New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-05-14
EIGHT-HOUR Law RULING
Does Not apply to- Laborers and
Mechanics on DredgeS.

Washington. May 13.-Justice Holmes. OF the SD
prene Court of the United States. to-day announced
the decision of the court in number of cases IN
volving the construction of the eight hour law OF
1892 by which the employment of laborers and me-
chanics public works is limited to eight hours
a day The defendants all prosecuted Grim
inally. and were found guilty and fined by the trial
court The suits instituted especially for the
purpose Of testing the applicability of the law 10
laborers and mechanics employed on dredges IN
river and harbor improvements. but other points
were involved The court held the law to be con-
sttutional, but that 1t not apply TO laborerS
and mechanics dredges and that men so en-
ployed cannot be held to be employed on public
works.
There were seven cases. and all came to the SUI
preme Court writs Of error from the United
States District Court for the District of Massa-
Chusetts. Justice Holiness opinion was based on
the cases of, William H. Ellis and the Eastern
Dredging Company VS.. the United States, and all
the others decided along the same lines JUS
Moody delivered a dissenting opinion. The de-
cision will have immediate bearing on the let
ting of contracts for the 100000 worth OF river
and harbor work authorized by the last session OF
Congress. Most of the contracts under that Ia"
were held up by the War Department pending the
settlement of the
Justice Holiness opinion that men employed ON
dredges in river and harbor improvements are not
laborers mechanics was based on the ground
that in effect such men are seamen, to Whom the
law is not applicable He said that all other en-
plOyment is incidental TO the work ol tie men oii
the dredgcs and TO their services as seamen, ana
therefore they must be classified seamen.
Justice Moody held a Numerically opposite view,
declaring that the duties of the men in handling
the dredges are incidental TO their work as labor
ers Their principal duty that of digging and
removing dirt. and the fact that they are employed
on vessel does not alter the The court. he
said nothing to do with the policy Of Congress
IN enacting the law. Justices Harlan and Day
concurred in the dissenting opinion.
The Ellis dealt with the construction of
pier the Boston Navy Yard and the decision of
the United States District Court for Massachusetts.
holding that he contractor within the mean
ing OF the law affirmed In the Eastern
Dredging Company the company was charged
with employing alleged to be laborers or me-
chancs for more than eight hours day on dredges
I'm Boston Harbor. In that case the District Court
was reversed.
Constituting the applicability of the law to dTedg-
ing. Justice Holmes said
The sta1ute says; "Iaborers and mechanics EN-
ployed upon any Of the public works 1t does NOT
say. and no one supposes 1t to mean any pu aIG
the plural works import that the ooJecls VI IA
referred have some kind or permanent eN-
capable Of being regarded as complete wholes.
The words laborers and mechanics are ad-
mitted TO apply to seamen. that name com
money is used. The scows and the floating dredges
diction OF the United States Therefore all the
hands mentioned in the information We're seamen
United States They all require something of the
training and are liable 20 be called upon Tor more
less OF the required OF ordinary seamen.
The which exclude the latter from the
he Py sG R her wo is
incident TO their employment the dredgcs and
Scows. as IN tEe cas-" or an engineer or coal shoV-
eller on board ship
Justice Moodys dissenting opinion based on
the decision reversing the finding in the Eastern
Dredging Company cases. Speaking of the men
employed On the dredges, he said:
think :hev ;aborers or mechanics. and
employed such. ard that their occupation is lie
Termiaed, not by what they nave done in the past.
or ny what thei- employers choose call them.
but by y hat they were dOYg when the government
invoked the IL for their benefit. If they were do
ling the ork OF laDorers and mechanics. whatever
they may have done N the past which constitutes
a motive for .helr employment, by whatever
name they we're employed. they were. or. rather.
their labor was within the restrictions hours
prescribed by law. Nor their work in dredg-
ing incident TO their employment the dredger,
but quite the reverse They never would have been
employed at all except for dredging. They never
would have set foot on the dredge It
as platform on which to do the work OF laborers
and mechanics.