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

signed and adapted to the peculiarit-
les attending each class of business
By such laws, different classes of peo-
pie are protected by various acts and
provisions. In this way, various class.
es of business are regulated, and the
people protected, by appropriate laws.
from dangers and evils that bese.
them; safety is secured, health pre-
served, and the happiness and welfare
of humanity promoted. All persons en-
gagged in business that may be at
tended by peculiar injury to health
or otherwise, if not regulated or con-
trolled, should be subject to the same
law; otherwise, the law should re
adapted to the special circumstances.
AN ordinance of the City and Coun.
ty of San Francisco prohibited the
washing and ironing Of clothes in pub
lie laundries and wash houses within
certain prescribed limits Of the city
and county from ten o'clock at night
until six o'clock in the morning of
the following lay; and one Soon Hing
was fined and imprisoned for a viola
ton Of it, and he petitioned for a writ
of habeas corpus, on the ground that
the ordinance was void, because it de-
scriminated between the classes Of
labOrers engaged In the laundry bu-
siness, and those engaged in other
kinds of business; and it descrimina,
ted between laborers beyond the de-
signated limits and those within them:
that it deprived the petitioner of the
right to labor, and as q necessary con-
sequence, of the right to secure pro-
perry; and that the board had no
power to pass it. The writ was denied
by the lower court, and the judgment
was brought before the Supreme Court
Of the United States and affirmed by
that court. Among other things, that
Court said, in its opinion: The spa-
cific regulations for one kind Of bust
ness, which may be necessary for the
protection OF the public, can never be
the just ground of complaint because
like restrictions are not imposed upon
other business of a different kind The
determinations which are open to OBJ
lection are those where persons en-
gagged in the same business are sup
ject to different restrictions, or are
held entitled to different privileges
under the same conditions. 1t is only
then that the determinations can DE
said to impair that equal right which
all can claim in enforcement of the
1903; Barber V. Connolly, 113 U. s.
q.
Judge Cooley says: Whether a Sta
tute is constitutional or not is always
a question Of power; that is, ques-
ton whether the Legislature, in the
particular case, in respect to the sub
ject matter of the Act, the matter in
which its object is to be accomplished,
and the mode of enacting it has kept
within the constitutional limits, and
observed the constitutional limits. In
any case in which this question is
answered in the affirmative, the courts
are not at lberty to inquire into the
proper exercise OF the power. We must
assume that the legislative discretion
has been properly exercised Cooley
Const. Linn. 18th Ed +. 22O.
The supreme Court of Massachu
sets, in the case of Com. " Hamilton
Manfg. Co., held that law declaring
that a woman should not be employ ed
at labor by any person, firm Or corpo.
ration in any manufacturing estab-
lishment more than ten hours in any
one day, except in certain cases, and
in no case more than sixty hours a
week, was constitutional and valid.
The court said: IL does not forbid any
person, firm, or corporation from EN-.
ploying as many persons or as much
labor as such person, firm, or cOrpO-
ration may desire; nor does it forbid
any person to work as many hours a
day or a week as he chooses. 1t mere
ly provides that, in an employment
which the Legislature has evidently
deemed dangerous to some extent to
health, no woman shall be engaged N
labor more than ten hours a day or
sixty hours week. There can be no
doubt that such legislation can be
maintained, either as a health or pO-
lice regulation, il it we're necessary
to resort to either Of these sources
for power. This principle has been
so frequently recognized in this CON-
monwealth that reference to the de
cisions is unnecessary 12O Mass. 1888.
The Section of the Statute of which
the constitutionality is involved in
this case includes all employees and
employers engaged in working under
ground mines. None are omitted who
may be subject to the peculiar con-
ditiOns that attend such mining. And
we are not authorized to hold that the
law 70 question is not calculated and
adapted in any degree to promote the
health and safety of persons working
in mines and smelters. Were We to
do SO, and declare it void, we would
usurp the powers intrusted by the
Constitution to the law making pow
err
In affirming the decision Of the
Supreme Court of Utah, the Supreme
Court of the United States in Holden
v. Hardy made clear and elaborate
statement which is peculiarly applicas
BILE here and of which we reproduce
a part of the most direct paragraphs:
This right Of contract, however, is
itself subject to certain limitations
which the State may lawfully impose
in the exercise of its police powers
lille this power is inherent in all
governments, it has doubtless been
greatly expanded in it's application
during the past century, owing to an
enormous increase in the number Of
occupations which are dangerous, OF
SO far detrimental to the health ri
employees as to demand special pre-
cautions for their well-being and pro
lection, or the safety Of adjacent pro
hnc