The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-03-28

Governor Wells yesterday heard ar
guments for and against the constitu-
tionality of the bill recently passed con-
shutting eight hours legal days work
in all mines and smelters. There ap-
peared before his excelrency some OF
the prominent legal lights of the city
and the arguments consumed the entire
afternoon.
The hearing was held in the supreme
court room, owing to the limited ac-
commodations in the executive office.
Judge Powers and c. S. Varian ap-
peared in behalf of the labor union
and argued in favor of the law, while
| Judge Marshall of the law firm OF
Marshall & Royle, and Judge Dickson
appeared in behalf of the mine own
ers, of whom quite a number were
| present. There was also large num-
! Der of representatives of labor unions
who listened to the arguments with
! interest.
Judge Dickson opened in behalf OF
the mine owners by reading an eX-
haustive opinion to the effect that the
eigh. hour law had been declared un-
constitutional in most cases where the
supreme courts had passed upon it. The
legislature, he contended, had no power
to rob man of his liberty or proper
ty without due process of law. man
| labor is his property, and for the leglS-
! lature to say that he shall not have a
right to sell or contract for his proper
| ty was clearly a violation of the fun
damental principles of our government.
! If the legislature has right to say
man shall labor only eight hours day
1,
should labor only one hour or twenty
hours as the case might be. Could any
one with common sense maintain that
this was within the province of the
| legislature? Continuing Judge Dickson
said:
1T is manifest from the terms of
the act that it is aimed at all per-
sons engaged in the business of mining,
smelling, or other methods for the re-
duction or refinement of ores, whether
as workingmen or as employers of
workingmen in such business. The
| language is awkward and inapt III de-
| fining the intention to prevent either
employer or employee in the prescribed
! business from entering into any con-
tract of employment for a greater
period than eight hours per day. Still,
it is manifest that the legislature in
tended that no workingman should be
| employed by any mining proprietor, or
| by the manager or owner of reduction
| or refining works, for more than eight
hours per day; nor should any work
| ingman contract to render service in
the prescribed business for more than
! eight hours per day. The proposed
statute simply defines the period of
! employment" of workingmen, and de-
clares that it shall be Eight hours, y
| at
| industries named; but from the cur
rent history of the time, we assume
that the purpose is to forbid longer
| hours than eight under the penalties
named in the third section.
| In either view, we are of the opin-
ion that such a law is unconstitutional
and violates the rights of both work
ingman and employer, in that it i'm
poses unwarranted restrictions upon
the right to contract and abridges the
! liberties of the citizen.
THE prohibition of the bill is two
fold; it affects both employer and
scure provisions, each would be equally
guilty.
The word employment imports
action on the part of two persons or
more; there must be a. person who
does the act of employing, and a per-
son who consents to the act of being
| employed
! In support of his argument Judge
Dickson referred to the Illinois stat
ute of June II. 1898, declaring mo fe-
male shall be employed in any factors
or work shop more than eight hours in
any one day, or forty-eight hours in
any one week." and this statute was
held to be unconstitutional and void
ioc ;,,ct
state The provision of the constitu-
ton Of Illinois which was held by the
court to be violated is precisely the
same as that of our own constitution,
and which is common form for nearly
all the state constitutions.
Judge Dickson read from a number
of opinions from supreme courts in the
states of California, Illinois, Colorado,
Nebraska, Arkansas, Pennsylvania.
West Virginia and Missouri where
| laws of the character proposed had
been held unconstitutional and void.
The principles upon which the deci-
sionS were grounded he maintained are
to be found throughout the text books
of the law, and the writings of our
most patriotic and learned statesmen,
and the court had reached it's conclu-
sions not only from the great might of
authority, but in the light of constitu-
/
be ignored.
Hon. C. S. Varian, in replying. said
that they were somewhat at a disad-
vantage in not having had opportunity
TO examine into the cases quoted by
Judge Dickson and which was assumed
to carry out the assertions made in his
argument He pointed out that the
preceding speaker had forgotten to
dwell upon the states authority to ex-
ercise its police power Numerous
states had attempted to regulate the
hours of labor, and it had been held
constitutional Relative to the argu-
ments of Judge Dickson in attempting
to ridicule the proposition that the leg
islature could not regulate the hours
of labor, he dubbed absurd. The legis-
lature, he contended. did have power
to say a man should work only six
hours day or even only one hour a
day if the safety of the public health
and welfare demanded it. If the law
maker should find that in a certain
vocation man should only labor one
hour a day they had right to en-
force such a restriction. That was ex-
actly the intent of the present law
He then read from the labor article
in the constitution, which provides that
the legislature must pass laws regu-
lating and affording needed protection
for those working in mines, factories
and shelters. So, then, the legislature,
in passing this law, had simply COM
piled with an imperative provision in
the constitution. He held further that
mining companies in a certain sense
were engaged in a public business. and
the law of eminent domain was appli-
| l. -