trict, which may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics shall contain a provision that no laborer or mechanic doing any part of the work contemplated by the contract, in the employ of the contractor or any subcontractor contracting for any part of said work contemplated, shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day upon such work; and every such contract shall stipulate a penalty for each violation of such provision in such contract of five dollars for each laborer or mechanic for every calendar day in which he shall be required or permitted to labor more than eight hours upon said work; * It is clear that the above enactment is aimed at the employment of labor on the work contemplated by the contract, and it is immaterial, from the point of view of the general purpose of the statute, by whom the labor is employed, whether by a contractor, by a subcontractor, or by a sub-subcontractor. The term "subcontractor" is broad enough to cover any person employing labor under a sub contract on the work contemplated by the original contract. If the contractor for the erection of a public building should sublet the entire contract to another who, in his turn, should sublet the entire contract to a third person, the employment by the latter of laborers for more than eight hours in any one calendar day would clearly, in my opinion, violate the letter and the spirit of the statute. Your second question is as follows: "Is it required that all contracts involving the employment of laborers or mechanics shall contain the provision referred to, or only those which do not come within the exceptions contained in said act?" While the first section of the act provides that " every contract" thereafter made for or on behalf of the United States shall contain the stipulation as to eight-hour labor, the second section provides " that nothing in this act " shall apply to contracts within the classes excepted by said second section. Therefore, the requirement as to the insertion in the contract of a provision as to eight-hour labor does not apply to the excepted classes, and I answer your second question in the negative. Your third question is as follows: "Is it required that the stipulation referred to be included in letters of acceptance when informal contractsmade by proposal and acceptance-are entered into?" As a contract made by letters of proposal and acceptance is as much a contract as a formal agreement, I answer your third question in the affirmative. Your fourth question is as follows: "In the construction and equipment of public buildings certain articles are required which the Department has hitherto contracted to have manufactured to conform to certain specification requirements, but which articles, in their respective classes, can be purchased in the open market. For instance, lamp standards and brackets. These are articles of common use and can be purchased in the open market, but this Department contracts for the manu facture of such as it requires, from drawings prepared by the Department, and requires the contractor to agree that he will not make for any other customer any lamp standards or brackets from these drawings, either during the continuance of his contract with the Government or after its termination. Again, dynamos and engines are purchasable in the open market, but those installed in public buildings while they resemble in appearance the dynamos and engines prepared by the respective manufacturers and are identical with those to be had in the open market, up to a certain point are, in certain essentials, required to be constructed on lines which constitute a material difference in construction. . "Tiles for roofing, terra cotta, bricks, plaster, are among materials which can be purchased in the open market, but might happen to be so produced as to be intended from the very commencement of the manufacturing process, for use in connection with a particular Government building contract. Are all of the foregoing classes excluded from the provisions of the act of June 19, 1912, by virtue of the exceptions therein contained? "Structural iron and steel are procurable by open-market purchase, but stock materials are not often used in public 83152°-VOL 30-13-3 building work. On the contrary, beams are rolled and columns fabricated for use in connection with a particular building, holes drilled for the rivets, etc. Again, sash, doors, moldings, etc., are procurable in the open market, but generally all the lumber for the interior finish of a public building is prepared in the mill of a subcontractor. Do these classes of material come within the operation of the law, and if so, is the law applicable to any stage of manufacture anterior to the point where those processes are begun which destine the materials for use in connection. with the Government contract? "It is thought that the classes of materials and articles above referred to afford sufficient illustration so that if you will favor the Department with your views, it will be possible for the Department to apply such principles as you may lay down to the other materials and articles entering into the construction of public buildings." The question whether contracts for the purchase of such articles as those referred to in your fourth question are within the classes excepted from the operation of the first section of the act by the second section thereof, as being either contracts "for the purchase of supplies by the Government, whether manufactured to conform to particular specifications or not," or " for such materials or articles as may usually be bought in open market, whether made to conform to particular specifications or not," is discussed in an opinion recently rendered to the President for the use of the Public Printer. I content myself, therefore, with handing you a copy of that opinion, and advising you that, for the reasons therein stated, contracts for the articles or materials to which you refer are all, in my judgment, within the excepted classes, and are, therefore, not subject to the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 19, 1912. Respectfully, GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. CENTRAL BRANCH UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD. With respect to the status of the claim of the United States against the old Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad, now constituting a part of the Missouri Pacific System, on account of the subsidy bonds issued by the Government in aid of the construction of said road, held: (1) That the property of the company is not now subject to a first lien in favor of the Government to secure the payment of the amounts paid by the United States, since the act of July 2, 1864, expressly subordinated the lien of the United States to the lien of the first-mortgage bonds; (2) That the Government has no right to demand the annual payment of 5 per cent of the net earnings of the company, because the right to the 5 per cent of the net earnings was intended as a security and sinking fund for the Government's loan, and, therefore, its existence depends upon the existence of the debt; (3) That the Government has no right to withhold the entire compensation earned by the company for transportation services; (4) That the Government still has the right to retain one-half of this compensation; (5) That the Government still has the right of a junior mortgagee to redeem. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, January 27, 1913. SIR: Last March you referred to me a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, which laid before you the results. of an investigation, in a report made to him by the Solicitor of the Treasury, on the present status of the claim of the United States against the Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad on account of subsidy bonds. This report recemmended certain action to be taken, based upon the assumption that the Government still retains a first lien upon so much of the Missouri Pacific Railroad as is embraced in the old Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad, being the 100 miles of road extending from Atchison to Waterville, Kans., on account of the subsidy loan in the form of bonds issued and paid by the Government to aid in the construction of said road. I have had this opinion and the questions involved in it very carefully studied in this Department, with the result that we are unable to agree with the conclusions of the Solicitor of the Treasury. Briefly speaking, the facts in the case are these: The act of July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. 489), "An act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to secure to the Government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes," the enabling act, so to speak, for the Pacific railroads, in section 13, authorized the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Co., of St. Joseph, to extend its railroad from St. Joseph via Atchison for 100 miles westward into Kansas, and to use for this purpose any charter that may, or may have been, granted by the legislature of Kansas. In 1863 this company assigned all of its rights under the act of 1862 to the Atchison & Pikes Peak Railroad Co., a corporation of the State of Kansas, the name of which was changed to Central Branch of the Union Pacific Railroad Co. by an act of July 1, 1867, passed by the legislature of Kansas. Under this assignment from the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Co. the Atchison & Pikes Peak Railroad Co., at first under its original name, and later under its new name, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the act of 1862 and its subsequent amendments, constructed 100 miles of railroad and telegraph lines, as authorized, from Atchison to Waterville, Kans. In the course of this construction the company received from the Government, as provided in the above acts, $1,600,000 face value, 30 years 6 per cent subsidy bonds. These bonds were delivered in 5 installments upon the completion of successive 20-mile sections of railroad, as follows: $320,000 face value on July 27, 1866. $320,000 face value on May 2, 1867. $320,000 face value on December 4, 1867. $320,000 face value on January 21, 1868. Prior to the issue of these bonds, and on May 1, 1865, and in advance of construction, the company issued $1,600,000 face value of its own 30-year 6 per cent bonds secured by a first mortgage upon the whole of said 100 miles of railroad, telegraph lines, and properties under the authority |