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

RNlNo APPEAL, CARSON CITY, NEV
Court lad no different and substantial
reason for deciding contrarily to the
Supreme Court of the United States.
When, as held by the highest court
in the land the power of the Legisla-
ture as applied to q similar statute in
Utah cannot be stayed by the Four
teenth Amendment, We must conclude
that it is not nullified by the State
Constitution, an instrument less pOten-
tial and not broader in its revelRnt
guarantees.
Notwithstanding the attempt Of the
Supreme Court Of Colorado to discre
dit and over-rule the doctrines annOun-
ced by the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States in Holden v. Hardy, the lat
ter tribunal mas continued to affirm
those principles and in labor decisions
has stated regarding the case:
Orient Insurance Company v. Daggs,
172 U. S., 563: 1T is suflicient to say
that there are certain immitable prio.
ciples of justice which inhere In the
very idea of free government, which
no member of the Union may disre-
gard, as that no man shall be con-
demned in his person or property with
out due notice and an opportunity Of
being heard in his defence. These prin.
ciples were extended to the right to
acquire property and to enter into con-
tracts with respect to property, but
it was said, this right Ct contract,
however, is itself subject to certain
limitations which the State may law
fully impose in the exercise Of its DO
lice duties
THE legislation sustained was An
Act Of the State OF Utah making the
employment Of working men in all
underground mines and workings and
in smelters and all other institutions
for the reduction and refining OF ores
or metals eight hours per day, except
in cases OF emergency, where life OF
property shall be in imminent danger.
The violation of the Statute was made
a misdemeanor. 1t was undoubtedly q
limitation on the right of. contract
that OF the employer and that of the
employed-enforced by a criminal pro-
secution and penalty on the former
and on his agents and managers. 1t
was held valid exercise Of the po-
lice powers of the State. Citing Hol-
den v. Hardy.
Williamsv Fears, 179 U. s. 274: And
so as to the right to contract. The lib.
erty, Of which the deprivation without
due process Of law is forbid Pen, means
not only the right of the citizen to be
free from the mere physical restraint
Of his person, as by Incarceration, bu.
, the term is deemed to embrace the
| right Of the citizen to be free in the
enjoyment of all his faculties; to be
free to use them in all lawful ways
to live and work where he will; t.
, earn his livelihood by any Lawful
b. calling;to pursue any livelihood Of
avocation, and for that purpose to en-
} ter into all contracts which may b.
, proper necessary and essential to nj
2 carrying out successful conclusion
:, the purposes above mentioned; al
t though it may be conceded that thi
D right to contract in relation to per
f sons or property or to do bushes
!. within the jurisdiction OF the Stat
r may be regulated and sometimes pre-
}, hibited when the contracts or busincs
l. conflict with the policy Of the Stat
= as contained in its statutes" Allgeye
8 Holden " Hardy, 1863 u. 8. 366.
J. sustaining Statute of that State PR
5, hibiting the importation and sale {
Q cigarettes:
d Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 1872, the polio
e power cannot be put forward as a
e excuse for oppressive and unjust lie,
j. islation, it may be lawfully resorte
a. to for the purpose of preserving tn
Nd r.
u the abatement of public nuisance
u and large discretion is necessar
e vested in the Legislature to determiu
II not only what the interests of the pu
H. lie require, but what means are ne
of essary for the protection of such Il
te terests' Thus while in Railroad Cor
id pany v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, it W.
a. held that a Statute of Missouri, pr
re hibiting the driving or bringing
a any Texas. Mexican or Indian Gait
OF into the State, was in conflict wit
ry the interstate commerce clause of IL
)e Constitution, it was subsequently he
N t''at the Introduction Of diseased CO
er tie might be prohibited altogether,
es subjected to such regulations as Il
be legislature chose to impose, Railw;
is V. Haber, 1863 U. S. SIS
N Knoxville Iroa Company V Harbi
re son, 1873 U. S. q: in Holden V. Hare
OF 1G9 y. s. 366, the validity Of an &
ne Of tie State Of Utah. regulating Il
~, employment of wCrkiagmen in unde
At ground mines and fixing the period
ed employment at eight hours per ds
was in question. There. as here, it W
es contended that the legislation depri
be ed the employees and employees CT t
To- right to make contracts in a law
he way and for lawful purposes; that
Iii was class legislation. and not ecu
I'll or uniform in its provisions; that
st deprived the parties of the equal pl
is tecton of the laws; abridged the p
es vileges and immunities Of the defer
ie- ant as a citizen Of the United Stat.
ib- and deprived him of his property a
or liberty without due process Of la
lal Rut it was held after full review
IN the DreyiOus cases that the art