The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-06-10
Important Eight-hour Decision BY
the Supreme Court.
MINERS VIOLATE LAW
IF THEY WORK OVER EIGHT
HOURS PER DAY.
Supreme Court Decides That Both
Employer and Employee Is Guilty
When the Law Is Violated-Em-
ployee Cannot Sue For Overtime
Judge Baskin Dissents.

The state supreme court declared
yesterday that the employee who works
more than eight hours is as much a
violator of the law and commits mis-
7emeanor as well as the employer. In
an opinion written by Justice Miner,
and concurred in by Justice Bartch, it
was held that the employee as well as
the employer is liable to prosecution
and conviction for misdemeanor.
The decision will, no doubt, surprise
labor leaders, for their position has
been that it was the employer and not
the employee who is the guilty party
in the violation of the eight-hour law.
Their contention is that the employee,
being forced TO work the number Of
hours dictated by his employer or to
lose his position, the one whom dis
trict attorneys should prosecute is the
employer. However, Judge Baskin dis
sents from the supreme court view.
He handed down an opinion in which
equally guilty.
The position of the court is made very
clear and definite. There can be no
mistake about its Interpretation of the
law. AS is known, this law applies to
1aborers in mines, shelters and reduc-
ton works. and the decision given con-
Germs them directly, but it Is wide in
It's scope and will no doubt establish a
precedent that will be followed by the
lower courts of Utah and extensively
quoted in the courts of other states
Case Decided.
B. L. Short was an employee in the
mill of the Bullion-Beck & Champion
Mining company at Eureka He
worked, or at least alleged that he
worked, twelve hours each day, be-
tween June l and Nov. l, in 1896. He
figures that the time over eight hours
amounts to fifty-nine and one-half
days, for which he wants $3.50 per day.
The total is S14S.15.
The case originally came before Judge
Higgins of the Fifth judicial district.
who decided in favor of the mining
company The defendant filed a de-
murrer to Shorts complaint, and the
district judge sustained it. On his re-
fusal to amend his complaint it was
dismissed and appealed to the supreme
court, which has sustained Judge Hig-
gins.
The section of the statute under
which the suit was brought is as fol-
lows:
1.-The period of employment of work.
ingmen in shelters and all other in
stitutions for the reduction and refin-
ing of ores or metals, shall be eight
hours per day. except in cases of
emergency, where life or property is in
imminent danger"
The section concerning punishment
reads as follows:
ANY person, body corporate, agent,
manager or employer, who shall vio-
late any of the provisions of this act
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
i - L. Il l..
Short was particeps criminis; that he
was as much a violator of the law as
the Bullion-Beck company, and is con-
sequently disqualified from bringing
suit.
Both Parties Guilty.
..when the defendant required the
plaintiff to work twelve hours each day
and the plaintiff complied with that re-
quest, the law was violated by the act
OF each party. The penal provision of
the statute applies and was intended
not for the employer alone, but to
any person who shall violate its pro-
visions.
Judge Higgins, under whom the case
was tried, aptly discusses the question
as follows: The question is, however,
whether, under this law, such a con-
tract is valid as TO the employee. We
think that in law and in reason it is.
It is void as to him first for the rea-
son that he is implicitly forbidden to
make such a contract; second, because
when he enters into a contract of this
nature he knowingly and voluntarily
assists the employer to violate the law,
he becomes in effect a particeps Grim
inis with the employer, for it is patent
that with no employee willing to make
such a contract the employer is power
less to act
80 the law is in the nature of
state police regulation. It's object is the
good of the public, as well as the in
dividual, an integral part thereof The
fact that the individual is willing to
waive his protection cannot avail"
Judge Baskin Dissents.
But Justice Baskin thinks differently
In his opinion the law does not apply
to the employee as well as the en-
ployer. He holds that there is no word
in the section which describes the en-
ployee; that he is not particeps GRIM
inis. and that the violation of the law
in this case was by the Bullion-Beck
company, and not by Short.