Richmond daily palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1876-1904, 1901-10-21

the state shall 10 the same. There
are no exemptions. None are fav-
ored. The statute is sweeping in its
terms. 1t operates in a general and
uniform manner throughout the
state. 1t applies in terms to the
state aud to every county, city and
town in the state. 1t applies uni
formly to all unskiiled labor en-
plOyed upon all public works for any
Of these corporations. There are
no determinations. A law which
applies generally TO particular
class of cases is not Local or special
law. The constitution does not re-
quire that the operation Of a law
snail De uniform other than that its
operation shall be the same In all
parts of the state under the same
circumstances. OBJ Ind, 1876; ~
Ind, 547; % Ind, 329; 26 Inn,, 431.) }
In my Judgement the statute can III
no sense be termed "classS legisla-
| tiOn.
The statute is prospective and
not retroactive The obligations OF
contracts are not impaired. Vested
rights are not disturbed. No burden
is placed upon unskilled labor. No
obligations nor restrictions are inn
posed upon any one save the state
and upon its agencies, counties,
cities, and towns.
All highways are the property of
the state and are for the use of the
public. A street is a highway.
| Counties, cities and towns, as subor
dinate agencies of the state, are en-
trusted with power to establish.
maintain and control highways with
in their respective jurisdictions.
This power may be changed, modified
or taken away at any time, at the
pleasure of the state. When labor is
performed upon a highway, it is
public work done upon the property
of the state although done and con-
tro.led bv suoordinates clothed With
power for that purpose.
1t is claimed in argument that the
right to contl act is property right
and cannot be abridged; that the
statute in question has this effect and
for this reason cannot be upheld.
| That the sovereign power of the
state may IN many instances abridge
the right of the citizens to contract
has been so often exercised and up
held that it is no longer an open
question. To assert broadly that 10
no instance Can the state abridge the
lioerty of the citizen to contract
would be to deny the state the power
to exercise the right of eminent do
main; to levy taxes; to collect as
sessments for public uses; to arbi-
trar l. fix the salaries t p iblic b.
GERS.
The legislature fixes the sala-
ries of all state officers
mem bers of the general assembly;
also the fees of county and township
officers throughout the state. The
councils of cities fixes the compensa-
tion of its officers.
1t is provided by law that towr-
ship assessors and their deputies
shall receive two dollars per day road
supervisors 81 so per day. Doubt
less many of the persons who hold
these offices would accept them for
less compensation if it were matter
of contract. Will it be claimed that
because persons are required to &C
cept these offices for the compensa-
tion named, that their right of con-
tract is abridged2 When the state
employs persons who are unskilled,
to labor upon its public works and
informs them at the time that their
compensation will be 20 cents an
hour and they accept these terms, is
there any abridgment of their right
to contract? They need not accept
such employment unless they choose.
| They are free to act in the
premises. A city may let
its public work to the lowest
bidder upon such terms as it may
| fix. If at the time it advertises for
bids it informs the bidder that ttey
will be required to pay unskilled la
Dor at the rate of twenty cents an
| hour and that they must make their
bids accordingly, is there any hard
ship? Is the right to contract
abridged? Contractors need not bid
unless they choose If they bid, they
must consider the terms and condi-
tions imposed in fixing the amount
of their bids. The right to bid is an
open fielj.In the competition invited,
are the rights of any one abridged?
Suppose a private corporation is in
need of unskilled labor, and in order
/ TO obtain it instructs its agents to
employ such labor at twenty cents
ali hour and at no other rate. Would
/ it destroy any contract right in so
i doing? Suppose this corporation
would let its work to a contractor
and in the contract should require
hin, under a penalty, to pay un-
skilled labor at the rate of twenty
cents an hour and be should yolun-
tarily and understandingly enter in
to this contract, would not this con-
tract be enforced by the courts?
/ When the state directs that all
unskilled labor engaged upon its pub
/ lie work shall receive twenty cents
an hour, is it exceeding its power?
/ II person in contracting with the
state to do public work stipulates in
/ his contract that he will pay un-
I SEillad labor fwanfv cents an hour