The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1903-07-18
Mr.. BARTINE's L


ing's News appears a rather peculiar
communication from Mr.. Chartz re-
ferring to my recent letter to the Reno
Journal on the subject of the Eight
Hour Law. I use the word peculiar"
because / do not know how else to
designate Mr.. Chsrtz' communication.
II consists partly of somewhat lnrid in
~vec.ive against the law and of ques-
tions to me concerning my views upon
the merits of the law.
Ny letter to the Journal covered just
two points. = / said nothing
whatever concerning the actual merits
of the law, and / can see 20 reason why
I should be challenged to give my
views thereon.
All must concede that whether a law
is good or bad. the question Of its con-
stitutionality should be correctly de-
termined, and, as a rule, such questions
are not considered as finally settled
until they are passed upon by the high-
est tribunals having jurisdiction.
By an overwhelming vote the people
| of this State have declared in favor of
an e%ight-hour law. and one having been
| enacted, it should not be declared un-
constitutional merely because certain
individual citizens may think it un-
wise. Ours is a Government by ma
j%orities, and a majority has a right to
enact laws which a minority regards as
unwise or even vicious-provided it is
within the constitutional powers of the
law making body.
While ! do not feel hat Mr.. Chartz
or anybody else has q right to call for q
public expression of my views upon
the merits OF the law in question, / am
perfectly willing to give such an ex
preston.
Mr.. Bartine then answers Mr..
Chartz' questions. found in latter's COM
munication. as follows:
L. I answer without hesitation that
Il iCknld ~ as HOpos outh - AS6o0
will be to the advantage of thousands
Of workingmen without iniuring any
other classes of labor. As labor is the
foundation of all wealth and all pros
perity. what benefits labor, will in my
judgment, be for the best interests OF
the State as a whole.
2. This is the essence of the consti-
tutional question which l have suggest
ed should be determined by the Su-
preme Court, and nothing would be
gained by Nj. Chartz and me arguing
the question in tine newspapers. But,
as q broad generality, I will say that in
my opinion if the Legislature has the
power to fix the hours of a days labor,
it has the power to prohibit the max
ing of contracts which may defeat the
entire purpose of the law if contracts
for more than eight hours work can be
made, obviously those laboring men
who enter into such contracts would be
given the preference in employment,
and the men who stand firmly upon the
eight-hour proposition would be forced
to the wall. Hence, they would be in
inriously affected and Mr.. Chartz' sup
position does not fit the case.
8. Ihaye not claimed" anytbingwith
reference to the subject matter of this
question. Like its predecessor. it is a
strict legal question, which the Su-
preme Court should pass upon. Per-
s~onally / think the Legislature has the
power to single out particular classes
of labor and enact special laws concern
ing them if these classes stand upon a
peculiar and exceptional footing, which.
/ believe. is true OF the classes covered
by our Eight Hour Law.