State v. Holden
| Decision Date | 11 November 1896 |
| Docket Number | 725 |
| Citation | 14 Utah 96,46 P. 1105 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE v. ALBERT F. HOLDEN |
Appeal from the Third district court, Salt Lake county. Albert F Holden was convicted of violating the act regulating the hours of employment in mines, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Marshall & Royle, Dickson, Ellis & Ellis, and Bennett, Harkness, Howat & Bradley, for appellant.
A. C Bishop, Attorney General, C. S. Varian, O. W. Powers, Chas J. Pence, and J. H. Murphy, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of a violation of section 2 of "An act regulating the hours of employment in underground mines, and in smelters and ore reduction works," as follows:
The case is analogous to the case of the State of Utah v. Albert F. Holden, 14 Utah 71, 46 P. 756, except that the defendant in that case was convicted of a violation of the first section of the above act, in employing a workingman in underground mining more that eight hours per day, and the conviction in this one was for the employment of one William Hooley, in his concentrating mill, for the reduction of ores, more than eight hours per day. The conditions with respect to health of laborers in underground mines doubtless differ from those in which they labor in smelters and other reduction works on the surface. Unquestionably, the atmospheric and other conditions in mines and reduction works differ. Poisonous gases, dust, and impalpable substances arise and float in the air in stamp mills, smelters, and other works in which ores containing metals, combined with arsenic or other poisonous elements or agencies, are treated, reduced, and refined; and there can be no doubt that prolonged effort day after day, subject to such conditions and agencies, will produce morbid, noxious, and often deadly effects in the human system. Some organisms and systems will resist and endure such conditions and effects longer than others. It may be said that labor in such conditions must be performed. Granting this, the period of labor each day should be of a reasonable length. Twelve hours per day would be less injurious than fourteen, ten than twelve, and eight than ten. The legislature has named eight. Such a period was deemed reasonable.
The people of the state, in their constitution, made it mandatory upon the legislature to "pass laws to provide for the health and the safety of the employes in factories, smelters...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cantwell
... ... to prohibit the employment of its citizens upon such terms ... and conditions as to impair their health. Laws similar to the ... one in question have been declared constitutional. People ... v. Lochner, 76 N.Y.S. 396; State v. Holden, 14 ... Utah 96; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366; Peacock ... v. Limburger, 67 S.W. 518; Ex parte Northrup, 41 Ore ... 489; People v. Phyfe, 136 N.Y. 554; People v ... Havnor, 149 N.Y. 204; Commonwealth v. Hamilton Mfg ... Co., 120 Mass. 383. (4) The statute is not ... ...
-
In re Morgan
...Were was to do so, and declare it void, we would usurp the powers intrusted by the constitution to the lawmaking power.' State v. Holden, 14 Utah 95, 46 P. 762. And the remark of Mr. Justice Brown in Holden v. supra, further corroborates it, when he said: 'The supreme court of Utah was of o......
-
Wenham v. State
...or metals should be eight hours a day, except in such cases of emergency. The supreme court of that state sustained the law. State v. Holden, 14 Utah 96, 46 P. 1105; Holden v. Hardy, 14 Utah 71, 46 P. 756. In the of State v. Holden, supra, Holden was convicted of a violation of the law, and......
-
Thompson v. Industrial Commission
...Chapter 72, Laws of Utah 1896; through the State of Utah v. Holden cases, reported in 14 Utah 71, 46 P. 756, 37 L.R.A. 103; 14 Utah 96, 46 P. 1105, 37 L.R.A. 108; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366; 18 S.Ct. 383, 42 L.Ed. 780; through the revision of the Statutes of 1898, Section 1337, Chapter 2......