The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1883-09-12
HON. M. A. FORAN.
His Able Defense of Judge
HOadly.
And Reply to the Comments Of Mine In.
speotOr ROy-Mr. HOadly's
Motives.
[FrOm the Cleveland HorAId.l

[FrOm the Cleveland Hsrald.l
In your issue of this morning appears
an editorial, in which you claim thai
the demands which partisan politics
makes upon individual conscience, is
strikingiy eXemplified in the "attempt
Of Hon. N. A. FOran to vOuch for Judge
HOadly as friend of the wOrkingmen
and as sound on the labor question:
What l said to a reporter of the Cincin-
natl Enquirer was that Judge HOadly's
views on this question were maliciOusIy
and purpOsely misrepresented, and that
Judge HOadly was "tOO broad and liberal
minded, too puI patriot, too learned a
statesman, to have or entertain narrow
or false views upon the labor question
To cOntTOVert this statement, Mr.. Roy
quotes portion of Judge Hoadly's re.
marks, on the question of protecting the
lives and health of miners and other
employees engaged in manufacturing
railway and Industrial pursuits, and
which appears in the debates of the
Constitutional Convention of 1873, vol
ume /, page GIL. 1 claim now that the
record shows that Mr.. Roy misrepresent-
ed Judge HOadly on this matter, and as
he had the record before him it is fair to
insist that he did so knowingly and
purpOsely.
Before proceeding to an examination
of the record itself, it may be well to re-
mark that constitutional lawyers are
divided on the question as to how far
the constitution of State may descend
into the particulars of government.
Many of the most eminent expOunders
of constitutional law contend that pro-
visions which partake of the character
of legislative enactments should be
rigidly excluded from the organic law,
or, as Judge Cooley states it, charters
of government should not be made to
embrace within their iron grasp those
subjects in regard to which the policy
or interest of the State, or of its people,
may vary from time to time, and which
are, therefore, more properly left to the
control Of the Legislature, which can
more easily and speedily make the re-
Quired changes" To this school of
thinkers Judge HOadly belongs. He is a
lawyer by nature as we'll as by training
and education, and from the standpoint
of the lawyer, invariably discusses a
legal proposition. Hence, he believed,
and, in my opinion honestly and SINGER
ly, that the proposition relating to the
protection Of miners and others was
wholly within the province of the
Legislature, and should, therefore, not
be incorporated into the primal law.
That this is true the debates conclusive,
ly prove,
During my remarks upon this very
proposition (VOl. l, page 500, was in
terrupled by Mr.. Tripp, of jackson, who
called my attention to the enactment of
the Legislature, during the session of
1872, upon this very question, and where
in the Legislature sought, by statute, to
protect the lives and health of miners.
While reply ing to Mr.. Tripp to the effect
that the law of 1872 was imperative and
perhaps intended to be so, Mr.. HOadly
asked me this question: "What is there
in the proposition now before the COM
mittee that will prevent the members OF
the Legislature from saying that the
statute referred to by the gentleman
from Jackson (Mr. Tripp) is not sufficient
compliance with the injunction which
the pending proposition cOntainsp In
other words, is there anything current
in the pending proposition that will
quicken the diligence of the Legislature
in its attention to this subject, so as to
require them to supply the defects that
the gentleman thinks exist in the sta
tute in question:
This was pointed question, and the
only answer l could make was that | de-
sired TO "give the Legislature to under
stand that the people Of Ohio wanted
these miners prOtected-nOt such prOtec-
tiOn as has been afforded to them al
ready, but by the enactment of some
adequate provision" L did not deny
that the Legislature already had, under
its general grant Of delegated powers,
the right to enact the very laws for
which l was cOntending. Ny position
was that, inasmuch as the Legislature
had failed in its duty in this respect, we
should make 1t mandatory and cOmpul-
sorry upon them to do so.
Judge Hoadly did not believe that was
necessary. His idea was, as he express
ed it further on, page Gil, 'The day will
never come in the state of Ohio, when
the beneVOleDce Of the Legislature will
need to be quiekened on this subject %
That he cOntended that the Legislature
already has plenary power in the prem
Mr.. Ewing: 81 would like to know
whether this section, If adopted, will
enlarge the power which the Legisla-
ture would otherwise have; whether the
Legislature would not have this power
without this sectiOn?"
Mr.. Ewing, who was a strong adVO-
cate of the measure, said: ''The Legis-
lature has the power, undoubtedly, un-
der the general grant of legislative
power"
Again Mr.. Hoadly said, in answer to
MIR. Ewing, page Oil: II unequiVOcaIly
stated, so as to be precise and exact, the
fact he has admitted that 1t was unnec-
essary; so far as the legal effect is con-
cerned, that it will give no more power
than will exist without it," Mr.. HOad-
ly also made the point that there was
danger in adopting the proposition,
growing out of the application of the
rule expressio unius est exclusiO alteri-
u.s." That is, that the expression of one
duty or right would exclude others; that
by conferring power upon the Legisla-
ture to execute this duty, the Legisla-
ture might be denied "power to prevent
accident and protect life in other Occu-
patiOns." Judge Hoadly's idea was that
as the necessity for legislative enact
ment arose, the people Of Ohio would
promptly meet it, no matter where 1t
was found to exist. As he stated on the
floor of the convention, he had that con-
fidence in the active benevolence Of the
American peOple-the people of Ohio
that whenever and wherever a case
should arise requiring legislation, that
legislation, l believe, will be more free
ly applied; than perhaps may be neces.
1t seems to me, therefore, that we can
trust the Legislature fully In all re-
spects, and that no such provision as