The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-07-29
GRANITE CUTTERS
LOSE HARD FIGHT
Cannot Enforce Ordinance Com
polling Stone to Be
Cut Here.
VOID AND WITHOUT EFFECT
City Attorney Rules Proposed
Measure Is Class Legisla-
ton and Illegal.

Stonecutters who have for some
weeks past pressed the passage OF an
ordinance requiring all stone or gran
lite used in municipal buildings in
richmond to be cut in the city lose
out under an opinion Just rendered
by City Attorney Pollard. in which ne
holds that such an ordinance would
be unconstitutional. void and OF no
effect
The agitation had it's origin In a
controversy between journeymen
! stonecut.ers and quarrymcn. Until
recently. stonccutters in this city were
paid at tho rate Of $3.50 day. Claim
ing that the wage vas insufficient, the
stonecuttcrs Joined in a union and de-
clined to work for less than 81 a day.
The quarrymcn retaliated by dis
charging u number OF their slower
men. retaining only the men who yield
ed the largest output.
TO Care for Unemployed.
In an effort to provide work for the
workers in enforced idlencss, the
Stonecutters Union secured the intro
duction OF the ordinance compelling
the domestic cutting of granite or
stone intended for municipal purposes
IN this way, il was proposed to give
employment to a number of men who
would otherwise be forced to leave
the city in search Of work in North
Carolina and elsewhere.
AT public hearing two weeks ago,
the quarrymen and stonecUtters APP
peared before the Council Committed
on Ordinances to state their cases.
The committee was in doubt ss 10 the
legality of the measure and voted to
refer ii TO the city Attorney with in
structions TO draw an ordinance COW
cring the points desired If such a mea-
sure could be legally drawn. The
City Attorney now submits an ordin-
ance drawn on the lines laid down,
but appcnds an opinion that It is un-
constitutional and without effect.
To Call Meeting.
Chairman Nonderlehr. of the Ordi-
nance Committee. said yesterday that
he would probably call a meeting or
the committee for the last of this week
to take action In the matter. 1t is
hardly likely that the ordinance will
be reported.
III is the evident Intent OF the or
diuancc," says City Attorney Pollard,
Ito deprive tho city of Richmond,
through it's Administrative Board. who
are charged under Section 30-f of the
charter of the city OF Richmond, with
the exclusive control Of the letting TO
contract and the doing OF all work
for the city and furnishing Of all sup
plies and materials for the use of any
control, Of the right to secure unre
str!cted competition among bidders to
furnish stone or granite used in mu
nicipal buildings or other construc-
ton"
The City Attorney quotes in support
of his position from the decision of
the supreme Court Of Indiana in "A
similar case:
The liberty to contract, subject
only to such limitations as may be
legitimate exercise of the police power
for the public welfare, is not only Sc
cured by the Constitution of this state.
but is undoubtedly within the protec-
ton OF the Federal Constitution, also.
and is covered by the fourteenth
amendment thereof which provides
that no State shall deprive any per-
son Of life. liberty or property without
due process of law, nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection OF the laws"
liz Class Legislation.
"If the proposed ordinance" Mr.. Pol
lard concludes. may be legally enact
ed prohibiting the use OF stone or
stone work not dressed and prepared
for use in the city, why may not an
ordinance be passed prohibiting the
use in the construction of municipal
buildings of lumber not dressed and
prepared for use, and sash. doors and
windows not manufactured, III the city!
or. why may not a similar prohibition
be made against the use by the con
tractor for the city's printing of paper
not manufactured in the city"
These and other illustrations when
might he given indicate, | think. clear
~. that the proposed ordinance is vio-
lative of Fundamental principles, would
have tendency TO promote monopoly
and would be clearly class legislation.
II am, therefore. constrained TO hold
that the proposed ordinance. If enacted,
would be illegal and void.