Court Opinion

ID: 9853637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:51:27.142484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:56.818165
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
It is my opinion that the statute runs counter to the provisions of our state constitution, Article I,' sec. 1 of which provides:
All men have the inherent and inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties; to acquire, possess and protect property; .
Our Court addressed this provision in the case of Golding v. Schubach Optical Co.1 wherein it was said:
The Constitution declares in article 1, § 1, men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights among which are the pursuing and obtaining of happiness, and safety, and property. These rights are invaded when one ‘is not at liberty to contract with others respecting the use to which he may subject his property [or use to employ his time or talents], or the manner in which he may enjoy it. The legislature may prescribe the form in which contracts shall be executed to be valid or binding, but it cannot limit the rights of parties, to incorporate into their contracts, otherwise valid, such terms as may be mutually satisfactory to them.’ . . . The right of one to sell his time and his talents is the same, and as inalienable as the right of the owner of any other property to contract respecting the use, sale, or enjoyment thereof. This right of contract, of course, is subject to such reasonable police regulations as may be enacted to promote the public good. In determining the effect of a statute which purports to change or limit the right of contract for such purposes, the rules require that such changes or limitations must be expressly declared or reasonably implied from the language used.
I can see no police regulation in the present legislation. It takes on more of the nature of a political ploy than it does of a regulation of health, safety, or morals.
In California the legislature enacted a law which provided that all liens of materi-almen and laborers shall be payable in .money. In the case of Stimson Mill Co. v. *62Braun2 the contractor had agreed with the owner to take certain unused material in part payment of his contract. On trial the court held that the contract violated the statute. The Supreme Court of California reversed the trial court and said:
. The provision in the constitution respecting mechanics’ liens (article 20, § 15) is subordinate to the declaration of rights in the same instrument, which declares (article 1, § 1) that all men have the inalienable right of ‘acquiring, possessing and protecting property,’ and in section 13, that no person shall be deprived of property ‘without due process of law.’ The right of property antedates all constitutions, and the individual’s protection in the enjoyment of this right is one of the chief objects of society. He has the right to enjoy his property and improve the same according to his own desires, in any way consistent with the rights of others, subject only to the just demands of the state. This right is invaded if he is not at liberty to contract with others respecting the use to which he may subject his property, or the manner in which he may enjoy it. The legislature may prescribe the form in which contracts shall be executed in order that they may be valid or binding, but it cannot limit the right of parties to incorporate into their contracts respecting property, otherwise valid, such terms as may be mutually satisfactory to them.3
• Not only should a person be entitled to contract with whom he or she pleases, but also the person should be the sole judge of whether or not an employee is a satisfactory one. No two people have identical abilities in any given field of endeavor, and the employer should be able to pay to each one such remuneration as they may mutually agree upon.
The statute involved in the instant matter would permit the employer to pay different wages to two men engaged in the same work and would also permit different wages to be paid to two women doing the same work, but does not permit different wages if the sexes are different. That does not make such sense to me.
What type of discipline could exist in the Beehive organization if an unwanted employee is kept on the payroll by the authority of the Industrial Commission and backed up by order of the courts? This is a sure way to destroy a private enterprise and should not be condoned by this Court.
In our system of free enterprise, competition is such that any private business organization must seek out the best and most efficient employees if it is to survive and prosper. If a prospective employee can fit into an organization and do a better job than another employee, then that prospect will certainly be hired; and it would not matter whether he or she was black or white, male or female, Jew or Gentile, Catholic or Protestant.
The legislature would do well to permit people to run their own business enterprises without too much interference and allow all men the right to acquire property lawfully and to enter into contracts freely with all whom they may find agreeable.
The case of Kopp v. Salt Lake City4 was brought under the statute here involved. It was not necessary to decide the constitutionality of the statute then because we held that there was no discrimination involved in that case; and we do not hold a statute to be unconstitutional if the matter can otherwise be determined.
I would reverse the judgment of the lower court and award costs to the appellant.
CROCKETT, J., concurs in the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of EL-LETT, C. J., insofar as it is consistent with his dissent below.

. 93 Utah 32, 70 P.2d 871 (1937).

. 136 Cal. 122, 68 P. 481 (1902).

. See Snell v. Bradbury, 139 Cal. 379, 73 P. 150 (1903); see also Chavez v. Sargent, 52 Cal.2d 162, 339 P.2d 801, 837 (1959).

.29 Utah 2d 170, 506 P.2d 809 (1973).