The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-09-28
CITY PAYING CONTRACTS
NOT YET SIGNED ON ACCOUNT OF
a HITCH M CONSTITUTING
The Labor Ordinances Of the City---An
Opinion from City Attorney
Sam on the Subject

As stated In yesterdays Post. there IS
hltch In signing NJ the street paving con.
lractS' owing TO the construction Of the
labor ordnance Of the city as applicable
to contract aud city work
Iherc are two labor ordinances upon the
ordinance books one passed In August,
1900 providing that city llborers shall
work eight hours per day, ana another
passed IN November. 1897. providing niue
hours per day for contract work This
last mentioned ordinance the uluc. hour
ordinance, was incorporated as a part of
the specifications upon which the street
paving contractors submitted their bids
There is also Il resolution recently adopt.
ed by the council providing for eight
hours for contract work, but this cuts but
little figure In the controversy, on the
well established principle of municipal leg
i~lauon that no resolution can change,
amend alter or repeal an ordinance.
The elght-hour ordinance specifically
says city lahorers.' and this is construed
10 mean those who labor directly for the
city In the departments OF the street com
missioner scavenger health and other de
partm"uls where day lahorurs are EN-
ployrd.
II was Mt one time attr.iptcd to make
this ordinance apply to city contract work,
courts 10y ihe contractor an opinion adverse
TO its application WINS rendered
The paint. however. having been raised
as to conflict between these ordinances,
the mayor has refused to sign the con.
tracts with the street paving contractors
pending an opinion upon the subject from
the city attorney, Attorney sam has pre-
pared an opinion upon the subject but
last night Mayor Wooltord Informed a re
porter FOR The Post That 1t had not been
officially presented, his opinion is as
follows.
hon John - Woolford, Mayor of City of
Houston, Texas. September 20, 1901
Dear In obedience to your request
that give YOU written opinion regard
streets uf the city OF Houston by Messrs.
Hlpp & Key MS contractors. this is with
reference tn the hours that their laborcrs
are 70 work, desire to say that my
First That the plans and specifications
/ thht they MA on, ] am informed by the
well as one Of the members Of the board
of public works, coutnln the ordnance as
set ont i'm the REVISED Code of ordinances
] of ihr GUY of Houston, adopted 10y the
city council ON the hin day Of November,
1851, poge i27 articles 1921, which is
nine hour ordinance.
The advert lSrmCut OF tine city Of ltnus-
ton set ont that the contractors would be
required TO conform To the lahOr ordnance
/ OF the city of Houston IN force. and this
/ ls tHr only labor ordinance that Is IN
force us far ms contractors are concerned;
therefore, my opinion would hc tlnt Won
can not require MCSSrs. Hipp ~ Key to
cutter Into contract to work their labor
/ crs loss thun nine hours. and you must. If
/ the conditions continue as they now exist,
/ enter INTO contract with them Ia accord
nnce with the plans and specifications that
the contractors bid ou. nine hours. By
way of Recommendation desire 20 say
/ that II 1t is the council pleasure TINT
] the contractors should uOt work their la
hurcrs longer than eight hours. that the
council might rrpud'qtc thcir action taken
|tN how f tAFft fs~NhF