Statutes regulating the method in which employes are to be paid, providing that they must be paid in money,1 or if paid in scrip or in orders on stores for goods, that such orders must be redeemed in cash,2 have generally been held valid. These statutes are generally in terms applicable only to manufacturing or mining concerns, and on that account are sometimes held invalid for unreasonable discrimination,3 as where applicable only to merchants on the one hand and coal miners on the other.4 Statutes providing that if employes in coal mines are paid in proportion to the amount of coal mined, the amount of coal mined must be determined in a certain specified manner,5 as where the coal is to be weighed before it is screened,6 or is to be weighed at the mines in the miners' cars,7 are generally held invalid. Some decisions turn on unreasonable discrimination in the statutes, as where such provision applies only to coal to be shipped away and not to coal to be sold at the mine.8 In other jurisdictions such statutes are held valid,9 at least as to corporations.10 Statutes providing that on discharge of an employe of a railway company he must be paid all wages owing to him, even if not then due by the terms of his contract of employment, without any deduction on account of such payment in advance have been held valid.11 It has been held that such statute is valid as applying to corporation in view of the power of the state over corporations, although it might not be valid as applied to natural persons.12 Statutes forbidding deductions from wages of employes except for certain specified purposes are generally held invalid.13 A statute providing that the employer of persons engaged in weaving cannot hold back wages for defects in work is invalid.14 Statutes fixing the rate of wages for laborers employed by the state are valid,15 but statutes fixing the rate of wages to be paid by public contractors, providing that public contracts shall be void unless the contractor agrees to pay a certain wage, are invalid.10 Statutes regulating the time at which wages must be paid are generally held to be invalid,17 but some of these .statutes are held invalid because they apply to corporations only,18 or to certain classes of corporations.19 On the other hand, statutes of this type have been held valid,20 even if religious, literary and charitable societies are excepted from its operation.21 A federal statute forbidding payment of wages to a seaman in advance, making such payment a misdemeanor, and providing that such payment shall not absolve the vessel or its master from full payment of wages actually earned is constitutional.22 Thus a statute forbidding the assignment by an employe of wages to become due and making invalid any agreement whereby an employer is relieved from paying to his employe his full wages weekly, has been held valid.23

23 People v. Coler, 166 N. Y. 1; 82 Am. St. Rep. 605; 52 L. R. A. 814; 59 N. E. 716. (Breach con-, sisted in not paying the contract rate of wages.) Cleveland v. Construction Co., 67 O. S. 197; 93 Am. St. Rep. 670; 59 L. R. A. 775; 65 N. E. 885. (Breach consisted in requiring work overtime.)

24 People v. Featherstonhaugh, 172 N. Y. 112; 60 L. R. A. 768; 64 N. E. 802.

25In re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98; 50 Am. Rep. 636.

26 (City of) Chicago v. Hulbert, 205 111. 346; 68 N. E. 786.

1 Skinner v. Mining Co., 96 Fed. 735; Hancock v. Yaden, 121 Ind. 366; 16 Am. St. Rep. 396; 6 L. R. A. 576; 23 N. E. 253; Shaffer v. Mining Co., 55 Md. 74; State v. Coal Co., 36 W. Va. 802; 17 L. R. A. 385; 15 S. E. 1000. (Judgment of lower court affirmed by an evenly divided court.) Contra, State v. Haun, 61 Kan. 146; 47 L. R. A. 369; 59 Pac. 340; State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307; 21 L. R- A. 789; 22 S. W. 350; Godcharles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. St. 431; 6 Atl. 354; State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179; 25 Am. St. Rep. 863; 6 L. R. A. 621; 10 S. E. 285; State v. Coke Co., 33 W. Va. 188; 25 Am. St. Rep. 891; 6 L. R. A. 359; 10 S. E. 288.

2 Knoxville Iron Co. v Harbison, 183 U. S. 13 (affirming Harbison v. Iron Co., 103 Tenn. 421; 76 Am. St. Rep. 682; 56 L. R. A. 316; 53 S. W. 955).; State v. Peel Splint Coal Co., 36 W. Va. 802; 17 L. R. A. 385; 15 S. E. 1000 (affirmed by an equally divided court). Contra, Frorer v. People, 141 111. 171; 16 L. R. A. 492; 31 N. E. 395; State v Loomis, 115 Mo. 307; 21 L. R. A. 789; 22 S. W. 350; State v. Good-will, 33 W. Va. 179; 25 Am. St.

Rep. 863; 6 L. R. A. 621; 10 S. E. 285. So a statute forbidding a person, firm or corporation engaged in mining and manufacturing, and interested in merchandising, knowingly and wilfully to sell supplies to any employe at a greater profit that when selling supplies of like quality, character and quantity to other customers buying for cash, has been held to be unconstitutional. State v. Coke Co., 33 W. Va. 188; 25 Am. St. Rep. a9l; 6 L. R. A. 359; 10 S. E. 288.

3 State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307; 21 L. R. A. 789; 22 S. W. 350.

4 Dixon v. Poe, 159 Ind. 492; 95 Am. St. Rep. 309; 60 L. R. A. 308; 65 N. E. 518.

5 Harding v. People, 160 111. 459; 52 Am. St. Rep. 344; 32 L. R. A. 445; 43 N. E. 624; Ramsey v. People, 142 111. 380; 17 L. R. A. 853; 32 N. E. 364; Millett v. People, 117

111. 294; 57 Am. Rep: 869; 7 N. E. 631.

6 In re House Bill 203, 21 Colo. 27; 39 Pac. 431; Ramsey v. People, 142 111. 380; 17 L. R. A. 853; 32 N. E. 364; Millett v. People, 117 111. 294; 57 Am. Rep. 869; 7 N. E. 631; In re Preston, 63 O. S. 428; 81 Am. St. Rep. 642; 52 L. R. A. 523; 59 N. E. 101.

7 Harding v. People, 160 111. 459; 52 Am. St. Rep. 344; 32 L. R. A. 445; 43 N. E. 624.

8 Harding v. People, 160 111. 459; 52 Am. St. Rep. 344; 32 L. R. A. 445; 43 N. E. 624.

9 State v. Wilson. 61 Kan. 32; 47 L. R. A. 71; 58 Pac. 981; affirming 7 Kan. App. 428; 53 Pac. 371; State v. Coal Co., 36 W. Va. 802; 17 L. R. A. 385; 15 S. E. 1000 (decided by an evenly divided court).

10 Woodson v. State, 69 Ark. 521; 65 S. W. 465.

11 St. Louis, etc., Ry. v. Paul, 64 Ark. SS; 62 Am. St. Rep. 154; 37 L. R. A. 504; 40 S. W. 705; Leep v. Ry., 58 Ark. 407; 41 Am. St. Rep. 109; 2o L. R. A. 264; 25 S. W. 75.

12 Leep v. Ry., 58 Ark. 407; 41 Am. St. Rep. 109; 23 L. R. A. 264; 25 S. W. 75.

13 Keilyville Coal Co. v. Harrier, 207 111. 624; 69 N. E. 927.

14 Commonwealth v. Perry, 155 Mass. 117; 31 Am. St. Rep. 533; 14 L. R. A. 325; 28 N. E. 1126.

15 Clark v. State, 142 N. Y. 101; 36 N. E. 817.

16 Street v. Supply Co., 160 Ind. 338; 98 Am. St. Rep. 325; 66 X. E. 895; People v. Coler, 166 N. Y. 1; 82 Am. St. Rep. 605; 52 L. R. A. 814; 59 N. E. 716.

17 Leep v. Ry., 58 Ark. 407: 41

Am. St. Rep. 109; 23 L. R. A. 264; 25 S. W. 75; Braceville Coal Co. v. People, 147 111. 66; 37 Am. St. Rep. 206; 22 L. R. A. 340; 35 N. E. 62; Republic, etc., Co. v. State, 160 Ind. 379; 62 L. R. A. 136; 66 N. E. 1005.

18 Johnson v. Mining Co., 127 Cal. 4; 78 Am. St. Rep. 17; 59 Pac. 304.

19 Braceville Coal Co. v. People, 147 111. 66; 37 Am. St. Rep. 206; 22 L. R. A. 340; 35 N. E. 62.

20 International Text-Book Co. v. Weissinger, 160 Ind. 349; 98 Am. St. Rep. 334: 65 N. E. 521; Opinion of the Justices, etc., 163 Mass. 589; sub nom., In re House Bill 1230, 28 L. R. A. 344; 40 N. E. 713.

21 State v. Mfg. Co.. 18 R. I. 16: 17 L. R. A. 856; 25 Atl. 246.