What arguments did New York Attorney General Julius M. Mayer make in defense of the Bakeshop Act?

In the case of Lochner v. New York, New York Attorney General Julius M. Mayer defended the Bakeshop Act by filing a brief that presented three primary arguments:

• Burden of Proof: He argued that the burden of proving the statute unconstitutional rested with Lochner, rather than requiring the state to prove its validity.1
• Purpose of the Law: He maintained that the fundamental purpose of the Bakeshop Act was to protect both public health and the health of bakery employees.1
• Police Power: He asserted that because the law was clearly a health measure, it fell within the legitimate purview of the state's police power—the authority to enact regulations to protect public health, safety, and welfare.1