OPINION
The
following is the question submitted: 'Ordered, that the
Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court be required to give
their opinion to the Senate upon the following important
question of law:
'Are
the provisions of the bill to constitute eight hours a
day's work for public employés, now pending in the
Senate, and particularly the provisions of section 5 of said
bill, constitutional?'
A copy
of the bill is as follows:
'Section
1. The service of all laborers, workmen and mechanics, now
or hereafter employed by the commonwealth or
by any county therein or by any city or town which has
accepted the provisions of section twenty of chapter one
hundred and six of the Revised Laws, or of section
forty-two of chapter five hundred and fourteen of the acts
of the year one thousand nine hundred and nine, or by any
contractor or subcontractor for or upon any public works of
the commonwealth or of any county therein or of any such
city or town, is hereby restricted to eight hours in any
one calendar day, and it shall be unlawful for any officer
of the commonwealth or of any county therein, or of any
such city or town, or for any such contractor or
subcontractor or other person whose duty it shall be to
employ, direct or control the service of such laborers
workmen or mechanics to require or permit any such laborer
workman or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any
one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary
emergency. Danger to property, life, public safety or
public health only shall be considered cases of
extraordinary emergency within the meaning of this section.
In cases where a Saturday half holiday is given the hours
of labor upon the other working days of the week may be
increased sufficiently to make a total of forty-eight hours
for the week's work. Threat of loss of employment or to
obstruct or prevent the obtaining of
employment or to refrain from employing in the future,
shall each be considered to be 'requiring' within
the meaning of this section. Engineers shall be regarded as
mechanics within the meaning of this act.
'Sec.
2. Every contract, excluding contracts for the purchase of
material or supplies, to which the commonwealth or any
county therein or any city or town which has accepted the
provisions of section twenty of chapter one hundred and six
of the Revised Laws, is a party which may involve the
employment of laborers, workmen or mechanics shall contain
a stipulation that no laborer, workman or mechanic working
within this commonwealth, in the employ of the contractor,
subcontractor or other person doing or contracting to do
the whole or a part of the work contemplated by the
contractor shall be requested or required to work more than
eight hours in any one calendar day, and every such
contract which does not contain this stipulation shall be
null and void.
'Sec.
3. Any agent or official of the commonwealth or of any
county therein or of any city or town or any contractor or
subcontractor or any agent or person acting on behalf of
any contractor or subcontractor who violates any provision
of this act shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one
thousand dollars or by imprisonment for six months or both
such fine and imprisonment for each offense.
'Sec.
4. This act shall not apply to the preparation, printing,
shipment and delivery of ballots to be used at a caucus,
primary, state, city or town election, nor during the
sessions of the General Court to persons employed in
legislative printing or binding; nor shall it apply at any
time to persons employed in any state, county or municipal
institution, on a farm, or in the care of the grounds, in
the stable, in the domestic or kitchen and dining-room
service or in store rooms and offices.
'Sec.
5. At any trial arising under the provisions of this act,
evidence that laborers, workmen or mechanics have worked or
are working over eight hours in any one calendar day shall
be prima facie evidence of the violation of the provisions
of this act.
'Sec.
6. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are
hereby repealed.
'Sec.
7. This act shall take effect upon its passage.'
To the
Honorable Senate of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
We, the
justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, have received the
order requiring our opinion upon the question, a copy of
which is hereto annexed, and we respecitfully answer as
follows:
The
right 'of acquiring, possessing and protecting
property' and the right to the enjoyment of 'life
liberty or property' are secured to every citizen by the
Constitution of Massachusetts as well as by the Constitution
of the United States. These rights include the right to use
one's powers and faculties in any reasonable way for the
promotion of his interests and the right to make contracts
with others. These rights can be regulated by the
Legislature, in the exercise of the police power, only in the
interest of the public health, the public safety or the
public morals, and, in a certain restricted sense, of the
public welfare. The general principles touching this subject
have been considered repeatedly by the justices of this court
and by the Supreme Court of the United States. See
Commonwealth v. Pear, 183 Mass. 242, 66 N.E. 719, 67
L. R. A. 935; Commonwealth v. Strauss, 191 Mass.
545, 78 N.E. 136, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 968; Welch v.
Swasey, 193 Mass. 364, 373, 79 N.E. 745, 23 L. R. A. (N.
S.) 1160, 118 Am. St. Rep. 523; Opinions of the...
