The sun., 1910-06-28

semi-monthly and In cash The court holds
that while the statute is 10 some extent q re-
straint upon the freedom Of the corporation
to contract with its employees. II h a valid
exercise hy the legislature Of the reserved
power contained IN the state Constitution
% amend corporate charters The cOurt
holds that although the act purports 10 an.
ply 10 persons A. well A. corporations oper-
ating steam surface railroad. IT, invalidity
a. TO persons. II so adjudged would not
ahect its COnstitutionality A. 10 corporations
the provisions being readily separable al
though contained IN the same section. u h
also held that equal proteCtion Of the law
h not denied ~ long a. the classification has
basis In reason and all corporations of the
same class are treated alike
The question went to the court in an equity
action brought By the New York Central
and Hudson River Railroad Company against
the State Labor Commissioner 10 enjOin
him nom instituting actions against the
railroad company 70 recover penalties for
violating the provisions Of the law requir-
ing semi-mOnthly payments 10 employees
and in cash. Sections TO- n and y Of the
labor law are involved in the case. section
10 requires that every manufacturing
AAAAAAAMt NAAAA ms NAHAAAANAAFs AalhNNAa
street railway. canal. steamboat. telegraph.
express and Ice aud every water company
not municipal, and every contracting hrm
engaged In Stats or municipal work, shall
pay employees in cash section u provides
that every corporation or Joint stock aasO-
citation, or person carrying on such business
by lease, shall pay employees weekly. but
persons or corporations operating steam
surface railroads must pay semi-monthly.
Section y provides q penalty Of $50 for each
failure TO observe the statute. to he recoy-
cred in a civil action by the State Commis-
siOner Of Labor
The railroad cOmpany's complaint alleged
that 20 far as the statute purpOrted to sub
jet II to penalties for failure 10 obey the
provisions to pay employees semi-monthly
and In cash It was violating the rights ss-
cured by the Constitution Of the United
States and Of the State Of New York The
defence was that the provisions of the labor
hw assailed are constitutional and the de-
fen,e was sustained by the Spec ial Term %
the supreme Court and by the Appellate
Division although in the latter body by a
divided court The Court Of Appsals. in an
opinion written by Judge willard Bartlett
and concurred in by Chief Judge Cullen and
Judges Gray. Werner. HiscOCk and Chase
unanimously afirms the lower courts
Judge Bartlett holds that where railroad
corporations are comma nded 20 pay tho
wages Of their employees az fixed periods nd
are made liable to criminal punishment for
failure 70 do 20 the implication i- tolerably
clear that they may not enter on contracts
az yarianre with the legislative command.
thus the provision oi the Law under dis
cus-on must he treated a. . restraint upon
the freedom Of any corporation 10 make
contract to pay wages otherwise than
directed II this were not the case there
would hs no serious constitutional uues-
ton presented nv the legislation. u vas
conceded that u would cost The railroad
company $500 month ruore 10 pay semi
monthly than monthly
The court said that me "onsiifutionaiity
Of the statute had been dis ussed by coun-
sci IN iNo aspe'is as an eNerris" n the
police power oi The Legislature and a- ever
else oi the reserved mower 10 amend The
charters ot corporations IN me view Judge
Bartlett took he di~'usses'ihe question only
from the latter HHpe 'n ms point ludge
Bartlett writes
In s1erclsing the rsssr,cd mower 10 arrerd
corporate charters toe Legislature may not de-
priye q corporation oi property already acquired
or The proceeds Of lawful contracts previously
made. or destroy or Substantially impair me pur
poses Of me grant or rights "h'ch are vested m
ihe Corporation ihereunaef oa' " laal maSr any
aileiauon o' Ainene"isn o. onaIg, Nhi'n
NUl u0' uo'.AI .,
, 80 ,,.,.,,.,' -. 49,. "..... ''. ~
-. -. -, ,s,.., - = ,,,s,,. .,.,,'
In ihe case ot corporations such a. rail
road companies, winch are clothed 10 some
extent with a public trust and are under
an ohliga'ion ~ dls'harge duties winch
Hhe'i the community A. large 'he Legis-
lAiure NAV make amendments IN the nT'
theran"e oi the public interests to' me
oenehi oi th"lT employees even ihoHgh -n'h
amendments Operate as limitations upon
the eNer'lse OF me r'Ehi 70 contract Iha'
h substantially the doctrine enun"iaied
m me case ~ me - LOUIS. iron MOUNTAIN
and southern hahNay Ns FauI 'l7S !. \.
io'. where ihe supreme 'ouH OF the
nited states was 'alled uron 70 pass on
the constitutional validity OF an act oi 'he
Arkansas Legiaia'ure which required rail-
roads whenever they discharged an en-
ployee 10 pay him ms unpaid wages then
earned a. the contract rate without ahaie-
ment or deduction on the day oi his dis
charge Ih" state court upheld this legis-
lation - a valid eNeTcise oi the power TO
amend corporate charters reserved 10 the
Legislature IN the state Constitution. Il
vas cOniended In the supreme court n The
Tinted states ~ 10 railroad corporations
organized prior 10 ~ enactment that V was
void because OF violation Of the Fourteenth
Amendment The court. however. deClIned
20 sustain this view. but affirmed the ludg
ment Of the supreme Court ot Arkansas,