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

ADA, SUNDAY MORNING JANUARY
power, could, by limiting the hours
II labor provide for the protection Of
the health Ct the men employed In
mines and smelters. II
the Statute had been Objectionable as
class legislation that court would have
held it to be a denial of the equal
protection of the laws under the Four
teenth Amendment of the Federal Con-
stitution. OF necessity many laws
must refer to certain classes. such as
those governing towns. cities, various
of which the saloon busl-
ness has been cited as an instance.
quarantine laws to prevent the spread
of different diseases peculiar to ami
mails and people and different localft-
les, safety devices, and generally a
health regulation must be limited as
a matter Of fact. il not in direct statu-
tory terms. to that class which Will
be effected. for no others could re-
ceive protection. 1t is necessary that
the law affect all persons alike in the
same class and under similar cOndt-
ttons. These requirements are met by
the Statute for it CONTROLS all alike,
and extends to every man who engag-
es in underground mining, or in the
smelling and milling Of ores and be-
comes subject to the dangers incident
to those occupations. In sustaining q
Statute requiring the closing of sa-
looms between twelve at night and six
O'Clock in the morning. this court said:
THE act is not local or special, IN
the sense of the constitutional restrio-
ton upon this subject It applies to
all saloons and gaming houses through
out the State which come within the
class mentioned in the act. and as to
such classes and places Of business it
is of uniform operation throughout
the State" Ex-Parte Livingstone, 20
New. 2s9.
In Wenham v. State. 81 N. w. 421,
the Supreme Court of Nebraska held
that an act prohibiting females from
labcring more than ten hours per day
or sixty hours per week in manufac-
turing and certain other establish
ments. was within the police power
of the State and not Objectionable as
class legislation. and it is said in the
opinion:
ct would seem at first blush as
though a law having the enect to in
terfere with the business of the one,
or shorten the nCurs Of labor Of the
other, would be repugnant to these
constitutional provisions. 1t must be
conceded, however, that every proper
ty holder is secured in his title there
to, ard holds it under the implied rule
and understanding that its use may be
so regarded and restricted that it sha!
not be injurious to the equal enjoy
ment of others having the equal right
to the enjoyment Of their property, o.
to the rights OF the community in
which he lives. All property in this
State is held subject to rules regulat
, ing the common good and the genera
welfare Of our people. This is the price
| Of our advanced civilization. and o
the protection afforded by law to tn,
} right Of ownership, and the use an,
: enjoyment of the property itself
} Rights Of property, like other socia
, and conventional rights. are subjec
: to reasonable limitations in their en-
) toyment, and to such reasonable r.
= straints and regulations by Law as tn
r Legislature. under governing and COZ
/; trolling power vested in them by tn
Constitution, may think expedient."
J, To the same effect and UNFOLDING
: similar Statute is State v. Buchanan
t ~ P. SO. Washington case.
1t may be assumed that at the tim
!, Of the adoption of our State Constit,
a ton, underground mining had nc
!. progressed to such extent that tn
> dangers to health incident were so al
4 parent and well understood as TO-DAY
o and consequently that no provisio
do ;c1.
!, ton as mat before us, and no conside
y alton given the subject. Time, and tn
q light of experience. and the progress
= of the age, have shown the desirabilit
:. of various enactments for the prote
!. ton Of the happiness and good of tn
=. people, regarding which legislator
"a and statesmen were formerly unmin
:, full. AS new conditions and necess
n ties arise in the affairs of men. the la
Ia must advance to meet them.
h For the reasons indicated, we CO
"a clude that it was within the powt
IA and discretion of the Legislature
T. enact the Statute for the protection
" the health and prolongation of tt
:, lives of the workingmen affected. ar
" the resulting welfare of the State
The petitioner is remanded to Gu
- tody.
~ Talbot, J.
ct -
IL The question for determination i
r. Does the eight-hour enactment of Il
OF last session of the Nevada Legislatu
Y, violate the Nevada constitution"
as True, it is claimed in the brief
" counsel for petitioner that the sa
ne enactment violates also the Constit
III ton Of the United States in its 70,