State v. Cantwell

• Decision Date: 01 February 1904
• Citation: 78 S.W. 569,179 Mo. 245
• Parties: STATE v. CANTWELL et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

78 S.W. 569

179 Mo. 245

STATE v. CANTWELL et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 1, 1904.

TITLES OF ACTS — SPECIAL LEGISLATION — HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT IN MINES—POLICE POWER—HEALTH AND SAFETY OF EMPLOYÉS —EXPERT TESTIMONY.

1. Const. art. 4, § 28, providing that an act shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in the title, does not require the title to designate the purpose of the act.

2. Act March 23, 1901 (Laws 1901, p. 211), making it unlawful for persons engaged in mining, or making excavations beneath the surface of the earth, while searching for minerals or other valuable substances, to work their employés at such labor more than eight hours a day, is not special or class legislation because applicable only to those engaged in searching for minerals or other valuable substances beneath the surface of the earth.

3. Such act is a proper exercise of the police power of the Legislature to enact a reasonable regulation to secure the health and safety of the employés.

4. Expert testimony that a certain employment is not attended with danger to the health of those engaged in it is not admissible to prove that a statute enacted in the exercise of the police power to preserve the health and safety of the employés engaged therein is not necessary.

Appeal from Circuit court, Madison county; R. A. Anthony, Judge.

Harry J. Cantwell and others were convicted of a violation of the statute regulating hours of employment in mines, and appeal. Affirmed.

Harry J. Cantwell, E. D. Anthony, and Edward D'Arcy, for appellants. The Attorney General and Bruce Barnett, for the State.

FOX, J.

"The defendants were jointly tried, convicted, and fined twenty-five dollars each, in the circuit court of Madison county, in March, 1903, for working their employés in mines longer than eight hours a day, in violation of the act of March 23, 1901, designated as sections 8793 and 8794 of the statutes, and found on page 211 of the Session Acts of 1901. The prosecution was by information, which charges the offense to have been committed in July, 1902. The defendants admitted that they were in charge of and operating the mine of the Catherine Lead Company (defendant Cantwell being president; Magenau, superintendent; and Edwards, mine captain), and admitted that they had knowledge at the time that their employés were working underground longer than eight hours out of twenty-four, in shafts 100 feet and 150 feet in depth. The defense produced evidence to the effect that the employés worked in excess of eight hours a day under a contract entered into voluntarily by them, and not under force or compulsion from defendants. The state proved by witnesses Frank Graham, William Lawes, George Dellinger, and Monroe Smith that the men worked in the mine, taking out mineral, ten hours a day, at the time charged in the information. The defense questioned the constitutionality of the above-mentioned statute by an objection to the introduction of any evidence and by a motion in arrest. The objection to the introduction of evidence was as follows: By defendants' counsel: `For the purpose of preserving the record, we want to object formally to the introduction of any evidence in this cause, for the reasons: First, that the act upon which this prosecution is based is unconstitutional, in this: that the title does not express the object of the act; that the object of the act, if within the proper exercise of the powers of the legislative body, should be entitled "An act to conserve public health"; that, if such an act cannot be upheld as calculated to conserve public health, then it is unconstitutional and void, as violative of the federal and state Constitutions and the Bill of Rights, in this: that it denies the right to contract; second, that it does not provide for contracts already existing, and may be construed retrospectively in its operation; third, that it denies the right to gains of industry; fourth, that it arbitrarily limits the right to contract; and, fifth, it denies the equal protection of the laws as guarantied by the Bill of Rights; and, sixth, it is obnoxious as a special law, as it is intended to oppress one particular line of industry, and is not equal in its operations.' The defense offered to prove by witnesses N. A. Bliss and G. L. Dines, physicians of experience in practice in mining regions, and by R. D. O. Johnson, an experienced mining engineer, I. J. Pirtle, an experienced mine foreman, and H. L. Baker, who had worked thirty-four years in mines, that underground work in mines is not more injurious to the public health, or to the health of the class of men engaged, than working the same number of hours in the ordinary employments on the surface, and offered to prove by Dr. Dines that underground work in excavating minerals is no more injurious than underground work of any other kind or for any other purpose; and, on cross-examination of the state's witness George Dellinger, the defense offered to show by the witness that under the ordinary rules of employment, in any occupation on the surface, ten hours was required as a day's work; stating that the purpose of the testimony offered was to show that the statute amounts to a discrimination against the mining industry. All evidence along these lines was excluded."

The information filed in this cause, which was duly verified, is as follows: "Thomas Holliday, prosecuting attorney within and for the county of Madison, in the state of Missouri, informs the court that Harry J. Cantwell, William Magenau, and Jasper Edwards on the ____ day of July, 1902, at the said county of Madison, had charge of and operated certain mines, situate in said county of Madison, known as the `Catherine Lead Mines,' and that they were then and there engaged in mining in said mines for minerals and valuable substance, and did then and there have in their employ and under their control, for wages, and to whom wages were paid for their labor, certain hands and employés, to wit, William Lawes, Rufus Skaggs, John Hampton, George Dellinger, Monroe Smith, Bud Vaughn, and others whose names are unknown to your informant, to labor, work, and search in said mines in excavating beneath the surface of the earth for minerals and valuable substance, and did then and there unlawfully work said hands and employés, to wit, William Lawes, Rufus Skaggs, John Hampton, George Dellinger, Monroe Smith, Bud Vaughn, and others whose names are unknown to your informant, in said mines, to mine, search, work, and labor in excavating for minerals and other valuable substance beneath the surface of the earth, at such labor and industry, longer than eight hours in that said day of twenty-four hours, to wit, longer than eight hours in the said ____ day of July, 1902; against the peace and dignity of the state."

The court declared the law as follows:

"(1) You are instructed that you may find one or more of the defendants guilty, or not guilty, accordingly as you may believe the evidence will warrant.

"(2) If you believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants, Harry J. Cantwell, William Magenau, and Jasper Edwards, at the county of Madison and state of Missouri, on any day within one year prior to September 1, 1902, the day on which the information in this cause was filed, had charge of and operated certain mines, known as the `Catherine Lead Mines'; that they were then and there engaged in mining in said mines for minerals and valuable substance, and, as such, did then and there have in their employ and under their control, for wages, and to whom wages were paid for their labor, certain hands and employés, mentioned in the information, or any of them, to work, labor, and search in said mines in excavating beneath the surface for minerals and valuable substance; and that the defendants did then and there work said hands and employés mentioned in the information, or any of them, in said mines, to mine, search, work, and labor in excavating for minerals and other valuable substance beneath the surface of the earth, longer than eight hours in a day of twenty-four hours—then you will find the defendants guilty, and assess against each a fine of not less than twenty-five nor more than five hundred dollars; but, unless you find the above facts from the evidence, you will find the defendants not guilty.

"(3) The court instructs the jury that the defendants are presumed to be innocent, and it devolves upon the state to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and unless the state has established the guilt of the defendants, as charged in the information, to your satisfaction, beyond a reasonable doubt, you should give the defendants the benefit of such doubt, and return a verdict of not guilty. But such a doubt, to authorize an acquittal on that ground alone, should be a substantial doubt of guilt, arising from the evidence in the case, and not a mere possibility of innocence."

The defendants prayed the court to instruct the jury as follows:

"(1) The court instructs the jury that if they find from the evidence that the working of men beneath the surface of the earth, while searching for minerals, coal, or any valuable substance, is not more injurious to health and life than the working of men in other occupations upon the surface of the earth, then the act of the General Assembly of the state of Missouri repealing sections 8793 and 8794 of the Revised Statutes of the state of Missouri of 1899, and enacting two new sections in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 8793 and 8794, approved March 23, 1901 [Laws 1901, p. 211], is unconstitutional and void, and in contravention of the Constitutions of the United States and of the state of Missouri, and the jury are instructed to find the defendants not guilty.

"(2) The court instructs the jury that the act of March 23, 1901, does not operate or apply to persons engaged in working more than eight hours per day in making...