Response or Comment
Not infrequently the legislatures of various states have deemed it advisable to provide by law for the time and manner of payment of wages of men engaged in certain designated employments; and these laws have been the cause of considerable litigation. Their validity has been challenged mainly on the ground of deprivation of property without due process of law and denial of the equal protection of the law, the contention being that the refusal of the privilege of contracting for the manner and time of payment is a deprivation of liberty and property, and the classification of men in certain sorts of work as being subject to the provisions of the statutes while others were not is a denial of the equal protection of the law. The conclusions of the courts have not been entirely harmonious, and while many of the decisions may be reconciled or explained on one ground or another, chiefly the wording of the particular statutes involved, not all of them may be disposed of in that way. Because of this lack of harmony the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Williams, 92 N. E. 404, is of especial interest.
Aigler, Ralph W. "Constitutionality of Legislation Designating Time and Manner of Payment of Wages." Mich. L. Rev. 9 (1910): 142-6.