New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-11-30
STATE NAY BAR
ALL ALIEN LABOR
u. S. Supreme Court Up
holds Validity of the
New York Law.
STATUTE MODIFIED
AFTER SUIT BEGAN
highest Bench Decides State
Can Prescribe How Public
Work Shall Be Done.
Iron The Tribune Bureau J

Washington. Nov. Holding thai
3, belongs 10 state 20 prescribe the
conditions on which IL will permit pub
lie work to be done, the Supreme Court
of the United States sustained to-day
the New York law prohibiting the en-
ploynent of aliens on public works
This decision sustains that Of .he New
York courts, which were appealed "a
after farreaching disturbances in the
construction Of the new subways III
New York City. The law has been mod
fled aimee the trouble about obtaining
workers for subway construction, ou'
the suits decided to-day were brought
before the modification, and the decl'
sion upholds the full strictneSs OF the
original law. As result to-day
opinions, one being on the criminal and
the other on the civil phase OF the
law. will. it is thought. fall heavily on
,hc subway contractors who treated
the law as unconstitutional
The civil suit decided was that oil
William +. Helm ct. al. VS.. the Mem
bers of the Public Service Commission
Of the First District of New York
With Mr. Helm as plaintiffs were asso-
ciated the Crawford Company and the
Flnn-O'Rourke Company. The erin
NAL case was that against Clarence A
Crane.
In handing down the decisions. Jus.
tice McKenna referred to the case or
Akin vs.. the State of Kansas, IN when
said the justice, II was declared thaI
1T belongs TO the state. as guardian
and trustee for it, people and having
control of its affairs, 10 prescribe tne
conditions upon which il will permit
l.. L. H. ~ a
or on behalf of its municipalities. No
court has authority 70 review It's action
in that respect Regulations on this
subject suggest only considerations OF
public policy. And with such consld-
erations the court has no concern.
Justice McKenna held that the labor
law Of New York and its threatened en-
forcement do not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment or the right of plaintiff IN
error under the provisions OF the treaty
with italy. Constituting the provision
of 1871. the Court Of Appeals decided
that II does not limit the power OF
the state as a proprietor to control the
construction Of its own works and the
distribution Of its own moneys.
1--WE need not follow counsel IN dis
sertation upon the treaty-maklng power
made. The present case is concerned
with construction, not power, and we
have precedents to guide construction
No question was raised IS to the Tight
Of Helm TO maintain the suit. Al
though he is not one Of the contractors
ror q laborer of the excluded national,
lily or citizenship. the court assumed
that Helm had the right of suit.
"The contention of the plaintiff in
error that the rapid transit lines have
given the city rights superior to the
control Of the state, so far as the law
in question is concerned. has met with
adverse decision. Whatever Of local
Jaw or consideration is involved in the
decision. we are bound by; whatever
of independence the decision has in
general power Of state over its mu-
nicipality has support in many cases.
With the rejection of the asserted
rights of the city must 90 the asserted
rights of subway contractors, so far
AS they depend upon the asserted free
dom OF the city from the control Of the
state.
"The claim Of right in the city of
such freedom is peculiar Z the city