The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-12-04
City Solicitor Will
Argue Before the
Full Bench.
THE EIGHT HOUR MATTER AGAIN.
A Claim of Unconstitution-
aIity Will Be
Offered.

When the petition of Jefferson D.
Pierce and others for writ of manda-
mus is heard before the full bench of
the supreme court, on appeal, asking
that the board of aldermen be instruct
ed to offer the people an opportunity
to vote on the question of an eight
hour day, the question of the constitu-
tionality of the act of 1899 will be
raised by City Solicitor A. P. Rugg.
Among the points raised will be the
following, which were embodied in the
answer of the respondent at the hear
ing before Justice Lathrop last week:
Said REALTORS do not show any suffi-
cient interest nor any right in them
selves or any of them to bring and
prosecute in their own names said pc
tition
There is strong ground for ar
gument that no petition for a writ of
mandamus to enforce the performance
of public duty can be brought in the
name of private person, but that
such proceedings should be brought in
the name of the attorney general.
The claim that ten taxpayers
have right to insist upon the inser-
ton of an article in a warrant for a
city election is in contravention of the
entire spirit of city as distinguished
from town governments in this com
monwealth. "A city charter resembles
state constitution in this that the
government of town is made by the
charter a representative government"
1t can not be that the provision
of said section q, that "the board of
aldermen shall have, and exercise, sub
Ject to the approval of the mayor, all
the powers given to selectmen of
towns and be subject to the duties i'm
posed upon such boards" was intend
ed to apply to the calling of elections
or the holding of meetings. See section
l, chapter ATS, acts of 1894 This pro-
vision has many other purposes and is
common and necessary section in the
city charter.
This statute provides for legis-
latton general in its character applica-
BILE to public employees. Yet it leaves
the question Of whether it shall be in
force in any municipality to the vote
of the inhabitants of that municipality.
In effect, it provides that two dollars
Of public money expended in Worces-
ter where the statute may have been
accepted. shall not procure the same
amount of labor in return that it does
in the adjoining town of Shrewsbury
where it has not been accepted.
Said chapter 344 of the laws of 1899
is contrary to the provisions of the con-
stitution and amendments thereof Of the
United States of America
The foregoing argument and authori-
ties here contained support the propo-
sition that the effect of this statute is
to abridge the privileges of the citizens
of the United States, and to deny per-
sons within this commonwealth the
equal protection of the laws.
Said chapter 344 of the laws
of 1899 does not make it mandatory
upon the board of aldermen to submit
the acceptance of said statute to vote
of the people of Worcester, but vests
in the proper municipal authorities dis
cretionary power as to whether and
when the question of the acceptance
of said statute shall be submitted to
the people.
Said chapter 344 of the laws of
1899 is contrary to the provisions of the
constitution and amendments thereof of
this commonwealth.
The statute is unconstitutional, on
the ground that it Is a delegation of
legislative power. This act is not local
or private in its character, and does
not depend upon local needs and condi-
tions differing in various municipalities
throughout the commonwealth The
w
cher, Pick, sos, $40; Stone VS.. Charles
ton, ia Mass, ga, 221, are examples, do
not apply, therefore, to this statute.
The hours of labor in public work is
matter of general and not of local con-
Germ. 1t has always heretofore been
regulated by general statute.-Opinion
of justices, 100 Mass, $50.
This statute provides for unequal
and class legislation. 1t gives special
privileges immunities and advantages
to a certain class of public employees,
while leaving certain other public en-
ployees and general laboring public to
the mercy Of other laws.
The granting of the writ Of manda-
mus being always discretionary with
this court, the petition. does not dis
close such circumstances as render this
a proper cause for the exercise of that
discretion.
The petition does not disclose any
general, public demand for the relief
prayed for. A mere handful of citi-
zens are seeking to control the action
of the legally constituted authorities
of a great city as to a subject involv-
ing distinctly not a public right but the
conduct of municipal business.
Attorney general VS.. New Bedford,
1928 MASS, 312; Alger VS.. Seaver, 1873
Mass, 331; American Railway Company
VS.. Hayden, 101 Mass, 1898.
The remedy of petitioners is political,
and to elect board of aldermen favor
able to their views.