Slike strani
PDF
ePub

class of creditors, whose claims are usually small, and who are suddenly compelled to shift for themselves by the failure of their employer. If the statute does not, in terms, create a specific lien upon the property of the employer, it accomplishes the same result by securing to the employe priority of payment over all other claimants out of the proceeds of the property of the employer. The effect of the statute, as we construe it, is to give the appellees the right to priority of payment over the appellant, and to make the claim of the employes superior to the rights of the appellant under the mortgages executed by Jeffers.

This being the necessary legal effect of the statute, is the act thereby rendered unconstitutional? It cannot be said to impair the obligations of contracts because it operates only on contracts entered into after its enactment. Jones v. Great Southern, etc., Co. (C. C. U. S.), 86 Fed. 370, 30 C. C. A. 108.

Nor is it invalid on the ground that it devests vested rights. The legislature has the power to regulate and control the priorities of all statutory liens, which may be created after the declaration of the legislative will, and every contract is presumed to be entered into with reference to existing laws.

We find no error. Judgment affirmed.

QUESTIONS

1. Is the statute an exercise of the police power?

2. Would the statute be sustained against an argument that it deprives a person of property without due process and is class legislation?

3. Would a statute be valid which gives a preference to the wage claims of employees in the administration of decedents' estates?

4. Is there a statute in your state giving priority to wage claims? If so, have the courts passed upon its validity?

B. REGULATION OF SEAMEN'S WAGES

FEDERAL STATUTES RELATING TO SEAMEN'S WAGES3 [No attempt at completeness can be made here. Sections that are not quoted deal with wages in case of improper discharge, and with suspension of wages because of misconduct of the seaman. Wages are made payable in gold. Seamen may not by agreement forfeit their lien upon the ship for wages. Assignment or attachment of seamen's wages, except in the form of allotments mentioned in section 10 or by

3 Fed. Stat. Ann. (2nd. Ed.), 151-6, 174, and ibid. 1920 Suppl., 225-6. The sections entitled R. S. are from the Revised Statutes of the United States.

order of a court for the maintenance of a seaman's wife and minor children, are made invalid in law.]

R. S. Sec. 4524. [Commencement of wages.] A seaman's right to wages and provisions shall be taken to commence either at the time at which he commences work, or at the time specified in the agreement for his commencement of work or presence on board, whichever first happens.

R. S. Sec. 4525. [Wages not dependent on freight.] No right to wages shall be dependent on the earning of freight by the vessel; but every seaman or apprentice who would be entitled to demand and receive any wages if the vessel on which he has served had earned freight, shall, subject to all other rules of law and conditions applicable to the case, be entitled to claim and recover the same of the master or owner in personam, notwithstanding that freight has not been earned. But in all cases of wreck or loss of vessel, proof that any seaman or apprentice has not exerted himself to the utmost to save the vessel, cargo, and stores, shall bar his claim.

R. S. Sec. 4526. [Termination of wages by loss of vessel-transportation to place of shipment.] In cases where the service of any seaman terminates before the period contemplated in the agreement, by reason of the loss or wreck of the vessel, such seaman shall be entitled to wages for the time of service prior to such termination, but not for any further period. Such seaman shall be considered as a destitute seaman and shall be treated and transported to port of shipment as provided in sections forty-five hundred and seventy-seven, forty-five hundred and seventy-eight, and forty-five hundred and seventy-nine of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

R. S. Sec. 4529. [Time for payment.] The master or owner of any vessel making coasting voyages shall pay to every seaman his wages within two days after the termination of the agreement under which he was shipped, or at the time such seaman is discharged, whichever first happens; and in case of vessels making foreign voyages, or from a port on the Atlantic to a port on the Pacific, or vice versa, within twenty-four hours after the cargo has been discharged, or within four days after the seaman has been discharged, whichever first happens; and in all cases the seaman shall be entitled to be paid at the time of his discharge on account of wages a sum equal to one-third part of the balance due him. Every master or owner who refuses or neglects to make payment in the manner hereinbefore mentioned without sufficient cause shall pay to the seaman a sum equal to two days'

pay for each and every day during which payment is delayed beyond the respective periods, which sum shall be recoverable as wages in any claim made before the court; but this section shall not apply to masters or owners of any vessel the seamen of which are entitled to share in the profits of the cruise or voyage.

R. S. Sec 4530. [Payment of wages at ports, etc.] Every seaman on a vessel of the United States shall be entitled to receive on demand from the master of the vessel to which he belongs one-half part of the balance of his wages earned and remaining unpaid at the time when such demand is made at every port where such vessel, after the voyage has been commenced, shall load or deliver cargo before the voyage is ended, and all stipulations in the contract to the contrary shall be void: Provided, Such a demand shall not be made before the expiration of, nor oftener than once in, five days nor more than once in the same harbor on the same entry. Any failure on the part of the master to comply with this demand shall release the seaman from his contract and he shall be entitled to full payment of wages earned. And when the voyage is ended every such seaman shall be entitled to the remainder of the wages which shall be the due him, as provided in section 4529 of the Revised Statutes: Provided further, That notwithstanding any release signed by any seaman under section 4552 of the Revised Statutes any court having jurisdiction may upon good cause shown set aside such release and take such action as justice shall require: And provided further, That this section shall apply to seamen on foreign vessels while in harbors of the United States, and the courts of the United States shall be open to such seamen for its enforcement. Sec. 10.5 [Advances and allotments of wages.] (a) That it shall be, and is hereby, made unlawful in any case to pay any seaman wages in advance of the time when he has actually earned the same, or to pay such advance wages, or to make any order, or note, or other evidence of indebtedness therefor to any other person, or to pay any person, for the shipment of seamen when payment is deducted or to be deducted from a seaman's wages. Any person violating any of the foregoing provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $100, and may also be imprisoned for a period of not exceeding six months, at the discretion of the court. . . . . (b) That it shall be lawful for any seaman to stipulate in his U. S. Rev. Stats., Sec. 4530, as amended by act of June 5, 1920, c. 250. 5 Sec. 10 of the Act of June 26, 1884, c. 121, as amended.

shipping agreement for an allotment of any portion of the wages he may earn to his grandparents, parents, wife, sister, or children.

[ocr errors]

(d) That no allotment except as provided for in this section shall be lawful. Any person who shall falsely claim to be such relation, as above described, of a seaman under this section shall for every such offense be punished by a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, at the discretion of the court.

QUESTIONS

1. From what source does the Federal Government derive its power to legislate regarding the wages of seamen?

2. What is the justification for giving seamen the special treatment accorded in the foregoing statutes?

3. Would similar legislation, as far as applicable, with respect of employees of railroads engaged in interstate commerce, be upheld?

4. Why should sections 4525-6 have been necessary?

5. What would be a "sufficient cause" for a refusal to make payment as required in section 4529?

6. Do not the provisions of section 10 of the Act of 1884 violate the dueprocess clause of Amendment XIV?

7. Consider the constitutionality of section 4530 under the due-process clause?

C. REGULATION OF WAGES PAID FOR GOVERNMENT WORK

MALETTE v. SPOKANE

Supreme Court of Washington. 1913. 77 Wash. 205

[In 1899 and 1903 the legislature passed acts declaring that it was part of the public policy of the state that all contract or day labor performed for it or any political subdivision created by its laws should be performed in work days of not more than eight hours, except in cases of extraordinary emergency.]

...

ELLIS, J.. In pursuance of the public policy of the state so declared, the city of Spokane, on August 24, 1909, by ordinance No. A4422, so far as here material, provided that:

"Section 1. Hereafter eight (8) hours in any calendar day shall constitute a day's work on any work done for the city of Spokane, subject to the conditions hereinafter provided.

"Sec. 2. Hereafter all laborers employed by the day on municipal work, either directly by the city or by contractors, subcontractors, individuals, partnerships, associations or corporations, on all work for the

city, shall receive and be paid not less than $2.75 for a calendar day's work of eight (8) hours. The provisions of this section shall apply to, and govern all work done for the city of Spokane and all work for any individual, firm, partnership, association or corporation which is done under the direction or under the supervision of, or which is to be accepted by the city of Spokane or any officer or agent thereof." The ordinance further provided that, in cases of emergency, the hours for work might be extended, but that the rate of pay for excess time should be one and one-half times the rate allowed for the same amount of time during the eight hours' service, and that the ordinance be made a part of all contracts thereafter made. By express stipulation and reference thereto, this ordinance was made a part of the contract for the public work the assessment for which is contested in this action.

On March 10, 1910, the city passed another ordinance, No. A5016, providing: "That hereafter all work done by common laborers for the city of Spokane or for any contractor, subcontractor or other person doing work by contract or otherwise for the city of Spokane shall receive the sum of three dollars ($3), per day for eight hours' labor"; and that the ordinance should be in force from and after April 1, 1910.

On March 25, 1910, the city council, by ordinance, provided for the improvement of Sixteenth Avenue by constructing therein a sewer, to be paid for by special assessments against the property benefited, and created an assessment district. The contract for the work was thereafter let to one Broad, and when he had completed the work thereunder, an assessment roll was prepared and notice for the time and place for hearing objections was given. The appellant, an owner of property in the district, appeared and objected to the confirmation of the roll. His objections were overruled, and he appealed to the superior court. From an adverse decision of that court, he prosecutes this appeal.

The evidence showed that the contractor, in the performance of his contract, paid $2.75 a day for each common laborer employed in the work, as required by the ordinance first above mentioned and by his contract. The court refused to hear testimony as to whether he paid $3 a day, as required by the second ordinance above mentioned. The evidence showed that the prevailing wage for common laborers in the city of Spokane and vicinity, at the time of the performance of the contract in August, 1910, was $2.25 a day, whether for a ten-hour, nine-hour or an eight-hour day; and that, in March, when the improve

« PrejšnjaNaprej »