Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-04-12


and when the individual health. safety
and welfare are sacrinced or neglected.
re State must suffer-
that the health Of many men is i'm
paired by labor in quartz mills. If
by taking proof mat others are not
injured, the Statute is to be declared
void or imperative as to them, We
enter a wide field Ct uncertainty and
speculation, and instead of having the
constitutionality of the Act rest upon
solid ground ana a sure foundation,
its enforcement would become subject
to the more or less speculative opin-
ions Of interested parties and Others
and to the conclusions of various
justice courts and juries regarding the
probability of injury to men working
longer or shorter periods in the places
mentioned and witnesses could testify
regarding the consequences to health
! from labor in these employments and
thereby indirectly regarding the ne
| cessity for legislative action and the
validity Of the Statute in each case
as it arose. If exceptions based upon
such proof are to be maze to the en-
| fOrcement of the Act, they might de-
pend not only upon the character Of
the mill and the distinguishing feat
ures of the work of the various men
employed, but upon the age, consti-
tuition, vitality and probable endurance
Of the different employees, the in
gradients used in wOr,1ing the ores
such as quicksilver cyanide or othe.:
chemicals injurious to health, the
the quantity and effect OF dust AMI
fumes, the character Of the ores and
whether they contained lead. arsenic
or other harmful substances from
day to day, or upon other conditions
and uncertainties which would multi
ply litigation, and lead to doubt AMI
difficulty in securing the benefits ia
tented by this legislation.
Although Courts should be careful
not to usr-p the powers delegated
to the law making branch Of the
government, and should not RI .
evidence regarding facts of which IT, ev
are satisfied by judicial knowledge and
! although all reasonable deub,s should
be resolved in favor of the action ci
+ the Legislature and constitutionality
!. of the statute, yet we are not pre-
, pared to say the there is any con
fact essential to support the validity
, of the enactment as being within th-
police power Of the State, or that the
court having proper jurisdiction maS
; not receive proof regarding any con
trolling fact which is in doubt. \
, review of the decisions indicated thai
; the Courts have acted in cases simila
! to the one under consideration, gen
s,.1. 49,
in doubt have accepted the judgmen
of the legislature or received proof.
, Chief Judge Parker, speaking TO
! the Court in People V. Lochner, II
! N. Y. 145, in an opinion filed one day
q after ours in the Boyce case, reviewe,
;. many Of the authorities, pointed GU
:. the wide scope of the police powe
! which the federal Supreme Court ha:
, often held to De vested in the legis
q latures Of the various states notwith
= standing the fourteenth amendment
J cited with approval People v. HavnO
? 149 n Y. 145 (43 N. E. SAL, 81 L. r. A
, 6SS 50 A M St. r. 707) which uphold
!, an act regarding barber shops, an
). found as a matter of judicial knowledg
!. that work in bakeries and confectiC
). ners establishments was unhealth
4 and for that reason sustained the Ne,
!. York Statute restricting the hours @
. labor in those places.
Y Twenty days after the filing of tn
e opinion in re Boyce and before put
4 LEGATION of it had likely reached there
t the Supreme Court of Missouri afte
. a careful consideration Of the author
tiles, the case being on appeal, hel
lob - fot
). hours day in underground mines !
e that State was Constitutional, that tn
!, validity Of the statute could not b
; made dependent upon the opinions c
n experts as to the necessity for sue
4 enactment, and that the testimony {
o. physicians, mining engineer md fore
o. man and of one who had worked thirt
"a four years in the mines, could nc
" be received to prove that such undo
&c ground work was not more inujriou
4 10 health than laboring the same nur
in Der of hours on the surface. Just1t
&C Fox, all the justices concurring, sale
"a Defendant sought to introduce test
or mony Of expert witnesses tending
mr. show that the underground work CO
Il templated by this act Of the Legl
,h lature was not attended with dangt
h TO the health TO ihOse engaged IN II
&c performance OF such work. This tes
=, mony was excluded ~ the Court, an
no in our opinion, correctly SO. tt
:, validity of laws enacted in the exc
be else CT the police power Of the Sta
no cannot he made dependent upon t
,p- views of experts as to tho necessi
&c. of such enactment. If the cOnstitl
Ike ionality of all laws enacted for t
"a promo Ion Of pubic health and safe
ec can be assaulted in this manner. tru
h., and sadly would it be declared tn
ID. our laws rest upon very, weak a,
vi, unstable foundation.
he State v. Cantwell, 17o Mo. 245 -
re- S. w. $50.
or In Powell V. Pennsylvania 127 L.
an CTS Plaintiff in error was convict
oy- and fined 500 for selling packas
DTS of an article of food marked Oleoma