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 nearly 2,700 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 with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?