Iditarod pioneer., 1916-12-09
JUDGE BUNNELL'S DECISION
 WHICH RENDERS INVALID
 ALASKA'S EIGHT HOUR LAW
(Fairbanks News Miner, Oct. 23)

eight ht-hour law passed by the Alaska legls- lature, in which opinion Judge Bunnell sus aims the demurrer of the defendant and holds as void the eight-hour law. This decision is of the greatest importance, not only to the people implicated in the case, but to the whole territory, as 1t IS likely that similar decisions will be rendered by he courts in the other divisions if the matter ever comes up there. After the court had completed reading the decision United States Attorney R. F. Roth saved an exception, in order that he might take the matter to the United States supreme court >n appeal if he saw fit
 After setting forth the charge upon which the defendants appear before the court, and after reading the points urged by the de fendants Judge Bunnell went on:
 Section 8 of the organic act provides hat the enacting clause of all the laws passed by the legislature shell be, Be it enacted by the legislature of the territory of Alaska No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed by its title
 "An investigation of the respective or oanic gets of the territories shows that each has contained a section similar, if not iden tcal, to Section of our organic act, anu that during the early days of the terri torial legislation much difficulty has been experienced not only by the legislators ln selecting apt and appropriate titles for the laws enacted, but also by the courts in passing upon the same, to the end that the
 file and body of the act, as an expression of the legislative will, shall serve its own proper purpose and function without dong violence 10 the plain and positive proVl- sCns of the organic act CT constitution. The courts have always been disrosed to exer- 1ise great lberality where the question of he aprronriateness of tie title of an act has been in question: and it is only when the title so far violates the provisions of the act as to be impossible of sustaining the same that the act has been declared un- constitutional It frequently happens, as in this case that the legislators impelled by the duty incumbent upon them by vlr- tue of their office enact law calculated to insure protection to those engaged in haz- ardous vocations and 1t is with the great est reluctance that the courts knowing the benefits to be gained by such law, are compelled to hold the same invalid because of failure on the part of legislators to fellow the plain provisions of the organic act Especially is this true where the benefits to be obtained are generally recog- nized, and great majority have sought to comply in good faith with the spirit and letter of the law.
 ''The title of Chapter 29, Session Laws, 1913, reads: An act to declare employment in underground mines, applied to metalllf- erous lode mining only, underground work ;ngs opencut workings, open pit workings, smelters reduction works, stPmp mills roller mills, concentrating mills chl0r!nation proc esses, cyanide processes, to be lniurious to health and dangerous to life and llnlb To regulate and limit the hours of employment
 n said occupations; to declare the vClatlon
 hereof misdemeanOr and to provide pen elties for the violation thereof.
 Section l provides that; Employment IA underground mines, underground work ings. open cut. open pit workings, smeters reduction works, stamp mills, roller mills, concentrating mills, chlorInation processes cyanide processes, is hereby declared to be injurious to health and dangerous to life and limb
 Section 2, with reference to the period of employment of workincmen while engaged E the various kinds of work enumerated Tn Section l, specified a new kind of work. 10 wit, employment of worEingmen at coke ovens It is apparent that the title ot the act is not germane to that portion ot the ,ub ect matter of the act relating to the employment of workingmen at coke ovens,' and such subject matter IS therefore mere surplusage. A further examination of Section ? discloses the fact that, although seven other kinds of employment of work
 ngmen are enumerated, to Wit. Tn under ground workings, underground mines, stamp mills, rcller mills, open-cut workings, chlorination processes and cyanide processes, there is an express limitation to the scope of the act by the following words: Pro viding, however, that this act applies to metalliferous lode mining only.
 The court read the act as it would read after eliminating from tEe title and the first and second sections thereof all that be comes surF usage by reason of the exnreaS limitations contained in Section ?, Chap ter 29 and proceeded:
 'It is thus seen that while the title of the act OI 1910 ucSiSIdlcS eACNCll hiliIio OA employment which are also enumerated in Section l, only eight kinds of employment are designated in Section ?, one of which to wit, at coke ovens,' is not mentioned Tn the title The fact that a title is broader than the act is not fatal, but the scope Of the act is necessarily confined to the express limitations set fcrth in the act itself. So this act, by the provision in Section 2, pro viding, however, that this act applies to metalliferous lode mining only is not ca pablo of amendment under the same title 90 as to include all kinds of mining and reduction processes.
 Following this line of investigation, it is found that tie title of the amendatory act enumerates eleven kinds of employment, while Section l would broaden the scope to fifteen, and Section ? extends the num- Der to sixteen by adding underground rlacer mining all under the title of the original act.
 ''The case of Preston vs. Slower, in 97 N w., SIP, is particularly in point. It is
 II o o1J