TERM,'246 OCTOBER 1906.

Argument for Plaintiff in 206 II. S.Error.

ELLIS v. STATES.UNITEDCOMPANY v. UNITED STATES.EASTERN DREDGING

v.SAME SAME.v. SAME.SAME

BAY DREDGING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES.STATEv.SAME SAME.

v.SAME SAME.

THE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THEERROR TO DISTRICT

OFDISTRICT MASSACHUSETTS.

Argued664, 665, 668, April May567, 23, 24, 13,669. 1907 DecidedNos. 666, 667,1907.

August 1,.1892, 340,provisions limitingin act ofThe the 27 Stat. the hoursbyemployed anyof and mechanics the States orlaborers United con-

anyupon publicofor subcontractor the oftractor works the Unitedday excepteight per extraordinaryhours in emergency,to cases ofStates

penalties thereof,imposing for the violation*and are constitutional andpowers CongressInCongress.ofthe this has thewithin samerespect

publica State has constructionpower as over the of its works. AtkinKansas, 191 S.ü. 207.v.

Congress is notAn of otherwise valid unconstitutionalact because theenacting it was advantagesin to secure formotive certain conditions ofsubject generalto Congress.the control oflabor not

laws,special Government,Although, purelythe absence of thein aas con-maytractor, private person, not, bystand a makinglike it does a con-

powergivetract, sovereignty upits or its to make lawswaive whicha breach of therender criminal contract.

regarddisappointment of a contractor with obtainingThe to some of hisnot, case,did under the"materials of thiscircumstances amount to an

extraordinary emergency meaningwithin the of justifythe statute and. having eightwork-morehim in laborers than hours.

intentionally adoptsOne who certain conduct in certain circumstanceshim,, unlawful,which isto conduct intentionallyknown breaks the' law.

employed dredges scows,on in dredgingPersons and a channel in a harbormeaningthe the Augustnot within of act' of 1,-1892,are' laborers or me-

employed públicon of theanychanics works of the United States.

are inThe facts stated the opinion.

for inWatson,Mr. D. T. errorplaintiff Ellis, submitted:of the 'individual toThe ofright dispose his labor upon such

heterms as deems isbest, undoubted, and admitted in Atkin

247ELLIS v. UNITED STATES.

Argument Plaintiff in Error.for206 U. S.

.at all,he of it thenmay disposeIf191 U. S. 223.Kansas,v.a withoptionalis matterthe of himself.the'dispositionextent

voluntarily.did so The soleoh the pierThe who workedmennot restrain them fromforciblydidof Ellis was that hecrime

the work.voice of is toauthority,if not the universalThe great weight,

fit,if he sees what timemay,the that an adult engageeffect fornot hazardousordinary dangerous,he fit in employmentssees

he has that ásto limb or andlife, health, right,or injuriousof Con-his Under the Preamble the Federalliberty.ofpart

V of the Amendments the powerand Articlestitution, delegateddoes includethe not the toby Congress powerthe topeople de-/

Lochner v.liberty. York,him New 198-U. S. 53.of hispriveunless He worksemployed..work nowhereThe laborer- can

of heTo take him one the placescontract. from whereundereven if thework, contractormay hours, publicwork over eight

him hishim, libertyof of anddeprives partis to employwilling84;175Orange Co.,v. N. Y. ArticlesPeopleis unconstitutional.

11, 147, 163, 181, 198; 58,in Law No.Journal, pp.Central No.591;165 U. HoMen v.361; Louisiana, 578, Hardy,v. S.Allgeyer

274;v.391; Fears,Williams 179 U. S.'366, 270,169 U. S..City-,Union v. Crescent 111 U. S.Butchers’ 746-757.

inno the case that the kind ofpresentis workpretenseThereunhealthy in any wayhazardous —orwas dangerousdone —or

It was not of a with such cases aslife or limb. class Holdento169 366.U. S.Hardy,v.

hold ato that State or municipality byIt is one thing maybythe hours of forlabor,restrict into theenteringcontract

his to thewaives constitutionalrighteach personcontractto makeentirelyIt is another it a crime forthingprotection.

tohis laborinsist on constitutional thanrighta man to morea day.hourseight

in farof so itAct 1892 is constitutional as theprohibits'Thefor more thanfrom hours’ laborcontracting eightDepartmentsis in soworks, it unconstitutional far as itbutday publiconperhas intoone who contractual rela-a crime' for comemakes it

.248 TERM,OCTOBER 1906.

Argument Dredgingfor the Eastern Co. 206 U. S.

sometions with the Government for that work topublic permitday.other man to work more than hourseight per

In this case Ellis two men to work moresimply permitteda day.than hours He did not force them to work moreeight

today;than hours a he owed no to the Governmentdutyeighttoenforce its laws as a officer or a sheriff. His relationpolice

only'and solelythe Government was contractual far as thesocontract didpier concerned;was his not contain covenantqny

that he was to oversee and theprevent men from onworkingmore than hours a or if it if it thatpier day, did, be saideight

the Act of 1892 is read into Ellis’s contract with the Governmentand made of andpart it, Ellis to enforce the act so faragreesas the is stillpier concerned, his relations with the Government

and only.are contractual contractual

Edward E.Mr. withBlodgett, whom Mr. 0. WardnerPhilipbrief,was on the for the Eastern Company:Dredging

in aMen channel inengaged Bostondredging Harbor cannotbe said to be employed any of theupon workspublic of the

orUnited -States of the District of Columbia. As to what areworks”“public Centurysee Dictionary, p. 4830. Ellis v.

Common Council Rapids, 123Grand 567; WintersMichigan,ofv. Duluth, Minnesota, 127;82 Am. & Ency. ofEng. Law, 2ded., 23,Vol. 459.p.

The performance by the United States Government of anyof its functionsgovernmental may be said to be public; work;but no one can be said to be employed'on the public works ofthe United States he is employed uponunless some physical,

structuretangible actually made or erected by the hand ofandman, the ofproperty the United States Govérnment.

The place where the wasdredging donebeing was not ownedby and had never been ceded to the Government of the United

andStates, was not under its control, so farexcept as the navi-waters of Bostongable Harbor were under its control.

The in thepersons alleged informations to have been em-in,ployed lawof wereviolation not laborers or mechanics.

UNITEDELLIS STATES. 249y.

Argument Dredgingfor the Eastern Co.206 U. S.

and the scow were vessels withinclearlyThe the dredgetug,the of the United States.admiralty jurisdiction

As concerns the there can of course' be no dispute.tug,Nor is there room for doubt in relation to theany anddredge

scow.The word vessel includes of waterevery description craft

or other artificial contrivance used or of used as acapable beingof on water. Stat., ByRev. 3.transportation 4612,means § §

it is that in the construction ofRev. Stat. Title 53 ofprovided“the Revised Statutes to merchant seamen The termrelating

shall to- comprehend every'vessel'’ descriptionbe.understoodanyof vessel on sea or lake orchannel, tonavigating river,

which of maythe this' Title beprovisions applicable.”In the and the scows are to bereality asdredge regarded one

foror instrument andplant mud.dredging transportingtheyBut even if be it stillseparately, thatregarded appears

mud,the scows were .used for and that thetransporting dredgefor her crew andwas used thetransporting equipmentdredging

the mudnecessary to and it into thedig up put scows, andare both vessels as known to thetherefore law. The General

Adm., 334; c. Fed. Cas. No.Cass, Brown, (Scow);5307 End-­a.411Fed.Greco, Rep. (Scows);n&rv. 3 The 19Alabama, Fed.

22aff’d. Fed. 449 andRep. Scows);- The Pio­544, (DredgeRep.Disbrowv. Walsh Bros.,Fed. 206 36 Fed.neer, Rep. (Dredge);30

The Atlantic, 53 Fed. Rep. 607-(Barge); (Dredge);607Rep.The6l Fed. 502Starbuck, Rep. International,The (Dredge);

Lawrence v.Scows);and Flat-boat,840Rep. (Dredge83 Fed.(Flat-boat with McRae v.200 Bowerspile-driver);Rep.84 Fed.

Steam Dredge86 Fed. 344 No.Co., Rep. (Dredge); 1,DredgingMcMaster v. One Dredge,760 95 Fed.Fed. Rep. (Dredge);87

Co. v.Hydraulic DredgingBowers Federal832 (Dredge);Rep.290Co,, 148 Fed. Rep. (Dredge).Contracting

the scows were vessels,and then theIf the dredgetug, thewere seamen.themmen to operateemployed

aboutbe no the master andcourse, disputeofwill,ThereSeamen, 5;p.Curtis’ Merchant Benedictthe tug.mate of

TERM, 1906.OCTOBER250

206 U. S.States.Argument for the United

The law21.Adm.;on278; p.Práct., ed, HughesAdm. 3d. §on tug.and firemanis clear as to the the.equally engineer

Abbott’s505; Gurney Crockett,v.Wilson v. The Ohio, Gilpin,Adm. 490.

andcranesman,namely, master, fireman,The theothers —forseamen,and the scowman—aredeck hands on the dredge,theof of the crew ofthe were each onetheyreason that themco-theyand each of themtheyvessel on which were employed,

and of thesemaintenance,inoperated navigationthe operation,vessels.

Henry Knightwith whom Mr. F.Underwood,Mr. W. Orisonfor Statebrief, Bay Company.was on the Dredging

and Mr. OtisAttorneyThe the General J.General,Solicitorfor theAttorney General,to theAssistantCarlton, Special

United States:(27 340),352 Stat.August 1, 1892, chapter1. The Act of

constitutional.law,known as the iseight-hour(15of 25, 1868, chapteract June 72eight-hour law,The first

but in neither77) court,twice before this case wasStat. wasUnitedvalidity. Martin,to on its States v.nenessary passit

94,U. v. 421. In400; Driscoll,United States 96 U.»S. thoseS.inwas considered as the nature of a directionthe statutecases

to his that hours is theagent eight properfrom a principaldifferent,a work: fixingof time for contracts alength day’s,

(Martin’sare and the statutelegal case, supra);of timelengthto the ofemployés independentdoes not contractorsapply

The of of(.Driscoll’s act 1892 was becausecase, supra). passedof into the act those andgiventhe casesinterpretation 1868

thethe absence of a of thepenal provision, preserving principleeffective execution.statute, validityto insure its Theprior

of v.neither act has ever been United Statesquestioned.Fed.959;55 United States v. 60Ollinger, Jefferson,Fed. Rep.

v. John Kelso Fed.Rep. 736; Rep.United States 86Company,304; United States v. San Francisco 88 Fed.Bridge Company,

128;891; 424;A. G. ib. 14 ib. ib.Rep. Opin. 530; 29, 37,13 16

ELLIS v. STATES.UNITED 251

Argument206 for the UnitedU. S. States.

2158; 389; 500;17 18 ib.341; 445, 454, 459,ib. 20 ib. ib.487,32; 25 A.465;ib. 26 ib. 64. In 25 G.441, 1, 30, 36, 441,Opin.

the which444, theory upon this was is well stated—passedlawthat the ofGovernment, mayas an dictatelabor,employerthe terms which work Casesupon its shall be conducted. likeLochner v. York,New 198 U. S. be be-53, may distinguishedcause the act of 1892 ofdoes not interfere with the conduct

business; itprivate merely the terms whichprescribes uponthe willGovernment to be itspermit uponlabor employed

works.public Section 3 limits the of theexpressly operationact to into Kansas,contracts entered after its Atkin v.passage.

S.191 U. valid207, holding eight-hour preciselya state lawsimilar to act of 1892 Amendmént,under the Fourteenthwhich is like the Fifth Amendment, upon appellantswhich

absolutelyisrely, controlling.2. a channelDeepening is works of the United“public

workveryStates.” The which theupon dredging companieswork,was inengagedwere authorized theby defining’statutes-

their titles and Juneenacting clauses, public 13,as works. Act(321902, 1079 Stat.chapter 332), 3, 1905,act March331,

(33 1118).1482 Stat. inwork anchapter Ellis's was authorizedact under “Public Stat.appropriation subhead, 33Works.”

and1101. Before works1092, since 1892 of a character likethose which each of theupon appellants was have beenengaged

21363;denominated workspublic by-Congress. 152,20 Stat.228, 468; 191; 584;Stat. 24180, 310,Stat. Stat. 25 Stat.581,

813; 803; 721;Stat. 27 Stat. 28400, 462, 193, 426, 240,26 88,654;831; 1121;Stat. 29 Stat. 30 Stat.130, 202, 367, 377, 1030,

1116;31 32 33 Stat. 1117.692, 331; 333, 1101,Stat. Stat.by later define of otherenactments, mayeven termsCongress,

The U. S. 1,Johnson v. Southern 196Company,acts. PacificIn v. Fed. Rep.cited. United 6021, Jefferson,and cases States

benavigation pub­was held to736, removing obstructions toA. G.work,lic That see 26dredging public Opin.works. is

It is immaterial that a State30,34; political23 ib. has174,176.thejurisdiction beingthe where con­works areover place

TERM, 1906.OCTOBER•252

206 U. S.Argument for the United States.

88v. Francisco Bridge Company,United States Sanstructed.■Fed. 304.Rep.

onlyextraordinary emergency”3. The ofexception “in.casenot of the custom-to sudden, unexpected happeningsapplies

action to avertkind, demandingorary, regular promptusual,life, urgentto health ordanger limb, property;imminent

necessityin timewhich be to avoid thecan foreseensituationsad-solelywork must be guarded against by puttingof overtimenotof iswork;at and losspossibility pecuniaryshiftsditional

defi-working men overtime. Seecontinuouslytoenough justifyDic-in“extraordinary” Centuryof and-“emergency”nitions

Debates, Rec.,.Webster, Cong.Worcester.tionary, Standard,vol. 4525729;5724,5728, 23, Appendix, pagesvol. 23, pages

et and House Reports accompanyingand the Senateseq.;willand of committees whichH. R. Debates reports8537.

timeto find the situation as it existed at thebe examinedunder was pressed upon1892 was consideration andthe act of

Rail-of United States v. UnionCongress.the attention PacificStates,the v.79; Holy TrinityU. S. Church Unitedroad, 72,91 of

258;v. American457; Laws,S. United States 163 U. S.143 U.468; Dunlapv. 141 U. S.Worthington,Twine CompanyNet and

CongressthatStates, U. show the ofS.'65, purposev. United 173educational,theby promotingwas to secure better citizens■ excep-moral of the industrial classes. Thesocial and elevation

willtion to the law not be construed so as to defeat the purposesv. N.Waring, 865; App.of 64 Y. 52Congress. People Suppl.

36,Div. N. Y. bemay distinguished.of the to4. The term “laborers and mechanics”application

in theengaged ordinary- dredging operations uponemployésand andordinary non-seagoing tugs scows.dredge .attendant

ordinarywhoa. The term to all come within theappliestheyinof the of the manner whichmeaning words, irrespective

533; Seé,are 12 A. 25 A. G. 465.530,G.paid. Opin. Opin.14 that128, statingA. 391. A.also, 389, Opin.18 G. G.Opin.

wages day’sa for aemployés paid day’sact of is limited to1868435,v. Marshall 5 Kan.Billinsley County,- App.andwork,

v. UNITEDELLIS STATES 253

Argument for206 U. the UnitedS. States.

where there is- a similar will notintimation, followed, forbeto construe the act of 1892 as limited to employés paid by the

would enable the ofday the act to be defeatedpurpose by pay-ing weekly monthlyor wages.

ordinaryb. The ofmeaning the term includes employés onthe anddredge the scowman. Deck hands, while engaged uponthe work of obstructions toremoving navigation, are laborerswithin act of 1892. United States v. Jefferson, 60 Fed. Rep.

(United736. Fireman on land v. 400)States 94 U.Martin, S.(Wilsonand on board v. 14 B.ship Zulueta, Q. 405) are la-

borers.- 26 A. 64.See, also, Opin. G. Locomotive engineersare mechanics. Sanner v: Shivers, 335;76 Georgia, State exrel. 1. X. L. Grocery v. 108Company Land, Louisiana, 512.

of of toApplication .the act 1892 Government Printing Office(25 57; 607)Stat. 28 Stat. shows that word “mechanics”

to those inapplies engaged andoperating tending machines.c. named are seamen. IfEmployés their employmentnot

can be said to be so as to takepeculiar them out of the act it isonly while the isdredge being towed from port to Aport.

fixed indredge andposition operating anupon excavationunder water is like a land steam shovel onoperating land.

holding dredgesCases and scows to be vessels Interna-[TheRev,484)89 Fed. resttional, Rep. upon definition of “vessel.”

theyStats. 3. are notProperly speaking, vessels. United§States v. The Fed. No.Ohio, 15,915;27 Cas. United States v.The Pennsylvania Canal Fed.Boat, 16,027.27 Cas. No.

d. views are by consideringThese evilssupported designedto be remedied the Committeeby statute. andreports debates

that, during thirty yearsshow the preceding 1892, there hadmanybeen so mechanical inventions brought into use that the

labor market had andbecome there was notcongested sufficientremunerative for all who wished toemployment Bywork. itsdefinitions of is clear that“public works” it Congress intended

act of to1892 to inapply dredging operations;the and viewof the evil which the statute designedwas to thosecure, none ofupon the labor-saving device known as a dredge, who come

-TERM,OCTOBER 1906.254

Opinion of the Court. TJ.S.206

of "laborers mechanics”ordinary' meaning andwithin theoccasions.lawfully, upon ordinaryovertimebe workedcan

of act. of 1892 cannot controlinterpretationExecutivee.the statute andplain unambiguous.of ismeaningbecause

U. War88,194 S. 100. The of thePayne,v. actionHoughtondown to did thatJuly, 1906,which not considerDepartment,

■ to isgovernmentof onthe, applied dredges,act 1892 employésdeckto hands and some it wasothers,now abandoned as and

founded, of an opinion by Attorneya misconceptionupon459).A.(20 G. His actOpin. opinion that theGeneral Miller

to or on does1892 not “sailors othersapply shipboard”of doesthe him toonlybeforedredges; questionnot refer to related

“vessels;” dredgeson are not as vesselsthose classedproperlyto be as theemployés regarded duringnor are their sailors

ordinary dredging operation.of an The action ofperformanceis now no longerWar abandoned and isDepartment partlythe ’

orders, memoranda, letters, inSee, etc., appendixinsisted on.the andfully presentto attitude of thebrief, showing past

act’Since of the ofDepartment-. passage August 13,War 1894(28 uponStat'. contractors the works278), -requiring publicto for"the of materialsgive protection persons furnishingbonds

uponand contractors works have been re-dredginglabor,to bonds.givequired

theMr. Holmes delivered of the court.opinionJustice

indictment Informations ofThese an and under the Actare271, 352,, 340,c. Star. to the Limita-August 1892, “Relating

ofDailyof Hours of. Service Laborers and Mechanicstion thePuoiic of thethe Works United States and ofEmployed upon

the District of Columbia.” all ofThey bring theup questionthe,the ofconstitutionality act, they severallyand somepresent

which will the re-matters,subordinate be considered underspective cases.

The, act limits the and of all laborersemployment'servicethe United theby byand mechanics Districtemployed States,

STATES.ELLIS v. UNITED 255

ofOpinion the Court.206 U. S.

of or subcontractorby any upon anyor contractorColumbia,or the toDistrict, eightworks of the United Statesof the public

unlawful “to re-in one calendar and makesany day,hours itto work moreor such laborer- or mechanicpermit anyquire

in of extraor-daythan hours calendar caseeight any except in-or of the“any agentofficerdinary emergency.” By §2

of of Columbia,Government of the United States or the Districtit be todutyor contractor or subcontractor whose shallany

laborer or mechanicanyor controlemploy, direct, employedworks of the United States or of theany of theupon public

intentionally anyof Columbia who shall violate pro-Districtof a andguiltyvision of this shall be deemedact, misdemeanor,

everyand such offense shall conviction beuponfor each pun-a fine not to exceed one thousand im-by byished dollars or

months,for not more than six or bothby such fineprisonmentdiscretion of thein court-having juris-imprisonment,and the.

inthereof.” The error were contractors withinplaintiffsdictionfound andguiltyof the were were fined.act, Theythe scope

that the act wasrulingsall requested unconstitutional, exceptedon thatrule, groundto the refusal so to and their casesbrought

to this court.that act is unconstitutionalThe contention is not frivo­the

thatmay arguedit be there are relevant distinctionslous, sinceof the United States that of athe State.powerbetween and

such anaturally urged against statutearguments applyBut themost to the two andpart jurisdictions,for the areequally

Atkinbya State is v.answered, concerned,so far as Kansas,case a contractor for work uponS. In that a munic­191 U. 207.

to a fine underwas sentenced a similar law ofipal boulevardWethe was see no toupheld.and statuteKansas, denyreason

thus establishedthe for thepowerthe United States States.toit sanction themay requirementsthe made ofStates,Like

byits works inupon public penaltiesemployedcontractorsnot fulfilled. It wouldare be arequirements strongthosecase

hada that tolegislature powerthat forbid or tosaytothinghada contract not' also theand enforce rtopowe­authorize

TERM,OCTOBER 1906.256

Opinion theof Court. 206 U. S.

but however that Con-criminal, may be,make a of itbreachto its to authorize and enforce con-gress, poweras incident

that shall beworks, may theytracts for carriedrequirepublicwith ofin a consistent its views and.way public policy,out only

from that It is true itway.a that hasmay punish departurelegislation possessed byof thegeneral power legislaturesnot the

mayand it be true that the of lawStates, objectof the this is ofkind not to its control. But thesubject generala thatpower

inthe mode which contracts with theit has over United Statesbe limited abybe cannotperformed speculationshall as to

If the motive conceded, however,motives. be the fact thatoverhas not control the conditions ofCongress general labor

a lawdoes not make unconstitutional otherwise valid, becauseof the law-is to secure to it certainthe sopurpose advantages,,

far as the law goes.forward,One other is but itargument put hardly needs an

A in case,answer. was-asked Ellis’s and isruling attemptedto thatsustained,be to the effect the Government waived its

a andby contract, that even ifmaking the Act ofsovereigntyread into the acontract,1892 breach of its requirementswere

aonlywould be breach of contract and could not be amadeacrime. This is mere confusion of ideas. The Government

incontractor,as thepurely absence of special laws, may standa butperson, bylike aprivate contract itmaking does not give

its to make a law, and itup power may make a law like the pres-ent for the reasons wethat have stated. We ofare opinion that'

contrarythe act is not to the Constitution of the United States.We to the subordinatepass' matters not common to all the

Incases. Ellis’s case the in errorplaintiff toagreed construct2•and complete pier No. at the Boston Navy Yard, within six

months, certain specificationsaccording and at ato. certainHe found moreprice.' difficulty. than he expected, although

he some inexpected trouble, certain oak andgetting pine pilesfor bycalled the contract, and, beenhaving delayed by thathecause, permitted his associate in the business to employ

inhours,men for nine hurrythe to get the work done. The

v.ELLIS UNITED STATES. 257

Opinion of the Court.206 U. S.

instructed the that the evidence didjury notjudge show an“ ”extraordinary within the ofemergency the act.meaning, The

was in the matter. Even injudge right ruling upon if, as othera nice caseinstances; be left to themight jury, what emergen-

cies are within the statute is amerely constituent element of aof sincelaw, the ofquestion determination element deter-that

extent of thethe statutory prohibitionmines and is materialto that end. Theonly was correct. It needs noruling argu-

ment to show that the disappointment of a contractor with re-matter,to of his agard obtaining materials, which hesome knew

difficultyinvolved of whichsome he took risk,the does notcreate such an as is in theemergency contemplated toexceptionthe .law. the construction of theAgain, waspier desirable forthe convenient ofrepairmore but itwarships, was not essential.Vessels had been docked without it since 1835 or so that1836,

was no hot haste onthere that ifaccount, under any circum-stances that kind of need would have been enough.

onlyThere is one other raised inquestion Ellis’s It iscase.admitted that he was-a contractor the ofwithin themeaningact and that the workmen topermitted work more than eighthours a day were employed andupon “public works,” is notitdenied that these workmen were “mechanics.” The jury were

to that ifinstructed, subject exception, the defendant intendedto the men to work over hours on thepermit calendareight day

"named tohe intended violate the statute. The argument

“ ”the instruction is -that the word' inagainst intentionallyof law,the statute the or atrequires knowledge least that to

be convicted Ellis must not have evensupposed, mistakenly,extraordinarythat there was an emergency justifytoenough

onlyThe latter is thehis conduct. proposition former a littleIfBoth are foundation. a mandisguised. without intention-

certain conduct in certainally adopts circumstances knownthebyto and that conduct is lawhim, forbidden under those

he breaks the law incircumstances, intentionally the only sensein intent. Thewhich the law ever considers in thisjudgmentcase must affirmed.be

vpL. ocv.i—17

TERM, 1906.OCTOBER258

Opinion of Court. U. S.the 206

wereCompanyEasternthe Dredgingthree cases againstTheto be laborersmen,certain allegedfor employinginformations

what wasdayhours a uponthanmechanics, more eightorStates, viz.,of the Unitedworksbe one of the publictoalleged

incalled,sochannel,footthirty-fiveof thea portiondredgingthe StateBay- DredgingThe cases againstBoston Harbor.

Creek, was Chelseathat thesimilar, except placewereCompanycountsNo. 664 was in threeformer,Harbor. Of thein Boston

andhands and an assistant cranemantwo deckfor employingthe mas-No. 665 was forauponhand dredge;deck employing

was forand No. 666and' fireman of the dredge;cranemanter,pf aandmate, tugforemancaptain, engineer,theemploying'

in of the scow. Ofand a manscow, etc.,a chargetowedthat667 was-for em-cases., No.CompanyStateBay Dredgingthe

and fireman of a No. 668matecaptain, dredge;theployingand deck hand on thea craneman dredge;employingwas for

anda scowman and the captainwas for employingNo. 669andor sub-The offenses were admitted provedof á tug.engineer

and toalready considered,that have beenthe questionstojectwas one ofwhether the dredging uponfurther questionsthe.

United States and whether the personsworks of thethe publicmechanics within the oflaborers or meaningwereemployed

that will not need to betwo lesser pointswith one oract,thediscussed.

admit a broadto be construed enoughof the phrasesBothbut the is whethercases,' questionto cover theseinterpretation

in a fair.reasonable, and, statute,is penalinterpretationthatin a narrower sense with at leastbe readCertainly -they may“laborers and mechanics .says,The statuteease.equal ...

of the works.” Itany public. doesupon'. .employed“it to mean, anyand no one work.”say, supposes publicnot

of and“any the,’and the “works”“upon” pluralwordsThekind ofthe of labor referred to haveobjectsthat .someimport

unity, severallystructuralexistence'andpermanent and-are"as wholes. The fact thatcompleteof regardedcapable being

uponas them are laborersemployed andthe persons mentioned

ELLIS v. UNITED STATES. 259

' •206 OpinionU. S. of the Court.

mechanics, words admitted not to include seamen, points inthe direction of structures and fromaway the sea. The very

difficulty, if not of ingreat impossibility, thedredging ocean,if such a law is to it, is a reason forgovern the defendantsgiving

benefit of a doubt; and the fact that until last year the-the.Government worked crews more than hoursdredging is aeightpractical construction not Awithout its weight. seemschangeto have been made for the ofsimply sake consistency between

different,the of; thedepartments as is inGovernment, statedan oforder the of ASecretary War. different conclusion is

.to drawnbe fromsought some appropriation acts, theybutrefer to the insimply improvement of harbors termsgeneralthe works for whichpublicamong appropriations are made.

ofThe a harbor in«improvement may consist the erection ofinstructures as well as the of a orchannel, the ex-widening

of a rock. It is toplosion unnecessary lay on thestressspecialto in whichtitle the soil the were but it may- bedug,channels

noticed that it was not in the United States. The .languageof the acts is works of the“public United States.” As theworks are which the labor isthings upon expended,, the mostnatural of “of the United ismeaning States” belonging'to-theUnited States.

The words laborers and mechanics are admitted not to applyto as that commonly-isseamen name used. Therefore it wascontended but thatfaintly the masters O'fthe could nottugs be

more than hours. Butemployed theeight notargument doeswith masters .of or withstop mates,eventugs, engineers j,nd

offiremen the saíne. Wilson v. The Ohio, Gilpin, 505; Holt v.Pa.Cummings, 102 St. 212. The scows and floating dredges

Theywere vessels. Rev. Stat. 4612.3, were within the§§of the Unitedadmiralty jurisdiction States. The Robert W.

(A191 U. S. 17. ofParsons, number cases as to indredgesCourts,the Circuit and District are referred in Hy­to Brown

draulic Co. v. FederalDredging Co., Fed. Rep.Contracting 148290.). allTherefore the theof informationsin.hands'mentioned

-were seamen within the definition in earlier statute of the’an

TERM, 1906.OCTOBER260

Moody, J., dissenting. 206 U. S.

v. 77 Fed.§4612; Saylor Taylor,States. Stat.United Rev.3, 1875,of MarchA. See also ActC. C. 343.C.,S. 23476;Rep.Disbrow11;1Stat. 485; Stupart,Bean v. Dougl.3; 18156,c. §

allThey requireFed. 607.Brothers, Rep.36Walshv. Theto be called upon.forand are liableof the trainingsomething

Theordinaryof seamen.requiredservicesof themore or lessal­latter from the statute apply,thewhich excludereasons

the natureto them. Whateverin a less degree,perhapsthoughon the dredgesto their employmentis incidenttheir work itof

onan or coal shovellercase of engineeras in theand scowswe are ofelaboration of detailsfurtherWithoutship.board

by the two defendant com­employedpersonsthat theopinionnot employedor mechanics and werelaborerswere notpanies

within theUnited Statesworks of theof theany publicupona distinctionin cases where broadact. As otherof themeaning

line,to draw anecessaryultimately becomesadmitted, itisin niceof that lineof the precise placethe determinationand

mustbut still the linetechnical,somewhatseemsalwayscasesbe drawn.

in 567Judgment affirmed.668 and 669 reversed.664, 665, 666, 667,inJudgments

Moody of 567.no in the decisionparttookMr. Justice

the.yrork uponis of that theopinionMr. McKennaJusticeact. In other particu-was within theof Chelsea Creekdredging

of the court.with thelars he agrees judgment

Moody 665, 667,indissenting 664, 666,Mr. Justice Nos..and. 669..668

so farcourt,to of theagree opinionI am unable with thehours ato for more than eightit relates the employmentas

in on the and scows.dredgesthe men'day engagedof workI unwillingof that am.such'general importanceThe cases are

undis-my disagreement to remainto allow the forreasons'closed.

v. UNITEDELLIS STATES. 261

• Moody; J., dissenting.206 TJ.S.

The first is whether the men inquestion named the infor-­mations were by the defendantsemployed any of“upon thepublic works of the United States” within the ofmeaningthose words as used them.Congress Let it be- asconceded,I think it should that ofbe, “any the public works” is anarrower thanexpression work”“any public be;would that

workspublic must “have some kind of permanent existenceand structural and beunity severally ofcapable being re­

asgarded complete wholes,” and still the inworks here ques­tion fall within the description. The dredging of channelsin waterwaysour is not mere digging. It has for its purposethe creation of withsomething as visible a form as a cellar to

sunken,a a a ahouse, road, well, tidal basin or a sea-levelcanal. allSurely these are and if“works;” byconstructed

the Government, “public works.” Artificial waterways mayeasilynot be so read out of the statute any definition, andby

that,I cannot resist the belief the definition inaccepted theof the court does notxOpinion it.accomplish

consider,Let us historythe of of these artificial ap­one.proaches sea,from the such as the inchannel Boston Harbor,and see when it iswhether, completed, it ought not to be

as aregarded complete whole, ahaving permanent existenceand unity.structural When a work of kind'this is proposedthe of theengineers Army, theobtaining authority fromfirst

survey the consider the'Congress, region, commercial reasonswhich the andproject make for it andsupport plans estimatesof its cost. consideration ofUpon the'engineers’ report, Con­

if it the makes angress, approves appropriation forproject,construction,its it as ofdesignating theexpressly “public

works” of the United States. For éxample, the appropriationinfor one of the works in question .these cases is in the fol­

terms: “The oflowing following moneysums . . areconstructiqnhereby ... for theappropriated . . .

.of named;the works hereinafter . ­ im­public . Forinharbor accordance withproving the submittedreportsaid

in House Document, number one hundred and' nineteen,

•TERM,OCTOBER262 1906.

Moody, J., dissenting. 206 S.TJ.

•Session,Second channelsFifty-sixth by providingCongress,feet ... six hundred thousand dollars'.”thirty-five deep,

findthe threshold of the we thatsay, very inquiryThat to atisday’shad forbidden a work thanlongerwhichCongressthe

of the“the works United States”eight publichours uponundertaking very work,this called it adeliberatelyhad, upon

arisingThe of the fromcogency argumentwork.”“publicin law, in theeight-hourthe words the as ap-the use of samé

theby suggestionbe met that it- islaw, cannotpropriationin the law ineight-hourwords a narrowerread the•easy to

in' the law. Theappropriationwere usedtheythansensemaythe words behere not how butinterpreted,isquestion

no necessityThere is toto beought interpreted.theyhowfrom the intention whichofpossibilities escapetheexplore

sufficiently plain.has madeCongressmade and publishedof underDigest Appropriations,In the

are constantlyconstructionsCongress,-thesedirection ofthetheyand of course are“works,” “public.”asdenominated

buoyed lightedis it is and bychannel completed,After thebyand land fortifica-Government, frequentlythe defended

'for thafb Sometimespurpose. breakwatersconstructedtionsfor the of itpurpose preservingconstructed fromarejettiesor

Act ofAppropriation 19,The General Septemberimpairment.ofcontains some426, provisions permanentStat.1890, 26

here. It begins appropriatingwhich' are materiallaw, byandconstruction, repaircompletion, preservation“for the

Then follow manyhereinafter named.”the workspublicofthe offor rivers andimprovementappropriationsspecific

of theSection 3717 Revised.Statutes was as follows:harbors.ófSecretary War invites forproposals any“Whenever the

for material or labor forany any works,or there shallworks,forseparateand contracts eachproposals worjc,separatebe

class of material or for work.”also for each labor eachandthat of2 of this act that section the RevisédprovidedSection

“prohibitnot be construed the cumulationshouldStatutes toriver and inimprovements'works of harborof two or more.

263STATES.ELLIS v: UNITED

dissenting.Moody, J.,206 S.U.

works arecontract,and where such situatedthe same proposalkind or character.”'and of the same Ofregionin the same

works.works hfere referred to are Sectionpublicthecoursein‘harbors, navigablethe of material riversdeposit6 prohibits

7,Section as amended byor waters of the United States.July 1892, 27 Stat. 88, 110,.Act of makes13,section 3 of the

or in manner to alter-orfill, any“to excavate orit unlawful-condition or of'location, capacity any port,themodify course,

harbor of or inclosure withinroadstead, haven, harbor, refuge,any navigableof breakwater or of the channel ofanythe limits

the United unless and authorizedStatés, approvedwater ofofSecretary 3,1899,of War.” The Act March 30 Stat.by the

additional the ofsafeguard againstmakes obstruction1151,channels. Thus which has created theseCongress,navigable

the constant repair,channels them underkeeps super­artificialof the Whencontrol and Government.vision, protection

Government, Navydone the thethrough Depart­the work isSurvey, makes, publishesment- and the Coast and Geodetic

widthlength,charts which show their anddepthand issuesand and which enabledetail, buoys fightsin the minutest the.

safety.to use them with like entersHe, Congress,thé marinerasregarding completed wholes,the channels them asupon

beyondif he theirexistence, and, straysahaving permanentformthey tangiblewill discover that have ahelimits, quickly

to alterationthey subjectareunity. Doubtlessstructuralandand,a building, given,but so iselements,of thethe' actionby

inneed orderand care which all structuresrepair-constanttheaspermanentare as- thedisintegration, they'theirto prevent

Congressfrom acts ofQuotationsbuilding itself.Capitolthat with toshowing respectindefinitelymultipledmight_be-

for them as “works”had appropriatedCongresschannelsif the“works;” butasand maintenancerepairand for their

will, regardedthat.Congressnot showtoreferredalreadyactswillof othersno numberworks,publicaswaterwayssuch

orthat breakwatersconcededbeI itdo it. suppose .wouldthat Congressit to be supposedIsworks.jetties were public

TERM,264 OCTOBER 1906.

Moody J., dissenting. 206 U. S.

who only eightintended that men work on them should worka while those who work near on the. channelday, byhours

from this restriction? Iexempted conclude,itself should belabor was “thetherefore, publicthat the performed .uponStates.”works of the United

isday prescribed by statute, only'The the foreight-hourwords ofand mechanics. These havedescriptionlaborers

to wouldinclude and not include all thosenever been supposedkind.anywork the of'these wordsAlthoughwho do of extent

they were in avague, nevertheless used technicalis somewhatclasses of employés.to The second questionsense describe

men named in the information werewhether the laborersis ’or mechancis.

Navywhether in the otherSeamen, employed or marineStates byof the United or contractors with the Unitedservice

laborers orare not mechanics.' whileStates, They, laboringmore withinbroughtcould no be the limits of anseamen,as

than a aday physician, lawyer, or a clergyman.eight-hour•withalways special byhave beenThey regarded favor all

a series of laws to themspecially applicableandgovernments,their conditions of labor. The men employedand affectcontrol

from down, seamen,the master were andseagoing tug,theonof seamen,the work and the conviction withwork was.their

I erroneous. who are em-was, agree,to them Thoserespectdredgesthe and were in ofnot, respectuponployed scows

inactually anywerethey doing, proper sense,work seamen.theof weredredgethe notengineer licensed,master and andTheit not toseemed have entereduponmen intoemployedthe

wereThey employed usuallyof fromany shipment.-contractinwho merchant They,had served the marine. hadthose

the skill and whichaptitudeacquired especiallydoubtlessthem for work the which someupon dredges, requiredfitted

of and minor inhandling thingslines some other which sailorsin occu-But a man has oneexpert. acquiredbecausebecome

him it that,skill which fits for another does not followpationother,the the workhe from onepasses occupation'towhen

v. UNITEDELLIS STATES. 265

Moody, J., dissenting.206 U. S.

which he does in newthe himemployment entitles rightfullyto be bycalled the old name. The appointedsailor who is. the

aofkeeper lighthouse' may have received appointmenthis.hebecause was sailor,once a but nevertheless when he enters

into newthe is-a lighthouseservice he keeper and not a sailor.The ofoccupation dredging is not the foronly one which lifeon the sea educates a man. isThere a constant demand, for.

for those who have aninstance, dischargehonorable from theinfor civilNavy employment life. The ofqualities obedience,,

ofof of thedaring, fidelity, forcapacity quick adaptation ofdesired;,means to the end mayinsufficient which be theall.

thetraining sea,result of are whichupon qualities are neededin stations ofmany life,civil but when havemen reached

ofbythose stations .reason inqualities themdeveloped whilethey longerare noseamen sailors. The work of the dredge-

may bemen and scowmen described in a sentence. Theya andwere channel thedigging emptying material excavated

Allin the insea. those who were theengaged maywork fairlybe described as either laborers or mechanics. hadThey nothing

Neither,to do with navigation.whatever nor thedredgesthehad sails or ofsteering gear,scows methods self-pro-other

They were towed to the where workpulsion. place the was tothere it.be done and left to d.o

not beIt does seem to important that for some purposesand were ordredges vessels, employedthe scows- those upon

them for are deemed Thepurposes questionsome seamen. herewere the when in thethey engagedis what men were work of

menWere the at that time asemployed seamen,excavation?work of andseamen,the or as laborersdoing mechanics, doingof I think theythe work laborers and mechanics? then were

such,and as and that theirmechanics, employedlaborers orinis not have done thedetermined, by theywhatoccupation

their, byto call butby them,what chosepast, employersorwhen, invoked the lawwere thethey doingwhat Government

of laborersthey doingfor If then the worktheir benefit. werqinhave the past,and donemechanics,.whatever-they may

1906,TERM,266 OCTOBER

Moody, dissenting. 206 U: S.J.>

fpr what­bya motive oremployment,theirwhicli constitutes., their,rather,were,were orthey theyname employed­ever

by.the as hours prescribedlabor within restrictionswas, totheirdredgingtheir incident towas work-inthe law. Nor.Theythe:juitethe but' reverse.dredges,employment on'

for’'dredging.at all exceptnever would have been employed,saye itset foot on the dredgewould haveThey never to.use

' to work of and mechanics.a on which do the laborersplatformasof inthat thisforgotten object statute,not be.It should thepublican of a is toexpression greatwhich is embodied policy,

the kind and the men concerned arenamed,labor ofregulateof labor'solely byin or of reason theprohibitionsout its kind.of

can here thsthey dredge'Howperform'.. it-be"material whetherwithin, admiralty or that-­jurisdictionis or is"not a vessel the

"in the of two named statutes allconstruction thosespecificallyartificial,to be There is stat­it are deemed seaman? noupon

act,for this and what the'menprescribedconstructionutoryunder determinedact,-on it. are* this to beleft, accordingis

the and and the test to be is the naturefact,to appliedtruthTheyactuallyof the werethey perform. employedlabor to.

inmechanics, theydo the of laborers and. the main.workdidtheyand. which was of theactually work,did that’ whatever

work incidentmature of was a the fact thatseamen’s mere .toinstead drya of thethey floating platform uponupon,labored

land.. courtIt is in the of the that the statuteopinionconceded

bringswhich these cases within it.’admits of.an interpretationnot cases fairly,more said? Are these within theMay not be.

If thenso,of'the act? this be the rule of-strictplain words• alaws,to which has lostapplicable penalinterpretation, .rule

ifall of indeed it is now more than a lifelessrigor,its ancient(Unitedform S. beLacker, 628),States v. 134 U. cannot624,

legislatureused'to them out. When the intention of "thetakecarryis have no toclear,'the duty exceptcourtsreasonably

out., ,The sat-;of ispenalit- rule for the statutesconstructiontheir inean-beyondisfied if naturalenlargedwords are notthe

v.STONE SOUTHERN ILLINOIS BRIDGE CO. 267

■Syllabus.206 U.S.

ing, and theyit’does not that shall berequire restricted tor lessthan that.

The difficultyor ofimpossibility applying this law to theofoperations which the Idredging, upon evidence, think,

to noamounts more than that it would in anresult incon-which thevenience, defendants avoidmay readily by refusing

to with the is aGovernment,contract consideration fit to beto Congressaddressed rather than thisto court.

■I sayam authorized to Mb. Justicethat Hablan and''DayMe. Justice inconcur this dissent.

v. SOUTHERNSTONE ILLINOIS AND MISSOURIBRIDGE COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE COURT THESUPREME OF STATE OF MISSOURI.

Argued 24,No. 25, May 13,253. March 1907. Decided 1907.

statutes, incorporation, bridgeWhether the of a State the aauthorize ofcompany bridge navigable separatingto construct a over a river it from

State; rightanother whether such thestatutes confer of eminent domaincorporation State, corporationon a of another and whether such a can

powers byexercise therein other than, those conferred the State of itsquestionscreation, law,are all involving questions,of state no Federal

rulings highestand ofthe court of the are andfinalthe. State conclusiveupon this court.

January 26, 1901, 741,.havingThe act 31of Stat. the construc­authorized:by- corporation .bridge approachestion an Illinois of a and across the

River,Mississippi power1it is within the of one of the States within whichbridge extensionsthe authorize thereof and connec­was.constructed'to

necessary propertions and to make it fortherewith available the usestatute,bycontemplated althoughthe and such andextensions connec­

plans specifications bridgewithintions were not the and of itself andtheby Secretaryapproaches approved War,its as the of the condemnation

necessary bridge companyof land to is inthe construct not con­for them3, 1899, 1151,of makingtravention 9 olfthe of it§ act March 30 Stat.

any bridge navigableofunlawful to deviate in the construction overplans byapproved Secretarywaters from the the of War.

Missouri, 175,194 affirmed.