Argument for Defendant in Error. 198 U. S. of New York, 177 N. Y. 271; People ex rel. v. Grout, 179 N. Y. 417. As to fundamental right to pursue occupations, see decisions of this court in cases cited supra and Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 79; United States v. Martin, 94 U. S. 400. And see People v. Phyfe, 136 N. Y. 554; Henderson v. Mayor, 92 U. S. 259. In the other state courts legislation of the kind in issue has been almost uniformly declared invalid. Sawyer v. Davis, 136 Massachusetts, 239, 243; Eden v. People, 161 Illinois, 296; Ritchie v. People, 155 Illinois, 98; Ex parte Kuback, 85 California, 274; Godcharles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. St. 431; State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179; Leep v. St. Louis R. R. Co., 58 Arkansas, 407; Low v. Rees Pub. Co., 41 Nebraska, 127. The statute in question was never intended as a health provision but was purely a labor law. This is indicated by the facts leading up to the adoption of this statute by the New York legislature. For acts of this nature generally, see English Bakehouse Acts of 1863, 26, 27 Vict., ch. 40; English Factory Act of 1883; Baker's Journal, New York City, May 8, 1895; Report New York State Bureau Labor Statistics, 1892, vol. 3; Ch. 548, New York Laws of 1895; Ch. 672, 1896; Ch. 415, § 5, Laws of 1897; New Jersey act of April, 1896; Bakeshop Act of Ontario, April 7, 1896; Acts of Maryland, and Massachusetts, passed in 1897. Mr. Julius M. Mayer, Attorney General of the State of New York, for defendant in error: The New York statute under consideration involves an exercise of the police power of the State. The burden of demonstrating that this statute is repugnant to the provisions of the Federal Constitution is upon the plaintiff in error, and he must show that there was no basis upon which the state court could rest its conclusion that the legislation in question was a proper exercise of police power. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366. 198 U. S. Argument for Defendant in Error. The conditions existing in the State of New York, which may be considered as the occasion for the enactment of the statute under consideration, show that it was a proper exercise of the police power of the State. The power of the legislature to decide what laws are necessary to secure the public health, safety or welfare is subject to the power of the court to decide whether an act purporting to promote the public health or safety has such a reasonable connection therewith as to appear upon inspection to be adapted to that end. And the court may take judicial notice of the fact of the common belief of the people upon that subject. Matter of Viemeister, 179 N. Y. 235. There are two views as to the words in the statute-"no employé shall be required or permitted to work." The statute was carefully drafted so as to prevent evasion. It was intended to be a barrier to the employer who might testify that he had not orally or in writing required his employé to work, and yet he might by inference and acquiescence accomplish the same result by "permitting" him to so work. The State, in undertaking this regulation, has a right to safeguard the citizen against his own lack of knowledge. In dealing with certain classes of men the State may properly say that, for the purpose of having able-bodied men at its command. when it desires, it shall not permit these men, when engaged in dangerous or unhealthful occupations, to work for a longer period of time each day than is found to be in the interest of the health of the person upon whom the legislation acts. The unhealthful character of the baker's occupation was fully commented upon by Judge Vann in his opinion in the Court of Appeals. The opinions of the judges of that court are very exhaustive and refer fully to all the cases on this subject. The propriety of its exercise within constitutional limits is purely a matter of legislative discretion with which courts cannot interfere. People v. King, 110 N. Y. 418, 423. If the act "admits of two constructions as to its being a health measure or otherwise, the courts should give the construction which sustains the act and makes it applicable in furtherance of the public interests. Bohmer v. Haffen, 161 N. Y. 390, 399. MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after making the foregoing statement of the facts, delivered the opinion of the court. The indictment, it will be seen, charges that the plaintiff in error violated the one hundred and tenth section of article 8, chapter 415, of the Laws of 1897, known as the labor law of the State of New York, in that he wrongfully and unlawfully required and permitted an employé working for him to work more than sixty hours in one week. There is nothing in any of the opinions delivered in this case, either in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals of the State, which construes the section, in using the word "required," as referring to any physical force being used to obtain the labor of an employć. It is assumed that the word means nothing more than the requirement arising from voluntary contract for such labor in excess of the number of hours specified in the statute. There is no pretense in any of the opinions that the statute was intended to meet a case of involuntary labor in any form. All the opinions assume that there is no real distinction, so far as this question is concerned, between the words "required" and "permitted." The mandate of the statute that "no employé shall be required or permitted to work," is the substantial equivalent of an enactment that "no employé shall contract or agree to work," more than ten hours per day, and as there is no provision for special emergencies the statute is mandatory in all cases. It is not an act merely fixing the number of hours which shall constitute a legal day's work, but an absolute prohibition upon the employer, permitting, under any circumstances, more than ten hours work to be done in his establishment. The employé may desire to earn the extra money, which would arise from his working more than the prescribed time, but this statute forbids the employer from permitting the employé to earn it. The statute necessarily interferes with the right of contract between the employer and employés, concerning the number of hours in which the latter may labor in the bakery of the employer. The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578. Under that provision no State can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this amendment, unless there are circumstances which exclude the right. There are, however, certain powers, existing in the sovereignty of each State in the Union, somewhat vaguely termed police powers, the exact description and limitation of which have not been attempted by the courts. Those powers, broadly stated and without, at present, any attempt at a more specific limitation, relate to the safety, health, morals and general welfare of the public. Both property and liberty are held on such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the governing power of the State in the exercise of those powers, and with such conditions the Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to interfere. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623; In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436; Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86; In re Converse, 137 U. S. 624. The State, therefore, has power to prevent the individual from making certain kinds of contracts, and in regard to them the Federal Constitution offers no protection. If the contract be one which the State, in the legitimate exercise of its police power, has the right to prohibit, it is not prevented from prohibiting it by the Fourteenth Amendment. Contracts in violation of a statute, either of the Federal or state government, or a contract to let one's property for immoral purposes, or to do any other unlawful act, could obtain no protection from the Federal Constitution, as coming under the liberty of person or of free contract. Therefore, when the State, by its legislature, in the assumed exercise of its police powers, has passed an act which seriously limits the right to labor or the right of contract in regard to their means of livelihood between persons who are sui juris (both employer and employé), it becomes of great importance to determine which shall prevail-the right of the individual to labor for such time as he may choose, or the right of the State to prevent the individual from laboring or from entering into any contract to labor, beyond a certain time prescribed by the State. This court has recognized the existence and upheld the exercise of the police powers of the States in many cases which might fairly be considered as border ones, and it has, in the course of its determination of questions regarding the asserted invalidity of such statutes, on the ground of their violation of the rights secured by the Federal Constitution, been guided by rules of a very liberal nature, the application of which has resulted, in numerous instances, in upholding the validity of state statutes thus assailed. Among the later cases where the state law has been upheld by this court is that of Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366. A provision in the act of the legislature of Utah was there under consideration, the act limiting the employment of workmen in all underground mines or workings, to eight hours per day, "except in cases of emergency, where life or property is in imminent danger." It also limited the hours of labor in smelting and other institutions for the reduction or refining of ores or metals to eight hours per day, except in like cases of emergency. The act was held to be a valid exercise of the police powers of the State. A review of many of the cases on the subject, decided by this and other courts, is given in the opinion. It was held that the kind of employment, mining, smelting, etc., and the character of the employés in such kinds of labor, were such as to make it reasonable and proper for the State to interfere to prevent the employés from being constrained by the rules laid down by the proprietors in regard to labor. The following citation. |