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

| legislature must pass laws 10
protect the public health and
safety BY this provision in the
constitution it was evident at once
that a necessary condition exists to
warrant such an enactment and 1t
states in emphatic terms that IT must
be done 1t was not a question of
financial loss to the mine owners. The
! highest tribunal in the land had de-
cided that whenever the preservation
of the public health demanded it it was
not a a question of loss of millions
to its rightful owner When the brew
! ers of Iowa carried an appeal of the
| prohibition law into the United States
court on the ground that it would re-
suit in the loss of millions of dollars
worth of property, that tribunal de-
cided it was no defense. If the public
health of Iowa demanded it the legis-
! lature had power to enact the law
! There could be no doubt but the long
| hours of labor in the factories, smelt-
ers and mines were injurious to the
| public health; therefore the legislature
could regulate the hours of labor. To
| invalidate the law they would have
to prove that it conf1icted with some
provision in the constitution In this
case the constitution expressly pro-
videS that such a law must be enacted.
He held that there must be some ex-
press provision in the constitution
which could be pointed to before
! court could be called in to interfere
and declare the law unconstitutional.
| In the case of the executive it was
more so, as he does not act in judi
cial capacity to pass upon the consti-
tutionality of every enactment by the
legislature He held that if a doubt
existed in the mind of the governor
as to the constitutionality it was not
| for him to decide but leave it to the
supreme court.
Judge Powers supported his conten-
ton by proving that the Massachu-
/ sets supreme court had in a very
| strong opinion. declared a similar law
constitutional and he held that the
judgment of the court of that state
was equal in might to any in the
opinions quoted by Judge Dickson and
showed that many were not parallel
with the point in controversy.
Concluding very strong argument
Judge Powers handed the governor pc
titions signed by mine laborers from
all parts of the state, asking that the
governor affix his signature to the
eight-hour law
Judge Marshall then closed for
the mine owners and read from
an opinion prepared and signed
by the following we'll known
legal firms Marshall & Royle
Bennett, Hardness, Howat & Bradley
H. P. Henderson, Dickinson, Ellis &
Ellis, ]. l.. hawlins, W. c. Hall. and
Williams. Van Colt & Sutherland.
The opinion starts out as follows:
"As to the policy of this law, it is not
within our province to make any
comment; but we desire to submit our
views relative to its constitutionality.
| We Lnhesltatingly pronounce it in
|
amendment to the constitution OF the
United States, and with the provision
of tle fol owing portion of section I of
that anne nGment:
No state shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the Uni
ted States; nor shall any state deprive
any person OF life, liberty or property
without due process of law, nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction
! the equal protection of the laws.
Daniel Webster defined due process
of law in the following words: By
the law of the land is more clearly in
tended the general law; a law which
hears before it condemns; which pro-
ceeds upon equity and renders judg-
ment only after trial. The meaning is
that every citizen shall hold his life,
liberty, property and immunities UNI
der the protection of the general rules
which govern society. Everything
which may pass under the form of an
enactment is not, therefore, to be con-
sidered the law of the land.
The opinion then quotes from Judge
Cooley in his work on constitutional
limitation, wherein he upholds the
definition of Mr.. Webster as apt and
suitable
Can one imagine a greater infringe
ment on the rights of property or the
rights of liberty, than the law now
proposed to be enacted? Thought by
some to be intended, and that 1t VIII
work the protection of the laborlng
men: Thought by others to be linn
itation on the rights of the employ
er or of the capitalist; it does, in fact,
work an outrage on both. 1t destroys
the right to contract, and while 1t
does not in effect, vitiate contract
already made, it prohibits and under
penalty of law deprives the individual
of the right of forming contract as
his needs, necessities and personal in
terests might require him so to do.
The wishes, inclination and interests OF
either the employer, or of the employee
are not taken into consideration, and
under the name of law, the right of
action of the individual is totally de-
stroyed.
I'VE cannot find more apt language
10 cover our ODJeCliOI W liliS law lioii
may be found in the admirable work of
Tiedmans Limitations of Police Power,
on page 572.
Laws. therefore. which are designed
to regulate the terms of hiring in
strictly private employments are I'M
constitutional because they operate
as an interference with ones natural
liberty in a case in which there is no
trespass upon private rights and no
threatening injury to the public. And
this conclusion not only applies to laws
regulating the rate of wages of private
whose object is to regulate any of the
of hours of labor per day, which the
employer may demand. There can be
no constitutional interference by the
state in the private relation of master
and servant except for. the purpose
of preventing frauds and trespass."
I'm 1881 the legislature of the state
of Pennsylvania, having had its atten-
ton called to the contest between Ia
Dor and capital, existing in the mining
regions of Pennsylvania. in and about
the city of Pittsburg, passed certain
legislation in an effort to remedy the
evils complained of. An act of the
legislature was passed coming in due
course of time before the supreme
court of that state and was there pass
ed upon adversely, as will be found in
the case of Godcharles & Co. VS.. Wige
man, 113 Pa. State, page 49, In that
case, Justice Gordon speaking for the
court used the following language:
1.-The first. second. third and fourth
sections of the act of June 90 1881 are