Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Shaleen

Citations

  • 30 Pa. Super. 1
  • 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 399

Syllabus

<p>Mines and mining — Registration of miner — Constitutional law — Constitution of the United States — Act of July 15, 1897, P. L. 287.</p> <p>The portion of the fifth section of the Act of July 15, 1897, P. L. 287, relating to the examination and registration of miners who have had “not less than two years’ practical experience as a miner or mine laborer in the mines of this Commonwealth,” violates the Constitution of the United States, inasmuch as it denies to a citizen of another state “the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states,” and “the equal protection of the laws.” The únconstitutiohality of this portion of the act, however, does not render the act unconstitutional as a whole.</p> <p>Although the Act of July 15, 1897, P. L. 287, applies generally to anthracite mines, the act does not render ineligible to employment as miners all persons except, those who had had two years’ experience in anthracite mines.</p> <p>Although no good reason may appear to the court why a limitation of the term used in the statute should have been omitted, and although it may seem highly improbable that an omission was intended, the court is not at liberty to enlarge the enactment to cover cases not within the clear and obvious meaning of the language; nor is the court warranted in assuming that the legislature did not attach value to experience in mines outside of the anthracite region, nor is there any presumption to that effect.</p> <p>When the effect of a statute is to grant privileges to citizens of the state in which the law is enacted and to deny these privileges to citizens of other states who are similarly situated, the statute cannot be supported under the Constitution of the United States.</p> <p>A part of a statute may be unconstitutional, and the remainder constitutional, and that which is constitutional will stand unless its provisions are so connected and dependent on each other in subject-matter that it must be presumed the legislature would not

Judges: Beaver, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Porter, Rice, Smith, Smyth

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.