Summary

Mahlon Pitney Chicago Railway Company v. Perry…

The court proceeded to say that the legislation was a warranted and lawful exercise of the police power of the state; that the contention that it involved a private and not a public matter, in that only the individual employee and the individual employer were concerned, was a pure assumption that failed to recognize existing conditions; that the welfare of employees affected that of entire communities and the whole public.
Source: Wikisource

Mahlon Pitney Chicago Railway Company v. Perry…

All that is required is a statement of the employer showing the character of services rendered by the employee and the reason for his leaving the service of his employer. It is a certificate which, when the facts are favorable to the employee, may assist him in securing other work along the line of his trade, and is a certificate to which he feels that in justice he is entitled. * * * There is nothing unusual or revolutionary in requiring the employer to give a certificate to the employee leaving his service showing the time he has been employed and the character of service rendered.
Source: Wikisource

Mahlon Pitney Chicago Railway Company v. Perry…

The contention that the Service Letter Law denies to plaintiff in error the equal protection of the laws is rested upon the fact that it is made to apply to public service corporations (and contractors working for them) , to the exclusion of other corporations, individuals, and partnerships said to employ labor under similar circumstances. This is described as arbitrary classification. We are not advised of the precise reasons why the Legislature chose to put the policy of this statute into effect as to public service corporations, without going further; nor is it worth while to inquire.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature