Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1879-07-23
VETO OF THE LABOR BILL.

derstand. Truly yours,
JonN Howard, JR.
VETO OF THE LABOR BILL.
The veto of the bill passed duriug
the late session of our State Legisla.
ture TO secure to operatives and labor.
ers in mines and manufactures Of iron
and steel the payment of their wages
in lawful money of the United States
has already been announced, and has
provoked considerable discussion by
those interested on both sides OF the
question. 1t is not our purpose at this
time to take part in any discussion
either TO defend or doubt the correct
ness of the reasons given by the Gov.
ernor of the State Tor disappearing the
bill and preventing il by the use Of the
veto power from becoming a law but
VIC simply desire to show that the
strongest objections urged by the Gov
ernor might have been obviated if
those who set themselves up as the es-
peclal champions of the rights of labor
had been sufficiently wise to accept
the reasonable amendments proposed
by Senator C. Il. Alexander when the
bill was under consideration in the
Senate. Governor Hoyt, in the veto
message, states his principal object as
follows:
"Tho act is special and within con-
stitutional prohibition. Even if gen
eral it would be open to valid objec-
ton as being contrary to the genius of
free government and as based upon a
theory subversive of the true princi-
pies Of our constitution in that 1t de-
mes the laborer the right to sell his
labor to whom he pleases and for such
prices and on such terms as seem good
to him without molestation, hindrance
or restriction"
In his able argument on the merits
OF the bill, Senator Alexander referred
to its especial" character in thGf H.
only applied to labor employed Sin
mines and manufactures of iron and
steel,p and showed conclusively that
unless made general" by amendment,
so as to apply alike to all branches of
industry, it came within the constitu-
tional prohibition and could not be-
come valid law. Upon the question
of the policy of the law as proposed by
its friends he was equally conclusive,
as an extract from his speech, that
covers both Of the objections advanced
by the Governor, will show. He said
"Section seven, article three, of the
Constitution, provides that the Gen
eral Assembly shall not pass any local
or special law y changing
the rules of evidence in any judicial
proceeding, or inquiry before court,
Alderman, Justices of the Peace, y
or regulating labor, trade, mining tr
manufacturing This proposed law
may not be local in its character as it
applies to three branches of industry
in all of the counties of the State, in
which they are conducted, and is there.
fore general as TO the business to
which it refers, but is il not special as
it applies to three particular branches
of industry What did the trainers
Of the Constitution mean by the use OF
the words local or special in the con-
nection in which they are here used ?
We must gather their meaning by the
same rules we would apply in the in.
depreciation Of a statute.
"But whether it be unconstitutional
or NOT, is not the policy of such law
badP. All men are equal before the
law, and each man should be left free
to make his own contracts in his own
way, so long as he does not interfere
with the rights Of others. All laws
in restraint of legitimate'trade are OBJ.
noxious all laws that seek to inter
pose barrier to the making of legiti
mate contracts are in restraint Of trade,
and an unwarranted interference with
the rights of citizenship"
This seems wise, reasonable and
statesmanlilSc. Now for the remedy
urged by Mr.. Alexander. Lis amend
mcnt reads as follows:
"That every corporation, co.partner.
ship, firm or individual doing any bu.
siness within this Commonwealth in
which laborers are employed shall pay
their laborcrs or employees at stated
periods in money or merchandise or
other commodity, as may be agreed
upon between tho parties at the time
Of the contract OF hiring and in accord.
ance with the terms thereof, and II
shall be unlawful for any corporation,
co-partncrship, firm or individual, do
ing business as aforesaid, to knowingly
and wilfully charge their employees
more or greater price for any article
of merchandise furnished than that at
which the same article and quality OF
merchandise is sold at for cash in the
same town or neighborhood by other
merchants or others trading in such
articles. That IL shall be unlawful for
any retail merchant doing business in
this Commonwealth to receive any or
der that may be drawn upon him for
the payment OF labor at less than its
face value, or to discount the same, or
TO furnish store goods or merchandise
therefor, charging greater or higher
price for the same than he would sell
the same quality Of goods at for cash
or than the same quality of goods OF