Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

after the appropriation "On account of hulls and outfits of vessels and steam machinery of vessels heretofore and herein authorized" (36 Stat. 1288), which proviso reads as follows:

"Provided, That no part of this appropriation for the construction and machinery of battleships shall be expended for construction of any battleships by any person, firm or corporation which has not at the time of the commencement and during the construction of said vessels estab lished an eight-hour workday for all employees, laborers and mechanics engaged, or to be engaged in the construction of the vessels named herein."

You say that the department is about to publish an advertisement inviting proposals for the construction of two fleet colliers authorized by said act for the "Increase of the Navy," and has in preparation a circular giving information as to the chief characteristics of said vessels essential to the shipbuilders in preparing proposals for the construction thereof, and that the prices to be named for building these colliers will be materially affected by the question as to whether or not the work is to be done on the eight-hour-a-day basis; and it is necessary that prospective bidders be informed in advance of the construction placed by the department on the question as to the application of the eight-hour workday limitation embodied in said act. You therefore request my opinion as to whether, if a builder with whom a contract should be made for constructing one of the colliers authorized by said act, should also obtain the award of the contract for constructing one of the battleships provided for by the act, he would, as a condition for receiving payment for the battleship, be obliged to establish an eight-hour workday for all employees, laborers, and mechanics engaged, or to be engaged, in the construction of the collier.

Under the head of "Increase of the Navy," the President is authorized to have constructed two first-class battleships, two fleet colliers, and certain other designated vessels. Under the head of "Construction and machinery," there is appropriated a certain sum of money "on account of hulls and outfits of vessels and steam machinery of

vessels heretofore and herein authorized." No part of this appropriation "for the construction and machinery of battleships," it is enacted, shall be expended for construction of "any battleship" by any person, etc., who has not at the time of the commencement and during the construction of "said vessels," i. e., said battleships, established an eight-hour workday for all employees, etc., engaged, etc., "in the construction of the vessels named herein." In this instance the word "herein" clearly means "in this paragraph." To give to it the usual meaning of "in this act" would amplify the application of the paragraph far beyond its express language, which is specifically limited to battleships in the opening clause of the paragraph.

Such construction would extend the limitation far beyond the intention of Congress as expressed in the language used. The debates on the subject in Congress confirm my views of the proper construction of the act. They show that the bill was purposely so framed as to enable the colliers to be built without the eight-hour limitation. In presenting the bill Mr. Foss pointed out the fact that in the act of May 13, 1908, Congress had provided for the building of two fleet colliers (one to be built in a Government navy yard on the Pacific coast), putting a limit upon their cost of $900,000, raised the following year to $1,000,000 in the case of the Government-built collier, but that that ship could not be built for that amount under the law requiring it to be built in a Government navy yard, where it costs more to build than in a private yard.

Mr. Foss said:

"In the act of June 24, 1910, last year, Congress authorized two fleet colliers of the same speed and capacity as those heretofore mentioned, the cost not to exceed $1,000, 000 each, and provided that the eight-hour law should apply to their construction. No bids were received for those colliers from eastern yards, but one bid was made by the Union Iron Works, of San Francisco, to build one at $1,596,500, and there was an irregular bid from Moran & Co., of Seattle, of $887,000, but that was unaccompanied by any check or bond for performance. This bid of Moran & Co. was thrown out, but these colliers we have not been

able to construct by reason of this eight-hour limitation, which was placed upon the construction of these colliers in the last Congress * *

"Two more colliers were authorized last year, and they were required to be built under the eight-hour law, at $1,000,000 each. As it costs more to build under the eighthour law than it does without any restriction of that kind, it has been impossible to get any bids for building these two colliers, and so to-day we have practically these two colliers with the one on the Pacific coast held up by legislative restriction * * *

"So much for the situation with regard to colliers. Now, I wish to take up the subject of battleships, and, I may say, in this bill we put in a provision here under 'Increase of Navy' which allows the Secretary of the Navy to build these colliers by private contract and without the eighthour limitation ***" (Cong. Rec., 61st Cong., 3d

sess., p. 3142.)

I therefore answer your second question in the negative. The fact that a contractor for one of the battleships may also contract for one or more colliers would not require the work on the colliers to be carried on on an eight-hour-a-day basis. That requirement is limited to the construction of a battleship.

Respectfully,

GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM.

THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-CORRECTION OF RECORDS OF WAR DEPARTMENT RELATING TO LAND TITLES.

The authority of the Secretary of War to make correction of the records of the War Department in respect of certain lots in the District of Columbia, provided for by section 2 of the act of March 3, 1899 (30) Stat. 1346), was not suspended by section 26 of the act of May 30, 1908 (35 Stat. 543), creating a commission "for the purpose of investigating the title of the United States in and to all lands in the District of Columbia."

Section 26 of the act of May 30, 1908 (35 Stat. 543), is entirely consistent with section 2 of the act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1346), and the latter provision is not repealed by the former.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
April 13, 1911.

SIR: I have your letter of April 6, 1911 (J. A. G. O. 6136), in which, with reference to the application of Mrs.

Clara Cox Dawson for correction of the records of the War Department relating to lot 114, part of original lot 8, square 153, in the city of Washington, so as to show the title to the said lot to be in her, you ask the following questions:

1. Whether the operation of section 2, of the act of March 3, 1899, is suspended by section 26 of the act of May 30, 1908, so that the War Department is at the present time and pending the execution of said section 26, without authority to make the correction of the records in the Dawson case and in similar cases.

2. Whether section 26 of the said act of May 30, 1908, had the effect of repealing by implication section 2, of the said act of March 3, 1899, so that this application for the correction of the records under the earlier act should be disposed of under the later act of May 30, 1908.

The pertinent language of the acts referred to in the questions thus stated is as follows:

Act approved March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1346):

"SEC. 2. That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to correct the records of the War Department in respect of any of the lots mentioned in Senate Document Numbered Two hundred and seventyseven, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session (being a letter from the Secretary of War transmitting, in compliance with the resolution of the Senate of January twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, a letter from the Chief of Engineers, together with list of lots in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, the title to which the records of his office show to be in the United States, and list of lots in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, which are shown by the records of his office to have been donated by the United States), upon the filing by an actual occupant of any of the lots mentioned in said document sufficient proof that the said occupant or the party under whom he claims has been in actual possession of the said lot or lots for an uninterrupted period of twenty years, so that said records shall show the title to said lots to be in the said occupant."

With regard to the Senate document named in the foregoing extract, it should be said that subsequently to the

passage of the act above mentioned, the Secretary of War transmitted to the United States Senate a corrected list of lots, the title to which the records of the office of Chief of Engineers show to be in the United States, and this list was printed in a reprint of Senate Document No. 277, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session, with explanatory correspondence as Senate Document No. 106, of the Fiftysixth Congress, second session. This correction, however, is not material in the present case for the reason that the parcel of land affected by the present consideration, namely, lot 8, of square 153, is contained both in the original and in the corrected list.

Prior to this enactment there seems to have been no statute under which title by prescriptive right or adverse possession to lands in the District of Columbia could be asserted as against the United States. The act of 1899, in effect, enacted that actual occupation for an uninterrupted period of 20 years of one of the lots described in the list transmitted by the Chief of Engineers and set forth in the Senate document referred to, should afford a conclusive presumption of title in the occupant as against the United States, and that upon his filing sufficient proof of such occupation, the records of the War Department should be corrected so as to show title to the lots so occupied in such occupant.

Section 26 of the public buildings act of May 30, 1908 (35 Stat. 543), created a commission

"for the purpose of investigating the title of the United States in and to all lands in the District of Columbia, with a view to protecting such title, filing a map of said lands, and ascertaining whether or not any individual or corporation is, without proper authority, occupying, in whole or in part, any such lands."

The commission was also directed to investigate and report on transfers of title to lands by the United States, either by authority of Congress or otherwise, and to make recommendations as to the future policy of the Government with respect to the sale or retention of any lands, title to which is in the United States, and pending its report

« AnteriorContinuar »