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

flctlOnS may be prevented by Its pro-
visions. Lead poisoning and miners
consumption are caused by inhaling
fumes from the smelters, or dust in
the deep mines. Any daily exposure
for a materially less time than eight
} hours may result in their contraction
In it's most favorable aspect, the stat
ute is not helpful to these men, except
that shorter hours of labor tend TO
preserve the system, while longer
hours produce exhaustion and it's con-
sequent ill effects. l think the statute
was adopted by me Legislature in con,
formity to the trend of legislation
throughout the country, shortening the
hours of labor in many industrial
pursuits, and not as a health regula-
ton.
The principle upon which the po-
nee power is exercises by the Legis-
lature. is based upon the maxim so
use your own as not to injure others
| the literal translation of which is,
Enjoy your own property in such
: manner as not to injure that of an
ether person" CBroom's Legal Max
inns. p. 364).
Any law which goes beyond that
principle. which undertakes to abolish
rights, the exercise of which does not
involve an infringement Of the rights
CT others, Or to limit the exercise Of
rights beyond what is necessary to
provide for the public welfare and per-
sonal security, cannot be included in
the police power of the government.
- is governmental usurpation and
violates the principles Of abstract JUS
tiCe, as they have been developed I'M
der our republican institutions.
q i'm 70 IN,
: .-e support Of laws for the protection
, CT the public health, and not for the
l protection Of Al individual against
: himself. There can be no more justi-
ticatiOn fer such q law than laws pro-
r hibiting men from working in the ma
f nufacture Of white lead because they
: are apt to contract lead poisoning or
5 to prohibit occupation in certain parts
: Ct iron smelling works, because the
: lives Of men so engaged are material
: " shortened. (Tiedman. Sec. So.
i In the case Of In re Morgan, 26 Colo
426. statute similar to the one now
l. under consideration was held unconsti-
|. tutional. After determining that the
: statute violated the bill Of rights, which
J. guarantees to all persons the natural
1 rights Of acquiring, possessing and
d protecting property, the court pro-
e ceeded in an admirable discussion to
e the consideration of the question whe-
/. Their the law was proper exercise IF
= the police power to protect the pub
Y lie health, as follows: Were the nb-
:, ject of the act to protect the public
e health, and its provisions req sonably
e appropriate to that end. it might be
h sustained for in such a case even the
IS constitutional right Of contract may
l.
1t before us is not of that character In
', selecting a subject for the exercise
r Of the police power, the Legislature
r must keep within it's true scope. The
e reason for the existence of the powe,
n rests upon the theory that one mus,
a. so use his own as not to injure OF
le hers, and so as not to interfere witt,
Sc or injure the public health, safety
r. moral or general welfare. How car
IL one be said injuriously, to affect OF
s. hers or interfere with these great Oh
a jects, by doing an act which confes
sedly visits its consequences on him
8. self alone? And how can an alleged
r. law, that purports to be the result u
IL an exercise of the police power. be
le such in reality. when it has for its
in only object, not the protection of OF
s. hers. or the public health, safety
is morals or general welfare. but the
is welfare Of him whose act is prohib
ct tied, when, if committed. it will in
le jure him who commits it. and hin
n. ONLY In this we mus
re not be understood as limiting the Leg
a. islature where the facts justify appar
ne eth discrimination in passing thu
he health laws affecting only certain
Of classes Indeed. laws having for thei
en- object the protection of small port
H. ons Of community have been upheld
as in Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park
re 81 U. S. $50. when a nuisance. obnox
rs ious probably only to part of a vii
tn lage. was abated; but what we mea'
nd to decide is. that in purely privat
al. lawful business. in which no specia
D. privilege or license has been grantee
Is, by the State. and the carrying on o
ct which is attended by no injury Il
ut the general public, it is beyond tn
Sc power Of the Legislature, under til
III guise Of the police power. to prohibi
tie an adult man who desires to WOrl
ID, thereat. from working more than eigh
is hours day. on the ground that work
If ing longer may, or probably will, in
he jure his own health
VS. Holden v. Hardy. a decision of tn
en- Supreme Court of the United State
IT, the State of Utah similar to the on
ly now under consideration was uphel
lp- AS not being in conflict with the pre-
h. visions of the Fourteenth Amendment
be to the Constitution of the Unite
ay States, is referred to as an authorativ
at ruling in support Of the law.
to The Constitution of the State o
"a Utah, Art. XVI. Sec. 6. declares, an
Id ong other things, THAT the Legisla
lie ture shall pass laws to provide 70
the health and safety of employee
al in factories, smelters and Mines" an
m further provides, in the succeeding
ly sections, that, "The Legislature by AZ
nd propriate legislation shall provide 70
IS the enforcement of the provisions c
ee this Article"
e In Holden " Hardy it is said: 9TH
he Supreme Court of Utah was of opinfo
ed <ho% IN, tho TopiS1afnr