Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1903-07-15
The EIGHT..HOUR LAW AGAIN.
Mr.. Bartine Analyses Mr.. Charh
Discussion Of It.

Utah decisions have been upheld in
all their length and breadth by the
Supreme Court Of the United States.
As Mr.. Chartz seems to rely mainly
on the Federal Constitution. he surely
ought to be willing to accept the Su-
preme Court Of the United States "a
authority in the Interpretation Of that
instrument. C
In his last contribution to the News,
Mr.. Chartz further beclouds the ques-
ton in its legal aspect by asserting
that the Supreme Court Of the United
States has decided the question many
times-hundreds Of times and In div.
ers ways" With all respect for him,
beg to say that the court named has
done nothing Of the kind. It has decid.
ed many cases involving the general
power of police regulation, holding in
some cases that the power was ex.
ceeded and in others that it was pro
perly exercised. But in my search for
authorities which l admit has been a
rather hasty one, l have found only a
single decision by that court bearing
directly upon an Eight-hour law such
as ours. That is the one to which l
have already referred as upholding the
law. If Mr.. Chartz can cite a case re-
versing that of Holden VS.. Hardy, 1863
U. s., he will score a stronger point
than he can make by mere vague gen.
eralities in ten years of industrious
writing.
Now just word as to the merits of
the law. If Mr. Chartz thinks the law a
bad one, it is his privilege to say so,
even if he did let the opportunity go
by in the last Democratic State Con-
vention; but he should do it in a man
ner that is courteous and fair to OF
hers who are probably quite as intelli-
gent and quite as honest as himself
1t may be, as he claims, that the law
is bad one, but it certainly has not
brought ruin or even serious injury
upon the State yet, and l much doubt
if he had such a gift of foresight as
to justify him in asserting with dog
matte assurance that it viii! ever do
so if it is upheld by the Supreme
Court
The Buffers and Como cases to
which he refers, prove nothing
either way. According to his own stat
ment the trouble at the Buffers plant
has been settled without running any,
body and according to the current
newspaper reports the Como dispute
has been adjusted by the management
acceding to the demands of the miners
for 81 a day instead of $3.50, which
they were formerly receiving How
ever all this may be, one must use a
miscroscope to discover the i'll effects
upon which Mr.. Chartz expatiates with
so much outraged indignation.
Finally, referringto Mr. Chartz state
ment that he is willing to have the
matter taken into the Supreme Court,
let me say that if that is the way he
feels there was no reason for his letter
propounding to me sundry questions
concerning the merits of the law.
made no suggestion that he should
take it to higher court. Such a
course on his part would have been alb
surd. He had a judgement his way,
and was entirely satisfied with it. My
intimation was that those who favored
the law and who had direct interest
in having it upheld, should seeto it
that in some proper way the question
was presented to the Supreme Court
1 still think so. and if Mr.. Chartz does
not object, l see no reason for any
newspaper controversy between us.
The public probably does not care a
rap what either of us thinks concern
ing the merits of the law, while the
average layman will hardly undertake
to decide the question of its constit
utionalty. l do not myself. OF course
l have my opinion just as Mr.. Chart2
mas his, DuL l July TcCOSnlZ0 me IdCt
that the question must be decided by
the Courts, and when the highest
court having Jurisdiction has passed
upon it, shall accept the judgement
as fair and honest exposition of the
law.
Signed:
H. F. BARTINE,
Carson CITY Nevada