The Nome daily nugget., 1918-04-06
tcsntlnu.d from Ye.terday3

It Is true that in the Utah cases one of three Justices wrote an able dissenting opinion using as the basis for his argument this statement of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Holden vs Hardy lG9 Y. $. S97:
 Tt may be improper to suggest in this connection that although the prosecution in the case was against the employer of labor who apparently under the statute is the only one liable, {" : A."
 The majority of the opinion of the Utah Court considered this statement as mere dicta.
 Section of the act in the Hardy case provided that Any person, body corporate, agent manager or employ CT, who shall violate any of the pro- visions of section one and two of this act shall be guilty of misdemeanor." The corresponding section :ofe the act considered by the Utah Court was identical with this exception, that the word deemed" was inserted before the word guilty" The penal scc- ton of our act simply says, Any person, persons. associations or cor. poration who shall violate or cluse to be violated any of the provisions of tl.is act, shal be guilty of a mis- delneanor." It will be observed that the words agent. manager or em ployer are omitted. This is indeed significant and compels the belief as heretofore indicated that the Legis- Iature deliberately intended to eX- clude the employer, for it not only left out any reference to the employ CT as such, but said in Section 1 that employment as herein used shall be construed as the performance of labor or service" If there could be any doubt about what was intended, it appears to be entirely disposed of by a reference to Chapter 4 of the Ses- sion Laws of Alaska for 1917 on the subject of regulating the hours of employment in underground coal mines, etc, approved seventeen days prior to the date of the approval of Chapter 55. In Section thereof 1t says: Any person, persons. body corporate, gen. cral manager, foreman or employer, who shall employ or cause to be em- ployed any person or persons in viO- lation of the provisions of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misde- meanor"
 It will be noticed that the indefi- mite article q, instead of the definite article the, is used in the phrase "a period of employment; also that the adverb when is used in the phrase except in cases when life or property is in imsminent danger" The language in Chapter is The period of employ ment,' and @cxcept in cases of emer- gency where life or property is in imminent danger" Such a peculiar wording for Chapter 55 may have been attended with considerable delibera- tion, but do not consider it necessary to proceed with an extended discussion of the meaning thereby given the sta ute.
 Section of Chapter 55 provides that Any person, persons, associa- ton or corporation who shall violate or cause to Dc violated any af tho provisions of this Act, shall be deem ed guilty of misdenieanor." Bear ing in mind that the Legislature says the word employment" shall be con- strued as the performance of labor or services for" another, an examination of the complaint shows that the de- fondant Is charged with having hired and employed one Edward Clausen 70 work for the defendant for more than eight hours for each calendar week day and pursuant to said hiring on January 21. 1918. the said Clausen did work for said defendant for more than eight hours, at winch time neither life nor property was in imminent danger. Obviously, under the law the one per forming the labor or services Is lia- ble In view of the fact that the de- murer can and should be disposed of on other grounds. I do not feel called upon to decide the question whether or not the complaint assuming the act to be constitutional, charged the
 
 | t~AAH<RkEASAEN<< N<<Uv<f]Hu<NHHN
 Relieves CA1AR R H Of<