The Indianapolis journal., 1903-03-20
Right of the State to Compel Weekly
Payment of Wages Will he
Settled.
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
ATTORNEY GENERAL MILLER WILL
ARGUE THIS MORNING.
Republic Iron and Steel Company
Appellant I'm Case of Vast Impor-
tance-Points at Issue.

Has the State a constitutional right to
compel corporations or other employers to
pay employees weekly? That is the inter-
esting question which the Supreme Court
Is called on to decide in the case of the
Republic Iron and Steel Company against
the State of Indiana, a case which has
been appealed from the Delaware Circuit
Court after the State won its contention
in the lower court.
This morning. before the Supreme Court,
a notable array of legal talent will argue
the points of law. For the Republic Iron
and Steel Company Chambers, Pickens G.
Moores, Ryan & Thompson. Robert s. Da-
wilson and Frank C. Olive will appear. For
the State Attorney General Miller will
make his first oral argument.
The case is one that attracts a vast
amount of interest. Corporations for a
number of years have fought strenuously
the right of the State to compel them to
pay their men by the week instead of ev-
cry two weeks or monthly. The State has
persistently maintained through several
administrations that employees must be paid
weekly. and that they should not be sub
mitted to inconvenience possible danger
of losing their pay by longer waits.
The Republic Iron and Steel Company
has established system OF bi-weekly pay
ments. A laborer named Haverstick work.
ing in the Anderson mills wanted to draw
his money by the week. The company re-
fused to grant the privilege. Attorney
General Taylor brought a civil action
against the company to test the constitu-
al ffxy of ha 0f of oh oh
provides, among other things, for the week.
ly payment of wages. In the first round of
the fight the State was victorious, and then
the company appealed. The time for oral
argument was set for this morning.
WIDE INTEREST IN CASE.
The arguments advanced by the COM
pany's counsel and which the State will at
tempt to refute are keenly interesting to
the legal fraternity, because of the vital
Importance of the decision which the court
will make. Employees of all kinds are
watching the result since many thousands
of working men will be affected directly.
The attorneys for the company will argue
that the act of 1899 is unconstitutional for
the following reasons:
THE act imposes no valid penalties, be-
cause the title of the act mentions none.
Indiana constitutions in the following
respect: 1t deprives large class of citi-
Zens of liberty and property without due
process of law, and abridges their priv
ileges and immunites; it withholds from
citizens of Indiana and the United States
equal protection of the laws, and it i'm
pairs the obligation of contracts, by ex-
empting from its terms employees engaged
merce.
1T grants to certain citizens and classes
Of citizens PRIVILEGES IS and immpnitie;
equally belong to all citizens.
by giving to the department of inspec-
ton the power arbitrarily to exempt such
tion Of the law 1t deprives citizens of their
liberty and property without due process
of law, denies equal protection of the laws
and abridges the privileges and immunities
1T Violates Sections 25 and 2s of the
Bill of Rights in that 1t suffers its taking
effect to depend upon the will and pleas
ure of the department. of inspection
1T violates the Indiana Constitution by
conferring judicial powers on an admins
'The contract between defendant and its
employees for a semi-monthly payment Is 6
waiver of the law"
ANSWERS OF THE STATE.
To these contentious raised in the briei
of the appellant the State replies in de-
tail. The answers are briefly:
1.-THE title is sufficient The fact that
statute imposes a penalty for violation
Of its provisions need not be stated in the
THE act does not violate the federal ol
the state Constitution. The fifth amend
| ment 70 the federal Constitution restrict.
citizen within the meaning of the four
| teenth amendment.
"A corporation cannot complain that al
act is unconstitutional as affects natura
| persons.
| ut is not class legislation. If the defend
| ant is an Indiana corporation il is sub
| ject to reasonable regulation. If 1t is
/ foreign corporation it must submit or leav,
| the State.
'The authority granted to the department
| of inspection to exempt certain employer
under certain conditions was not objection
| able.
'The taking effect of the law does not de
pend on the department of inspection.
1T does not confer judicial functions o.
powers.
1.-The demurrer is good enough for tn
answer.
THE answer is bad. for it rests upon al
| illegal contract, which is void
THE statute is within the police power
| Of the State
NECESSARY FOR POOR MEN.
| In arguing that the statute is within tn
police power the attorney general will maxi
some interesting points. The brief of tn
State on that contention has this to say:
"A wage law like the one under consid
| GRAFTON is prompted by higher motive
1t Is to protect men who have neithe
money nor property and who need none,
for their subsistence from harsh dealing
| with Den who have money to exchang
for labor. Such men are by no means OF
! an equality under the law or in bushes
! engagements with men who have propert
| or financial backing who wish TO borroy
money for the common and ordinary use
OF business.
Surely If usury laws can be sustaine
! as proper exercise of the police powe
| every reason calls for the sustaining an
enforcement of laws which put men wit
| only their labor to part with on an equal
| ity with the men who seek to buy it,
within the recollection OF counsel in tht
! case the entire force on one of the grea
city dailies OF the city OF Indianapolis wer
months behind In their wages, and an ap
! plication for pay from poor fellows wit
families 10 support. brought only a dis
| charge, with the poor consolation that
Judgment in the curtis could not be obtaine
| without money. and that ifs cnllactinr, /