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

Legislature to regulate the hours of
labor in mines and smelters but only
to provide for e health and safety IT
employees therein and that this law
in that State can be sustained only as
health regulation, such as are within
the general police powers regardless
of the Constitutional command, for
otherwise, it is not authorized any
more there than here. TIE extent of
the command is for the Legislature to
provide for the health of these en-
pIoyees. Every Legislature is author
lied to provide for the health of the
people where endangered, and for
their welfare in other ways. The pow
er is as inherent here as it is complete
there, and if the curtailment to eight
Of the hours of labor in the mines and
shelters in Utah promotes the health
of the employees, ergo, it does the
same here Since the Constitution IT
Utah congers no power that is not pos
sessed by our Legislature, and the
conditions in mines and shelters may
not be CONSIDERED materially different
there to what they are here, it Is pre-
sumed tina. when our Legislature ad-
opted this Statute it adopted the con-
struction which had been placed upon
it at the time of it's adoption by the
Supreme Court Of that State and Uni
ted States. 1t was said in State "
Kobey, = 4.ey., 800, that it is well set
tied that when a Statute has received
judicial construction and is after
wards adopted by another state, The
construction as well as the terms If
the Statute will be deemed adopted.
To the same effect are: Williams Y.
Glasgow, 1 New. 533 and McLane e.
Abrams, 2 New, 1873, and in IouiI !.
Wise, 10 New, 254, it was held that tbs
re-enactment of the Statute, after an
authoritative construction by the courts,
and in that case by the United States
L.strict Court, was a legislative adOp-
ton Of the courts construction.
The questions involved here have
been carefully considered and ably dis
cussed in number Of decisions from
which we quo-e. State v. Holden,
Supra:
IF the power r. pass the law is con-
coded, the Court caunot set it aside be-
cause it may deem its enactment I'M
necessary or injudiciCus, or because
the court may think that experience
has proven it so, or because the Court
may think itself more sagacious than
the Legislature, and can therefore see
more clearly that the law will retari
rather than promote progress and
prosperity, and will be a detriment
to the common good when actually ap-
piled to human affairs and the con-
ditiOns Of the future.
This brings us to the question: Is
the first section of the Statute limit.
ing the period o. employment of labor
ing men in underground mines to eight
, hours per day, except in cases of en-
Urgency, where life or property is IN
imminent danger. calculated to pro-
tect the health of such laboring men
The effort necessary to successful
!. mining, if performed upon the surface
Of the earth, in pure air and in the
sunlight, prolonged beyond eight hours
might not be injurious, nor effect the
health Of able Bodied men. When SO
extended beneath the surface. in at
mosphere laden with gas, and some
times with smoke, away from the sun
light, it might injuriously effect the
health of such persons. 1t is neces-
sary to use artificial means to supply
pure air to men laboring any consid-
cradle distance from the surface. That
icing so, it is reasonable to assume
that the air introduced, when mixed
with the impure air beneath the sur
face is not as healthful as the free air
upon the surface. The fact must be
conceded that the breathing of pure
air is wholesome and that the breath
ing of impure air is unwhOlsome. We
cannot say that this law, limiting the
period of labor in underground mines
to eight hours each day, is not caicu-
lated to promote health that it is not
adapted to the protection of the health
of the class of men who work in I'm.
derground mines. While the prOvis-
ion Of the Constitution under consider
alton makes it the duty of the Legis-
lature to enact laws to protect the
health and to secure the safety of men
working in underground mines, and in
factories and smelters, it does not pro-
hibit the Legislature from enacting
other laws protecting such classes, to
promote the general welfare. The au-
thority of the General Government is
ascertained from the powers delegaI-
ed, while those of the State Govern
ment from those not prohibited. This
leaves the State Legislature in the
possession of all the law making pow
er not prohibited to it by the Con-
stitutiOn of the United States, or the
laws made in Pursuance Of it, or by
the State Constitution. The enact
The enactment of others is left to the
discretion of the legislature as the
public welfare may demand. The
fourteenth amendment Of the Federal
Constitution fOrbids the denial to any
, class of persons the equal protection
, Of the laws by any State; and We have
no doubt that class legislation is for.
hidden. But some persuits are attend
: ed with peculiar hazard and perilS the
, injurious consequences from which
, may be largely prevented by precaut
: ionary means, and laws may be passed
t calculated to protect the classes OF
, people engaged in such pursuits. il
: is not necessary to extend the pro
: lection to persons engaged in other
. pursuits not attended with similar
r dangers To them the law would be
. inappropriate and idle SO, If under
: ground mining is attended with dan
f gers peculiar to it, laws adapted to
. the protection Of such miners from
, such dangers should be confined t.