor, is guilty of a misdemeanor, is constitutional ; People v. Const. Co., 175 N. Y. 84, 67 N. E. 129, 65 L. R. A. 33.
A Texas act (1909), making it unlawful to act as a railroad conductor without certain previous experience, held not unconstitution al as an unreasonable interference with the right to contract for employment; Smith v. State (Tex.) 146 S. W. 900. Congress, possess ' ing the power exercised in Employers' Liabil ity Act (1908) to regulate the relations of in terstate railway carriers and their employes engaged in interstate commerce, made no un warranted interference with the constitu tional liberty of contract ; Mondou v. R. Co., 223 U. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 169, 56 L. Ed. 327, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 44. The federal Hours of Service Act (1907), which makes it unlawful for any interstate carrier to permit an em ploys to remain on duty for a longer period than those prescribed, is not unconstitutional as interfering with the liberty of contract; U. S. v. Ry. Co., 189 Fed. 954. An act pro
viding that railroads doing business within the state shall issue mileage books good for the members of the family of the purchaser is unconstitutional as depriving the railroad company of the right to contract ; State v.
Bonneval, 128 La. 902, 55 South. 569, Ant Cas. 837.
A state statute providing that no pet s° or corporation shall discharge an employ because be is a member of any labor organ nation is void for imposing a restraint o individual freedom ; State v. Kreatiberg, 11 Wis. 530, 90' N. W. 1098, 58 L. R. A. 741 91 Am. St. Rep. 934; Coffeyville Vitrifie Brick & Tile Co. v. Perry, 69 Kan. 297, Pac. 848, 66' L. R. A. 185, 1 Ann. Cas.' 936 a statute making it unlawful to require Permit any employee to work on street rai ways more than ten hours a day 'is constiti tibnal; In re Ten-Hour Law for Street It: Corp., 24 R. I. 603; an act prohibiting an female from being employed, permitted suffered to work in any factory in the star before 6 o'clock in the morning, or after o'clock in the evening' on any day, etc., wa an infringement on the female's' liberty t contract; People v. Williams, 116 App. Di' 379, 100 N. Y. Supp. 337, 101 N. Y. Supp. 561 A statute providing that corporations et gaged in manufacturing or in operating railroad should pay the wages of their en ployes in legal tender money of the Unite States, was held valid on the ground Um such legislation was necessarily incident I the power of the legislature to amend alter the corporate charter ; Shaffer v. Mb ing Co., 55 Md. 74; and a similar statute ri garding payment of wages otherwise that by paper redeemable in lawful' money, an prescribing a method of weighing coal at tb mouth of the mine, was upheld on the group that the business of the defendants was 'on over which the state had supervision, an that the state had power to protect laborer against, fraud on the part of employers i the payment of wages and in the mode ascertaining the amount of the wages earl ed; State v. Coal Co., 36 W. Va. 802, 15 S. 1 1000, 17 L. R.' A. 385 ; contra as to the la: point In re House Bill No. 203, 21 Cob 27, 39 Pac. 431; on the groUnd that tb act attempted to deprive persons of tb right to fix by contract the manner ascertaining compensation, and contra as t the payment of wages by any order script not negotiable and redeemable i lawfill money of the United States; Stai v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307, 22 S. W. 350, 2 L. R. A. 789 ; State v. Goodwill, 33 V Va. 179, 10 S. E. 285, 6 L. R. A. 621, 25 An Rep. 863; State v. Coal & Coke Co., 33 V 1 a. 188, 10 S. E. 288, 6 L. R. A. 359, 25 An St. Rep. 891; Braceville Coal Co. v. Peopl 147 Ill. 66, 35 N. E. 62, 22 L. R. A. 340, 1 Am. St. Rep. 206. A statute forbidding ti waiving of payment of money in contract between employer and employe was he] constitutional on the ground that it protec ed and maintained the medium of paymet established by the sovereign power of tt United States; Board of Com' rs of Gibso County v. Steel Co., 123 Ind. 365, 24 N. R 115.
For numerous cases of unreasonable inter ference with liberty of contract, see Mr. Frank Hagerman's in House v. Mayes, 219 U. S. 270, 272, 31 Sup. Ct. 234, 55 L. Ed. 213.
As to the constitutionality of acts forbid ding an employer to discharge his employe on account of his membership in a labor un ion, see LABOR UNION.
See, generally, 32 L. R. A. 789, note; 29 Am. L. Rev. 236 ; 27 id. 857; Rip. Am. Bar Ass'n (1891) 231; 32 Am. L. Reg. 816;