Whitebreast Fuel Co. v. People

• Decision Date: 24 October 1898
• Citation: 51 N.E. 853,175 Ill. 51
• Parties: WHITEBREAST FUEL CO. v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

175 Ill. 51

51 N.E. 853

WHITEBREAST FUEL CO.

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 24, 1898.

Appeal from circuit court, Fulton county; John A. Gray, Judge.

The Whitebreast Fuel Company was convicted of not paying for all coal mined by an employé, and it appeals. Reversed.Wm. McNett and G. L. Miller, for appellant.

B. M. Chiperfield, State's Atty., for the People.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

Complaint was made, under oath, before a justice of the peace of Fulton county, charging appellant with a violation of section 1 of an act entitled ‘An act to providefor the payment of coal miners for all coal mined by them, and providing additional duties for mine inspectors,’ in force July 1, 1897, and on a trial before the justice appellant was found guilty, and a fine was imposed. On appeal to the circuit court a jury was waived, and the case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, and again resulted in a conviction and the imposition of a fine, and from such judgment the case is brought to this court by appeal.

The section which the defendant was charged with violating is as follows: ‘That every person engaged in mining coal for any corporation, company, firm or individual shall be paid in lawful money of the United States for all coal mined and loaded into the mine car by such person for such corporation, company, firm or individual, including lump, egg, nut, pea and slack, or such other grades as said coal may be divided into, at such price as may be agreed upon by the respective parties.’ Laws 1897, p. 270.

The following are the material facts as stipulated: For seven years prior to July 1, 1897, the defendant had operated a coal mine at Dunfermline, in Fulton county. During that period there was sometimes a demand for what was called ‘run of the mine’ coal, which embraced the entire product as mined, without screening, and a small per cent. of the coal produced was sold in that way to meet that demand. For mining that coal each miner received pay at a certain price per ton for the entire coal mined by him and weighed as it came from the mine. About 95 per cent. of the coal mined was screened for the market, and for such coal the miners were paid a certain price per ton for the screened lump coal, which was a higher price than that paid on the ‘run of the mine’ product, the proportion being about as 60 to 45, but, where the coal was screened and the higher price paid for the screened lump coal, no account was taken of the nut and slack coal screened out, and nothing was paid upon those grades. The miner named in the complaint had been in the employ of defendant at the mine for about six years, and had received his money and made his settlements for mining upon the basis stated, receiving his agreed payment in that way, the same as the other miners.

It is now insisted that the section in question is an invasion of the constitutional right of the employer and employé to contract with each other as to the compensation of the employé and the manner in which it shall be ascertained, and that it is therefore in conflict with the constitution. We are not prepared to say that such is the effect of the act. The provision is that the owner or operator of a mine shall pay to the miner ‘at such price as may be agreed upon by the respective parties.’ It leaves the employer and miner free to contract with each other upon any terms that may be mutually agreeable, without restraint. The agreement may be for a certain rate, according to the time employed or the quantity of coal mined, or upon any other basis. If the compensation is fixed by the amount of coal mined, the act leaves them free to determine the quantity of such coal upon any basis they may see fit. It does not require that it shall be weighed or measured, or compel the parties to adopt any particular...