The Advocate and news., 1898-05-25
Miners Win
Screen Case.
Court of Appeals UphOlds Attorney
General BOyle's Defense of
Anti-Screen Law.
SCRIP DECISION TO FOLLOW

The coal miners have won second
victory in the fight to uphold the CON
stitutionality of the laws known as the
ant-scrip and anti-screen laws. The
Court of Appeals has handed down an
opinion sustaining the lower court in de
Claring the latter law constitutional A
similar decision knocking out scrip will
likely follow.
Attorney General Boyle has gone
down to the Cherokee district to see per-
sonally to the enforcement of the law
He intends to prosecute this work vigor-
ously, even If have to swear out com
plants myself" he says.
The opinion, which was very carefully
and thoroughly prepared by Judge Mil
ton, was concurred in by all the Judges.
The court say:
Appellants counsel throughout their
whole argument, assume that the object
Of this act Is to regulate the rate Of wages
to be- paid by mine operators to their em-
plOyes We think this assumption Is un-
warranted and that, In so far as that the
arguments of counsel rest upon II, such
arguments are irrelevant to the questions
which properly arise In the case. II would
hardly be claimed that the net would be
valid within the provisions Of section lG,
article q of the State constitution If the
body thereof contained provisions fixing
the rate Of wages of miners, under the
title, AN act to regulate the weighing of
coal at the mine"
Counsel say that Il was clearly the in
tcntiOn Of the Legislature to punish the act
of passing the output Of n coal mine over
a screen or other device which should take
any part from It's value in determining tho
wages or compensation to be paid the min
crS, or It's value as the measure Of the
wages to be received; and that where any
part Of its value as such measure Is not only
not taken away but Is increased by screen
ing (as they claim Is true In this casc)
such an act Is not a violation of the law.
We cannot agree with this construction Of
the statute. II was manlfestly the lnten-
tiOn Of the Legislature to require that
where q screen is used by any mine Oper-
atOr the same shall not he employed prior
to the weighing of the coal II the use OF
the screen would take from the coal any
part thereof which has money value II
Is not an act to prohibit the screening of
coal, but II IL an act to regulate the weigh
ing OF coal before screening. The agreed
statement Of facts shows that the law was
dlsrcgarded In this case IL also shows that
to comply with tho provisions of this law
would require the coal company to pur-
chase an extra set Of scales; that is the
evidence shows that, while the act has
been a law Of the State for more than four
years the coal company had made no pro-
vision for complying with It's terms. It is
plain that the company has rested upon its
constitutional rights" while declining to
obey statute. II has asserted It's I'm
alienable right" Of contracting in defiance
Of n law.
We regard this law as being what It pur-
ports to be as set forth In it's title, and that
1t Is intended as a police regulation gen
eral in It's application to all owners Of coal
mines and labOrers who work in such
mines. 1t is not therefore, Objectionable
as being class legislation.
II is n matter OF current history, with
which all citizens are familiar, that serious
differences have arisen between mine oper-
ators and their employees as a result Of the
use of devices for screening coal. The re-
ports Of the labor bureaus OF all the states
wherein coal mines are operated abound
I'm information upon this subject. II Is evil
dent that the Legislature regarded the
Weighing Of coal at the mine before screen
ing as being properly subject to, and re-
quring regulation. OF course, where
screens are not used the entire output of
coal produced by each miner Is weighed.
Where screens are employed such output