The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1906-07-21

done on Its behalf or on behalf OF Its
municipalities Regulations on this sub
ject suggest only considerations OF public
policy"
| In this connection the language OF my
| general conclusion should be noted, that
| the state may limit the hours OF labor
which shall be required" OF state and
| city employees. The use OF the word "re-
CURED avoids the question whether. II
the employe were limited in his right
20 contract. such Limitation would be con-
| stitutional under the constitution OF this
state or under the United States consti-
tuion, although the United States case
just quoted held three judges dissenting.
| that no employe is entitled. OF absolute
| right and as part OF hts liberty. 10 per
| form labor for the state" and that no
| one "can excuse a violation OF his agree
ment with the state by doing that which
| the statute under which he proceeds dis
tinctly and lawfully forbids him 10 do"
| In other words. the underlying reason OF
| this decision on this last point appears
| TO be that the employer can make terms
| and conditions incident 10 his contract
with his employe. which. II accepted by
the employe.. do not violate the latter's
| right TO contract for his services This
decision apparently makes no distinction
between a free contract between the par
ties unrestrained as 10 its conditions by
law and contract which can be entered
into only subject TO restraining conditions
| imposed by law. where the state or any
Of It's subdivisions Is a party TO the con
tract. But there is such weight Of
! authority against this decision on this
point by the supreme courts OF various
states. and as I consider IL doubtful. In
View thereof. IL the supreme court Of this
state would agree with said United States
| decision on said point, with reference 10
constituting the constitution OF this state,
have avoided this question as not nee
essarily involved In the scope OF your
questions. In the manner stated.
The above conclusion that the legisla-
ture has power TO establish such
public policy for the state. and define
and limit, subject 10 the above provisos.
the hours Of labor per day which can be
required OF state. city and town en-
ployes. is supported by the reasoning OF
| the following authorities and cases
| /. Tiedman, p 33S.
Freund, Sec. 3l0
| Atkn VS. Kansas, 191 L. s. 207
Broad VS.. Woydt SO Wash. 44e.
Rev. j. T. layton. 81 Kan. Isl.
People VS.. Warren, II Hun. 40.
The next question involved is whether
the general assembly could establish as
a separate class In any such legislation
the employees OF the city of Providence
alone. or whether such a law would havc
to be general and apply at least TO all tho
cities OF the state OF even to all the cities
| and towns. That would depend upon
whether there was any reasonable ground
for establishing such public policy for
the employees OF the city OF Providence
| alone Where such legislation has been
passed and supported by the courts IN
| othe srtates. IL seems almost without ex-
| ception TO have been general and made
| TO apply 10 all state, county, city and
town employees.
The next question involved is whether
the city, without action by the general
assembly. can establish an eight-hour day
| for Its employees. and thereby impose a
4 condition upon It's employees which might
diminish their earning power per day, Il
| IL Is conceded that the prevailing hours
| for labor for most OF such employees. as
well as for others engaged In the same
kind OF york, are ten hours. and that they
are willing 10 work ten rather than a less
number "a hours per day.
| In my opinion the city may. under its
| general powers. as a contractor for labor,
| limit the hours OF employment per day
| OF Its employees to reasonable extent
with reference TO what Is customary and
prevailing hours for such employment In
! the various lines OF work, but / do not
! think that the city has power TO establish
| a public policy as 10 hours OF labor with
out regard TO the practical existing con-
| ditions as 10 the labor market and the
| prevailing hours OF labor. Ii is not for
| the city but for the state under its funda-
mental governing power TO decide new.
important questions OF public policy.
The foregoing has had relation simply
to the matter of limiting by law the hours
| OF labor per day. The next and vital
question is whether such hours can be
| limited and the wages of labor fixed by
| the general assembly. so that said en-
ployes shall receive the same wages for
an eight4hour day as now paid for ten
| hour day.
There are three interests concerned IN
| such a proposition, the general assembly
representing the political power the city
council representing by limited delegated
powers the public power. and also repre-
| senting the corporate. financial and In
| sense private interests of the public, and
the taxpayers themselves The city coun-
ell under the Constitution OF this state
| represent officially the taxpayers relative
| 10 their financial interests.
| The case OF Atkin VS.. Kansas. cited
| above. decided that the legislature had
such power over its municipalities to a
certain extent; that IL could establish an
eight hour day and still maintain the
same wages for labor paid for a ten
hour day with reference to employees en-
gagged on public work incident 10 the du-
ties OF government, which In that case
way, but the case did not decide. as the
question was not involved in the case.
whether the legislature had the power 10
compel the city TO pay without reference
TO the prevailing rate OF wages a minimum
sum for an eight hour days work by en-
ployes engaged on work not OF strictly
governmental or public character but on
corporate work OF a private nature To
make this more clear by an illustration.
the building and maintenance OF highways
and bridges. the establishment and main
tenance Of schools and poor houses. and
the maintenance Of a police force are OBJ
ligatory upon the city and OF n public
| character while water works. sewers.
parks anda fire department are not com
pulsory but OF a private charcter, In
which the city on Its corporate side and
the taxpayers. who by their representa-
tives have voluntarily created the same
and who have paid for the same. have
special property interest.
hn noI ho mo-