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

mate police regulation, unless the en-
actnent was based on a legitimate
classification. Therefore the United
States Supreme Court directly hollis
this to be a legitimate health regula-
ton.
| cannot say that l am so fully and
completely equipped in the doubtful
science Cf medicine as to be able to
say that I know that it is not such a
reasonably appropriate provision. This
is the full extent to which it is nee
essary to go in this case. Then too,
not decision of a court that mentions
the subject. but says that a court can
not set aside an enactment of a Leg
islature unless the enactment is be-
yond doubt in violation of the consti-
tuition under which both the court and
the Legislature act. Can it be said that
under the showing above made there
is not a doubt that the enactment in
question here is beyond all doubt in
violation Of the Constitution of the
State Of Nevada? 1t seems to me that
it cannot be so sad.
Therefore, ! corr7-'a that this en-
actnent is not unc. tUtional as be-
ing a violation CT re health" ele,
ment of the Nevada Bill of Rights.
Now to the "class legislation ele-
ment in the enactment. Counsel n
their arguments in this case have min
gled the class LEGISLATION" objection
implied. thew cay. in the Pill Of Rights
and the class legislation" inhibited
in subsequent parts OF the COnstifu-
ton, to-wit. sections 90 and q Of ar
aicle ". and perhaps if may be per
nissible for me to do the same.
Here it cannot truly be said that
all class legislation is bad. Decisions
by the hundred and by the thousand
may easily be found that hold some
class legislation is constitutional and
valid. Such are too numer to need
citation of instances. The only ques-
ton is, is there or is there not a real
foundation, a foundation in fact in the
nature of things. for the class made.
If there is such foundation to support
Il legislative enactment, then that en-
actment is constitutional and valid:
mt If not then it is unconstitutional
and therefore void. Should legislators
so far forget their duty to God and %
man and SO far disregard the oath Of
office taken by them to support, pro
tect and defend the constitution, the
only instrument that gives them any
power to act at all legislatively, as
to join together in an enactment per
sons Or things on a mere imaginary
something that has no existence in the
natures or situations of those per
sons or those things, and say that
those persons or those things must be
governed by said enactment. then i,
would be class legislation, and. al
least contrary to sections 20 and q
above mentioned; and possibly also tC
the Bill Of Rights in section l of Ar
ticle |. Put of the latter l do not de
sire at this place to discourse. Fol
does it not seem that when provision
SO ample against class legislation
local and special-as that contained il
sections 20 and 81 of Article w O
the Nevada Constitution is made. tina
the inhibitions of the Bill of Right.
in section 1 of Article I were a,met
at other evils? Be that as it may,
conclude that the enactment of th'
Nevada Legislature III question her,
IS not in collation. Of the Nevada Con
stitution as being "class legislation
of the Objectionable kind inhibited il
section 90 or 21; or of the objection
able kind that may possibly be inhi
bited in the "Bill of Rights Of sec
ton l of Article I, if there be therein
any such inhibition.
In SUPPORT of this conclusion may b,
cited the direct decision of the Utal
Supreme Court that workers in under
ground mines and workers in smelter
and reduction works may with SCUM,
reason be made into classes and tn
health of those classes protected b.
the Legislature. To the same effect j
impliedly the decision of the cour
most relied on in argument here, K
wit. the Colorado Supreme Court, in j
Re Morgan. For, l think, have abov
shown that the opinion in the Colo
RADIO case implicitly at least admit
that with constitutional provisio
like that in the Utah Constitution
such legislation might be valid; an
also further shown that in essence tn
additional provision of the Utah Coz
stitution did not at all change tn
situation. True, the Colorado cou.
held such legislation unconstitution;
and void: but it would seem that a
ter the facts stated and after the al
missions made by it, it's conclusion a:
ainst the validity of the enactmer
before it was non sequitur.
In addition, as stated above, | cal
not say that my knowledge of med
cal science i 50 complete that l ca
in conscience say that l know thu
workers in underground mines g
workers in smelters and reductio
works are not engaged in unhealth
employments. The Legislature of NJ
vada at it's session in 1903 implied
said they were such and 1egislate
for the protection of such workers
and l cannot, under the reason of tn
thing and the authority of the Uta
Supreme Court and that of the I'm
ted States Supreme Court, to say notl
ing of the pregnant admission of th
Colorado Supreme Court (may l b
permitted to explain that l mean a
admission that is pregnant with