About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

4 Bus. L.J. 68 (July-December 1924)
Statute Forbidding Use of Daylight Saving Time Held Constitutional

handle is hein.journals/buslj4 and id is 70 raw text is: THE BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL Statute Forbidding Use of Daylight Saving Time Held Constitutional State v. Bassett, Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, 123 Atl. Rep. 842 The Connecticut statute making it unlawful to display publicly any clock indicating daylight saving time or any time other than standard time, is con- stitutional. The enactment of such a statute is a valid exercise of the police power. Information against Merton W. Bassett for willfully displaying on Main street, in Hartford, a clock set and running so as to indicate time other than the standard time as de- fined by statute, brought to the su- perior court in Hartford county, where a demurrer t6 the information was filed, and the questions of law raised thereby reserved for the ad- vice of this court because the decision of the same will end and dispose of the case. Superior court advised to overrule the demurrer. Reinhart L. Gideon, Asst. State's Atty., and Hugh M. Alcorn, State's Atty., both of Hartford, for the State. Donald C. McCarthy, Benedict M. Holden, and Arthur E. Howard, Jr., all of Hartford, for defendant. Opinion of the Court, Written by Judge Curtis CURTIS, J.-The information is based or the following statute passed in 1923 (Pub. Acts 1923, c. 231): No pdrson, firm or corporation, or- ganigation or associations shall willfully 4isptay in or, on any public, building or on a4ny street, avenue or public highway any time-measuring instrument or de- vice, which is calculated or intended to furnish time to the general public, set or running so as to indicate intention- ally, or indicating intentionally, any time other than the standard of time as defined by Chapter 37 of the Public Acts of 1921. Any person or any of- ficer of any corporation or organization or association violating any provision of this act shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. The demurrer is in effect that the act is invalid tinder the Constitution of the United States and of Connec- ticut. The state claims that it is a valid exercise of the police power of the state. The defendant admits that the state may enact appropriate leg- islation under its police powers in the interest of public health, public safety or public morality, but claim-3 that this legislation is not related to either of these purposes, and is not, therefore, justifiable under the police power. But legislation which is or- dinarily spoken of as falling under the police power .of the State is not confined to that in the interest of the three subjects above enumerated. Legislation in the interest of pub' lic convenience and public welfare also comes' under, the police power. Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 683, 2 Sup. Ct. 185, 27 L. Ed. 442; Lake Shore Ry. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 19 Sup. Ct. 465, 43 L. Ed. 702; Windsor v. Whitniey, 95 Conn. 369, 111 Atl. 354, 12 A.'L. Rr 669.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most