The weekly Alaska citizen., 1918-03-25


 argument statement of the Supreme Court of the United States in Holden vs. Hardy, 169 U. s. 397, to the effect that in that case the employer of labor was apparently the dnly one liable under the statute. The ma jority opinion of the Utah court con sidered the 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 misde- meanor." The corresponding sec tion of the act considered by the Utah court was identical. with the exception that the word deemed" was inserted before the word "guil- ty." The penal section of our act simply says, Any person, persons, association or corporation, who shall violate or cause to be violated any of the provisions of this act, shall be guilty of misdemeanOr." It will be observed that the words agent, manager or employer are omitted. This is indeed significant and com pels the belief as heretofore indicat- ed that the legislature deliberately intended to exclude the employer, for it not only left out any reference to the employer as such, but said in Section 1 that employment as here m hnn H@ 1,< performance of labor or service" If there could be any doubt about what was intended it appears to be entire ly disposed of by reference to Section 3 of Chapter 4, which provides that Any person, persons, body corpo- rate, general manager, foreman or em- ployer, who shall employ or cause to be employed any person or persons in violation of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a mis- demeanor"
 It will be noticed that the indefinite article instead of the definite arti. cle 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 proper ty is in imminent danger" The lan- suage in chapter is, "the period of employment" and except in cases of emergency where life or property is in imminent danger" Such pe- culiar wording for chapter 55 may have been attended with considerable n ion h,,f . ! IA necessary to proceed with an extend ed discussion of the meaning thereby given the statute.
 Obviously under the law it is in tended that the one performing the labor is liable. If the employer also can be held liable, it is necessary to give the phrase "cause to be vio- lated" in section it's broadest inter- pretation.
 The important question for deter- imitation as raised by the demurrers i5 whether or not the act of the ter .itorial legislature under which this indictment is brought is contrary to and in violation of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. If by it's enforcement it deprives any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, or denies to any person within it's Jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, it must be held to be unconstitutional The question of the validity of the I1yVc nf tot uie1o of congress itself respecting labor | is neither novel nor unique The Su- preme Court has passed upon such questions so many times that it is now unnecessary to enter into a dis cussion of how each specific question has to be determined. It is sufficient to know, for the purpose of ruling on these demurrers, that by their deci- sions the Supreme Court has deter mined:
 First, Labor is property-Slaughter House Cases. S3 U. s. 36.
 Second, "The general right to make contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this in- cludes the right to purchase and sell labor except as controlled by the state in the legitimate exercise of its police power."-Lochner vs. New York, 198 U, s. 45.
 Third, The police power of a state enables it "To prescribe regulations to promote health, peace, morals, education and good order of the peo- pie, and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the state, develop its resources, and add to it's wealth and prosperity" vs. Connol- ly, 113 U. s. 31.
 Fourth, The question of the states police power is not involved in con- tracts of employment between the state as an employer and its em- ployee.-Atkins vs. Kansas, 191 U. s. POT.
 Fifth, Legislative enactments should be recognized and enforced by the courts as embodying the will Of the people, unless they are plainly and palpably beyond all question, in violation of the fundamental law of the Constitution n.'-Atkins vs. Kansas 191 U. S. 223.
 The act in question undertakes in artificially. as have shown, to make