New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-09-26
TESTING THE WEEKLY PAYMENT Law.

1t is said that five employees OF the city OF
Buffalo have been selected to test the consti-
nationality of the Weekly Payment law, so far
as it respects municipalities. The point at
issue is an important Cne and the decision OF
the court will be awaited with great interest
by the officials and employees of all the cities
of the State. The duty of securing the en-
forcement Of the law is lodged with the factory
inspectors, and one of their number brings the
suit.
The first section of the law-and clumsily
drawn section it is-reads as follows:
Every manufacturing, mining or Quarrying lum'er
Ing mercantile railroad surface street. electric and
elevated railway except steam surface railroads. steam
boat. telegraph. telephone and municipal corporation
and every Incorporated express company and water com
pany shall DAY weekly each and every emIlOye engaged
In its business the wages earned by such empoyc TO
within six days Of the date Of such payment, ETC.
1t is clear to good many unprofessiOnal minds
that here is a specific mandate addressed to the
cities of New-Yorx requiring them to settle
weekly with all their employees. But it is not
so clear to the members of the bar particularly
the law officers Of the cities, who have exam
ined tie section. They cannot agree as to the
meaning of the word employee" as used by
those who framed the act. Is it to be inter-
pretcd in It's most general sense so as to cover
each and every person who draws pay from
city, from the Mayor to the floor-scrubbers !?
Or is it to be taken in its more restricted sense
so as to cover only what are known rs labor
ers, persons in the employ of the city, but who
are not the recipients of stated salary? Tho
Corpoiaiion Counsel of this city stands by the
restricted Interpretation. So do the Corpora
ton Counsel of Albany, buffalo and several
other cities. On the other hand the Corpora
ton Counsel of Brooklyn holds that the law
applies "to all persons without exception who
are in the employment OF the municipal cor
poration known as the city of Brooklyn" Last
| July the Mayor of Albany referred the law TO
the Corporation Counsel and the argument
which that official made in the somewhat
elaborate opinion which he submitted will
doubtless be largely relied upon by Buffalo
when she comes to ask the courts to relieve her
from paying absolutely all her employees once
a wock. The substance of this opinion has al
ready been printed in THE TRIBUNE. The
counsel contendcd that municipal corporation
had a two-fold character. 1t was depository
of certain powers d" to be exercised for the pub
lie good on behalf of the State rather than for
itser'; and it,was also the depository OF GER
| tain powers to he exercised I" for the private
advantage of the compact community which is
incorporated as distinct lega! personality or
corporate individual" 1t followed, the coun-
sci held, that this two-fold character neces-
STATED two sets of employees, one public and
the other private. The former did not come
under the law: the latter, those who were not
paid by salaries but by wages" did.
| Whatever NAV be the decision of the court
the law is pretty certain to be amended next
winte? As it stands. 1t snits nobody. The
officials of all our large cities, whatever may
be their views Of the disputed points, agree
that rigid enforcement of the law, such as the
factory inspectors insist upon, would do more
harm than good--would call for radical change
Of business machinery involving great expense,
without practically benefting anybody.