SUPREME COURl AND THE UTAH EIGHT-HOURS' LAW 31
powers of the state can only be permitted to limit or abridge such a fundamental right as the right to make contracts, when the exercise of such power is necessary to promote the health, comfort, welfare, or safety of society or the public ; it is doubtful whether it can be exercised to prevent injury to the individual engaged in a particular calli?ig." In beneficent contrast with this sinister dictum is the following from the United States supreme court : " The legislature has also recognized the fact, which the experi- ence of legislators in many states has corroborated, that the pro- prietors of these establishments and their operatives do not stand upon an equality, and that their interests are, to a certain extent, conflicting. The former naturally desire to obtain as much labor as possible from their employes, while the latter are often induced by the fear of discharge to conform to regulations which their judgment, fairly exercised, would pronounce to be detrimental to their health and strength. In other words, the proprietors lay down the rules, and the laborers are practically constrained to obey them. In such cases self-interest is often an unsafe guide, and the legislature may properly interpose its authority.
" It may not be improper to suggest in this connection that, although the prosecution in this case was against the employer of labor, who apparently, under the statute, is the only one liable, his defense is not so much that his right to contract has been infringed upon, but that the act works a peculiar hardship to his employes, whose right to labor as long as they please is alleged to be thereby violated. The argument would certainly come with better grace and greater cogency from the latter class. But the fact that both parties are of full age, and competent to contract, does not rucessarily deprive the state of the power to interfere, where the parties do not sta?id upon an equality, or where the public health demands that one party to the contract should be protected against himself. The state still retains an interest in his welfare, however reckless he may be. The whole is no greater than the sum of all the parts, and when the individual health, safety, and welfare are sacrificed or mglected, the state must suffer."
This decision is, of course, not retroactive, and therefore does
