The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

234 : Lock Construction Public Work. In the light of these remarks the first question raised should, in the opinion of this office, be answered in the affirmative. There can be no ques- tion but that the work of lock con- struction is a public work of the United States and within the terms of the law. Where the parts of lock gates are sent from the factory in sections it is believed that the work of assembling the sections at the lock site and their erection in place by the contractor who furnished the same should be regarded as work on a : public work of the United States with- in the meaning of the statfite and regulation on the subject. The second question is as to whether > where stone or other material is de- livered on a breakwater from floating plant, the work of placing, bedding or arranging the stone or material on the breakwater comes under the pro- visions of the law. It has heretofore been held that a breakwater is a public work within the meaning of the law and regula- tion; but under the decision of the supreme court in the case of Ellis et aow Ine United States (206. U. S., 246), it was held that persons em- ployed in the work of dredging and for excavation, whether on dredges, scows or vessels, are not "laborers and mechanics" within the meaning Of the act ot Atigust 1, 1892 (27 Stat. L,. 340), but are to be regarded as sea- men employed on vessels within the statutes and decisions regulating such employment. If the persons who are regularly employed on the floating plant do the work of placing, bedding or-arranging the stone or material on the breakwater, simply in connection with the unloading of the same from the floating plant, it is not believed that such work should be regarded as covered by the statute and regulation. However, if one person is continuously employed in such work of placing, bedding or arranging the stone or other material on the breakwater, it would seem that he should be regarded as for the time engaged as a laborer and could not be required to work in excess of eight hours in one day. The Third Case Not Within the Law. The third case presented is that of the application of the law to the work of unloading, assorting and piling sup- plies and materials, such as lumber or cement, delivered by the contractor on land or in a warehouse owned or leased by the United States. If the materials are purchased by TRE MaRINE REVIEW > the United States or by a contractor on a public work, from an independent contractor as supplies and materials to be put into the actual work of con- struction--such materials being deliv- ered by the independent contractor who furnishes the same under his con- tract and is required to deliver the same, it is not believed that the un- loading, assorting and piling of the material by the laborers employed by such independent contractor would be regarded as upon a public work with- in the meaning of the statute and the regulation. _In an opinion by Attorney General Miller, dated August 24, 1892, upon the application of the act of August 1,1892, to lock boxes, lock drawers, etc., to be furnished for public use (20 Opins., 454-5), it was said: "To hold that in purchasing materials to be used in the erection and fitting up of pub- lic buildings the requirement that such materials shall only have been manu- factured by persons working eight hours a day would render this law im- possible of execution. If the law is applicable to the goods you name, it is not seen why it would not be equally applicable to a purchase of spikes, nails, lumber, brick, etc., enter- ing into the construction of govern- ment buildings." It will appear, therefore, that the attorney general did not regard the purchase of materials as such from an independent contractor as within the meaning of the law--such materials being a subject of commerce and pur- chased as such. I am clearly of opinion that the de- livery of material on the grounds of the United States by the laborers of the contractor furnishing the same should not be regarded as covered by the law and regulation. Repairs on Vessels. The remaining question raised is whether repairs on a vessel belonging to the United States and moored to a dock, wharf or landing owned by the government--the work of repair being Gone by a comtnactor-nis tc. te re- garded as coming under the provisions of the law; such vessel remaining in the charge or custody of the United States during the continuance of such repairs. In an opinion of this office, dated February 9, 1909, this office concurred in the view of the chief of engineers, that where a vessel was temporarily withdrawn from public work, and was being repaired at the plant of the company, the eight-hour law did not apply to the work. In that opinion June, 1910 this office said: "In the opinion of this office, dated February, 27, 1907, in the matter of repairs to certain dredges employed in connection with the improvement of the St. Johns river, Fla. it was held, following the opinions of the attorney general re- specting repairs to naval vessels, that the work thereon was not on public works of the United States within the meaning of the law, and that as the work was under the control of the contractor the law and regulation did not apply. In that opinion it was said: "Where a contract is given for re- pairs to a government vessel, the re- pairs to be made at a government wharf or under conditions which con- tinue the vessel in the active control of the government authorities, the eight-hour law may perhaps apply; but wheu, as in the case before us, the vessel is turned over to a contractor for repairs, at the contractor's plant, and so, for the time being, out of the active control of the government, I am of the opinion that the restrictions of the act of August 1, 1892, do not apply.' "It is not believed that the fact that, the vessel remained in the charge or custody of the United States during the continuance of the repairs should be regarded as material to the ques- tion. The work of repairs to such vessel would not, under the views of the attorney general, be on a public work of the United States within the meaning of the law. The term 'public work' has reference to some fixed work of public utility, and does not apply to vessels." MARINE INSURANCE ON PA- CIFIC COAST. The heavy losses in Alaska the past year, about $600,000, have caused con- siderable activity among the indemnity and marine insurance men. Losses of the Yucatan, Farralon and Ohio have been of considerable amounts. Rates to Alaska are considerably high- er than local rates or other coastwise rates because there are no adequate facilities and no accessible ports for repair work. For a time, during the spring, one company operating vessels to Alaska, ran without insurance of any kind. Rates have now been read- justed for the season with very little advance. To southeastern Alaska an advance of one-eighth to one-fourth of I per cent and to Nome and Yukon Tiver points, one-fourth to three- fourths of 1 per cent is general.