The San Francisco call., 1899-09-07
WAGES MUST Be
PAID ONCE IN
EVERY MONTH
Agreements to the
Contrary Illegal.
THE LAW CONSTITUTIONAL
OPINION BY JUDGE MORROW
SUPPORTING LABOR.
Judgment Given Against the Garnett
Gold Mining Company for the
Wages of It's Employees
With Costs.

United States Circuit Judge Morrow
yesterday morning handed down an opin-
ion that will be read with interest and
received with JOY by every wageworker
in this State. The opinion aftirms the
constitUtionality of the State statute re-
quirng corporations to pay their en-
ployes as often as once every month at
least.
The opinion is in the case of Henry
Skinner VS.. Garnett Gold Mining. Com
pany, a West Virginia corporation en-
gagged in mining in Sierra County, Inc e
action was brought to recover 1881 31o1 %
costs of suit and an attorneys Tee OF
$500. and that the whole be adjudged
first lien upon the property OF the de-
fendants said principal amount being Que
to the plaintiff and his assignors as
miners wages.
The defendant alleges that Skinner and
his assignors were employed under an
agreement to take their pay from the
proceeds of the defendants mine, which
was being worked by them; that they
would not expect that their wages would
be paid monthly or regularly at all, and
that they would not expect any pay Tor
their work until February, 1898. The de-
fendant also contends that the statute
requiring monthly payments, etc., is un-
constitutional Statutes of California,
page 23D. The defendant contends also
that since the provisions OF sectlons
and are not specifically referred TO IN
it's title these two sections are unconsu-
tutional
Judge Morrow's opinion holds that their
unconstitutionality, If established, would
not invalidate the entire act. but merely
the sections involved. Article ", section
"a of the Constitution of California also
provides But If any subject shall be
embraced in an act which shall not be
expressed in its title, such act shall be
void only as to so much thereof as shall
not be expressed in the title" The Su-
preme Court said: ''In Abeel VS.. Clark,
S4th California, 229, we held that it was
not necessary that the title of the act
should embrace an abstract of its con-
tents. The object was to prevent
deception by the inclusion of matters in
congruous with the subject specified in
the title"
Defendant contends further that the
statute discriminates unreasonably
against corporations and destroys the
liberty and property of private contracts
in several of its provisions. This con-
tention cannot be sustained, says Judge
Morrow, and there is no discrimination
involving the breach of any of the con-
stitutional enactments invoked by the
defendant. The provisions that corpora
tiOns snail have a regular monthly pay
day and that the employees of a corpora
tion shall in the event of a violation of
the provisions of section | by the corpOr-
alton be entitled to lien on the prop
erty Of the corporation, taking precedence
of all other liens except recorded mort
attorneys fee if he is obliged to bring
an action at law to recover his wages,
and to an attachment against the prop
erty of the corporation, and that an un-
recorded deed shall not be a defense TO
such an action are not such unjustly
discriminate against the defendant. =
The promise to pay wages after an in
terval of six months cannot be called good
Judgment is given for the sum claimed
and for an attorneys fee of $500.