The Lake County times. [volume] (Hammond, Ind.) 1906-1933, 1911-03-18
ing apparatus.

|
Wire or iron strengthening ma
chinery
| Punch.
''Shearers
| Grinding or mixing mills.
| calendar rolls In rubber factories.
Laundry machinery
| Corrugated rolls used in roofing and
washboard factories"
| Section six provides penalties against
any person who employees or suffers
or permits any child to be employed in
violation of this act.
| we recommend that or before April
| 1, 1911, without waiting for the taking
effect of this act. you discharge any
child in your employ who In within
any of. the prohibited ages. and that
| you post notices in large type showing
how old a person must be to be en-
ployed by you.
! The legal department. of the Indiana
Manufacturers Bureau believes the
weekly wage law enacted by the last
Legislature Will be held unconstitu
tional when the supreme court has an
| opportunity to do A bulletin or
this subject also has been sent out. 1t
says;
The first section of this act limits
| its operation to employers engaged in
mining. quarrying, manufacturing of
iron, steel. lumber, slaves. heading.
barrels. bricks. tile. machinery, agri-
cultural and mechanical implements or
| any article of merchandise.
1T requires the employer II the
| wages be demanded. to pay each en-
ploye at least once every week, the
amount due each employee for labor and
requires the payment to be in lawful
| money Of the United States. And any
! contract to the contrary shafl/be void.
This section attempts to make void
any agreement between an employer
| and his employee under which the en-
ployer Is to pay wages less frequently
| than once a week and attempts to
make void any agreement between the
employer and employee which attempts
to make the employees wages payable
in anything other than lawful nIunr,
| OF the United States.
/ I'm the case of The Republic etc Co
VS. the State. 1s0f Indiana 37s the
statute of 1899 (session laws Of 1898.
page 1897 requiring the weekly pay
ment of wages ard prohibiting con-
| tracts for the less frequent payment,
| was held unconstitutional because vio-
lative of Article 1, Sec. of the Indiana
| constitution-the Bill Of Rights-and
! because violative of the fourteenth
amendment of the federal constitution,
| which constitutional provisions deny
to the state the power to deprive a
person of life. liberty or property with
out due process of law.
| "In that case it was held that la Dor
is property and the taking of the right
to exchange 1t for other property is
the taking of property. 1t was also
held in that case that it is for the
courts to determine what is and what
is not a proper and valid legislat tive
texercise OF the police power of the
state.
1T was also held in that case that
the statute took from the contracting
parties whether in the shop, in the
store or on the farm, all power to con
tract for Iabors-. except on terms of
weekly paym ent of wages in cash
and the curt held the taking of such
power to contract, to be an unreason-
able and therefore Unconstitutional re :
striction.'
The act OF 1911 blouse bill 14T)
section one, although narrower in the
number of employers to which it re-
lates VIII probably be held unconstitu-
tional on the authority of this case be-
cause there is nothing inherent in the
several classes OF employment the act
mention which makes the act less rea-
sonable than was the act of 1899
Section two prohibits the use of any
check or other paper which is not com
lmercial paper payable at a fixed time
lin any bank in this state. at its full
face value in lawful money of the Unit
ed States with 8 percent interest or
/, by any bank check or currency issued
by athority of the United states gov
eminent in payment of wages and
annexes penalty.
This section is believed to permit
the issuance of a check which is com
mercial paper and which bears eight
percent interest, II payable at a fixed
date in the future at bank in this
state, or II payable on presentation
without interest. il payable in lawful
money.
III an employee should make a con-
tract with his employer by which he
should agree to receive in payment for
his work a certain part of the finish
ed product the transfer to him OF
certain real personal property
which is described and mentioned N
the contract, 1t is probable that. this
section would be held void in so far
ms 1t attempts to prohibit the making
of such a contract.
&c