Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-04-07
VESTED IN COURTS
AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE vIO-
LATIoNs OF EIaHT-HoUR Law.
Charge Made Against Contractor on
Filtration Plant-opinions Of War
Department Officials.

Complaint has been made to the Wal
Department that the contractors engaged
in the construction Of the District fltra-
ton plant, near the Soldiers Home, are
violating the law Of August 1. 1892, limiting
work on public works to eight hours a day
by working the laborers in two shifts Of
ten hours a day. 1t Is understood the con-
tractors admit hat the men are employed
more than eight hours a day, and that they
Justify their action on the ground OF the
existence Of an emergency within the
meaning Of the statute.
Colonel Miller, the engineer officer in
charge of the work on behalf Of the govern
ment. made a special report on the subject,
which was forwarded to the War Depart
ment by General Mackenzie, chief of engi-
neers, with a statement that ut is. very
doubtful whether the conditions on the
Washington aqueduct filtration plant con-
Stitute an extraordinary emergency such
as is contemplated by the act of 1892"
Authority Limited.
Assuming that the law is being violated
by the contractors says General Macken-
zie, your attention is invited to the fact
that the Secretary of Wal held, in several
similar cases in the past, that 1t was not
incumbent upon the Wal Department to
enforce the eight-hour law. except so far
as Its own employees were concerned. Any
one cognfzant of a violation of the federal
statute should lodge complaint with the
United States district attorney, as in the
case OF q violation of any other federal
statute"
The matter having been referred to Gen.
eral Davis. judge advocate general, that
offlcer made a report to the Secretary of
War, in which he said it has been held by
his predecessors, with the approval of the
Secretary of War, that sit is not the duty
Of the Secretary Of War to institute pro-
ceedingS for violation Of the act Of 1892.
Parties who think the law is being violated
by contractors should submit their COM
plants to the proper United States district
attorney. General Davis said it has been
he'd Also that it is not essential that the
requirement Of the act of August 1, 1892,
be embodied in a contract, the law itself
being self-acting. The responsibility rests
on contractors to comply with 1T, prospect
I've of the terms and conditions of their
contracts. The officers who enter into con-
tracts on behalf of the United States are
not charged with the duty of enforcing the
law with reference to those with whom they
contract, the latter being directly RESPONSE
bic in the matter. Any construction by the
war Department of the requirements of
the act would, If erroneous, and not sus-
tanned by the courts, be no protection to
contractors"
No Power to Suspend.
Avn II COIldlIl6u III the act OF
1892" continued the judge advocate gen.
eral. for the suspension of its operation,
and the Secretary Of War has no power to
suspend 1t as to certain work or places of
work, on the theory that an emergency
exists as to the same. Nor can he lay
ooWn In advance any general rule as to
what would be such an emergency as would
releVe an officer or contractor from liabil-
1ty or give hi man immunity from prosecu-
Il0n. Iha n11QQf1nn nf tho nvtcfanoa ~ nv
emergency Is to be determined, in the first
INSTANCE, by the person carrying on or in
charge of the work; in the second, by the
court, II the case comes before one. It may
be said generally that when the emergency
can be foreseen 1t is not extraordinary;
the increased expenses and inconvenience
cannot constitute an emergency when they
can be foreseen and guarded against.
II an extraordinary emergency exists
In the present case, 1T is one Of time, and is
created by the requirement of the existing
act OF approprfation-act of March 3, 1907
which requires the filtration plant to be
completed December l, 1904, and the deter
mlnation of its existence is a question of
fact to be determined by the officer in
charge of the work, whose conclusion in
that regard is subject to review by the
courts, should an action be brought for
imposed for It's violation in the act of Au-
gust 1, 1892.
The application Of the remedy which is
provided In the statute quoted is, by its
expressed terms, vested in the courts and
not in the executive departments Of the
government. Under these views the COM
claimants should lay the matter before
the proper United States attorney, and it
Is that the complainant be
SO advised"