Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-10-10

r. ult N raal and substan- |
tiel t. worklngr en- of ordinary |
git9 H vever, ,ee'ing still in az
core th the Supreme Court of Mis-
orr the Cantwell case we think
b 5ence can net be received or
eon ~of effect the constitutions
a'it he rtatute. If for the purpose
# r~g,lr9 ent, it be conceded that
no enc has been seriously affected in
100 Nv labcring in this particular
RI, ring the past few years, AMI
tia petitioner has followed with
m~ur ty his avocatlon for a period
cnpr than the usual life. this does
net ~ove that months and years Of
'ahor \ this and other quartz mills
ma net disable or greatly injure men
of I'm on physical powers. The evil
results are not always immediate nor
aast'7 asce tanned in advance. Minds
man nnrestly differ as to whether they
viii eTer occur. Under certain condi-
ticn- one, and especially those who
are interested, may earnestly believe
that "a ticular mills and part Of the
labor in them should be immune from
this enactment, but the future NAV
nrCve the wisdom of the legislature
n regard to them as the past has
Gone< concerning underground mines
and institutions generally for the re
duetion of ores.
If exceptions were to be made. baS-
| ed on the Deculiarities of the mill or
| its method of operation, or on the
| chemicals used or on the ingredients
| Of the ore, or on the ability of some
| workmen to maintain their health
/ longer than others, there would be a
| great uncertainty and much litigation
in securing TIE benefits of the Act
and it ccu.d thereby be nullfied to a
/ gree e,tent. The fact that controls
the decision in the Lochner case, the
finding of the majority of the court
of last resort, that the trade of a
baker is not more unhealthy than or
binary occupations, appears to be bas
ed on judicial knowledge aided by
statistics and general information and
not upon testimony. Essentially the
same is true of the conclusion of this
court in this case and in re Boyce, ant
of the opinion of Holden V. Hardy by
the Court in Utah and followed and
approved by the Supreme Court of the
United States, holding that labor in
mines, smelters and institutions fol-
the reduction and refining of ores is
so hazardous and unhealthy as tC
justify the legislature in limiting the
hours of labor in those places. We
held it was matter of common know
ledge that men sickened and died a:
result of labor in underground mines
and quartz mills and by way of eX
, ample referred to the well known fac
that in one of the largest plants il
the State the most of the men die,
in from a few months to two years from
the effects of fiinty dust from quartZit
ores. Recently, and since the sub
mission of this case there casually az
Z peared before this court as spectacle
during the argument of a water sui.
man in the advanced stages @
? miners consumption, sallow, emanc
: ated and with hollo wcough, an i'm
r pressive exhibit of the frequent ei
. feet Of work in underground mines.
. Testimony cannot be received to e:
tablish nor to overthrow these, o
! other matters of judicial cognizance
I If it could be taken to overturn tn
i conclusion that labor in these place
1 is unhealthful, for the same reason
Il COui0 NC dSNOPtCu " lSNCloC Ill
|. finding that work in bakeries is nc
n more unhealthy than in ordinary en-
! pigments. If evidence were to
e considered for the purpose of shown
v that particular mill or the labor pc
l. formed by some of the workmen i
a the reduction of certain ores is nc
g unhealthy and that therefore, !:
t should be excepted from the operate
s OF the Act. testimony should also b
g admissible to prove that the cond
j tons existing in a few particular bal
l. cries in the State of New York mad
them especitlly injurious to the healt
# of the employees therein and that q
4 to them the statute ought to be 81
e forced Notwithstanding it has been d
v clared unconstitutional rs to bakerit
It generally in the State. If, regardle;
e OF the reasons and difficulties indica
e ed here and in the opinion, testimOI
e were receivable to limit the operate
of the statute in exceptional case
s. the evidence would have to be Gle;
e to render the Act uncOnStitutiOn
ID or ineffective as to them, and won
p have to be presented in the court ha
;e ing Jurisdiction of the Offense an
q not on petition for writ of habeas &C
e pus. If questions of fact not concl
r. sively shown by judicial knowleds
Is were to vary or restrict the cOntr
e of the statute in some cases, the Sta
D. and the defendent would be entitlt
to have them submitted to jury
|: the court having jurisdiction of tt
Il. offense. and the proper method Fl
n the correction of errors in that tt
N bunal would be by appeal.
1t We do not find the statute to be
st conflict with the Fourteenth Amen
n ment nor with any provision of tt
er State or Federal constitution, nor
it we deem the fine excessive
Il. We realize the importance of Il
W question involved and that it borde
o. on the line that divides the right
n the individual to work, contract al
ii act as he may please, from the pow
ir of the legislature to restrain or lin
d. him in this regard for his benefit, al
S. that of the community by the enat