The reports of the parliamentary committees and other evidence showing the marked improvement in the laborers' condition led to the adoption of a law in 1844 reducing the employment of children under 14 years of age to half time. In 1847 the 10-hour law was enacted, and in 1874 the hours of labor were still further reduced to nine and a half.

The increase of wages, the advance of intelligence, the decrease of ignorance, pauperism, and crime, the use of improved methods of production, and the consequent cheapening of products since the opportunity-creating legislation came into full operation, comprises a most marvelous phenomenon. The economic and social success of the short-hour legislation was so obvious that some of the leading statesmen of England who opposed it afterwards publicly apologized in the House of Commons for their opposition and supported all subsequent measures for extending its applications to other industries. In 1860, 12 years after the 10-hour law came into operation, a bill was introduced to extend it to bleacheries. Sir James Graham, who was secretary of state when the 10-hour law was introduced by Lord Ashley, announced his complete conversion in a speech in which he said:

I have a confession to make to the House. Experience has shown, to my satisfaction, that many of the predictions formerly made against the factory bill have not been verified by the result, as, on the whole, that great measure of relief for women and children has contributed to the well-being and comfort of the laboring classes, while it has not injured their masters. By the vote I shall give to-night I will endeavor to make some amends for the course I pursued in earlier life in opposing the factory bill. As early as July 16, 1862 (12 Stat. L., p. 576), Congress provided that the hours of labor and the wages of employees in the navy yards of the United States should conform as nearly as consistent with the public interest with those of private establishments of a similar

nature.

On June 25, 1868, Congress enacted:

That eight hours shall constitute a day's work for all laborers, workmen, and mechanics now employed or who may hereafter be employed by or on behalf of the Government of the United States; and that all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act be, and the same are hereby, repealed.

President Grant, by his proclamation of May 19, 1869, checked abuses which were perverting the generous object of this statute by declaring

That from and after this date no reduction shall be made in the wages paid by the Government by the day to such laborers, workmen, and mechanics on account of any such reduction of hours of labor.

On May 11, 1872, President Grant issued a second proclamation referring to the former, and among other things said:

And whereas it is now represented to me that the act of Congress and the proclamation aforesaid have not been strictly observed by all officers of the Government having charge of such laborers, workmen, and mechanics: Now, therefore, I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States, do again call attention to the aforesaid act, and direct all officers of the executive department of the Government having charge of the employment and pay of laborers, workmen, and mechanics employed by or on behalf of the Government of the United States to make no reduction in the wages paid for the Government, by the day, for such laborers, workmen, and mechanics on account of the reduction of the hours of labor.

On May 18, 1872, Congress further enacted a law providing

That the proper accounting officers be, and hereby are, authorized and required, in the settlement of all accounts for the services of laborers, workmen, and mechanics

t

twenty-fifth day of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, the date of the act constituting eight hours a day's work for all such workmen, laborers, and mechanics, and the nineteenth day of May, eighteen hundred and sixty-nine, the day of the proclamation of the President concerning such pay, to settle and pay for the same without reduction on account of reduction of hours of labor by said act when it shall be made to appear that such was the sole cause of the reduction of wages, and a sufficient sum for said purpose is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

On March 30, 1888, in the urgent deficiency bill, it was enacted as follows:

And the Public Printer is hereby directed to rigidly enforce the provisions of the eight-hour law in the department under his charge.

And by the act approved May 24, 1888, it was provided—

That hereafter eight hours shall constitute a day's work for letter carriers in cities or postal districts thereof, for which they shall receive the same pay as is now paid for a day's work of a greater number of hours. If any letter carrier is employed a greater number of hours than eight, he shall be paid extra for the same in proportion to the salary now fixed by law.

The Department of Justice had held

that the provisions of the act of June 25, 1868, were not applicable to mechanics, workmen, and laborers who are in the employ of a contractor with the United States. That act was not intended to extend to any others than the immediate employees of the Government.

In the case of the United States v. Martin (94 U. S., 404) the Supreme Court said, respecting the eight-hour law of 1868:

We regard the statute chiefly as in the nature of a direction from a principal to his agent that eight hours is deemed to be a proper length of time for a day's labor, and that his contract shall be based upon that theory. It is a matter. between the principal and his agent, in which a third party has no interest. The proclamation of the President and the act of 1872 are in harmony with this view of the statute.

We are of the opinion therefore that contracts fixing or giving a different length of time as the day's work are legal and binding upon the parties making them.

This decision recognized the legality of a longer workday in Government employment. The influence of the law and President Grant's proclamations upon public opinion was lessened.

The brevity and the indefiniteness of the eight-hour law of 1868 induced further legislation. Officers of the Government having charge of many employees did not administer the eight-hour law uniformly. Many of the ablest officials were friendly to this statute. Brig. Gen. Casey, Chief of Engineers, declared that he was strongly in favor of an eight-hour law; that it is an advantage to the country and to the laborer, and should be extended all over the country. Yet the employees of the engineers were paid a day's wages for eight hours of labor, but the law was not interpreted to limit the hours of employment in one day. Commander Folger, in charge of the Washington Navy Yard, reported that in an eight-hour workday, if observed, the quality of work produced would probably compensate for the reduced hours; yet he confessed that he did not understand that it was the policy of the Government to limit the hours of service in a Government day to eight hours and no more.

THE LABOR LAW OF 1892.

The following act, of August 1, 1892, was the result of discussions and committee investigations during three years prior to its enactment. Its main object was to prohibit contractors or subcontractors upon

any of the public works of the United States or the District of Columbia from working more than eight hours upon any of the public works. In terms it was made unlawful for any officer, contractor, or subcontractor upon any of the public works to require or permit any laborer or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any calendar day.

CHAP. 352.-AN ACT Relating to the limitation of the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon the public works of the United States and of the District of Columbia.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the service and employment of all laborers and mechanics who are now or may hereafter be employed by the Government of the United States, by the District of Columbia, or by any contractor or subcontractor upon any of the public works of the United States or of the said District of Columbia, is hereby limited and restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day, and it shall be unlawful for any officer of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia or any such contractor or subcontractor whose duty it shall be to employ, direct, or control the services of such laborers or mechanics to require or permit any such laborer or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any calendar day except in case of extraordinary emergency.

SEC. 2. That any officer or agent of the Government of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or any contractor or subcontractor whose duty it shall be to employ, direct, or control any laborer or mechanic employed upon any of the public works of the United States or of the District of Columbia who shall intentionally violate any provision of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each and every such offense shall upon conviction be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court having jurisdiction thereof.

SEC. 3. The provisions of this act shall not be so construed as to in any manner apply to or affect contractors or subcontractors, or to limit the hours of daily service of laborers or mechanics engaged upon the public works of the United States or of the District of Columbia for which contracts have been entered into prior to the passage of this act.

In succession Attorney General Miller and Attorney General Olney interpreted this act at the instance of the Secretary of War. Their opinions are here inserted:

[The act of August 1, 1892, chapter 352, is of general application, and the limitation as to public works in said act applies only to such persons as are in the employ of contractors and subcontractors. Whether or not specified persons are such laborers is a question of fact not for the Attorney General to determine. (20 Opinions Attorney General, 459.)]

DEPARTMENT Of Justice,

Wa hington, D. C., August 27, 1892.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of the Acting Secre tary of August 12, transmitting a copy of the act of Congress of August 1, 1892, entitled "An act relating to the limitation of the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon the public works of the United States and of the District of Columbia." In this note you ask my opinion upon the questions:

First. Does this act apply only to such laborers and mechanics as are employed by the Quartermaster's Department upon public works, or does it include all other laborers and mechanics employed in the Quartermaster's Department performing the usual and ordinary service of that character in that department?

Second. Does it include teamsters, watchmen, engineers, and firemen employed in the public service of the War Department and all engineers, firemen, deck hands, mates, and seamen on Government vessels in the service thereof?

The act, which is short, reads as follows:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the service and employment of all laborers and mechanics who are now or may hereafter be employed by the Government of the United States, by the District of Columbia, or by any contractor or subcontractor upon any of the public works of the United States or of the said District of Columbia, is hereby limited and restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day; and it shall be unlawful for any officer of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia, or any

the services of such laborers or mechanics, to require or permit any such laborer or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any calendar day except in case of extraor

dinary emergency.

"SEC. 2. That any officer or agent of the Government of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or any contractor or subcontractor whose duty it shall be to employ, direct, or control any laborer or mechanic employed upon any of the public works of the United States or of the District of Columbia, who shall intentionally violate any provision of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each and every offense shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court having jurisdiction thereof. "SEC. 3. The provisions of this act shall not be so construed as to in any manner apply to or affect contractors or subcontractors or to limit the hours of daily service of laborers or mechanics engaged upon the public works of the United States or of the District of Columbia, for which contracts have been entered into prior to the passage of this act."

The first question for decision is whether this law applies only to labor performed upon public works, or whether, as to laborers and mechanics employed directly by the Government or the District of Columbia, it is general and applicable to all cases. Upon the reading of the law the question is by no means clear, and one which, without great violence to the language of the statute, might well be decided either way. First. In the first place, the title, "An act relating to the limitation of the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon the public works of the United States and of the District of Columbia," clearly favors the more restricted meaning. While this is by no means conclusive, it is a circumstance worthy of consideration. "Where doubt exists as to the meaning of a statute, the title may be looked to for aid in its construction." (Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall., p. 380.)

On the other hand, the punctuation of the act supports the opposite view. If the law were read with a comma after the word "subcontractor," as first used in the first section, then the phrase "upon any of the public works of the United States or of the said District of Columbia" would qualify all the preceding part of the section, and it would be clear that the law should be applied only to labor upon the public works.

If, on the other hand, it be read without such comma, the opposite conclusion would seem to be correct. In the law itself, both as enrolled and printed, there is no such comma. In the reports of both the Senate and House committees recommending the passage of the bill, in stating the substance of the bill, such comma is used, thus favoring a construction apparently at variance with that indicated by the punctuation of the act itself. It is true, as a matter of law, that "punctuation is no part of a statute" and that "courts in construing acts of Parliament or deeds should read them with such stops as will give effect to the whole." (Hammock v. Loan and Trust Company, 105 U. S., p. 34.) At the same time, it is true that by using or omitting the comma after the word "subcontractor," as above, the grammatical reading of this statute is changed. Without the comma the clause "public works, etc.," qualifies only the part relating to contractors and subcontractors; with the comma it qualifies each of the three clauses of the series. So far, then, with the title on the one side and the punctuation on the other, the argument is perhaps fairly balanced.

But another evidence of the legislative intent, more persuasive than either title or punctuation, must be considered. In 1868 Congress passed an act, now standing as section 3738, Revised Statutes, as follows:

"Eight hours shall constitute a day's work for all laborers, workmen, and mechanics who may be employed by or on behalf of the Government of the United States."

This act, without question, was general, applying to all "laborers, workmen, and mechanics" in the direct employment of the United States. In practical administration, however, this section has been held to be merely directory and has not been enforced.

In 1888 another act was passed (Supp. Rev. Stat., 582), containing the following: "And the Public Printer is hereby directed to rigidly enforce the provisions of the eight-hour law in the department under his charge.'

Such was the state of the legislation upon the subject when the act now under consideration was before Congress. It is a matter of public history that ever since the enactment of the statute of 1868 efforts have been made to procure legislation from Congress imperatively requiring the enforcement of that act.

An examination of the debate in the House of Representatives, which was quite extensive (Cong. Rec., 6357, etc.), shows that both the supporters and opponents of the bill understood its purpose to be twofold: First, to render the act of 1868 effectual by imposing penalties for its disregard; second, to extend that act to the District of

Columbia and to contractors and subcontractors of the Government and the District; in short, that the purpose was to make a working day of eight hours for all laborers and mechanics in the employ of the United States or the District of Columbia wherever employed, and to make a like day for contractors or subcontractors upon the public works and by proper penalties to enforce the observance of such working day. In the Senate the bill was passed without any considerable discussion. (Cong. Rec., 7638.) But the reports of the committees of both Houses of Congress (Senate 948 and House 1257), while not directly discussing the question here at issue, clearly evince an understanding of the scope and purpose of the act as above stated.

The statute, while in one sense restricting and in derogation of the common right of parties to contract, is nevertheless remedial, and is entitled to a fairly liberal construction.

In view, therefore, of the previous legislation upon the subject of the alleged evils sought to be corrected, and in deference to the legislative understanding and purpose apparent in debate and reports of committees while the act was under consideration, the act itself, without violence to its language, being susceptible of either construction, I am constrained to hold that the law as to laborers and mechanics in the direct employment of the Government and of the District of Columbia is general, and that the limitations to public works applies only to such persons as are in the employ of contractors and subcontractors.

Second. As to your second question, pertaining to particular employees, I beg to suggest that its answer depends upon matters of fact not stated and not within my cognizance. If the employees named are ordinary laborers or mechanics, working for the Government for wages under ordinary conditions, the statute would seem to apply. At the same time it is quite apparent that, as to some of them, it might frequently happen that they would be within the emergency exception named in the statute; and as to others, as, for instance, sailors or others on shipboard, or teamsters, their employment being peculiar, they might well be held to be, as a matter of fact, neither laborers nor mechanics within the meaning of this law.

Respectfully,

The SECRETARY of War.

W. H. H. MILLER.

Certain foremen at the Fort Leavenworth Military Prison are not "laborers or mechanics" within the eight-hour law of August 1, 1892, chapter 352. (Opinion of the Attorney General, vol. 21, p. 32.)]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, June 7, 1894.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge your communication of May 26, asking my official opinion as to whether certain employees at the military prison, Fort Leavenworth, Kans., are entitled to the benefits of the eight-hour law of August 1, 1892, chapter 352, as "laborers or mechanics."

It appears that four of these men are employed at the prison as "foremen of mechanics," and are each paid under the sundry civil appropriation act of March 3, 1893, (27 Stat. L., 602), a stated salary of $1,200 per annum. Their duties appear to be directing mechanical labor of the prisoners. By section 1345 of the Revised Statutes a board organized by you is empowered to "frame regulations for the gov ernment of prisons. You inform me the regulations so framed require more than eight hours' work of the prisoners, and therefore necessarily require more than eight hours' work of the men who are set to watch and direct them. Under these circumstances it is my opinion that the eight-hour law is not applicable to these employees. The facts as to the other employees mentioned are not so clearly stated, but their case appears to be governed by the same principles RICHARD OLNEY.

Very respectfully,

The SECRETARY of War.

The following excerpts from the laws of the various States indicate the extent to which they have deemed it necessary to regulate the hours of employment of labor, and the tendency seems to be toward an eight-hour workday as a maximum day's labor.

In the transportation industries the number of hours of labor permitted is much more than in any other line, but even in that line, with the numerous difficulties to be overcome, the limit in the number of hours of labor permitted in any one day is gradually