| Show THE EIGHT HOUR LAW david rees beefy writing from mammoth utah under date of june 10 says ay to the editor I 1 shall esteem it a favor if you will kindly give me the following information through the columns ot of the NEWS I 1 have been requested by several everal workmen of this place to 10 ask it of you yon Is ie 9 man liable to a fine or imprisonment lor for working over the eight hours which the law of utah proclaims ire I 1 reter refer to mill men and men who work in the oro ore bins it to la possible that the law was waa in tended ended to punish the employed as an well ak the employer where a workman put pate in more than eight hours hour time to in one ave day but there Is nothing to in the tow law itself that shows a design on the part of its to punish anybody the that it was intended to include employer and employed emp loye loyel oan can 4 drawn only from the use of the word person fn an the third section but it Is not improbable that if court were to hold helu that the law had bad apy any effect it il would say that person must apost be construed in the same elseg class as its IM associate words firm corporation manager etc and applied only to employers eMployer 6 in that case came then ema aloyes plo would not be liable toe not act dellaq defines the period of to toe IM eight noun hour and employment I 1 means either the act of employing or of being employed hence in this sense both parties would be included M possible violators of the law T the enactment being unintelligible oo on the point paint inquired after adrest ad anwar answer to 10 mr question cannot be give it is in not likely however that spi any man would be prosecuted tor for working OT over r the eight hours bourn it if he chose to d 1 0 90 although an employer be sign agal it he required more than eight boural service the toot act of the matter is that the eight hour law as an it stands on the statute books is absolutely worth list es this conclusion to 16 nut not bided baaed upon soy any question as to the he bality of the act but because it is meaningless it if it had been framed as a aop to mir mil a aap with abo full intention 01 ol making it of no DO effect the end could not have been reached more thorough y than by the present wor dinst the awk aw declares the period of employ convy ment to be eight hour boure but no expression forbidding a longer period it provides a penalty lor for violating the act but makes no DO 8 suggestion ug as to what Is a violation if a court were to decide that la ilk fixing axing the period at eight hours bouts the meant to say may that a looff long pr er time to Is a violation then io in doing so BO the court would have to hold that a shorter horter period than eight boura boors also aleo to Is a violation under the rule of strict construction of criminal crimi oal statutes DO court could give force to this thia law it is ig a meaningless jumble not worth the me paper it Is ie printed on in the statute book so do far as any ady protection it affords to workingmen |
