New-York tribune., 1901-02-28
1T MAY BE SWEEPING.
POSSIBLE EFFECT on POLICE LAW OF
PREVAILING RATE" DECISION.

LAWYERS EXPRESS THE OPINION THAT IT
NtI.LrFIEs THE DAVIS SCHOOL LAW
The apparently sweeping nature or the court
Of Appeals decision declaring that the so-calied
prevailing rate of wages" law is inValld laliIS
stunned city officials yesterday. Well k@o"h
LAWYERS who had read the extracts from the
oninion were practically unanimous in saying
that il nullifies the Davis School law also the
acts making il mandatory on the city l" pay
the present salaries ia the Police, Fire and street
Cleaning departnents If this is correct. theh
the city's tax budget could be cut down next
year. IL was said, from Ground s9S"oo"V u
about S7so00eoo
The Cut Stone law is similar in principe 70 lhe
law declared void and lawyers seem TO think
that the stonecutters in this city are hard MI.
Experts figured yesterday that the sub-con-
tractors on the rapid transit tunnel would he In
pocket al least 100000 by the decision, and
friends Of Holm r. Mcdonald. the general con-
,rac,or said that he was jubilant over the turn
az affairs Bridge and all kinds Of construction
work viii he done more cheaply. Wages are
likely 10 he cut in a number Of branches OF en-
ployuent. il was said.
when Controller Coler was asked about the
decision he said:
i is yer, in IT'S nature II is one lls OF me
q & tXor
has ever HRsHsn. | may have something to
say about i: IL ~ or, three days.
Corporatiorrs e-sSnscl whalen said: We are
examining the'N,9inion. and Will have state
Inent ready in day or two
L. Latin kellogg. counsel for Mr.. Rogers, the
plaintiff in the action brought against the Con-
troller. when asked yesterday about the effects
of the decision, made the following formal state
ment.
The nights of The city TO compel contractor 10
agree beforehand, when he made his contract |"
established and liable TO be increased from iine 10
time by the labor unions rs lie @S or nIc 70 ampe in
The market overt private parties upon me paSls @
the old the young. the decrepit and everybody the
price he could make no @ dlsilncIon H on uil ,ni
provision. 10 which he forced 10 agree in his
i he Stonoaee Of The work and the refusal of
rsvmenf bv the Controller besides other stringent
II The ContToiier cid pay to the contractor who
had disobeyed any of me PROVISIONS I 90 IN m @ n, M
Vow. the effect Of this decision is TO declare that
The contractor must be free 10 employ suGh 5dpI
tained in the market overt He cannot he made TO
suffer any penalty nor can the punhc ohSeT INC ,,Si T"
Contractors for public work placed on the same
basis as private Co2tTaetors and ND. The Ia" III 'na'
You asked me what effect II VIII nave UPON ., m
Gently passed by the Legislature IT seems To me
that there are statements in the opinion of me
two justices above referred To that would 20 lar
10 make one believe that some Of the main PRO
visions. least in these bills were unconStltu i
rionsl and void OF ] would give no opinion
anon the matter without closer examination. hut
Knowing the general nature of these bills. can
saw without much hesitation that il would have an
Important bearing upon the construction oi these
n statutes. ,-...
Another similar case was argued by me before
the Court Of Appeals Monday last under the
title of The People rel Ralph ]. Treat agt.
Pird s Coler. II involves the unconstltulionallty
-of what is known the cut stone law ..
Rslph Treat. the contractor with the CITY, AZ Jtr
he had completed the sewer contract ana the oHl-
GERS Of The CITY certified that he was emit ed
"a fhe pavnent of about $500 notified by the
Controller that one J. r Dutton. Of Hoboken
charged him with having violated the cut stone
law having caused 10 be cut i'm Hoboken and de.
livered upon the work In New-YOrk basin head
in violation Of the cut stone law, whereupon the
Controller withheld the payment and refused to
nav the certificate. Mr.. Treat thereupon made a
motion for writ of peremptory mandamus, The
issuance Of the writ was denied by Mr. Justice
Srnvth. now deceased. al Special Term IN the
Appellate Court. judge Hatch writing the opinion
The order of Justice Smyth was reversed. ana ny
divided court the writ Of mandamus granted; upon
7be same ground that the writ was granted In the
case Of Rodgers aGt roer. just decided Inc
matter was argued before the Court Of Appeals on
DAY last