Plaintiff
Holden
Defendant
Hardy
Plaintiff's Claim
That a Utah state law limiting mine and smelter workers to an eight-hour daywas unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, because it deprived bothemployers and their workers of their right to make contracts and so denies them the equal protection of the law.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff
Jeremiah M. Wilson
Chief Defense Lawyer
Charles J. Pearce
Justices for the Court
Henry Billings Brown (writing for the Court), Melville Weston Fuller, HoraceGray, John Marshall Harlan I, Joseph McKenna, George Shiras, Jr., Edward Douglass White
Justices Dissenting
David Josiah Brewer, Rufus Wheeler Peckham
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
28 February 1898
Decision
That the Utah law was not unconstitutional, but rather was a valid use of thestate's "police power" since the federal government has the right to preserve the public health, and since working long hours in a mine or smelter is patently unhealthy, the law is valid.
Significance
The case was an important step in establishing the federal government's rightto regulate business.
The second half of the nineteenth century in America was the age of "robber barons," industrial giants whose power to shape the nation's economy and political life seemed virtually unlimited. Big business was opposed by working people who were trying to unionize, as well as by middle-class people who were trying to pass state and federal reforms. However, these efforts to limit thepower of business were often seen by the courts as going beyond the legitimate power of government.
One way to understand the climate of the time is to think of a person's rightto enter into a contract as one of the greatest liberties known to humanity.The freedom to make one's own contract was viewed as so precious that only very grave circumstances could justify the government, or anyone else, interfering with it.
Many people at the time saw things differently. They argued that individual workers could not possibly make free and fair contracts with huge corporations. The corporations had enough power and wealth to force workers to agree to virtually any wages and working conditions, unless either a union contract ora government law intervened. Indeed, many people at the time thought the government's role should be to intervene on the side of the weak and powerless.
The justices of the Supreme Court, however, tended not to support this activist view of the government's role. They saw federal legislation as doubly problematic because it interfered with individual liberty to make contracts, andit usurped power that rightly belonged to the states. In order to justify most types of social legislation, the Court believed that one of four issues hadto be at stake: morals, general welfare, safety, or health.
Utah Limits the Miner's Workday
At the turn of the century, Utah was a major mining area. The Utah state legislature had passed a law limiting the workday in mines and smelters (places where metal is melted down) to eight hours, except in the event of an emergency. As a result, a mine and smelter owner named Holden was charged with unlawfully employing John Anderson for ten-hour days in his Old Jordan mine in Bingham canyon and with unlawfully employing William Hooley to work twelve-hour days in his smelter.
In the first case, Holden was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine of fiftydollars plus costs, a substantial sum in those days. If Holden refused to pay, he would be sent to the county jail for 57 days. Holden was also found guilty and similarly punished in the second case.
Holden appealed to the Supreme Court, basing his case on three arguments.
1) The Utah law deprived people of their right to make contracts.
2) The Utah law was "class" legislation; that is, it did not treat all citizens equally. Only mining and smelter employees were forbidden to work more than eight hours a day; only mining and smelter owners were forbidden to requiretheir workers to work more than eight hours. Workers and employers in otherindustries were given more freedom.
3) The Utah law deprived some people, including Holden, of equal protection under the law, and deprived him, his workers, and others in his industry of liberty without due process of law.
"A Progressive Science"
In preparing to rule on this case, the Supreme Court realized that it was dealing with a new situation. Usually, the Court tried to rely solely on the Constitution when deciding a case. It also tried to guide itself by "common law," the customs inherited from centuries of legal tradition in England. In hismajority opinion, Justice Brown explained that the law was "a progressive science." In other words, law was a discipline that changed with the times.
Justice Brown wrote that "certain . . . classes of persons, particularly those engaged in dangerous or unhealthful employments, have been found to be in need of additional protection," protection that was not explicitly provided bythe Constitution.
When asked whether miners and smelters were in need of additional protection,Justice Brown answered in the affirmative. He pointed out that the nature ofmining and smelting had changed a great deal since the Constitution was ratified, and that
Miners and Bakers
If labor activists and reformers thought that Holden v. Hardy meant that the Supreme Court was now firmly on the side of labor, they were sadly mistaken. Only a few years later, in 1905, the Court ruled in Lochner v. NewYork that a New York state law setting a maximum 60-hour week for bakerswas unconstitutional. The two judges who had dissented in Holden v. Hardy were joined by three other colleagues, for a narrow 5-4 margin. The majority opinion, written by Justice Peckham, held that bakers should be free to enter into any contract, including one that required them to work more than 60hours a week. Justice Peckham argued that bakers were fully competent adultswho were not in need of special protection.
The reasons for the Court's vastly different rulings in two cases that, on the surface, appear so similar are uncertain. Some scholars believe that the Court had simply changed with the times, becoming more conservative in responseto the increasing agitation for social reform. Other scholars believe that the two cases are perfectly consistent. In both cases, the Court was unwillingto interfere with the right of contract except to protect "health," "safety," "morals," or "welfare." These scholars believe that the Court saw mining asunhealthy, dangerous work, while baking was seen as relatively safe. Therefore, unless working longer hours could be shown to endanger the baker, the federal government had no right to interfere.
During the next several decades, the Court would prove extremely reluctant toapprove of labor legislation. Despite the landmark nature of Holden v. Hardy, it would be many years before true workplace reform was accepted bythe courts.
Related Cases
Holden
Defendant
Hardy
Plaintiff's Claim
That a Utah state law limiting mine and smelter workers to an eight-hour daywas unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, because it deprived bothemployers and their workers of their right to make contracts and so denies them the equal protection of the law.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff
Jeremiah M. Wilson
Chief Defense Lawyer
Charles J. Pearce
Justices for the Court
Henry Billings Brown (writing for the Court), Melville Weston Fuller, HoraceGray, John Marshall Harlan I, Joseph McKenna, George Shiras, Jr., Edward Douglass White
Justices Dissenting
David Josiah Brewer, Rufus Wheeler Peckham
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
28 February 1898
Decision
That the Utah law was not unconstitutional, but rather was a valid use of thestate's "police power" since the federal government has the right to preserve the public health, and since working long hours in a mine or smelter is patently unhealthy, the law is valid.
Significance
The case was an important step in establishing the federal government's rightto regulate business.
The second half of the nineteenth century in America was the age of "robber barons," industrial giants whose power to shape the nation's economy and political life seemed virtually unlimited. Big business was opposed by working people who were trying to unionize, as well as by middle-class people who were trying to pass state and federal reforms. However, these efforts to limit thepower of business were often seen by the courts as going beyond the legitimate power of government.
One way to understand the climate of the time is to think of a person's rightto enter into a contract as one of the greatest liberties known to humanity.The freedom to make one's own contract was viewed as so precious that only very grave circumstances could justify the government, or anyone else, interfering with it.
Many people at the time saw things differently. They argued that individual workers could not possibly make free and fair contracts with huge corporations. The corporations had enough power and wealth to force workers to agree to virtually any wages and working conditions, unless either a union contract ora government law intervened. Indeed, many people at the time thought the government's role should be to intervene on the side of the weak and powerless.
The justices of the Supreme Court, however, tended not to support this activist view of the government's role. They saw federal legislation as doubly problematic because it interfered with individual liberty to make contracts, andit usurped power that rightly belonged to the states. In order to justify most types of social legislation, the Court believed that one of four issues hadto be at stake: morals, general welfare, safety, or health.
Utah Limits the Miner's Workday
At the turn of the century, Utah was a major mining area. The Utah state legislature had passed a law limiting the workday in mines and smelters (places where metal is melted down) to eight hours, except in the event of an emergency. As a result, a mine and smelter owner named Holden was charged with unlawfully employing John Anderson for ten-hour days in his Old Jordan mine in Bingham canyon and with unlawfully employing William Hooley to work twelve-hour days in his smelter.
In the first case, Holden was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine of fiftydollars plus costs, a substantial sum in those days. If Holden refused to pay, he would be sent to the county jail for 57 days. Holden was also found guilty and similarly punished in the second case.
Holden appealed to the Supreme Court, basing his case on three arguments.
1) The Utah law deprived people of their right to make contracts.
2) The Utah law was "class" legislation; that is, it did not treat all citizens equally. Only mining and smelter employees were forbidden to work more than eight hours a day; only mining and smelter owners were forbidden to requiretheir workers to work more than eight hours. Workers and employers in otherindustries were given more freedom.
3) The Utah law deprived some people, including Holden, of equal protection under the law, and deprived him, his workers, and others in his industry of liberty without due process of law.
"A Progressive Science"
In preparing to rule on this case, the Supreme Court realized that it was dealing with a new situation. Usually, the Court tried to rely solely on the Constitution when deciding a case. It also tried to guide itself by "common law," the customs inherited from centuries of legal tradition in England. In hismajority opinion, Justice Brown explained that the law was "a progressive science." In other words, law was a discipline that changed with the times.
Justice Brown wrote that "certain . . . classes of persons, particularly those engaged in dangerous or unhealthful employments, have been found to be in need of additional protection," protection that was not explicitly provided bythe Constitution.
When asked whether miners and smelters were in need of additional protection,Justice Brown answered in the affirmative. He pointed out that the nature ofmining and smelting had changed a great deal since the Constitution was ratified, and that
in the vast proportions which these industries have since assumed, it has been found that they can no longer be carried on withdue regard to the safety and health of those engaged in them, without special protection against the dangers necessarily incident to these employments.In short, Justice Brown, speaking for the majority, affirmed thatthe Utah law was valid and that Holden's prosecution under the law was justified. The principle that the government could regulate the working conditionsof at least some workers had been established.
Miners and Bakers
If labor activists and reformers thought that Holden v. Hardy meant that the Supreme Court was now firmly on the side of labor, they were sadly mistaken. Only a few years later, in 1905, the Court ruled in Lochner v. NewYork that a New York state law setting a maximum 60-hour week for bakerswas unconstitutional. The two judges who had dissented in Holden v. Hardy were joined by three other colleagues, for a narrow 5-4 margin. The majority opinion, written by Justice Peckham, held that bakers should be free to enter into any contract, including one that required them to work more than 60hours a week. Justice Peckham argued that bakers were fully competent adultswho were not in need of special protection.
The reasons for the Court's vastly different rulings in two cases that, on the surface, appear so similar are uncertain. Some scholars believe that the Court had simply changed with the times, becoming more conservative in responseto the increasing agitation for social reform. Other scholars believe that the two cases are perfectly consistent. In both cases, the Court was unwillingto interfere with the right of contract except to protect "health," "safety," "morals," or "welfare." These scholars believe that the Court saw mining asunhealthy, dangerous work, while baking was seen as relatively safe. Therefore, unless working longer hours could be shown to endanger the baker, the federal government had no right to interfere.
During the next several decades, the Court would prove extremely reluctant toapprove of labor legislation. Despite the landmark nature of Holden v. Hardy, it would be many years before true workplace reform was accepted bythe courts.
Related Cases
- Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
- Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908).
- Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917).
- Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923).
- Morehead v. New York, 298 U.S. 587 (1936).
- West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).
User Comments Add a comment…