The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-03-17

not willing to accept correspondingly
less rate of wages if the hours were
reduced. He stated the amounts receiv-
led by the various classes of employees
of smel.ers and said they could live
and maintain their families on the re-
! duced wage. the reduction being about
one-third experimenting his statement
by the further one that the men could
afford to work for this reduced wage
much better than they could afford to
for the higher wage during the earlier
days of smelter operations.
Mr.. Morrison did not understand that
the men expected to accept any lower
rate of wages with the reduction of the
hours. Besides he did not agree with
the gentleman representing the smelt-
ing men of Sandy; he did not believe
they could live for the reduced wages
mentioned and that as a result of the
law strikes would disturb the country.
Mr.. Ferguson, of Carbon, said he
thought the men who worked in smell
ters and mines ought to know what
they wanted and ought to be better
! judges of their own affairs than per-
sons knowing nothing about the smelt-
/ ing business (the reference being aim
ed at Mr.. Morrison.)
Mr.. Ferguson then proceeded to
speak of the health of the men employ
ed in shelters. He quoted DR.. Powers
and other physicians in which they
stated that the employees of smelters
representing about one-tenth of the
population of the state, furnished Is
per cent. of the inmates of hospitals.
A statement of the sisters of ST. Mary's
hospital showed that out of 100 pa
tlents there, 80 were employees of
smelters and were affected with lead
poisoning.
Mr.. Morrisons motion to amend lost
by viva voce vote.
CURTIS ON CoNsTITUTIoNA1JTY
Mr.. Raddatz, for information. asked
| me chairman of the labor COMMITTEES
TOT a statement as to the constitution
alqty of the bill, it having been cues
noned In this respect and an unfavor-
anle report having been once return
ed by the judiciary committee on that
ground.
Replying to his questioner Mr.. Curtis
said: = u si'
THE proposed law to make EIGHT
hours OF labor days work in mines and
sInelters and taking away the right OF
employers and employee the right 10 con-
tract for a longer period. I contend is
constitutional 10
Article one of section ten, clause
Two OF the constitution of the United
States provides that no state shall n,alse
any law 1mDairing the obligation of a
contract. Also the constitution of Utah
IN section eighteen of the declara-
uon OF rights provides that no bill of
atlainder, ex-Dost factor law, or law i'm
pairing the obligation of a contract shall
be passed. 80 a. 'i-aii
In simple language, the meaning of
t the clause, law impairing the obliga-
ton OF contract is that where persons
entered into a contract about affairs
which it was lawful to contract for or
ABOUT at the time of contracting the leg
lsiature could enact no law making such
a. contract unlawful For example: AT
the present time there is no us1Iry law
IN Utah, and the money lender can CON
tract with the borrower for any rate
Whlch they agree upon. Now under this
state of affairs A lends one thousand
dollars, and the rate of interest
agreed upon is % per cent per annum.
NO power vested in the Legislature to de-
clare TINS contract unlawful, but the
legislature enacts a law declaring that
8 per cent hereafter shall be the legal
rats of interest and any amount agreed
upon greater than 8 per cent shall be
unlawful. would be valid and constitu-
tional law.
I'm brief. it is clear that unless there
IS constitutional provision defining the
rights and relations of people, the legis- |
iature may step in and prescribe regu-
latlons for the government of their in |
tercourSe with one another, and espec- |
tally so when laws are enacted relating |
to corporations.
|
Justice Field says: Every subject of in |
terest to the community has come under |
its direction. 1t has not merely prescribed |
rules for future conduct, but has legal |
lied past acts. corrected defects in pro-
ceedings, and determined the status. CON |
ditions and relations of parties in the
future
Laws public in their objects may.
unlesS express constitutional provision
foTbids, be either general or local in
their application: they may embrace
many subjects or one, and they may ex-
tend to all citizens or be confined to par
tlcular classes, as minors or married
women, bankers or traders and the like |
The authority that legislates for the
state at large must determine whether |
particular rules shall extend to the whole
other hand, to a subdivision of the state
or single class of its citizens only. The
circumstances of a particular locality
or the prevailing public sentiment in
that section of the state, may require or
make acceptable different police regula-
tons from those demanded in another,
or call for different taxation. and a diff
ferent application of the public moneys
The legislature may therefore prescribe
or authorize different laws of police al
low the right of eminent domain to be
exercised in different cases and through
different agencies, and prescribe pecu-
liar restrictions upon taxation in each /
distinct municipality, provided the state
constitution does not forbid. These dis
examinations are made constantly: and
the fact that the laws are of local or
special operation only is not supposed to
render them obnoxious in principle The
legislature may also deem it desirable to
prescribe peculiar rules for the several
occupations, and to establish distinctions
in the rights. obligations. duties, and ca
pacities of citizens. The business of com
mon carriers, for instance, or of bank
ers, may require special statutory regu-
lationS for the general benefit, and 1t
may be a. matter of public policy to give
laborers IN one business a specific lien
for their wages, when it would be i'm
practicable or impolitic to do the same
for persons engaged in some other en-
Payments. If the laws be otherwise un-
all that can be required in
these cases is. that they be general in
their application to the class or locality
public in character. and of their pro-
priety and policy the legislature must
Judge.
But statute would not be constitu-
tional which should prescribe a class
Or a party for opinions sake, or which
4 class or locality, and subject them to
peculiar rules, or impose upon them
special obligations or burdens from which |
Dthers in the same locality or class are
exempt"
Mr.. Curtis then cited Cooley and Black !
is authority for the constitutionality of
he proposed bill and was followed by Mr. 1
ferguson of Carbon, who read decisions
# the supreme court of Massachusetts ]
md an opinion concurred in by Attorneys {
Powers, Lippman & Straup and c. S. Va I
IAN to sustain his contention that the |
ill was constitutional. The opinion of
he attorneys was an exhaustive docu-
nent and was rendered at the request of I
representatives. of organized labor. Mr..
ferguson read numerous petitions from
Unions CmaltQr pmDl0VAfS