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

1t is also contended that appellant, being
an employer and not an employee, can only
raise such questions as involve the rights or
employers, and that the constitutional right
of a laborer to contract to do lawful work
upon terms satisfactory to him cannot be
questioned or appropriated by an employer
as a defense, thus applying to contracting
parties the rule affirmed in Railroad VS..
Montgomery, 152 Ind, lib, and many other
cases.
We are unwilling to admit that this is
proper case for the application of the rule.
since we are unable to see how the result
may be different, whether the laborer Is
disqualified from entering into contract
of employment or the employer disqualified
from making it. In either view the con-
tract which the parties desire to make is
prevented and both parties mutually, and
equally, affected by the Introduction.
that the freedom of contract is wholly be-
yond legislative control. There are many
instances in which restraint may be proper
ly imposed, but in each and every one the
relation to some public benefit must be
clearly discernible. Certain contracts are
required to be in writing. manifestly TO pro-
mote public morals by removing the temp
tation to perpetrate frauds by perjury. A
householder is disqualified from withdraw
ing in advance from those dependent upon
him the benefits of the exemption laws, and
public the burden of their sustenance. Stat
utes limiting the rate of interest are valid
as preventing unconscionable extortion,
and so on through long list that might be
given. each showing logical and an APP
propriate relation to the promotion or pro-
lection of some interest of society.
The cases of the opinion Of justices, 163
Mass, 592, State VS.. Brown Manufacture
ing Company, Is r. l., 16, and Skinner VS..
Garrett. Etc, Co., So Fed, l35. cited by the
attorney general as sustaining his conten-
ton cannot be accepted as controlling
precederfts. The Massachusetts, case is not
an adjudication at all, but the uncontested
answer of the justices of the Supreme Court
to a question propounded to them by the
House of Representatives, which we quote:
rs ii within the constitutional power OF
the legislature to extend the application
payment OF wages by corporations TO pri-
vate individuals and partnerships The
justices is constructed is indicated in the
opening lines, as follows: Your question
implies that in your opinion the present
law relating to the weekly payment of
wages by certain corporations to their en-
ployes is constitutional and your inquiry
is whether il is within the constitutional
power Of the Legislature TO extend the
law to private individuals and to partner
ships" The question before the justices
was not the constitutionality OF the law
as II existed. but assuming that the statute
was valid as II applied TO corporations. was
Ii constitutional 10 extend its provisions to
individuals and partnerships? Moreover, II
is expressly noted by the justices that the
power granted the Legislature by the
Constitution of that State is more eompre-
hensive than that found in the Constitu-
lions of some of the other States, and the
provision pointed out and relied upon as
supporting the view expressed is radically
different and broader than the provisions
of the Indiana Constitution. The Rhode
Island case is even less a precedent. be-
cause IL rests upon the theory that the
statute was but an amendment TO the
charter of a corporation under the reserved
power of the Legislature to amend. The
| Skinner case Is of little value. First, be-
| cause IL involves the payment of wages
monthly, and, second, because the decision
of Judge Morrow turns on substantially
| the same grounds as the Rhode Island case.
Similar statutes are held to be unconsti-
tutional in Pennsylvania and Texas.
The foregoing conclusions lead us TO con-
| clude that the act in controversy, so far
| as II relates 10 the question herein involved.
| is In violation OF Section !, Article or the
| state Constitution, commonly known the
| bill OF rights, and Of the fourteenth
| amendment to the federal Constitution. de-
| nying State the power 10 deprive a per-
| son of life. liberty or property without due
process of law, and the demurrer 10 the
| complaint should have been sustained.