The State laws on the subject are: Arizona.-Initiated act of 1914, p. 19, appendix to session laws of 1915. North Dakota.-Acts of 1919, ch. 151; extra session, 1919, ch. 43. The Arizona statute is general, authorizing the State board of control to use the general fund of the State whenever in its judgment it shall be for the best interest of the State to establish and operate any manufacturing establishment or institution to manufacture and market any natural product existing in or upon the public lands of the State; to operate water plants, gas plants, printing plants, etc., all work thereon and on other State constructions to be done without the letting of contracts, but by the State, " by days' pay." The Kansas laws is a single provision of the Industrial Court Act, undertaking to authorize the industrial court to take over and operate the industries, employments, public utilities, and common carriers to which the act applies in case of the suspension, limitation, or cessation of such operation if it shall appear to the court that the public welfare and public peace or public health are endangered by such suspension, etc. In North Dakota an industrial commission is created with authority to manage, operate, control, and govern all utilities, industries, enterprises, and business projects of the State except those carried on in penal, charitable, and educational institutions. An appropriation is made available for the commission to use according to its judgment. An act of the special session of 1919 authorized the governor to operate coal mines and public utilities where the cessation of such operation on account of strikes or lockouts threatened to endanger the life and property of the people of the State. The In South Dakota the authorization is entirely in the constitution, amendments thereto having been proposed by the special session of 1918, and subsequently adopted by the people of the State. legislature, by a two-thirds vote, may authorize the construction and maintenance of good roads and the supply of coal; the manufacture, distribution, and sale of cement and cement products, together with the operation of such means of transportation, etc., as are necessary to enable the business to be carried on; the manufacture, distribution, and sale of electric current for heating, lighting, and power purposes; or engaging in any work of public improvement; also the legislature may appropriate money for the construction and operation of elevators and warehouses, and may construct and operate flour mills and packing houses within the State if in its judgment the public necessities may so require. PREFERENCE FOR LOCAL LABOR AND DOMESTIC MATERIALS ON PUBLIC WORKS Expressive of a purpose to benefit local labor and industries are the laws of several States declaring a preference for the employment of citizens and the purchase of domestic products in the prosecution of public works or procuring public supplies. Such laws may even prohibit the employment of aliens (in some States specifically of Chinese), a provision which would be invalid if applied to private employments (Truax v. Raich (1915), 239 U. S. 33, 36 Sup. Ct. 7); and it has even been so held when public employment was under consideration, on the ground that the statute denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States regardless of nationality (Ex parte Case (1911), 20 Idaho 128, 116 Pac. 1037); but on the ground that the States are units of which those not citizens are not members, and that they may dictate the terms on which they will expend their own money, it is authoritatively held that laws containing such restrictions are valid as regards contracts for public works (Heim v. McCall (1915), 239 U. S. 175, 36 Sup. Ct. 78). In expending public funds, the legislature may have contemplated the employment of local labor as tending to prevent pauperism within the State, and was within its powers in so providing (People v. Crane (1915), 214 N. Y. 154, 108 N. E. 427; Aff. 239 U. S. 195, 36 Sup. Ct. 85). Laws of this class exist in the following jurisdictions: Materials Florida.-Acts 1923, ch. 9146. Missouri.-R. S. 10390. Oregon.-Laws, secs. 2992–2994. Porto Rico.-Acts of 1915, No. 13. Washington.-Acts 1911, Senate J. R. No. 10. Labor Arizona.-Const., Art. XVIII. sec. 10; R. S., sec. 3105; acts of 1919, ch. 174, sec. 46. California.-Const., art. 19, sec. 3; Pol. Code, secs. 3235, 3247 (added 1897, ch. 149) acts of 1915, ch. 417 (am. 1921, ch. 366). Florida.-Acts of 1923, ch. 9146. Hawaii.-R. L., secs. 157 (am. 1923, No. 19), 160. Idaho. Const., art. 13, sec. 5; C. S., sec. 2323. Louisiana.-Acts of 1899, No. 6; acts of 1908, No. 271. Maine.-R. S., ch. 49, sec. 36. Massachusetts.-G. L., ch. 149, sec, 26, 179a (added 1922, ch. 517). Nevada.-R. L. 1919, p. 2965. New Hampshire.-Acts 1915, ch. 45. New Jersey.-C. S., p. 3023, sec. 15. New York. Acts of 1921, ch. 50, sec. 222. Oregon.-Laws, secs. 2995-3000. Pennsylvania.-Statutes, sec. 18268. Washington.-Acts of 1919, ch. 111. United States.--C. S., secs. 6859, 6876, 6879. The prohibition against the employment of aliens, or at least those who have not declared their intentions of citizenship, is absolute in Arizona, California (emergencies due to fire, flood, or other calamity due to natural causes excepted), Idaho, New Jersey, and Wyoming. PUBLIC PRINTING TO BE DONE WITHIN THE STATE Like the above, the provision found in the laws of a number of States requiring public printing to be done within the State is doubtless intended in part to favor local industry. The practice is much wider than the statutory requirement. In some States a proviso is added allowing bids from outside the State to be secured where the difference in cost would seem to warrant, or where there appears to be a combination in the State to maintain prices and prevent free competition. The Mississippi statute was held constitutional by the supreme court of that State. (Dixon-Paul Printing Co. v. Board (1918), 77 So. 908). The following States have laws directing printing to be done within the State: Arkansas.-Digest, sec. 9207. Mississippi.-Code, sec. 3739 (am. 1916, ch. 135.) New Hampshire.-Acts, 1901, ch. 84 (am. 1913, ch. 132). North Dakota.-R. C., sec. 2282 (am. 1907, ch. 185). Texas.-R. S., art. 6340. Of these States, the following make provision for bids from outside the State when one or both the conditions named above exist: Arkansas, Idaho, New Hampshire, North Dakota (allows a difference of 15 per cent), and Tennessee. The following States, etc., have provided for public printing offices: California.-Pol. C., secs. 526-540. Iowa. Code, sec. 117; Supp., secs. 118-144d. Kansas. Const., art. 15, sec. 256; G. S., secs. 10792–10820. Nevada.-R. L., secs. 4305–4340. Oregon. Const., Art. XII, sec. 1; Laws, secs. 2780-2795. Philippine Islands.-Acts of Phil. Com., No. 296. Porto Rico.Pol. C., sec. 2718. RATES OF WAGES OF EMPLOYEES ON PUBLIC WORKS Laws designating the rates of wages to be paid employees on public works are significant as an attempt on the part of the State to regulate employment conditions. Such laws may either name a fixed sum or direct that not less than current rates be paid. Some of these laws have been declared unconstitutional by the courts, either because of their infringing on the right to contract or because they were discriminatory in their nature. In a New York case (People ex. rel. Rodgers v. Coler (1901), 166 N. Y. 1, 59 N. E. 716), a contractor sued to compel payment on a contract for work done, in the performance of which he had paid less than the current wages. The act of the legislature requiring that rates of wages on public work be not less than the prevailing rates in similar employments in the locality in which the work was done was declared unconstitutional as invading the rights of liberty and property, denying to the city and to contractors the right to agree with their employees as to the amount of compensation to be paid. The statute was also condemned as penalizing acts that are in themselves innocent and harmless. Later (Ryan v. City of New York (1904), 177 N. Y. 271, 69 N. E. 599), the attitude indicated above was modified to the extent of holding that the city was governed by this law in so far as it related to direct employment by the municipalities, though it was void as to contractors, who must simply effect specified results, and who are at liberty to make contracts freely with their workmen. The Supreme Court of Indiana in 1903 took the view expressed in the Rodgers case above, holding that cities, etc., might also contract without interference by the statute (Street v. Varney Elec. Co., 60 Ind. 338, 66 N. E. 895). The foregoing decisions are opposed to a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (Atkin v. Kansas (1903), 191 U. S. 207, 24 Sup. Ct. 124), to the effect that municipalities are but the agent of the State for the performance of certain duties best attended to locally, and that it rests with the State to make such conditions for contractors as it may choose, the contractor being free or not to accept such terms; but if he undertakes work for the State or a municipality, both he and the municipality must conform to the conditions laid down by the State. The people of the State of New York later adopted an amendment to the constitution conferring on the legislature power to act in the manner previously attempted, regulating the conditions of employment, whether the work be done by the city directly or by a contractor. The legislature then passed another law which has since been declared constitutional. (People ex rel. Williams Eng. and Const. Co. v. Metz (1908), 193 N. Y. 148, 85 N. E. 1070). The doctrine of the Atkin Case was not found to apply in a case involving the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature of Nebraska (ch. 17, acts of 1909) which undertook to regulate the conditions of employment on the public works of cities of a designated class, naming $2 as the rate of daily pay. This was given as one of the reasons for holding the act unconstitutional, since "no fixed rate of wages should be provided by the legislature without reference to the going wages for that kind of work at the time and place where it is to be performed" (Wright v. Hoctor (1914), 95 Nebr. 342, 145 N. W. 704). This was on the ground that the law favored one citizen at the expense of another, taking the property of the latter without due process of law. Another decision falling in this group is one of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declaring invalid a stipulation in a contract of the city of Reading fixing $1.50 as the minimum daily wage to be paid by contractors for public works (Frame v. Felix (1895), 167 Pa. 47, 31 Atl. 375). It was held that this provision was a violation of the law that required such contracts to be let to the lowest responsible bidder, wages being one of the essential elements of the work, every part of which must be subject to competition. It is recognized under the decision in the Atkin Case, however, that a law properly based and enacted, fixing rates of wages on public works is valid legislation. The States having laws on this subject are (laws relating only to highway labor omitted) the following: Arizona.-R. S., sec. 3103. California.-Code, G. L., No. 2894. Hawaii. Acts of 1919, No. 218. Maryland.-P. L. L. (Baltimore), Art. 4, sec. 31a (am. 1910, p. 642). New York. Acts of 1921, ch. 50, sec. 220 (am. 1921, ch. 642). Porto Rico.-Acts of 1923, No. 11. United States.-C. S., sec. 6765. HOURS OF LABOR ON PUBLIC ROADS The laws designating the hours of labor on public roads apply principally to the working out of taxes and relate less to the employment of labor than to regulations adopted by the people through their representatives for the determination of the time of their own. service in this particular. They are significant, however, as indicating what is considered a day's labor in a form of public work, though they establish a minimum day rather than fix a limit beyond which labor is forbidden. The hours of labor prescribed by the laws of the various States, etc., which have laws on this subject are as follows: Eight hours Alaska.-C. L., sec. 36. Arkansas.-Digest, sec. 5348. California.-Acts of 1917, ch. 52, sec. 35. Indiana.-Acts of 1923, ch. 194, sec. 3. Iowa.-Code, sec. 1535. Kentucky.-Statutes, sec. 4329 (am. 1918, ch. 23). New Jersey.-C. S., p. 4444, sec. 53; p. 4448, sec. 66a-5. Oklahoma.-R. L., sec. 7566. Philippine Islands.-Acts of Phil. Com., No. 1511. Texas.-Acts of 1913, ch. 68. Wyoming.-C. S., sec. 2562. Not less than 7 nor more than 10 hours North Carolina.-Con. L., sec. 3808. Nine hours Tennessee.-Code, sec. 1671. Ten hours South Carolina.-Civ. C., sec. 1977. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS FOR TAXES OF EMPLOYEES Eleven jurisdictions have in their tax laws provisions making employers liable for certain taxes of their employees. The law may require such payment on notice, or it may provide for proceedings in the nature of garnishment before liability attaches. The amounts paid are of course to be deducted from the wages. In Alaska and Louisiana the laws refer to school taxes only; in Nevada and Washington to poll taxes for general State or local benefit; in North Carolina all taxes are included; in Pennsylvania (sec. 4817) to occupation taxes of employees generally for school purposes, another section (20728) relating to all taxes assessed on alien employees. In the other five States only road taxes are included in the laws. |