New-York tribune., 1910-11-04
RESENTS DENSEL'S WORDS
State Commissioner of Labor
Promptly Makes Reply.
DENIES A POLITICAL MOTIVE
Asks, if Law Is Obsolete, Why Is
1t Incorporated in Water
Boards Contracts.

"oHi NlhiaInS, state Commissioner OF
Labor, made reply yesterday to John A.
Bensel, president of the Board of Water
Supply, denying the retort of Mr. Bensel.
who is the Democratic nominee for State
Engineer and Surveyor. that Commissioner
Williams was attempting to enforce an
obsolete labor Law for political reasons
Inc commissioner points out that the
section OF the law at issue is Incorporated
IN the contracts of the Water Board, and
1urther' he argues that it is not in his
province to inquire If political considera-
tons have anything to do with complaints
OF violations Of law filed in his office. His
duty. he declares, is to investigate such
complaints and take whatever action may
be necessary thereafter.
MIR. Bensel replied by insisting that the
contention he made on Wednesday was
proper. Furthermore, he added. the Su-
preme Court of the state has declared the
clause at issue TO be invalid.
Commissioner Williams's letter of yester-
day to Mr.. Bensel follows:
My attention has been called 10 a state
ineht i ISSUED Dy you and published In to-day )
issue or The New York Times relating to
my communication addressed TO you in re-
gard TO violations of the labor law upon GER
tain contracts under the Jurisdiction of your
board. In this statement you intimate that
| am now attempting to enforce an Obso-
lete law for political reasons. You mis-
TAKEN L am endeavoring to obey Section II
OF the labor law, which prescribes my
course in relation to complaints of viola
dOns filed in my office. 1t is possible that
political considerations had something to
do with the filing of the complaint, but IL
Is not my province to analyze the motives OF
those who allege violations of law: it is
however. my duty TO investigate such COM
plant. and if we'll founded to take such
steps as may be necessary and proper to
enforce the law.
Regarding the point that the section of
the law which has been violated is obsolete.
] have TO say that, irrespective of the rul-
ing of the Supreme Court in Buffalo, rem
dered some fifteen years ago, the Legislat-
ure of 1909 re-enacted and REMEMBERED the
said section; therefore, l take it TO be my
duty to accept the mandate of the LegiS-
lature and TO endeavOr to carry out its
, will.
Moreover. if this provision of the law re-
latlng to the employment of aliens on pub
lie work is obsolete, why has your board
incorporated 1t in each contract entered
into for the construction of the new sys-
TEN Of water supply? In the Contracts
drawn prior to the enactment of the con-
solidated labor law in 1909 reference is
specifically made TO Section Is of the labor
Law, while in those executed thereafter the
reference is to the section under its new
number.
Are we to understand that this particular
provision in these contracts is meaningless.
or. having inserted it. your board has de-
cded not to enforce it? If II is not good
work should be reserved to American citi-
zens. the sooner the labor law Is relieved
this should be accomplished in the proper
way Surely. no administrative officer
should take it upon himself to veto an
act Of the Legislature. I want to know
whether the law means anything. and | do
not know of better way than to join
issue in such manner as TO have the
question settled definitely.
I am not concerned with the allegations
of Illegal registration Of voters in the terri
tory embraced in the water supply area.
for that IS a subject that does not fall
within the lines OF my duty
I'm reply to the letter of Commissioner
Williams said Mr.. B>nsel, 81 desire to
say that l still maintain that the conten-
tion I make is proper. I note what he
says in regard to my statement that the
section which is said to have been violated
was obsolete, namely that irrespective of
the ruling Of the Supreme Court Of this
state fifteen years ago at Buffalo. the Leg
islature of 1909 re-enacted and remembered
the said section and that, therefore, he saw
il TO be his duty to accept the mandate of
the Legislature and TO endeavor 10 carry
out its will.
In regard to this matter I call atten-
ton to the fact that the Supreme Court of
New York State in 1905 declared the pref
erence clause (at issue) invalid, not be-
cause it conficted with the state constitu-
tiOn alone, but because it conficted with
the treaties made by the federal govern
ment with foreign nations.
Now. therefore, to support my view, it
may be said that the highest court in the
state has declared the law invalid on ac-
count of its interference with the federal
law, and no re-enactment by the state,
therefore, can change the force or effect
of that decision
Il would say further in regard to the
other questions raised by Commissioner
Williams that there is no provision of the
labor law which this board is not trying to
enforce, and of that fact he must be well
aware | still insist that it is at least
curious that the only notification which
this board has had IN regard TO this mat
ter should have been filed on November /.
1t is also curious, | say, that il this law Is
to be regarded by the state as effective,
that the Labor Department did not see to
it that contractors maintained A book in
their work with the names of all alien la
borers and with the date and record OF
their naturalization, If they had any, as is
provided for in the clause which IS at is