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

actment of health laws as to laborers
in mines etc.: ana then he says that
it is practically admitted to be true,
that this act contravenes the cOnstitu-
tional provision quoted in the state
ment. let US see If, Notwithstanding
this conflict, it can be justified as
valid exercise Of the police power"
Curious admission. If admitted, it must
have been by the counsel in the case
who were endeavoring in their argu-
ments to uphold the enactment of the
Colorado Legislature; and after admit
ting that the enactment contravened
the Constitution, how could counsel in
reason ask the court to uphold such
contravening enactment, under either
the police power or under any other
power of the Legislature? II the enact
ment contravened the Colorado Consti-
tuition it would seem that was an end
of the matter. Saying or assuming that
it did SO violate was a petitio princtpii
it begged the whole question.
Again the Colorado court In Re Nor
gan says: IF, in our Constitution,
there was, as there seems to be in that
of Utah, a specific Affirmative provis-
ion enjoining upon the general assem-
bly, the enactment Of laws to protect
the health Of the class of working
men therein enumerated, it might be
that acts reasonably appropriate to
that end would not be obnoxious 70
that provision Of our Constitution for
bidding class legislation; for it could
hardly be said that a classification
made by the Constitution itself was
arbitrary or unfair. or that it clashed
with another provision OF the same
instrument inhibiting class legisla-
al
made by Constitution be arbitrary
and unfair" Clearly such classified
ton might in reality be arbitrary and
unfair; but it probably would not lie
in the mouths Of justices constituting
a court under such Constitution to
nullify it because Of such arbitrari-
ness and unfairness.
In the paragraph just above quoted
does not the Colorado court that court
so much relied upon by those assailing
the enactment in question in this
court, practically admit that such an
enactment is a reasonably apprOpr!-
ate health regulation? 1t was only the
J health" of the workmen that the
: Utah Constitution commanded it's Leg
: islature to enact laws to protect; IL
: did not say how this health was to be
protected. The Utah Legislature deem
3 ed protection of miners by regulating
j and controlling the hours Of daily la
t Dor reasonably appropriate protec-
= ton; and the Utah Supreme Court
= likewise held it reasonably appropri-
e ate" and valid. 1t may be added here
that the United States Supreme Court
!. also has held such legislation apprC-
t pirate and valid. See mira.
It Now, in essence precisely the same
l. situation existed in Colorado at the
time Of the decision in In Re Morgan
o as Aid in Utah at the time of the do
it cision in State against Holden and al
:? does now in this State. BY universal
Y consent of courts and textwriters nr
+ the law, the Legislature has, withou,
express constitutional grant authoriz
ID ing it, the power to protect the health
e Of the people over whom it has juris
r. diction. Therefore as a question o.
legislative power there is not q parti
10 Gle of difference in essence between
the situation under the Utah Constitu
20 ton and that under the Colorado and
At the Nevada Constitutions. And the
t. question here is purely he of legisla-
IL tive power The expediency, prophet,
o or wisdom of the enactment is not be
T. fore this court. II the Legislature has
y the constitutional power to make the
al enactment, this court has no power IL
annul the enactment; and should il
le under the case supposed do so, il
er could be justly charged with usurpa
OF ton OF power. And courts, the conser
t. waiting governmental branch under tn.
a. constitution, or fundamental principle.
n Of government, should be most carefu
Id not themselves to set the example q
O. usurping power. Let it, however, b,
De said that courts should be equal,
scrupulous and fearless in preventin:
e. others from infractions upon the Con
lg stitution which they are s#orn to sup
ut port, protect and defend.
70 Then. under the direct decision @
H. the Utah Supreme Court at an eight
n. hour law is REASONABLY aDpropriat
In provision to protect the health .
nd those engaged in underground minin
is and those in and about sn.eiting an
to reduction works; and the pregnant aG
To- mission of the Colorado Sunrem
80 Court to the same effect; ard agar
n. the direct affirmance of the same do,
he trine by the Supreme Court of tn
In United States in the following case
no in that court: Holden V Hardy. vo
,el 169, page 500; Orient Insurance Con
II. pany v. Daggs, vol. 172, page 564 S
ra Louis Iron Mountain & Railway
I'll Paul, vol. 173, page 400: Williams
in Fears, vol. 179, page 274; austin :
Sc Tennessee, vol. 179, page $40; an
I'm Knoxville Iron Co., v. HARRISON, VIC
1873, page 81, what of precedent ther
81 is in the decisions of those court
wv. is in favor of the validity of the Law
,rs 1t cannot be said that these deci
on ions of the United States Suprem
at. Court were obiter. They were nece
,ol- sary to the decision of the cases. tt
ho contention was that the Utah enac
~ ment was in violation of the XIV Ar
70 endment to the United States Cons,
~ tuition, as % abridging the privileg,
"a and immunities of citizens of the Ur
da ted States; ca deprivilg persons
~, liberty and property without due pr
- cess Of law; and 60 denying person
,aS within it's Jurisdiction the equal pr
- lection of the laws.
The court held in effect that II