The record-union., 1891-03-17
THE GOVERNORS vETOEs.

THE GOVERNORS VETOES.
Of the four vetoes of Governor Mark
ham thus far sent to the Legislature,
two are unquestionably the law of
the cases treated, and the third and
fourth are as assuredly wisdom.
An Executive is invested with the
veto power to interpose between uncon-
stitutional legislation and the State, and
between the exercise of legislative power
and patent error. It has been and will
remain disputed point whether Gov
ernor should interpose his merely per-
sonal views as to what is wise legislation,
where there is given the Endorsement to 4
measure that the vote of the people
through their chosen representatives car
ries.
This question is not involved in the
third veto referred to, however. The
reasons advanced for non-approval COM
mend themselves too forcibly to reason to
leave any room for doubt, and to estab-
of the bill amending the eight hour law
would have encumbered the statute
books and have operated to do grievous
wrong. The amendment proposed that
every contractor and Sub-contractor
should agree not to permit, knowingly,
any work whatever upon the construc-
n, nd in, 81 o;1,l,& l,
of twenty-four, by any employe. For
violation there was to be forfeiture of all
payments due and inability to recover
any compensation for the work. The
purpose of the amendment was to make
more effective the present eight-hour
law and to prevent its evasion. But the
Executive holds that the desired end
would not be obtained by the amend
ment. Now if this is sound conclusion
it was clearly the duty of the Governor to
interpose his veto.
Under the existing law eight hours is a
legal days work upon all public works,
and contractors under the State or under
municipal corporations are bound to OBJ
serve it. But there is nothing in the law
to prohibit piece work, or work by the
hour. If, however, as the Governor well
says, the amendment was intended to
apply to all manner of work, then it
would prevent men from exercising on
work done for contractors under the
State the inalienable right to work SO as
to earn more than would be paid for eight
hours of labor. But if the amendment
does not apply to piece or hour work,
then contractors could contract for
the manufacture of articles to be used
in the work or labor to be performed in
the carrying out of contract, by the
piece or hour, and thus the very labor
that the law was intended to conserve
would suffer by deprivation.
But this is not all. The contract is
always between the State or city and
contractor, who gives bonds for faithful
performance. The sub-contractor and
material men are not and cannot be
parties to it, and therefore the law could
not affect the latter classes or bind
them. But if it is claimed that the pur-
pose was to make them quasi parties to
the original contract, it is unquestionably
true that only very few could take SUBJ
contracts under the new law, and the
poor man would therefore be deprived of
the benefits of competition. More than
this, only the very few could take original
contracts, for the reason that they would
be at the mercy of the sub-contractors.
and for the laches Of any one of them be
subject to the penalties of forfeiture.
Thus contracting would fall into the
hands of those who carry on under one
management the works that supply the
things and labor usually let under SUBJ
contracts, and the State would suffer in
consequence. AS the Governor well saws.
the result would be to shut out small
manufacturers, millmen and, indeed, the
the very largest class of mechanics and
material men.
But it is contended by the friends of
the amendment in its present form that
this is too strict reading of the measure: !:
that forfeiture applies only to the particu-
lar work upon which the violation oc-
CURED. and applies not to the contractor
Except he is knowingly party to the
evasion), but to the party offending, and
that it is for that reason that all sub-con-
tractors are treated as though parties to the