Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

EIGHT-HOUR LAW

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 District of Columbia. (Act Aug. 1, 1892, 27 Stat. 340) (Limiting hours of labor. ]—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. [Penalty for violation.]—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 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. [Present contracts not affected.]—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.

NOTE

(See act of June 19, 1912, and act of Mar. 3, 1913.)
The Eight-hour law is codified in U. S. C., title 40, ch. 5, secs. 321–326.

88508-37-2

THE RECLAMATION ACT

An act appropriating the receipts from the sale and disposal of public lands in certain

States and Territories to the construction of irrigation works for the reclamation of arid lands. (Act June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388)

[Sec. 1. Reclamation fund established from public land receipts—Exception Support of agricultural colleges Deficiency. ]—That all moneys received from the sale and disposal of public lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, beginning with the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and one, including the surplus of fees and commissions in excess of allowances to registers and receivers, and excepting the five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands in the above States set aside by law for educational and other purposes, shall be, and the same are hereby, reserved, set aside, and appropriated as a special fund in the Treasury to be known as the “reclamation fund," to be used in the examination and survey for and the construction and maintenance of irrigation works for the storage, diversion, and development of waters for the reclamation of arid and semiarid lands in the said States and Territories, and for the payment of all other expenditures provided for in this act: Provided, That in case the receipts from the sale and disposal of public lands other than those realized from the sale and disposal of lands referred to in this section are insufficient to meet the requirements for the support of agricultural colleges in the several States and Territories, under the act of August thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled "An act to apply a portion of the proceeds of the public lands to the more complete endowment and support of the colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts, established under the provisions of an act of Congress approved July second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two," the deficiency, if any, in the sum necessary for the support of the said colleges shall be provided for from any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. (32 Stat. 388.)

Textual note. This section, down to the proviso, is codified as section 391, title 43, United States Code, the introductory word "That" being omitted ; the words "and in the State of Texas" being inserted after "Territories.

With regard to the proviso above, see historical note to section 321 of title 7, United States Code Annotated" (West Pub. Co.).

NOTES

Amendatory and supplementary acts.--The act of February 25, 1905 (33 Stat. 814) extends the reclamation act to a portion of the State of Texas.

Act of March 3, 1905 (33 Stat. 1032), provides for covering into the reclamation fund proceeds of sale of property, and also moneys refunded in connection with the operations under the reclamation act.

[blocks in formation]

Section 2, act of April 16, 1906 (34 Stat. 116), provides that proceeds from sale of town lots shall be placed in the reclamation fund. See also section 3, act of June 27, 1906 (34 Stat. 519); and section 2, act of June 11, 1910 (36 Stat. 466).

The act of June 12, 1906 (34 Stat. 259), extends the reclamation act to the entire State of Texas.

Act of October 2, 1917 (40 Stat. 297), places receipts from potassium deposits in the reclamation fund.

Section 35, act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 450), reserves to the reclamation fund certain amounts of money derived from bonuses, royalties, etc., under that act, commonly known as the "oil-leasing" act.

Act of May 20, 1920 (41 Stat. 605), provides for placing moneys derived from the sale of lands no longer needed for irrigation purposes into the reclamation fund.

Section 17, act of June 10, 1920 (41 Stat. 1072), provides for placing proceeds of charges arising from licenses for occupancy and use of public lands, etc., into the reclamation fund.

Act of June 6, 1930 (46 Stat. 522), provides for depositing into the reclamation fund moneys collected from defaulting contractors or their sureties.

Constitutionality of reclamation act.-The reclamation act is within the power of Congress as to lands within the States as well as Territories, under Constitution, article 4, section 3, giving it power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belong. ing to the United States”, and is not in violation of the Constitution on the ground that it authorizes the expenditure of public money without an appro priation, since it is in itself an appropriation of the proceeds of land sold, nor as delegating legislative authority to the Secretary of the Interior. (United States v. Hanson (Wash, 1909), 167 Fed. 881, 93 C. C. A. 371.)

The United States has constitutional authority to organize and maintain an irrigation project within a State where it owns arid lands whereby it will associate with itself other owners of like lands for the purpose of reclaiming and improving them, and for that purpose it exercises the right of eminent domain against other land owners to obtain land necessary to carry the proposed project into effect. ( Burley v. United States et al. (Ida. 1910), 179 Fed. 1, 102 C. C. A. 429, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 807, affirming (C. C. 1909), 172 Fed. 615. See also Magruder v. Belle Fourche Valley Water Users' Association (S. D. 1914), 219 Fed. 72, 133 C. C. A. 524.)

In Arizona v. California et al, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the Boulder Canyon project act of December 21, 1928 (45 Stat. 1057), was constitutional. (Arizona v. ('alifornia et al., 283 U. S. 423.)

Irrigation plan contemplated by the act. The act contemplates the irrigation of private lands as well as lands belonging to the Government and the fact that a scheme contemplates the irrigation of private as well as a large tract of Government land does not render the project illegal, so as to prevent the condemnation of land necessary to carry it out. (Burley v. United States, ante.)

In a proceeding by the United States to condemn land for reservoir purposes, whether a more feasible plan of irrigation than the one adopted might be devised, or some other site selected for the reservoir, is immaterial, the determination of the proper Government authorities being conclusive. (United States v. Burley, 172 Fed. 615.)

Whatever may be its maximum power under the Constitution, it is thought that by the reclamation act (32 Ştat. 388), Congress has chosen to confer authority upon the Secretary of the Interior only to undertake projects the primary or predominant purpose of which is to reclaim public lands. (Griffiths F. Cole (D. C. Ida. 1919), 261 Fed. 374.)

Contract to supply water for irrigation district. Under the reclamation act the Secretary of the Interior has power to contract with an irrigation district to supply, or partially supply, the district with water. (Pioneer Irrigation District y. Stone (1913), 23 Idaho 344, 130 Pac, 382; Hillcrest Irrigation District V. Brose (1913), 24 Idaho 376, 133 Pac. 663; Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District v. Petrie (1915), 153 Pac. 425. See also Nampa & Meridian Irriga

[blocks in formation]

tion District v. Petrie (1924), 223 Pac. 531; 37 Ida. 45.) See act February 21, 1911 (36 Stat. 925).

Assessment for operation and maintenance of project.-Irrigable lands may be assessed with the annual cost of operation and maintenance under the authority conferred on the Secretary of the Interior. (Swigart V. Baker (Wash, 1913), 229 U. S. 187, 57 L. Ed. 1143, 33 Sup. Ct. 645, reversing (1912) 199 Fed. 865, 118 C. C. A. 313, and affirming (1912) 196 Fed. 569.)

The history of the reclamation act of 1902 shows that it was the intent of Congress that the cost of each irrigation project should be assessed against the property benefited and that the assessments as fast as collected should be paid back into the fund for use in subsequent projects without diminution. This intent can not be carried out without charging the expense of maintenance during the Government-held period as well as the cost of construction. (Idem.)

Subsequent legislative construction of a prior act may properly be examined as an aid to its interpretation; and so held that statutes passed since the reclamation act of 1902 indicate that Congress has construed the provisions of that act as authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to assess cost of maintenance as well as of construction of irrigation projects upon the land benefited. (Idem.)

Where the executive officer charged with its enforcement annually reports to Congress the same construction of a statute, it is significant if Congress never has taken any adverse action in regard to such construction. (Idem.)

Quaere whether Congress may not by legislation construe a prior statute so that as to all matters subsequently arising the action is legislative in character. (Idem.)

The repeated and practical construction of the reclamation act of 1902 by both Congress and the Secretary of the Interior, in charging cost of maintenance as well as construction, accords with the provisions of the act taken in its entirety and is followed by this court. (Idem.)

Removal of suits.—The act is not a "revenue law” within the meaning of Revised Statutes, section 643, which provides for the removal of suits brought in State courts "against any officer appointed under or acting by authority of any revenue law of the United States." On account of any act done under color of his office, a suit against the officer in charge of reclamation work to determine water rights in a stream is not removable by him thereunder. Nor is there any reason of public policy why such suit should be transferred to the Federal courts, as by the terms of the act the rights of the Government as an appropriator of water are governed by the laws of the State and are no greater than those of any other officer. (Twin Falls Canal Co. (Ltd.) v. Foote et al. (C. C. Ida. 1911), 192 Fed. 583. Followed in City of Stanfield v. Umatilla River Water Users' Association et al., 192 Fed. 596.)

The project manager (superintendent) of a Federal irrigation project is the Government representative through whoin the project is managed and carried

He is engaged in the administration of a Federal law and has the right to bring into the Federal courts controversies to which he is made a party touching the validity or propriety of acts done by him in his representative capacity. When sued in a State court for damages on account of his alleged negligence in operating a project canal, he can remove the cause to a Federal court. (

(Whiffin v. Cole (1919), 264 Fed. 252.) A suit to establish right to prior use of waters, wherein the Secretary of the Interior is defendant, held not removable to Federal court, as suit against officer of revenue, of United States court, or of either House of Congress. (North Side Canal Co. v. Troin Falls Canal Co. et al. (D. C. Ida. 1926), 12 Fed. (2d), 311.)

Where a suit is against the United States, Federal court's jurisdiction is to be determined by that fact rather than by the fact that it arises under laws of the United States. (Idem.)

The word "land" in Judicial Code, section 24, giving Federal district courts jurisdiction of suits to partition land, where the United States is tenant in common or joint tenant, means realty, as distinguished from personalty, and includes waters on land and water claimed to be appropriated for use in irrigation. (Idem.)

on.

[blocks in formation]

Reclamation fund a trust fund.—The official reports show that, in 1902, there were in 16 States and Territories 535,486,731 acres of public land still held by the Government and subject to entry. A large part of this land was arid, and it was estimated that 35,000,000 acres could be profitably reclaimed by the construction of irrigation works. The cost, however, was so stupendous as to make it impossible for the development to be undertaken by private enterprise, or, if so, only at the added expense of interest and profit private persons would naturally charge. With a view, therefore, of making these arid lands available for agricultural purposes by an expenditure of public money, it was proposed that the proceeds arising from the sale of all public lands in these 16 States and Territories should constitute a trust fund to be set aside for use in the construction of irrigation works, the cost of each project to be assessed against the land irrigated, and as fast as the money was paid by the owners back into the trust it was again to be used for the construction of other works. Thus the fund, without diminution except for small and negligible sums not properly chargeable to any particular project, would be continually invested and reinvested in the reclamation of arid land. (Swigart v. Baker, ante.)

See 14 Comp. Dec. 361, holding that the reclamation fund is a special fund, but not a trust fund.

Reclamation fund, of what constituted.-In view of the decision of the Supreme ('ourt in United states v. Gratiot (14 Pet. 526, 10 L. EI. 573, 13 U. S. 644), there can be no doubt that a lease is a “disposal" of lands, as contemplated by section 1 of the reclamation act. The said section appropriates "all moneys received from the sale and disposal of public lands" in certain States "except the 5 per cent of the proceeds of the sales of public lands in the above States set aside by law for educational and other purposes.” The full 100 per cent of the proceeds of the lease is appropriated, without deduction, to the reclamation fund by section 1 of the reclamation act. (Departmental decision, in re Owl Creek Coal Co., August 31, 1912.)

Moneys derived by the Reclamation Service (Bureau of Reclamation) from the lease of lands in the l'intah Indian Reservation should be covered into the Treasury to the credit of the reclamation fund, the liability of the Reclamation Service (Bureau of Reclamation) to compensate the Indians for the use of such lands not affecting the disposition of the proceedis derived from their use. (14 (Comp. Dec. 285.)

The act of June 27, 1906 (34 Stat. 518), granting to the State of California 5 per cent of the net proceeds of cash sales of public lands in that State, including sales made prior to its passage and since the admission of the State, does not authorize the withdrawal of any part of the proceeds of public lands of said State carried to the reclamation fund prior to its passage. Five per rent of the net proceeds of cash sales of public lands in the State of California made after the passage of the act of June 27, 1906, is set aside by that act for educational purposes and excepted from moneys appropriated after its passage to the reclamation fund. (13 Comp. Dec. 289.)

It is not the intent of Congress by the acts of April 16 and June 27, 1906 (34 Stat. 116 and 520), to take away the right of the State of Idaho to the 5 per cent of the net proceeds of sale from public lands for the support of the common schools of the State lying within said State. If, however, the whole proceeds of said sales have been covered into the "reclamation fund" and the 5 per cent paid to the State out of the permanent indefinite appropriation therefor, the reclamation fund should be charged therewith. (20 Comp. Dec. 365.)

Moneys paid to the Treasurer of the United States in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the act of August 20, 1912 (37 Stat. 321), authorizing the Attorney General to compromise suits involving lands purchased from the Oregon & California Railroad Co. are not “moneys received from the sale and disposal of public lands" within the purview of the reclamation act, but are "miscellaneous receipts." Effecting a compromise of a suit does not constitute a sale of public lands. Where a conveyance by a grantee of public lands is decreed void or is set aside if found voidable only, a forfeiture to the

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »