The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-06-28
BLODGETT.
CONTINUED from page Ten.)

NCOnunUeu from page Ien.D
wholly indefcnsible. and is purely an ar
bitrary classification. for no reason ger
name TO the public safety or the health
OF the employees. for nothing is more
clearly settled than that a valid exercise
Of the police power is not subject to the
constitutional provision prohibiting legis-
lation which impairs the obligation OF
contracts since all contracts aOe made,
as all property Is held. subject 10 the
paramount requirements OF the police
power OF the state.
80 that the question here presented
is not to the scope OF the police power
In general, but is limited 10 an inquiry
I'm the first place, as 10 whether existing
conditions are such as to Justify its ex-
ercise at ell because OF some sufficient
danger to the public safety. and IL that
be so. In the next place to an inquiry
whether Il can be exercised in manner
and form as expressed I'm the provisions
of the penal statute before us: or, in
other words, Is the act intended TO pro-
tect the public safety. and them do Its
provisions accomplish that intent. Tn
less both these inquiries can be answered
In the Affirmative, the act fails OF just-
ficaion, for even II the danger TO the
public safety is shown TO be a real and
substantial danger, nevertheless, IL the
means adopted for its removal do not
accomplish its removal, the public safe
ty still remains impaired, society Is not
protected and the real and effective
power OF the police power has not been
effectively applied.
soLIcIToUs AS TO STOCKHOLDERS.
His third point IL that II is unconstitu-
tional TO suspend the act on Sundays and
holidays so that, on account OF increas-
ed traffic. street railway employees may
work additional hours for extra compen-
sation.
His fourth point:
To restrict the right 20 labor TO the l2
hours OF day or night next succeeding
the commencement OF such labor is in
effect TO prescribe arbitrarily by law the
hours of the day or night In which man
may work and those In which he may not
do the same woix. Under this act he can
only contract for 10 hours labor I'm "a. and
he Is thus restricted and deprived of the
right 70 labor on any day. IL he will, for
IL hours OF the "a. or for moro than half
OF his whole lifetime.
But this last restriction makes Il n Pc
nal offence II, having entered upon his 10
hours OF labor. he rests for moro than
two hours before he is required TO COM
plete his days work. To impose restric-
tions such AZ these Is clearly a dopriva-
ton both OF liberty and OF property with
In the provisions OF article !, section 10,
OF tho Constitution.
His NTH and last point AZ TO the penal
~ imposed. he regrets that neither the
employo who works extra time nor the
agent OF the company who persuades
such employe 10 work extra time IL pun
lshed but the real punishrdSt always
falls on the stockholders, even when the
act has been violated in contraventlon OF
their express authority.
WHY HE DISSENTS.
The concluding paragraph OF his opin-
ion follows:
For the reasons above set forth. am
OF the opinion that the act In question IL
unconstitutional In the particular emu
merated and IL wholly void. IL follows
from unconstitutionality OF the act and
as a necessary conclusion. that n street
railway conductor. gripman or motorman.
may freely contract for such hours OF la I,
Dor with his company as may be agreed |
upon between them"