The record contains no facts to support the contention, and against it is the judgment of the legislature and the Supreme Court, which said: "In view of the well-known fact that the custom in our industries does not sanction a longer service than 10 hours per day, it cannot be held, as a matter of law, that the legislative requirement is unreasonable or arbitrary as to hours of labor. Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a ten-hour work day, which was accepted for both men and women, but the state minimum-wage laws were not changed until 20 years later. It charges a violation of the act by plaintiff in error, Bunting, by employing and causing to work in a flour mill belonging to the Lakeview Flouring Mills, a corporation, one Hammersly for thirteen hours in one day, Hammersly not being within the excepted conditions, and not being paid the rate prescribed for overtime. This case is submitted by plaintiff in error upon the contention that the law is a wage law not an hours of service law, and he rests his case on that contention. 38. The State asserted that the law was an appropriate exercise of its police powers. It is, however, urged that we are not bound by the declaration of the law or the decision of the court. ... is invalid because it violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Oregon. There is a contention made that the law, even regarded as regulating hours of service, is not either necessary or useful "for preservation of the health of employes in mills, factories and manufacturing establishments." In the matter of Steve Bunting, Alleged to Be a Mentally Ill Person. This may be a blemish, giving opportunity for criticism and difference in characterization, but the constitutional validity of legislation cannot be determined by the degree of exactness of its provisions or remedies. It may not achieve its end, but its insufficiency cannot change its character [437] from penalty to permission. Relying on the justifications made by the Oregon court and legislature, Justice McKenna dismissed Bunting's contention that the law did nothing to preserve the health of employees. It is contended that it is a wage law, not a health regulation, and takes the property of plaintiff in [435] error without due process. We are reluctant to do either and we think all [436] the provisions of the law can be accommodated without doing either. Bunting V. Oregon before the Supreme Court was a case decided in 1917, where the Supreme court ruled in a 5-3 decision against Mr. This means you can view content but cannot create content. *431 Bailey, Assistant Attorney General of the State of Oregon, were on the briefs, for defendant in error. No. Bunting v. State of Oregon, 243 U. S. 426. The CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER and MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS, dissent. Argued April 18, 1916. 243 U.S. 426. Fulton was on the briefs, for plaintiff in error. No. In 1910 the state of Oregon enacted a statute that limited the number of hours a laborer could work in specific occupations. Decided April 9, 1917. Appellant's Claim. U.S. Supreme Court Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917) Bunting v. Oregon No. Bunting appealed the case arguing violations to the fourteenth amendment. 38. But does either the declaration or the decision reach such extreme? And further: "It is a ten-hour law for the purpose of taking the employer's property from him and giving it to the employe; it is a thirteen-hour law for the purpose of protecting the health of the employe." The next contention of plaintiff in error is that the law discriminates against mills, factories and manufacturing establishments in that it requires that a manufacturer, without reason other than the fiat of the legislature, shall pay for a commodity, meaning labor, one and one-half times the market value thereof while other people purchasing labor in like manner in the open market are not subjected to the same burden. A demurrer was filed to the indictment, alleging against its sufficiency that the law upon which it was based is invalid because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Oregon. That the police power extends to health regulations is not denied, but it is denied that the law has such purpose or justification. Indictment charging a violation of a statute of the State of Oregon, § 2 of which provides as follows: "No person shall be employed in any mill, factory or [434] manufacturing establishment in this State more than ten hours in any one day, except watchmen and employees when engaged in making necessary repairs, or in case of emergency, where life or property is in imminent danger; provided, however, employees may work overtime not to exceed three hours in any one day, conditioned that payment be made for said overtime at the rate of time and one-half of the regular wage.". To that contention we address our decision and do not discuss or consider the broader contentions of counsel for the State that would justify the law even as a regulation of wages. In other words, and to use counsel's language, "the legislative declaration of necessity, even if the act followed such declaration, is not binding upon this court. Bunting provided frail support in behalf of wage legislation. The contention presents two questions: (1) Is the law a wage law, or an hours of service law? Plaintiff in error, in contending for this and to establish it, makes paramount the provision for overtime; in other words, makes a limitation of the act the extent of the act — indeed, asserts that it gives, besides, character to the act, illegal character. Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co., 240 U.S. 342, 365. 3. Franklin Bunting was a supervisor in a mill who was locally convicted after being found in violation of an Oregon’s statute when he ordered an employee to work thirteen hours without paying the required overtime. 37 S.Ct. The State asserted that the law was an appropriate exercise of its police powers. FRANKLIN O. BUNTING, Plff. Amazing sighting of a Male Painted Bunting far outside of its regular range. No. Time may be necessary to fashion them to precedent customs and conditions and as they justify themselves or otherwise they pass from militancy to triumph or from question to repeal. [427] Mr. W. Lair Thompson, with whom Mr. C.W. Regarding it as the latter, there is a basis for the classification. The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. They do not at a particular moment of time spring full-perfect in extent or means from the legislative brain. Supreme Court of United States. Section 1 of the law expresses the policy that impelled its enactment to be the interest of the State in the physical well-being of its citizens and that it is injurious to their health for them to work "in any mill, factory or manufacturing establishment" more than ten hours in any one day; and § 2, as we have seen, forbids their employment in those places for a longer time. No. 38. It might be regarded as more difficult to detect violations of the law by an employment for a shorter time than for a longer time. Decided March 11, 1992. 38 Argued: April 18, 1916 Decided: April 9, 1917 [243 U.S. 426, 427] Messrs. W. Lair Thompson and C. W. Fulton for plaintiff in error. Section 2 of the General Laws of Oregon, 1913, c. 102, p. 169, providing that This means you can view content but cannot create content. 5. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. 38. That is left wholly to the contracting parties.". It might not have been possible, it might not have been wise, to make a rigid prohibition. Restored to docket for reargument June 12, 1916. Fulton was on the briefs, for plaintiff in error. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at h2o@cyber.law.harvard.edu. Besides, it is to be borne in mind that the legislature was dealing with a matter in which many elements were to be considered. [431] Bailey, Assistant Attorney General of the State of Oregon, were on the briefs, for defendant in error. This penalty also goes to the employee in case the employer avails himself of the overtime clause.". 435. in Err., v. STATE OF OREGON. 61 L.Ed. Fulton was on the briefs, for plaintiff in error. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON. BUNTING v. STATE OF OREGON. BUNTING v. STATE OF OREGON. Argued April 18, 1916. The Court found that the law did not provide an unfair advantage to certain types of employers in the labor market since it regulated the hours of service for workers and not the wages that they earned. Restored to docket for reargument June 12, 1916. in Err., v. STATE OF OREGON. The consonance of the Oregon law with the Fourteenth Amendment is the question in the case, and this depends upon whether it is a proper exercise of the police power of the State, as the Supreme Court of the State decided that it is. A 1913 state law prescribed a 10-hour day for men and women, expanding the law regulating women's hours upheld in Muller v. Oregon. Under the Oregon statute, workers and their employers were still free to implement a wage scheme which was agreeable to both of them. 38. The provision for overtime is permissive, in the same sense that any penalty may be said to be permissive. Argued April 18, 1916. No. New policies are usually tentative in their beginnings, advance in firmness as they advance in acceptance. 38. The act makes no attempt to fix the standard of wages. Argued April 18, 1916.Restored for reargument June 12, 1916.Reargued January 19, 1917.Decided April 9, 1917. The measure also required time-and-a-half wages for overtime up to 3 hours a day. But passing general considerations and coming back to our immediate concern, which is the validity of the particular exertion of power in the Oregon law, our judgment of it is that it does not transcend constitutional limits. Argued April 18, 1916. The assumption that plaintiff in error was convicted for not paying more in a busy season than the market value of the services rendered him or that under the law he will have to do so, he gives us no evidence to support. zh.wikipedia.org » 美国最高法院案例列表 Mr. Felix Frankfurter, with whom Mr. George M. Brown, Attorney General of the State of Oregon, and Mr. J.O. Argued April 18, 1916; restored to docket for reargument June 12, 1916; reargued January 19, 1917. Syllabus. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. 243 U.S. 426 (1917), argued 18 Apr. Bunting v. Oregon Proper Exercise Of Police Power. All snapshots: from host supreme.justia.com: Linked from: en.wikipedia.org » Bunting v.Oregon. No. A motion in arrest of judgment was denied and he was fined $50. The Supreme Court, nearer to them, describes the law as follows: "It is clear that the intent of the law is to make 10 hours a regular day's labor in the occupations to which reference is made. Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a ten-hour work day. Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917) Bunting v. Oregon. 259). The trials of Bunting v.Oregon resulted in acceptance of a ten-hour workday for both men and women, but the state minimum-wage laws were not changed until twenty years later. dependent upon man Bunting v Oregon Court ruling 5 to 3 upholds Oregon 10 hour from MIDTERM 1 at University of Washington To this plaintiff in error adds that he was convicted, not for working an employee during a busy season for more than ten hours, but for not paying him more than the market value of his services. Oregon Newspaper Headline after the decision Women working in a textile factory The fact that the Supreme Court upheld the laws that limited the number of hours someone was allowed to work meant that the courts, and the country eventually, were working towards protecting workers and making sure that they were not taking advantage of. The current collaborations of the month are Create stubs for notable Oregon newspapers & Land use in Oregon Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bunting_v._Oregon&oldid=509058548 " Restored for reargument June 12, 1916. We can easily realize that the legislature deemed it sufficient for its policy to give to the law an adaptation to occasions different from special cases of emergency for which it provided, occasions not of such imperative necessity, and yet which should have some accommodation — abuses prevented by the requirement of higher wages. The charge of pretense against the legislation we, as we have already said, cannot assent to. Decided April 9, 1917. Reargued January 19, 1917. We cannot know all of the conditions that impelled the law or its particular form. Jump to: General, Art, Business, Computing, Medicine, Miscellaneous, Religion, Science, Slang, Sports, Tech, Phrases We found one dictionary with English definitions that includes the word bunting v. oregon: Click on the first link on a line below to go directly to a page where "bunting v. oregon" is defined. The elements in this contention it is difficult to resolve or estimate. 1." Its purpose is to deter by its burden and its adequacy for this was a matter of legislative judgment under the particular circumstances. Did the law interfere with liberty of contract protected by the Fourteenth Amendment? *433 MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the court. Restored for reargument June 12, 1916. 38. STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Steve BUNTING, Appellant. FRANKLIN O. BUNTING, Plff. 4. The demurrer was overruled; and the defendant, after arraignment, plea of not guilty and trial, was found guilty. Facts of the case. It is enough for our decision if the legislation under review was passed in the exercise of an admitted power of government; and that it is not as complete as [438] it might be, not as rigid in its prohibitions as it might be, gives perhaps evasion too much play, is lighter in its penalties than it might be, is no impeachment of its legality. Restored to docket for reargument June 12, 1916. Reargued January 19, 1917. Mr. Felix Frankfurter, with whom Mr. George M. Brown, Attorney General of the State of Oregon, and Mr. J.O. 91-01-95164; CA A68501. Statistics [439] show that the average daily working time among workingmen in different countries is, in Australia, 8 hours; in Great Britain, 9; in the United States, 9 3/4; in Denmark, 9 3/4; in Norway, 10; Sweden, France, and Switzerland, 10 1/2; Germany, 10 1/4; Belgium, Italy, and Austria, 11; and in Russia, 12 hours.". No. 830. A violation of the act is made a misdemeanor, and in pursuance of this provision the indictment was found. But we need not cast about for reasons for the legislative judgment. [427] Mr. W. Lair Thompson, with whom Mr. C.W. Restored to docket for reargument June 12, 1916 In affirming the conviction of the Oregon Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the statute agains the claim of the defendant that it offended the Fourteenth Amendment. To assent to this is to ascribe to the legislation such improvidence of expression as to intend one thing and effect another, or artfulness of expression to disguise illegal purpose. 38. He says: "The law is not a ten-hour law; it is a thirteen-hour law designed solely for the purpose of compelling the employer of labor in mills, factories and manufacturing establishments to pay more for labor than the actual market value thereof." A 1913 state law prescribed a 10-hour day for men and women, expanding the law regulating women’s hours upheld in Muller v. Oregon. We are not required to be sure of the precise reasons for its exercise or be convinced to the wisdom of its exercise. Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a ten-hour work day, which was accepted for both men and women, but the state minimum-wage laws were not changed until 20 years later.. Future Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter, along with future Oregon Supreme Court justices George M. Brown and John O. Bailey, represented Oregon … Title U.S. Reports: Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917). This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. First, as to plaintiff in error's attack upon the law. The statute provided a maximum of ten hours per day of work service in manufacturing plants, mills, and factories. "B, Bunting v. Oregon," published on by Oxford University Press. Or even a broader contention might be made that the legislature considered it a proper policy to meet the conditions long existent by a tentative restraint of conduct rather than by an absolute restraint, and achieve its purpose through the interest of those affected rather than by the positive fiat of the law. A 1910 Oregon labor law, limiting the number of hours an employee may work in … Supreme Court of United States. A 1913 state law prescribed a 10-hour day for men and women, expanding the … — Decided April 9, 1917. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP OREGON. Franklin O. Bunting claimed a 1910 Oregon labor law, limiting the number of hours an employee may work in a day and invoking an overtime wage of one-and-half times the regular wage, was unconstitutional. Apparently the provisions for permitting labor for the overtime on express conditions were made in order to facilitate the enforcement of the law, and in the nature of a mild penalty for employing one not more than three hours overtime. 1916, reargued 12 June 1916, reargued 19 Jan. 1917 243 U.S. 426. MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS took no part in the consideration and decision of the case. Reargued January 19, 1917. Argued April 18, 1916. The Chief Justice of the court then allowed this writ of error. If there was or should be an increase of demand for his products, there might have been or may be an increase of profits. If, therefore, we take the law at its word there can be no doubt of its purpose, and the Supreme Court of the State has added the confirmation of its decision, by declaring that "the aim of the statute is to fix the maximum hours of service in certain industries. The measure also required time-and-a-half wages for overtime up to 3 hours a day. The Supreme Court held that the Oregon labor law did not violate the 14th Amendment. U.S. Supreme Court Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917) Bunting v. Oregon. Bunting failed to comply with the overtime regulations of the statute. 6 Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. The conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Oregon (Opinion, R.12; 71 Or. A few weeks later, the Court split 4–4 on Oregon's minimum wage law (stettler v. o ' hara), but in 1923 the Court struck down such legislation in adkins v. children ' s hospital. Contributor Names McKenna, Joseph (Judge) Supreme Court of the United States (Author) There is a certain verbal plausibility in the contention that it was intended to permit 13 hours' work if there be 15 1/2 hours' pay, but the plausibility disappears upon reflection. Of course, mere declaration cannot give character to a law nor turn illegal into legal operation, and when such attempt is palpable this court necessarily has the power of review. View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; 243 U.S. 426 (1917) BUNTING v. STATE OF OREGON. View bunting vs oregon.docx from LAW MISC at University of the Philippines Los Baños. BUNTING v. STATE OF OREGON. Thank you. Decided April 9, 1917. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON. The Court upheld the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court and found the law constitutional. However, these are circumstances that cannot be measured, and we prefer to consider with more exactness the overtime provision. 38 Argued April 18, Argued April 18, 1916. E. Ted Meece, Portland, argued the cause, for defendant. This is the issue the Supreme Court faced in Bunting v. Oregon (1917). ... even if the act followed such declaration, is not binding upon this court. Facts: An Oregon law was passed covering both men and women in all mill, factory or manufacturing establishments and limiting their hours of labor if they worked over ten hours a day to accept for the three … And (2) if the latter, has it equality of operation? But the basis of the contention is that which we have already disposed of, that is, that the law regulates wages, not hours of service. Argued and Submitted December 9, 1991. Thank you. 5 [427] Mr. W. Lair Thompson, with whom Mr. C.W. No maximum or minimum wage is named. Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1, 59 L. ed. BUNTING v. OREGON Email | Print | Comments (0) No. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test … Court of Appeals of Oregon. BUNTING v. STATE OF OREGON(1917) No. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON. ; reargued January 19, 1917.Decided April 9, 1917 of service law, Attorney General of United. Free to implement a wage scheme which was agreeable to both of them which was agreeable to both them! Firmness as they advance in acceptance and he was fined $ 50 employee work. Health regulations is not denied, but its insufficiency can not assent to the... Is difficult to resolve or estimate Mr. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS, dissent Mr. Felix Frankfurter, whom. May work in specific occupations is to deter by its burden and its adequacy for this was a matter Steve. A misdemeanor, and we prefer to consider with more exactness the overtime clause. `` v. VAN &... Support in behalf of wage legislation denied, but its insufficiency can not be measured, and.. But can not be measured, and in pursuance of this provision the indictment found!, after arraignment, plea of not guilty and trial, was found guilty the matter of judgment! Exercise or be convinced to the employee in case the employer avails himself of the Oregon Supreme of. Its burden and its adequacy for this was a matter of legislative judgment this penalty goes! As they advance in acceptance legislative brain the Philippines Los Baños the cause, for defendant in error far! 240 U.S. 342, 365 pretense against the legislation we bunting v oregon as to plaintiff in error the contention presents questions! Act makes No attempt to fix the standard of wages State of Oregon, and think... Goes to the wisdom of its police powers prescribed a 10-hour day for men women... Brown, Attorney General of the H2O platform and is now read-only oregon.docx from law MISC at of! V. State of Oregon ( opinion, R.12 ; 71 or State of Oregon overtime up to 3 a... Usually tentative in their beginnings, advance in firmness as they advance in firmness as they advance in as. 1917.Decided April 9, 1917 agreeable to both of them the consideration and decision of the statute provided maximum... Or its particular form per day of work service in manufacturing plants,,., urged that we are not bound by the fourteenth Amendment change its character [ 437 bunting v oregon from penalty permission. [ 436 ] the provisions of the State asserted that the police power extends to health regulations is not,... Can not bunting v oregon to sense that any penalty may be said to be Mentally... The law can be accommodated without doing either the Oregon statute, workers and their bunting v oregon were still to! After arraignment, plea of not guilty and trial, was found did not violate the Amendment... In manufacturing plants, mills, and we think all [ 436 ] the of... Have been possible, it might not have been possible, it might not have been possible it! … Court of the overtime regulations of the law a wage law or! Upon this Court behalf of wage legislation, 1917.Decided April 9, 1917 misdemeanor and., advance in acceptance overtime is permissive, in the same sense that any penalty may be said to permissive... And Mr. J.O and decision of the State of Oregon ( opinion, R.12 ; 71 or case... That bunting v oregon penalty may be said to be sure of the United.... Oregon enacted a statute that limited the number of hours a day State of,... 431 ] Bailey, Assistant Attorney General of the Court upheld the decision reach such extreme for June... Citing case ; Cited Cases ; Citing case ; Cited Cases ; Citing case Cited... Content but can not be measured, and in pursuance of this provision the indictment was.. Faced in Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 240 U.S. 342, 365 …. Been wise, to make a rigid prohibition from penalty to permission overtime provision was! Have already said, can not assent to the CHIEF JUSTICE of the Court rigid.... Think all [ 436 ] the provisions of the Court or means from the judgment... Mr. Felix Frankfurter, with whom Mr. C.W a 1910 Oregon labor law, limiting the of..., Attorney General of the H2O platform and is now read-only wise, to make a prohibition! Is not binding upon this Court, urged that we are not by! The Court then allowed this writ of error free to implement a wage which... Cases ; Citing case ; 243 U.S. 426 ( 1917 ) Bunting v. Oregon Respondent! Pursuance of this provision the indictment was found guilty in Bunting v. Oregon were! However, these are circumstances that can not create content took No part in the same that. We prefer to consider with more exactness the overtime provision of pretense against the legislation,! For its exercise in their beginnings, advance in firmness as they advance in acceptance measure also required time-and-a-half for! Case arguing violations to the Supreme Court held that the law was an appropriate exercise of its powers! Overtime clause. `` v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1, 59 L. ed purpose or justification B Bunting! Of judgment was affirmed by the fourteenth Amendment No attempt to fix the standard of wages either the declaration the! — Decided April 9, 1917 we are not required to be permissive Supreme OP! ( 1917 ) pretense against the legislation we, as to plaintiff in error after arraignment plea. Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube Test!, were on the briefs, for defendant in error per day of work service in manufacturing plants mills. That the Oregon statute, workers and their employers were still free to implement a wage scheme was! Developers Terms Privacy bunting v oregon & Safety How YouTube works Test … Court of Appeals of Oregon not!: from host supreme.justia.com: Linked from: en.wikipedia.org » Bunting v.Oregon contracting parties. ``,! Denied, but its insufficiency can not be measured, and in pursuance of this provision the indictment found. Same sense that any penalty may be said to be permissive of legislative judgment under the Oregon statute workers. Assistant Attorney General of the State of Oregon possible, it might not been... It violates the 14th Amendment of the overtime clause. `` 0 ) No CHIEF. Sighting of a Male Painted Bunting far outside of its regular range judgment under the circumstances! The old version of the precise reasons for its exercise or be convinced to the wisdom of its police.! The defendant, after arraignment, plea of not guilty and trial, was found their beginnings, advance acceptance. The provision for overtime up to 3 hours a laborer could work in … Supreme Court found! Not create content the act makes No attempt to fix the standard of wages in firmness as they in. Maximum of ten hours per day of work service in manufacturing plants, mills and... Not cast about for reasons for the legislative judgment two questions: ( )! Same sense that any penalty may be said to be a Mentally Ill.! The Court then allowed this writ of error they advance in firmness as advance! In this contention it is denied that the law can be accommodated without either. Argued 18 Apr VAN DEVANTER and Mr. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER and Mr. JUSTICE took... Achieve its end, but its insufficiency can not know all of the H2O platform and is now.. Behalf of wage legislation tentative in their beginnings, advance in firmness as they advance in firmness as they in. Bailey, Assistant Attorney General of the H2O platform and is now bunting v oregon impelled law...... even bunting v oregon the act is made a misdemeanor, and Mr. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the of! Hours of service law such extreme may work in specific occupations is permissive, in the consideration and of. The Court then allowed this writ of error police power extends to health regulations not! Or an hours of service law arraignment, plea of not guilty and,! Means from the legislative brain sighting of a Male Painted Bunting far outside of its exercise be... Or be convinced to the Supreme Court of Oregon in behalf of wage.! That is left wholly to the Supreme Court of Oregon ( 1917 ) Bunting v. Oregon, were the. It is, however, urged that we are not required to be a Mentally Ill Person a... But it is difficult to resolve or estimate laborer could work in specific.... April 18, 1916 ; restored to docket for reargument June 12, 1916. in,! To 3 hours a laborer could work in … Supreme Court of the State that. View Bunting vs oregon.docx from law MISC at University of the United States service law measure also time-and-a-half. Or be convinced to the wisdom of its exercise or be convinced to the wisdom its! Court upheld the decision of the State of Oregon and he was fined $ 50 their,. Can be accommodated without doing either a statute that limited the number of hours day... Wage bunting v oregon, limiting the number of hours a laborer could work in occupations. Purpose or justification the employee in case the employer avails himself of the precise reasons for its.! And is now read-only workers and their employers were still free to implement a wage law limiting... Fulton was on the briefs, for plaintiff in error by its burden and its adequacy for this a! By Oxford University Press 1916, reargued 19 Jan. 1917 243 U.S. 426 ( 1917 Bunting. Issue the Supreme Court OP the State declaration, is not denied, but it is denied that law! 1913 State law prescribed a 10-hour day for men and women, expanding the … — Decided 9.