How did Lochner's lawyers distinguish baking from mining before the Supreme Court?

In their arguments before the Supreme Court, lawyers for John Lochner contended that the New York Bakeshop Act did not fall under the state's police power because baking was not a trade requiring special regulation. They specifically distinguished baking from mining by asserting that baking was a generally healthful occupation, whereas mining was inherently dangerous or unhealthful.1

To support this distinction, the lawyers included an appendix in their brief containing mortality statistics from England. These figures were intended to demonstrate that the mortality rate of bakers was lower than that of the general population and comparable to other common trades, such as clerks or masons. By framing baking as a safe profession, they argued that the state had no legitimate health-based justification to interfere with the freedom of contract between employers and employees.1