LIMITATION OF HOURS OF LABOR legislation, but it is paid for too highly at the price of the confusion of the landmarks between law and policy, and of the meritable diminution of the authority of prece dents, nor is it to be lightly assumed that the legislation in the present case was hasty or ill advised. The decision, moreover, involves far more than the validity of health laws. The act passed upon had not claimed to be a mea sure for the social or economic advancement of bakers' employees; as such, it would doubtless have been open to the objection of being partial or class legislation, contrary to the principle of the equal protection of the laws. But the tenor of the prevailing opinion strongly implies that, irrespective of any discrimination, the liberty of contract may not be impaired by limitation of hours of labor, where health and safety are not in question. The Supreme Court has upheld a com pulsory eight-hour day for employees on public contracts, the purpose of which was clearly not sanitary, but social, i.e., seeking
417
to raise the general standard of life among workmen by increased leisure and oppor tunity for improvement. But as applied to industrial employees in general, a compul sory eight- or ten-hour day would, under the present decision, be almost certainly pro nounced to be contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Even of those who believe such legislation to be unwise or premature, there will be many who will refuse to be lieve that it is opposed to immutable prin ciples of justice or to any fundamental prin ciple of law, and who will regard it as un fortunate that the highest tribunal should have sought to commit American jurispru dence to that view. Whatever may be true of ultimate developments — and it is safe to say that a change in public opinion suffi ciently strong and wide-spread would even tually compel judicial acquiescence, even without a change of the Fourteenth Amend ment —it can not be denied that agitation for labor or social legislation of an advanced type, has suffered a serious check through the decision in Lochner v. New York. CHICAGO, ILL., June, 1905.
