The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-04-13
NO POLITICAL ASPECT
REASONS WHY WAGE LAW WAS DE-
CLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Scope of the Police Power Outlined
Where Legislature Must Pause
Opinion Recited.


give a political aspect to the decision of the
Supreme Court by which the act providing
for the weekly payment of wages was de-
clared unconstitutional that 1T seems i'm
pcrtant that the law in question and the
decision of the court should be stated In
full.
The suit upon which the decision was
made was brought in Delaware county in
the name of the State against the Republic
Iron and Steel Company on the complaint
Of an employee whom the corporation owed
more than a weeks wages, or $685. Be-
fore the case was tried the amount due the
employe was paid. The suit turned upon
the constitutionality of the law. The pre-
amble and the three material sections of
the act are as follows:
AN act providing for the weekly pay
ment Of wages due employees, making 1t un-
lawful for an employer to assess fine
against the wages of an employe, and reg
ulating changes in rate OF wages, prohibit
ing the assignment OF future wages, pro-
viding for its enforcement and repeating
all laws in conflict Herewith. Improved
Feb. Is 1891
Section l. Be it enacted by the General
Assembly of the State of Indiana, That
every person, company, corporation or as
ISOLATION employing any person to labor, or
in any other service for hire. shall make
for such labor or service, In lawful money
of the United States, to within six days or
less of the time of such payment, but If,
at any time of stated payment, any en-
ploye as aforesaid shall be absent from his
regular place of labor or service, he shall
be paid In like manner thereafter on de-
mand: provided that this act shall not ap-
ply to any employe engaged by common
carrier in interstate commerce; and pro-
vided, that the labor commissioners Of the
State. after notice and hearing, may ex-
~ Of he ofn nrffn IN q
employees prefer a less frequent payment
from paying any of it's employees weekly. if.
in the opinion of the said commissioners,
the interests of the public and of such en-
ployes will not suffer thereby.
Sec. 2. The chief inspector of the de-
partment of inspection of this State, or any
person interested. may bring suit in the
name of the State in any court of compe-
tent Jurisdiction. and the prosecuting attor-
ney OF any county where such suit is
brought shall prosecute the same against
any person, company, corporation or asso-
citation that neglects or refuses to comply
with Section 1 of this act within ten days
after such payment is due and left unpaid,
and in case judgment is rendered in favor
of said employee and against said defendant
| for the sum alleged to be due, or any part
thereof, per centum of such sum shall be
added to such payment from the time when
payment was due, and a penalty of 80 per
centum of the amount of such Judgment
shall be assessed and collected from said
defendant by said court and paid into the
QUESTIONS AT ISSUE.
Sec 6. 1t is hereby made the duty OF
the chief inspector and of the department
of inspection to enforce the provisions of
this act by the processes of the courts. and
in the name of the State: and upon their
failure to do so any citizen of the State is
hereby authorized to do the same in the
| name of the State"
The essential portions of the courts opin-
ion are as follows: The amount of wages
due Haverstck at the commencement of
| this suit, to w.t. 1865, having been subse-
quently, and before trial. fully paid, the
judgment rendered was limited to an i'm
position of the so per centum penalty pro-
vided for by Section 2.
Appellant is authorized to con-
tract and be contracted with as a
natural person. and we must, there
fore, assume, at the beginning. that
TO recognize, even in the exercise of
| it's police power, the right of all per-
sons to the equal protection of the laws
and to the security afforded by due process
| of law. The right to sustenance and to
| acquire property and to make treaties in
| relation thereto is liberty in the constitu-
| changeable for food and raiment and COM
| forts and may be bought and sold and con-
| tracts made in relation thereto the same as
concerning any other property.
The question, therefore, arises, Is the ar
bitrary denial of the rights TO exchange
money for labor--one class of property for
another-in matters which affect no public
| interest-an unwarrantable interference
with the right of contract and depriving
| of the person of liberty and property with
| out due process of law? The only rational
grounds upon which 1t is claimed there
| may be legislative interference with free
| dom of contract, for lawful purposes is in
| the exercise of that underlined, reserved
| force of the people known as the police
l. power. There Is a divergence of view as
| to the proper scope and application of this
| power, but all authorities seem to agree
| that 1t may be exerted only on behalf of
| some general public interest, as distin-
| guished from individuals or classes-that
| lie to say to protect the public health, safe
| ty, morals, prevent fraud and oppression
| and promote the general welfare. 1t is
| not to be invoked to protect one class of
| citizens against another class unless such
| interference is for the real protection of
| society in general. AS far reaching and
| flexible as the power has often been held
| to be, 1t is nowhere claimed for 1t that IL
| may override the Constitution and strike
| down q right that has been solemnly and
| expressly guaranteed by the fundamental
| law.
The Legislature has exclusive authority
| to make laws setting IL in motion and regu-
| lating its exercise This body, therefore
/ very properly has wide discretion in de-
] termning what interest of the public re-
quires it and what measures are necessary