The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-04-13

for the protection of such interest. But
regulating business, occupation or en-
ployment which in itself is lawful and use
full to the community IL becomes the duty
of the court, when called on. to decide
whether the particular regulation is just
and reasonable and in harmony with the
constitutional guarantees or whether II Is
an unwarrantabe invasion Of the protected
rights of the citizen TO pursue such bust
ness or employment upon terms of his own
choosing.
We quote the words OF Brown. Justice. in
Lawton VS.. Steele. supra: ITO Justify the
State in thus interposing its authority in
behalf of the public II must appear. first.
| that the interests of the public generally
| as distinguished from those of a particular
| class require such interference: and. Sec
ond. that the means are reasonably neces-
] sary for the accomplishment of the pur-
| pose and not unduly oppressive upon indi-
| viduals. The Legislature may not. under
| the guise OF protecting the public interests,
arbitrarily interfere with private business
| or impose unusual and Unnecessary re-
| strictions upon lawful occupations. In
| other words, its determination as to what
| is a proper exercise of its police power is
not final or conclusive. but is subject to the
supervision of the court.
PUBLIC NECESSITY.
1t follows that a statute to be within the
| power must be responsive to some public
| necessity, suitable to subserve it, and rea-
| sonable in its operation upon the persons
| whom 1t affects. 1t is not claimed that the
weekly payment of wages involves any
| question of public health. public safety or
public morals.
The attorney general endeavors to justify
the law upon two grounds: % The wage
| earners are not upon an equal footing with
| employers. and opportunities for oppres-
| sion and consequent public suffering, ensue:
| (0. thrift being beneficial to the community
! 1t should be encouraged by enabling work.
| men to pay cash for current demands,
| which can only be done by requiring fire.
| quent payment of wages.
Assuming all these things to be true, they
do not of themselves justify the arbitrary
| invasion of the personal rights and lib
erty Of the citizen. Liberty to contract on
| ones own terms, to decide for himself his
own employment, to buy and sell, to ex-
| change one belonging for another are
among his most valuable and cherished
| rights. AS was said in State Ashbrook,
| 154 No. 375: In order to sustain iegisla-
| ton of the character of the act In Ques-
| ton, as police measure, the courts must
| be able to that its object, TO some de-
| gree tends toward the prevention of some
| offense or manifest evil. or has for its aim
the preservation OF the public health NOR
| ais, safety, or welfare. Mere legis-
| iative assumption of the right to direct and
indicate the channel into which the pri-
| vate energies of the citizen shall flow, or at
tempt TO abridge, or hamper his right to
pursue any lawful calling, or avocation,
winch ne may choose without reasonable
| regulation, or molestation, have ever been
| condemned in all free governments"
| II there is one thing more than another"
VS.. voight 176 q. S. sos, public policy re-
quires, 1t is that men of full age and COM
| petent understanding shall have the utmost
liberty OF contracting, and that their con-
| tracts when entered into freely and volun-
| tarily, shall be held sacred and shall be
enforced by courts of Justice
is the statute in question a reasonable
| regulation and reasonable in its operation
| upon the persons whom Ii affects? The con-
| tract prohibited affects employer and en-
ploye alike. If the master can employ only
man can find employment on no other
| terms. 1t will be observed that the statute
| gives the parties no choice no right to
| waive the >provisions of the law. The
! language is Every person, company, or
| corporation employing any person to labor
shall make weekly payments for the full
| amount due for such labor and the chief
inspector or any person interested may
bring suit In the name of the State against
| any person, company or corporation that
neglects or refuses to comply within ten
| days after such payment is due and left
| unpaid"
The obvious intention of the Legislature
| was to make contracts for persons that
they would not, in all casses, make for
themselves and to forbid the making of
contracts that they would make. The labor
er may be the chief sufferer. His labor
self and family, but by this law he is
denied the right to work, and another the
| right to employ him unless he can be paid
once week Any law or policy that dis
ables the citizen from making a contract
whereby he may find lawful, needed and
satisfactory employment is unreasonable.
| 1t may be that the workman will desire
and requests his employer-as conducive
to economy and saving-to keep back all
| wages not needed for current necessities.
| Whether he leaves his surplus earnings
| emDlOVer denOSltS
| the building and loan association, or with
| the savings bank, involves no public in
| according to this statute, If in a fair and
| open agreement the employer "neglects or
| refuses to pay the full amount earned for
a period of ten days after due the chief in
| spector may, If he disapproves the arrange
| ment, and upon his failure to act any
| citizen Of the State may sue without the
consent, and even over the protest of the
workingman, in the name of the State, not
| only compel payment, but mulct the en-
| ployer In a 30 per centum penalty for max
| Ing an honest effort to favor his employee
| The statute places the wake-earners of
| the State under quasi guardianship. 1t
| classes them with minors and other per-
sons under legal disability by making their
| contracts void at the pleasure of public
officer. 1t tends to degrade them as citi-
zens by impeaching their ability to take
care of themselves 1t is paternalism pure
| and simple and in violent conflict with the
liberty and equality theory of our institu-
| tions. 1t Is no argument to say that our
| assumption is unreasonable and that the
| inspector is not likely TO interfere in such
cases. Whether he will or not is unim-
portant In discussing the constitutionality
OF the act In question is to be determined
not by what has been done or is likely to
be done under 1t. but what may be done
under and by virtue of its authority.
We do not assert that the Legislature is
powerless to regulate the payment of
wages when the same are paid at unreason-
able periods, or that community COM
posed largely of workingmen may not be
injuriously affected by unduly delayed pay
ments, for these questions are not before
us, but what we do hold is that this stat
ute, which takes away from both the en-
| ployer and employe, whether in the shop in
! the store the farm, all power to con-
tract for labor, except upon terms of week