Richmond daily palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1876-1904, 1901-10-21
LABOR Case.
DECIDED BY JUDGE FOX
AGAINST THE CITY.
The Opinion in FuIl-.-An
Appeal Will Be Taken
To the Supreme
Court.

The following is Judge Fox's opin-
ion in the case of Jas. A. Edwards
VS. the City of Richmond:
In this case the plaintiff sues to
recover for work and labor. In his
complaint he alleges that from the
9th day Of May to the 18th day of
June, 1901, he was employed by the
defendant as an unski led laborer
and as such during that time he
worked upon the streets of said city.
He further charges that as such un-
skilled laborer be was by virtue of a
statute passed by the general assem-
DIV of this state on the 9th day OF
March, 1901, entitled to receive for
such labor, compensation at the rate
of 20 cents per hour; that the defend
ant refused to pay him more than 10
cents per hour; that he brings this
action to recover the amount that he
is entitled to under said statute,
likewise his attorneys fees and an
appropriate penalty.
To this complaint the defendant
has filed a demurrer, and claims in
argument that the statute above
mentioned is unconstitutional and
void and that for this reason the de-
fendant is entitled to judgment.
(The act Of the general assembly
which is challenged by the defendant
is here quoted but is omitted because
il was published in the PALLADIUM
recently J
The couf is of this state undoubt-
edly have the power to declare laws
enacted by the general assembly un-
constitutional when they are clearly
so and only then. If in the mind OF
the court it is a doubtful question as
to whether statute in a given case
is, or is not constitutional, the doubt
will be resolved in favor of the con-
stitutiorality of the law. The power
of the general assembly of this state
is restrained only by the limitations
imposed upon it by the federal and
state constitutions. Beyond these
lfmIratfons frs power is supreme as
far as the courts are concerned. a
law may be wrong or unreasonable,
vet if it does u OF conflict with anv
con ,titut nal pro- isiop, it is beyo d
the reach of the courts and 1t will De
their duty to enforce it as they find
it. The mere fact that a legislative
body may occasionally abuse its pow
ers in enacting unwise or oppressive
statut IS will in no wise justify inter
ference by the courts in exercising
power that they do not possess. This
principle is well expressed by the
court of appeals of New York in the
case of Clark VS.. the state, 30 n, Z.
SIT. Tha. case was much like the
one now under consideration. In the
opinion of the court it is said:
"But ex RENE cases which show
that power may possibly be abused,
do not prove that it does not exist.
The court cannot construe
the constitution so as to pre-
cl, de all possibility of the abuse OF
power. There has always been am
pie room, within the pale of the con-
stitution, fo- the misuse or abuse of
powers conferred upon public bodies
or officers which is subject in large
measure to the exercise of discre-
tion. 1t must be assumed that the
legislature and all other public bod
les entrusted with the functions of
government, general or local, will
use the power conferred by the con-
stiGution or the law, fairly, and in
the public interests
The supreme court of this state has
announced as a rule, that it devolves
upon the party who assails statute
upon the ground that it violates the
constitution, to show a clear viola
tion and to point out the provision
violated; failing to do this, his attack
is. unavailng. (l02. Ind. 3l9
Counties, cities and towns are mu-
nicipal corporations. MUM cipal cor
pora,ions are created mainly for the
interests, advantage and convenience
of local communities. The power to-
create such corporations for the pur-
pose of self-government lies with the
state to be exercised through its leg
islature. A municipal corporation
has only such powers as are confer
red upon il bv the state aud when
these powers are SO conferred they do
not become vested rights for they
They may be changed, modified or
taken away at the pleasure of the
state. If the general assembly after
conferring powers upon a municipal
corporation may take them away, L
am unable to see any good reason
why they may not regulate them
while they exist IL no CONSTITUTIONAL
provision is violated in so doing
The defendant insists that the stat
ute in question is in the nature of
class Legislation" and for this rea-
son cannot DE upheld. To this prop
osition | cannot assent. In the first
place the statute directs that the
state shall pay twenty cents an
hour for unskilled labor when en-
ploped upon public work, that IS, upon
work for the state. 1t then directs