or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall be permitted or required to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day.

Each contract for such public work hereafter made shall contain a provision that the same shall be void and of no effect unless the person or corporation making or performing the same shall comply with the provisions of this section and no such person or corporation shall be entitled to receive any sum, nor shall any officer, agent or employee of the State or of a municipal corporation, pay the same or authorize its payment from the funds under his charge or control to any such person or corporation for work done upon any contract which in its form or manner of performance, violates the provisions of this section.

I am of the opinion that this statute can not be held to preclude the purchase by a contractor of articles in the open market which articles may enter into the construction of buildings owned by the state or a municipality thereof.

It can not be the contemplation of this statute that a contractor could not purchase a pound of nails or a foot of wire for use upon this contract and receive compensation from the state or a municipality under his contract, because such pound of nails or foot of wire had been made by a firm or corporation not complying with this statute in reference to the number of hours of labor in a day performed by its workmen in the making of such nails or wire.

In the construction of a public building, the contractor must, of necessity, buy thousands of articles in the open market, which articles will enter into the construction of the work and thereby enter into and become a part of the contract which he has made with the state or municipality. If he must follow each of these articles to the various states of the Union, where it is made, or trace each item which he may purchase to its ultimate source to ascertain whether the workmen, employed in the manufacture were suffered or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day in purchasing such article, one or two things would result. First, he must, when he enters into any contract with the state or municipality, be prepared to manufacture every single item which may enter into the construction by workmen in his employ, and thus know that the statute was complied with so far as the manufacture of every item which entered into the performance of his contract is concerned; or, he must purchase every such article of some contractor or manufacturer so operating his plant where such article was manufactured, that no workman shall be permitted to work in the manufacture of such material more than eight hours a day.

Carrying this argument to its ultimate conclusion, the workman in the mine, the workman in the furnace and the workman in the factory manufacturing the article from raw material - all must have complied with the statute, although they may be situated in different states or perhaps in foreign countries. This he must do for

"No person shall be entitled to receive any sum nor shall any officer, agent or employee of the State or of a municipal corporation, pay the same or authorize its payment from the funds under his charge or control to any such person or corporation for work done upon any contract which, in its form or manner of performance, violates the provision of this act."

It clearly could not have been the contemplation of the Legislature that any such construction was to be placed upon this statute.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that when the contractor enters into a contract with the state or a municipality for the construction of a building or the instaling therein of fixtures, he must be permitted to purchase such finished fixtures in the open market and does not violate this statute in so doing.

Yours very truly,

(Signed) DANFORTH E. AINSWORTH,

Deputy Attorney-General in Charge.

DECISION OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS ON SECTION 77 OF THE LABOR LAW LIMITING THE HOURS OF WORK OF WOMEN.

COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS OF THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK.

Hon. WILLIAM TRAVERS JEROME, District Attorney, for the People.
GEORGE W. ELKINS, Esquire, for the Defendant.

PER CURIAM: The defendant pleaded guilty to an information charging him with violation of the provisions of section 77 of the Labor Law in that, during the week between the 24th day of September and the 1st day of October, 1906, in the county of New York, he unlawfully did employ, and permit, and suffer to work in and in connection with a certain factory a certain female, one Mary Seeback, for the period of more than sixty hours in said week. The defendant further pleaded guilty to two other informations charging him with a violation of the provisions of the same law in respect of two other females.

Summary inquiry was had in each of these cases which developed the fact that the factory referred to in the informations was a steam laundry, and that each of the females alleged to have been employed illegally was an adult. Defendant thereupon, through counsel, moved in arrest of judgment on the ground that section 77 of the Labor Law, so far as it attempted to restrict the right to employ female labor in a factory more than sixty hours in a week or the right of females to labor more than sixty hours in any one week is unconstitutional. He cited, Lochner v. State of New York, 198 U. S. 45.

This court has already declared that portion of section 77 of the Labor Law which prohibits employment in a factory of any female after nine o'clock

at night and before six o'clock in the morning to be unconstitutional (People v. Williams, N. Y. Law Journal, Aug. 10th, 1906), and defendant seeks to establish the unconstitutionality of the act in its further restriction of the number of hours a week during which a female may be employed.

The decision in the Williams case rested solely upon the ground that that part of the law there invoked could not be considered as purely a health regulation, and as such within the police power of the state, and, as was decided in the Lochner case, that it was an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty or to enter into those contracts in relation to labor which may seem to him appropriate or necessary for the support of himself and his family."

. There is a distinction between a law which prohibits the employment of a woman for the slighest period of time during certain hours and one which limits the number of hours in a day or a week during which she may be employed at factory work. A law which attempts to limit the number of hours of labor of a woman employed in a factory, may well be a health regulation and a proper legislative exercise of the state's police power. There has been no adjudication of this law by the appellate courts of this state. The courts of last resort in four other states, however, have passed upon this question of the hours of labor of women under statutes and constitutional provisions quite similar to those under consideration. In Massachusetts (Commonwealth v. Hamilton Mfg. Co., 120 Mass. 383), in Nebraska (Wenhan v. State, 91 N. W. Rep. 421), and in Washington (State of Washington v. Buchanan, 29 Wash. Rep. 602), the courts upheld the constitutionality of acts which limited the number of hours during which women labor in factories in those several states. In Illinois (Richie v. People, 155 Ill. 98), the Supreme Court of that state declared a similar act to be unconstitutional. The weight of authority, therefore, seems to be favorable to the constitutionality of a law which limits the number of hours in a day or week that a woman may be employed at work in a factory.

There is nothing in the Lochner case, reported, which indicates the sex of the employee, who it was alleged was required to work more than sixty hours a week. We know that the person in that case was an employee in a bakery or confectionery establishment. Defendant's counsel urges that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Lochner case is applicable here. The Lochner case, however, did not turn upon the sex of the person employed, but upon the nature of the employment. The issue directly in point here is that of sex. It is an issue which has not yet been presented to the Supreme Court of the United States, but as has been said, the weight of authority being for the constitutionality of the act in question, this court is constrained to deny, and does deny, the motion in arrest of judgment. [October 31, 1906.1

APPENDIX VI.

INDEX OF BILLS AND LAWS RELATING TO LABOR WHICH WERE ACTED UPON AT THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION OF 1906.

[EXPLANATION.

The smaller type is used to distinguish bills that failed of enactment. The usual abbreviations appear, such as "A" for Assembly, "S" for Senate, "L. & I. Com." for Committee on Labor and Industries, "Int." to designate the introductory number, etc.]

FACTORIES, WORKSHOPS, BAKERIES, ETC.

Tenant factories (Labor Law, new §§ 94, 95) chap. 178.

Sen. No. 842, introduced by Mr. Prentice (A. 192, print 754.)

Labeling of goods unlawfully manufactured in tenements (§ 102) chap. 275. A. 1954, introduced by Mr. Prentice (No. 193; printed Nos. 193 and 697) chap. 129.

Labor in tenements (amends § 100 of the Labor Law.)

A. 1167, introduced by Mr. Prentice (No. 194; print. Nos. 194, 698.) Bakeries and confectioneries (amends §§ 111, 114) chap. 401.

A. 1204, introduced by Mr. Prentice (No. 191; print. Nos. 191, 696, 1043.) A. 1452. Introduced by Mr. Rock (No. 648; print. No. 729), relating to bakeries and confectionery establishments and the delivery and sale of the products thereof" (L. & I. Com.-A).

S. 668. Introduced by Mr. Coggeshall (Int. No. 563), "to amend the tenementhouse act, relative to bakeries and fat boiling." Committed to the committee on judiciary.

Amending the factory law in relation to the use of exhaust fans (§ 81) chap. 366.

A. 1315 (Int. 188, print. 188, 695) introduced by Mr. Allen.

Reporting of accidents (amending § 87) chap. 216.

S. 839, introduced by Mr. Allen (Int. 185, print, Nos. 185, 693.)

S. 1266 (Int. 843, print. 1085). Introduced by Mr. Brackett (identical with A. 2016, Int. 1477, Mr. Whitney), to amend section 88 of the Labor Law to require washrooms in foundries.

A. 1292. Introduced by Mr. Rock (No. 1067), "to amend the Labor Law in relation to the protection of employees on buildings and bridges in the course of construction." New section 19a - nets and other devices for protection of employees. On order of third reading.

S. 759. Introduced by Mr. Grady (No. 633), "to prevent loss of lives in case of fire, by inspection, repair and renewal of fire escapes attached to factories, dwellings or other buildings." Referred to judiciary committee.

A. 985. Introduced by Mr. Hartman (No. 824), “for the protection of passengers and employees upon elevators in cities of the first class." Referred to judiciary committee.

A. 401. Introduced by Mr. Allen (No. 377), "to amend the Labor Law relative to prosecutions" (new section 68). Senate judiciary committee.

A. 1629. Introduced by Mr. Allen (Int. 187, print. Nos. 187, 694, 1314, 1456), to amend section 32 of the Labor Law, permitting the destruction of records, etc., after three years. Senate judiciary committee.

S. 1119. Introduced by Mr. Page (No. 862), to amend section 21 of the Labor Law, relative to enforcement of Article I. Assembly committee on labor and industries.

S. 1418.

Introduced by Mr. Allen (A. 403, Int. 379; identical with S. 193, introduced by Sen. Armstrong), to permit the grading of deputy factory inspectors. (Section 61 of the Labor Law.) Senate committee on finance.

S. 195. Introduced by Senator Armstrong, increasing the salaries of the deputy commissioners of labor. Finance committee. (Identical with A. 400, Mr. Allen, in Senate judiciary committee.)

MINES, QUARRIES, TUNNELS, ETC.

Amending the mine inspection law (new §§ 130-133 Labor Law) chap. 375. A. 1200, introduced by Mr. Allen (Int. 184.)

A. 609 (Int. 560) and A. 2161 (Int. 615), introduced by Mr. Allen, amending section 121 of the Labor Law to require two outlets from subterranean workings more than 500 feet in depth. Committee on labor and industries.

A. 2306. Introduced by Mr. Stanley (Int. 1194, print. 1494, 2190). amending the Mine Inspection Law so as to include tunnels. On order of third reading. Amending the Penal Code (§ 384 g) to impose a penalty for refusal to admit factory inspectors to tunnels, chap. 521.

A. 1826, introduced by Mr. Donohue (No 1132, print. 1406, 1689.)

RAILWAY LABOR.

Amending the Railroad Law (§ 58) in relation to the appointment of special policemen, chap. 380.

A. 1966, introduced by Mr. Williams (Int. 1447.)

A. 2124. Introduced by Mr. A. E. Smith (Int. 1530), requiring all (instead of a sufficient number) cars to be equipped with air brakes. Committee on railroads. A. 1159. Introduced by Mr. Lansing (Int. 961), directing the Railroad Commission to appoint an inspector of safety appliances. Committee on railroads. A. 935. Introduced by Mr. Harvey (Int. 781), requiring freight trains to be manned by a full crew of six persons. Committee on railroads.

A. 849. Introduced by Mr. Bernstein (Int. 730), requiring two locomotive engineers or motormen on all trains of three or more cars. Committee on railroads. S. 357. Introduced by Mr. Keenan (Int. 328) requiring additional motorman on trains of two or more cars operated on Long Island lines. Senate committee on railroads.

A. 1213. Introduced by Mr. Bedell (Int. 995), requiring three years' service as fireman to qualify for engagement as locomotive engineer. Committee on railroads. A. 2260. Introduced by Mr. Campbell (Int. 1591), requiring examination and licensing of motormen by state board. Committee on ways and means.

A. 2137. Introduced by Mr. Oglesby (Int. 1545), requiring the enclosure of platforms on street cars used more than a mile outside of city limits. Committee on railroads.

S. 39. Introduced by Mr. Martin (Int. 39), requiring vestibules on street cars in Manhattan borough, New York City. Committee on railroads.

A. 1990. Introduced by Mr. Harte (Int. 830, print. 991), requiring street railway companies in New York city to pay full day's wages to employees on duty. Senate committee on railroads.

PUBLIC Work.

New eight-hour and prevailing-rate-of-wages law for municipal work, chap. 506. S. 843, introduced by Mr. Page (Int. 17, print, 17, identical with A. 33, introduced by Mr. Rock).

A. 2186 (Senate bill No. 843, with amendments reported by committee on labor and industries). In Assembly lost by the substitution of the original bill.

A. 685. Introduced by Mr. Gates (Int. 619), amending sections 3, 4 and 21 of the Labor Law, relative to labor on public work. Committee on ways and means.