Amador ledger., 1910-01-07
THE EIGHT HOUR LAW
AS EXPLAIND BY COURT
Full Resume of the Supreme Court Decision.

Aiohl hhS OoioNSiao IlOSpSCl VIC give
the full text Of the decision Of the Sup
RENE court in the eight hour cases,
taken up to that tribunal on habeas cor
pus proceedings from that county. The
decision is quite lengthy, but we will
endeavor to give the main points.
There we're three cases taken up to the
court numbered 1899, 1910, and l54i
respectively. In each case Fred ]. Mar
tfI, superintendent OF the Utica Mining
company, had been arrested for violat-
ing ZONE provision Of the eight hour
Jaw as ii appears on tile statues, first for
a general violation OF the law in COM
polling men to work more than eight
hours second for compelling men to
work eight consecutive hours in addition
to the time occupied in going to and and
from work, and third in requiring men
to work over eight hours in a mill.
He applied for release from arrest upon
a writ Of habeas corpus, and in this
shape the case went to the supreme
court. The court takes up each case
separately.
AS practically the first case covers the
main contention, that decision is the
important one, and goes more at length
into the merits OF the case The Sec
ton | of the act reads as follows:
Sec. That the period OF employ
ment for all persons who are employed
or engaged in work in underground
mines in search of minerals, whether
base or precious, or who are engaged in
such underground mines for other pur-
poses, or who are employed or engaged
in other underground workings \
or who are employed in smelters and
others institutions for the reduction or
refining of ores or metals. shall not ex-
coed eight hours within any twenty
four hours, and the hours of employ
ment in such employment or work shall
be consecutive, excluding however any
intermission of time for lunch or
meals.
There is provision or emergency
work and sec., 2, provides for the
punishment of those who violate the act.
The court says: 1t is not questioned
BY the petitioner that the complaint
which furnishes the basis for his arrest
stated violation of the terms of the
act His position is, however, that the
act is void as being in contrayention of
constitutional povisions.
The ground of attack usually advanced
in cases of this character is namely, that
the statute in conflict with the guaran-
tees of the 18th amendment to the con-
stitution of the United States is not here
urged. Indeed, such contention is hard
" open to the petition in view of the
decision in Holden VS. Hardy, 1856 u. S.
800, where the. Supreme court of the
United States decided that a statute of
Utah substantially indentical in its main
features with the one before us did
not deprive persons affected by it of any
right conferred by the federal constitu-
ton. Conceding the binding force of
that decision as an adjudication of all
federal questions involved. the petitioner
here bases his claim to immunity from
prosecution upon certain provisions of
the constitution of this state.
Before proceeding to consideration
of the particular points made in this
connection, it may be we'll to briefly
state the basis of the decision in Holden
VS., Hardy, since in our opinion, the
points there decided 60 far towards
answering the main objections predicated
upon the state constitution. The right
on the part of the state to restrict the
freedom of citizens to make contracts
concerning their callngsIin occupations
was then upheld with respect to the
particular callings covered by the Utah
statute, i. e., mining and working in
smelling and reduction works, upon the
ground that the restriction in question
was proper exercise of the police
power for the preservation of the
public health.
The right of contract, says the court,
is itself subject to certain limitations
which the state may lawfully impose in
the exercise of its powers. While this
power is inherent in all governments,
it has doubtless been greatly expanded
in its application during the last cen
fury, owing to an enormous increase in
the number of occupations which are
dangerous, or so:far detrimental to the
health of employees as to demand special
precautions for their well being and
prOfactiOu or tha cafatU NJ adiocant