The Advocate and news., 1898-05-25
Miners Win Screen Case.
CONTINUED from page II

il required to be weighed, If the effect Of
the screening would be to remove portion
having Value-Of such output The ten
dency OF such a law would be to prevent
possible fraud and imposition by the mine
owner and to place operator and operative
upon a more nearly equal basis In respect
to their mutual relations and interests than
would otherwise exist. Counsel for appel
liant says:
at need not be argued to this court that
where different propositions are open to
the choice of men, whether they be miners
or wood choppers, II will be presumed that
the proposition most favorable to them will
be accepted" and that 1t must be presumed
In this case that the miners agreed to that
proposition which insured or promised to
them the best wages. The objection to this
view is the assumption that an option was
presented to the miners as to the basis Of
their contracts. As already noted, the coal
company had made no provision for weigh
ing coal before screening the same, from
which 1t Is clear that the assumed option
could not have been exercised. Until proper
provision Is made for Weighing the coal the
miner cannot exercise choice. In the way
provided by this statute, and In no other
way. will an equitable basis be reached
As stated by the Supreme court in the case
OF Holden v. Hardy, supra, proprietors Of
coal mines and their operatives do not
stand upon an equality, and their interests
are to a certain extent conflicting.
But, as we view this act, 1t Is by no
means an innovation or legislative nov
city. Not only Is 1t not novel or at Vari-
ance with present legislation elsewhere,
but the principle involved has been eX-
pressed In other statutes of this State for
many years, and has been embodied in the
laws OF some OF the older States for almost
a century.
II statutes may be enacted for the benefit
of the buyer who Is otherwise without pro-
lection from fraud and imposition laws
may be enacted to protect the seller who
FNNN 1ts.nNn
fraud. The difference In principle between
the two instances Is too ethereal The
laws consideration and protection arc eX-
tended to the party occupying the disad-
vantageOus position.
In this case II may be said that the miner
has brought the product OF his toll to the
market, when the ear containing the coal
he has mined rests beneath the sun which
shines not where he delVes, Just as truly as
that the farmer has brought his haY to
market when he enters the city where 1t
Is to be weighed and delivered to n GUS
toner, and where he may be required by
ordinance to have II weighed on scales noS
of his choosing. To weigh coal before II is
screened Is to preserve the weight of the
entire product OF the miners labor He
may be far beneath the surface Of the
earth engaged In his arduous task, but IL
what he produces Is properly weighed in |
accordance with the law and subsequently |
accounted for, he is put upon basis of |
equality with the purchaser the operator |
Of the mine, in matters of contract relating |
to such product.
We have examined a very large number |
OF the authorities cited and all OF those |
which bear directly upon the questions |
which we think actually arise in the case, |
and shall now review the cases cited by |
counsel which arose under laws concerning |
the weighing OF coal at the mines The |
case OF Millitt v. People Ql7 ILL., 29D in |
volved the validity Of an act the title of |
which was Identical with that here con- |
sidered. That law required that all coal |
mined In the State should be weighed at |
the mine at the expense of the operator |
and prior to the screening OF the coal The |
supreme court, IN constituting this act, held |
that Il prohibited the making of contracts |
FOR computing wages Of tho miners upon |
Hoal and ito decision against the consti- !