Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1904-01-24

and misdemeanOrs" IL that be the con-
tention it will receive attention fur
Their on.
Section Fl provides that In all
cases enumerated in the preceding
section [see section POI and in all Of
her cases where general law can be
made applicable, all laws shall be gen.
eral and of uniform operation through
cut the State.''
Does counsel claim that a health
law could be made general and Ct
uniform operation throughout the
State" that is applicable to whole
some and unwholesome employments
alike, If there are employments whole
some and unwholesome? II so, cases
cited in the briefs oppose the conten-
ton.
Section II of Article Nv is Each
law enacted by the Legislature shall
embrace but one subject. and matter
properly Connected Herewith. which
subject shall be briefly expressed in
the title" ETC.. etc.
The title of this Act is as follows:
"An Act regulating the hours OF en-
ployment in underground mines and
smelters, and ore reduction works,
and providing penalties for violation
thereof
Does this enactment violate this
section as being multifarious in its
title? Counsel, though citing the Sec
ton as violated by the Acts title pay
very slight attention to the point in
their argument. This fact and the sub
ject itself justifies only brief refer
ence to il here. 1t is thought that nei-
Their the title nor the body Of the Act
violates said section.
This brief reference to the sections
of the constitution claimed to be VIC
lated is madeto show that all that were
cited to the court by counsel received
the courts attention. The main con-
tention of counsel will now be consid-
cred: Section l of Article I, called ~
counsel the Pill of Rights" is: "An
men ere, by nature. free and equal,
and have certain inalienable rights,
among which are those Of employment
and defending life and liberty; acquir-
ing. possessing and protecting proper
-. and nursuing and obtaining safety
and happiness
The contention is that tn enact
ment of 1903 violates this section, as
% interfering with Petitioners lib
erty." that is, his liberty to con
, ing property
These are the two precise questions
in this case. And here, too, counse
: have not chosen to discuss each point
separately; but have mingled them to
r gether in a general manner There
| fore the brief discussion here to bs
S made will be somewhat similar.
: One remark, however, will be made
to-wit: that although courts Of grea
e responsibility have, it seems, held tina
I the word liberty in other constitu
e lions similar to ours in said section
i Of Article l, refers to the right t
!. contract or liberty to contract" is i
i after all entirely clear that it does
t 1t would seem that the notion convey
l. ca by the word liberty" might ord
, narily be deemed to be somewhat di1
e ferent from the word contract" an
l. also the right to liberty" and tn
e right to contract" somewhat differ
ent from each other. But be that
q as 1t may: now to the points thu
}. sharply put in issue.
The question presents itself in tw
aspects: "a it's general aspect, tina
= is, in reference to legislative enac
- ments upon the right or liberty of a
e citizens ito contract in reference !.
= their labor" and the right Of all cit
y zens to acquire property" and G
" the rights Of special class or specic
classes OF citizens in these respects.
I, The first or general aspect Of tn
= question does not arise in the matte
% now in hearing, and therefore will nc
= be discussed. But the second aspec
to-wit, the special one of the legisl:
&c tive power to regulate or restrain col
- tracing as to laboring in undergroun
:, mines and about smelters and redu
" ION works, does arise and will
considered
On the specific question of such r
N gulatiOn and restraint as to laborin
- in underground mines and abot
~ smelling and reduction works, but tw
u cases have been cited by c0unse
~ These are the case of State v. Holde
~ Utah a. page II and the case of
Re Morgan Colorado 26, page 415. ar
- these two cases are directly anita oni
tic to each other. True, in addition
these two cases there are in Col
RADIO q, page 20 and page
S: judicial Responses to Legislative E
be quiries to the same effect as was Il
re decision of the Colorado court in
Re Morgan. But these responses we
of not made after argument by couns
id and do not themselves contain az :
.u- ment, but merely assertion. Thereto
IT. the case in In Re Morgan is essen
~ ally as stated above, the only case
,u- point cited by counsel that was precis
he ly antagonistic to the case cited fro
ne Utah.
Before considering these cases let
I'D be remarked that the legislative pc
,n- er to regulate and restrain the hou
of labor in employments other TIL
mt these mentioned in the Nevada St;
a: ute has been before numerous app
10 late courts of the Union, and that t
IS. decisions thereon are not uniforl
to some holding such regulation and
on straint constitutionalando others unce
ial stitutiOnal. Therefore whatever 9
], could be gained from analogy in .
it's cisions in other cases would be divid
lal aid. partly in favor of petitioner a
ro- partly against him; but it is believ
the preponderance in number and r