Factory of labor under it, and that it was therefore unconstitutional as to all inspection; persons not embraced within the designation of "merchants or protection corporations," even though the text of the act was broadened, as it was, to include any person, corporation or firm. The somewhat indiscriminate use of the words "tickets" and "checks" in the act was held of no account. Other points were raised against the act, upon which however the court reserved its opinion. In the case of the second statute pronounced unconstitutional [N. Y. '97 ch.415], an exceedingly interesting point was passed upon. The chapter cited, as amended by ch. 192 and 567 of 1899, provides: that laborers on public work shall be paid the prevailing rate of wages; that contracts for such work shall stipu late that they shall be void unless they comply with the act; that the contractor shall not be entitled to receive any sum, and no public officer shall pay the same for work done on a contract which in the form or manner of performance violates the statutory requisites of such contracts. In a case arising in the city of New York [People v. Coler, 59 N. E. 716] on a contract for certain public work, which, so far as the work itself was concerned, was otherwise completed in accordance with the requirements of the contract, the controller refused to make payment under the contract on the ground that the contractor violated certain provisions of this statute. Application was then made by the contractor for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel payment, which, being denied in the lower court, was taken to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, which reversed the original decision, the case being taken thence to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that the act was unconstitutional, "since it takes away the liberty of freely contracting, both from municipalities and those contracting therewith." It was also held that the act contravened the provision of the constitution that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law, and that the Legislature of a state has no right to interfere or control by compulsory legislation the action of municipal corporations with respect to liberty and contract rights of purely local concern. Factory protection of labor In the course of the opinion the court said with respect to inspection; the contractor: "It is not competent for the Legislature to deprive him of the benefit of this contract by imposing burdensome conditions with respect to the means of performance, or to regulate the rate of wages which he shall pay to his workmen, or to withhold the contract price when such conditions are not complied with in the judgment of the city;" and that" a statute which enables a city that has entered into a contract with him for the performance of some public work to receive and accept the fruits of his labor, and at the same time refuse to pay for it upon the ground that he omitted to pay the pre,vailing rate of wages to his workmen, though he paid all they asked and all he agreed to pay, would seem to be an arbitrary interference with his liberty and property, and not within the legitimate sphere of legislation." Evidently having in mind certain apparent abridgments of contract relations which have been made through the progress of so called labor legislation, the court also said, with respect to the statute in question: "It is not claimed that the statute has any relation to the public health, the public morals, the public safety, or any of the other objects within the scope of the police power." From the opinion of the court, Justice Haight and Justice Parker (chief justice) dissented, and in the course of an extended dissenting opinion, Justice Parker said: An attack upon this statute assails the right of the state as a proprietor to pay such wages as it chooses to either those who work for it directly or upon any work of construction in which it may be engaged. No one has presumed to challenge the right of an individual either to pay the prevailing rate of wages in his locality, or, if he concludes to have his work done by contract, to refuse to award it to a contractor who will not agree to pay the going wages to all employees that may be engaged upon the work. But the state seems to be regarded in some quarters as having less power as a proprietor than an individual, so that what an individual may contract to do in the performance of his own work the state itself may not do when it assumes the role of proprietor, and attempts the construction of important public work. After pointing out that the Legislature had previously provided by statute that the wages of day laborers and of other state employees should be fixed at a certain minimum sum, and that the right to do this has never been questioned, and pests and diseases indeed had been finally set at rest by the decision of the court Insect in a case arising upon the demand of an employee on the canals plant for the compensation fixed by the Legislature, he showed that in his opinion an extension of the same right would permit the Legislature to in effect prescribe the wages to be paid by a contractor, and to make the payment of the usual rate of wages a provision of the contract. Under such circumstances the liberty of the contractor "is not interfered with at all within the meaning of the constitution, for he has solemnly cove.anted in his agreement that he shall not be at liberty to do anything in the course of the performance of the contract that shall be contrary to the wishes of the proprietor as expressed" therein. INSECT PESTS AND PLANT DISEASES1 E. P. FELT D.SC. NEW YORK STATE ENTOMOLOGIST Early laws provided for the study of injurious insects and plant diseases and for the dissemination of information concerning them through the press and by means of reports and bulletins. Dr T. W. Harris of Massachusetts was the first American entomologist to receive public compensation for his labors, but there was no official entomologist in that state till 1870. New York led in 1854 by the appointment of Dr Asa Fitch as an official entomologist, closely followed by the federal government the same year and by the states of Illinois and Missouri making provisions for the work of official entomologists in their legislative sessions of 1866-67 and 1867-68 respectively. Nearly 30 persons more or less officially charged with entomologic investigations and about as many designated in full or in part as botanists were early appointed on the staffs of the various state agricultural experiment stations organized in the spring of 1888 under the provisions of the federal "Hatch act.” This gave a great impetus to scientific investigations along these lines and it was soon found that knowledge alone was insufficient. Recent legislation relating to insect pests has been mandatory in character and devoted largely to preventing the introduction and dissemination of dangerous insects or plant diseases and compelling their adequate control whenever they become abundant enough to menace public welfare. Neglect 'See also Comparative Summary and Index, 1901, no. 5244–67. Insect pests and plant diseases to comply with official recommendations is punished by a heavy penalty, and county or state officials are empowered to enter the premises, abate the nuisance and then, in many cases, collect the costs. Such charges become a lien on the property in some states1. Destruction of badly infested trees without compensation to the owner is usually optional with the executive officer, the owner having the privilege of appeal. The insects and plant diseases discriminated against vary with the state and are somewhat optional with the executive officer. The fol lowing are commonly regarded as legally dangerous in the eastern United States: the black knot of plum, peach yellows and peach rosette, the San José scale and the peach or West Indian scale. The laws of some western states provide for the suppression or exclusion of a larger number of injurious insects. The immense fruit interests and the comparative immunity from fruit pests in the western states were powerful incentives toward mandatory legislation. California led the way in 1881 with a law permitting the county supervisors, on the petition. of five or more resident freeholders, to appoint a county board of horticultural commissioners who were empowered to district the county, appoint local inspectors and, in their discretion, to compel landholders to control or destroy dangerous insects. A State Board of Horticulture was created in 1883 which was charged with the general control of insects and diseases inimical to the fruit interests of the state and with maintaining an adequate quarantine service. A law approved Mar. 31, 1897, placed the county commissioners under the control of the State Board of Horticulture. These California laws have served as a model for other western states. The discovery of the gypsy moth in Massachusetts led to the enactment in 1890 and 1891 of drastic laws for the extermination of this pest and in 1893 that state laid the burden of controlling all insects within highway bounds on local authorities. The discovery of the San José scale in the eastern states in 1894 and its subsequent location in numerous widely separated localities has resulted in many mandatory laws designed mostly to prevent the dissemination of nursery stock infested by this insect. Over 50% of the laws placed on the statute books of the various states in 1901 were directly concerned with suppressing 'Cal. '97 ch.183; Col. '97 ch.55; Id. '91 p.182; Or. '95 p.33. pests and diseases this pest and, in some instances, laws relating solely to plant Insect diseases have been amended to include certain injurious insects. plant A few of the eastern states have been content to authorize an officer to make requested inspections and issue certificates of apparent freedom from dangerously injurious insects and plant diseases, but many states now make annual inspections of nursery stock compulsory and require on each package or bundle shipped by common carriers a certificate from a qualified officer stating the apparent freedom of the contents from insect pests or plant diseases. Maryland has gone further and compels the fumigation of all nursery stock grown in the state. Most of these states honor certificates issued by officials of other commonwealths. Some states require carriers to notify the proper authorities on the receipt of all consignments of nursery stock from outside the state. Some go further and provide for the inspection of orchards and enforce the destruction or adequate treatment of all infested premises. No quarantine service against insects has ever been instituted in eastern parts. The executive officer is usually a state or agricultural experiment station entomologist, who acts either independently or under the direction of the institution with which he may be connected. This work is placed in the charge of a Commissioner or Board of Agriculture in a few states. Florida is remarkable among the eastern states for having adopted a county organization much like that of California. A number of states now have laws designed to prevent the spread and to provide for the stamping out of foul breed and kindred diseases among bees. Recent acts prohibiting the spraying of fruit trees while in blossom is another way in which apiarists are protected and the public welfare safeguarded. The recent appropriation of $500 by Utah ['01 ch.36] for the importation of the German Kohlmeise is a healthy sign of interest in the attempt to control insect pests through natural agencies, but experience with earlier importations of supposedly beneficial animals suggests the need of great caution in making further introductions. Several states have established standards of purity for paris green and passed laws regulating the sale of such commercial poisons. |