The Washington times., 1901-11-25
TO DEFINE RIGHTS
OF ALIEN WORKERS.
QUESTION RAISED IN THE COURTS.
Recovery of Money Due NoB-Citizens
Under Contract Leads to Action
in PhiIndeIpbia-Anxie
us to Results.

PHILADELPHIA. Pa, Nov. 24-The
courts of Pennsylvania will soon be called
upon TO settle a case which will have an
important hearing, not only on possible
future litigation. but upon public work
of all kinds. iuasmuch as it viii define the
rights of aliens. notwithstanding acts of
Assembly and ordinances of councils pro-
viding that no laborers but citizens shall
be employed on public work within the
Commonwealth or city.
The question of the unConstitutionality
OF these acts has been raised by Eugene
Raymond who. as counsel for the city of
Philadelphia to the use of Joseph MacFar-
/ land. assignee of twenty Italian Ia
bOrers. has brought suit against the Union
Surety and Guaranty Company the bonds
men of James McLinden. who, it is
charged. defaulteG in the payment of
wages to the aforesaid twenty Ital-
Z ian laborers. Under the ordinance of
councils, when a city contract is entered
I into the contractor must execute a penal
/ bond for each contract respectively that
he will promptly make payment to all per-
sons supplying him with labor. The ordi-
nance further provides that in case of de-
fault in payment for the said labor or
materials persons wishing to sue for such
default may procure a certified copy OF
the contract and bond and shall be au-
thorized to bring suit in the name OF the
city of Philadelphia for his or their use.
That is what has been done in this suit.
Demand for Payment Refused.
In his statement of the suit, filed in
court, Mr.. Raymond's client sets forth
that McLinden, who had been engaged on
the grading of Stenton Avenue and Wy
oming Avenue, having refused payment of
the Claims, demand was made on the
surety company, which was refused on
the ground that a balance OF the funds
appropriated by councils for this work
remained uns&pended and should be ap-
piled by the city Tor the payment of these
claims. The defendants also filed an atii-
davit OF defence, in which they set uD
that MacFarland, the assignee, nor any
of the assignors had furnished any labor
and materials. and that the assignor5
were only general laborers; that only
citizens of the United States could be
protected by such bond, as by the act of
Assembly of 1895 none but citizens OF the
United States were entitled to be en-
pioyed as labOrers. workmen, or contrac-
tors upon the work in question"
Act of Councils Involved.
III Adtl, NHllt lHc utitluEul dtSD Claims
that it demanded from the city the money
it then had on hand, land which was due
said McLinden TO be applied TO the pay
ment of said claims and that the city
declined and paid the money to McLin-
den, the real interest In the case centres
on the act of Assembly and ordinance OF
councils whereby the assignors or ItaI-
ian laborers who seek to recover their
wages are barred from collecting mas
much as they are aliens and not citizens
of the United States. In support of this
claim they set forth the act of Assembly
of June 25. 1895, which provides that none
but a citizen of the United States shall be
employed on public works. provided il
does not apply to work paid for in part
from payment of assessments, and which
requires a stipulation in the contract to
that effect by the contractor. The ordi-
nance of councils of December 1886, pro-
vides practically the same as the act OF
Assembly, with an additional clause fix
ing a penalty of s. per day for every alien
so employed by public works contractor.
Lawyer Raymond has taken the broad
stand that such defence is invalid. mas
much as such laws, while they may have
been well meant, are unconstitutional,
and in fact, have been so declared by the
United States statutes and courts. There
fore. he has gone into court with a rule
for Judgment for want of a sufficient affi-
davit Of defence.