The Advocate and news., 1898-08-24
A Decision
For Humanity.
Appellate Court UphOlds the cOnstl'
tutlOnallty Of Antl"Scrip Law.
MINERS TO GET THEIR RIGHTS.


holding the scrip case" decision OF
Judge Simons, thus declaring the use
Of miners scrip illegal, and gives At
tOrney General Boyle and County At
torney Wildly another victory.
From a conviction under an infor-
nation charging a violation Of Ch. las,
laws Of 1897 G. l.. Haun appeals. 1t
was charged that Haun was agent and
cashier Of the Kansas Commercial Coal
Company, a corporation doing business
in Crawford county, Kansas, in operat-
Ing coal mines, and employing more
than ten persons in operating said
mines in that county, and that as such
agent and cashier Haun did unlawfully,
and on behalf Of the coal company, sell,
give and deliver q certain order, COM
monty called punCh-Check, to one r..
p. Graves, miner employed by the cor
pOratlon In It's said mines, for wages
then earned by said Graves and not yet
due and payable to him. The informa-
tlon set out a copy Of the check and
aVerred that 1t had originally contained
various marginal figures, aggregatlng
two dollars, and that such figures had
been punched out. The check reads:
"S2OO Fuller, Kan, O-2S, 1897.
Kansas Commercial Coal Co.:
Please accept this as my order for store mer.
ChandIse to the amount OF two dollars. anC
charge the same to my account, not transfer
able. Il. p. GRAVES"
No. 452.
"Trial by jury was waived and the
case submitted to the court upon an
eAo Nf uybfnh IN ad
dltion to admitting the foregoing alle-
cations of the information, stipulated
that the order or punch-cheCk was is
sued to Graves only upon the applica-
ton and request Of said Graves, and
between the pay-days OF the said Kan
sas Commercial Coal Company, and at
the time when no wages were due and
payable to the said Graves by the con-
tract under which the said Graves was
then and therefore performing labor for
the Kansas Commercial Coal Company.
"As section 4 Of the law expressly
limits the application OF the statute to
corporations or trusts employing ten OF
more persons, It follows that all parts
thereof inconsistent with this llmita-
tion must fall. The provision Of section
NOuGGIHluB COGICAOu VI OAnRAOyVo III
respect to purchase of goods or supplies
is clearly not within the scope OF the act
as indicated by its title, and conse-
quently cannot be regarded as a valid
part of the act. Eliminating these pro-
visions, the act In substance provides:
"First-That it shall be unlawful for
any corporation or trust which employs
ten or more persons to pay the wages Of
It's employees otherwise than in lawful
money or in checks or drafts drawn
against bank deposits of money.
"Second--That all contracts for other
kinds of payments shall be void, and
procurement Of such contracts shall be
construed as coercion on the part of the
employer,
"Third-That any violation Of the
provisions OF sections or 2 Of the act
shall be a misdemeanor.
TRUSTS as used in the act has been
regarded by counsel as being eQuiva-
lent to corporations, and we shall con-
slider the case with reference to corpo-
rations alone In the trial court the de-
fendant challenged the constitutionality
of this act, and the grounds Of such
challenge are now presented to this
court.
1T Is claimed that the act Is in con-
flict with Sec. II, Art. of the State
constitution, which reads
"All laws of a general nature shall
have a uniform operation throughout
the State; and in all cases where a gen.
eral law can be made applicable, no spe-
cial law shall be enacted
1T Is urged that this legislation is
void for the reason that it singles out
certain corporations, that is, those which
severally employ ten or more persons,
and arbitrarily deprives them of rights
and privileges which are retained by all
other corporations and trusts and by