By the foregoing it appears that during the year 1901 and the year 1902, as far as data in regard thereto are given, there has been marked decrease in the number of Japanese immigrants coming into the State, as compared with the year 1900; while as compared with the year 1899, the number of such immigrants is approximately the same. Thus, in the year 1899, 1,809 such immigrants arrived; in 1900, 3,751; in 1901, 1,568; and in 1902, up to September 1st, 1,228, or, with the same ratio maintained, 1,850 for the year.

As regards vocations in which Japanese find employment in the State there has not been an appreciable change in the last two years, they being employed in about the same ways and in about the same proportions as shown by the here named Ninth Biennial Report.

AS REGARDS ENFORCEMENT OF SOME OF THE LABOR LAWS OF CALIFORNIA.

Under the above heading, an article appeared in the Ninth Biennial Report of this Bureau, and it is the purpose here to continue the subject in so far as it relates to the period covered, and the work done, by this Bureau within its purview during the last two years.

THE EIGHT-HOUR LAW.

In the said article in the Ninth Report, it is noted that the State "eight-hour" law of 1899 had not, at that time, been subjected to judicial test. Since then, however, several cases have been decided, respectively, in the Superior Courts of some of the counties of the State, and in all of such cases the said courts seem to have held, following the decision of the Supreme Court of the State in what is known as the Kubeck case in Los Angeles, that the said law of 1899 is invalid and unconstitutional. Thus it was held so to be by Judge Hall of the Superior Court of Alameda County, in a case wherein an injunction was sought to restrain the county officials of that county from paying, to a contractor who had, on county work, required and permitted his employés to work more than eight hours per day, money earned and otherwise due under the said contract.

And again, in a similar case, by Judge Sloss of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. And again by Judge Sloss in ruling on a demurrer in an action brought by a contractor against the Regents of the State University for moneys due for work performed under contract for the said university; the said contractor, on said work, having required and permitted his employés to work more than eight hours per day.

The Legislature of the State, at its last session (1901) amended the law here in question, and thereby materially altered the legal aspect of some of its provisions. The law as thus amended has now been in effect for a considerable time, but it is not believed that the amendments named have yet been passed upon judicially.

In many cases communications have been received by the Bureau, and information and advice asked, in regard to work being done under contract in various respective places. In all such cases, such information and advice as were possible, under the circumstances, have beer

given, and it has been many times suggested that some representative case of violation of this amended law should, upon the first opportunity, be carried on appeal to the Supreme Court of this State and there carefully presented, with view to having decided by that tribunal the question of the validity of such legislation in this State.

As regards the Kubeck case before mentioned, it arose under a city ordinance, which made it simply a penal offense to require or permit persons employed by contractors, or otherwise, upon the public works of the city of Los Angeles, to work more than eight hours per calendar day. The amended law here in question does not impose a penal penalty upon the contractor, but attempts to make him civilly liable for violation of the law, and hence it is believed that the Kubeck case, as presented, is not squarely in point.

Again, the decisions of our Superior Courts (and even the decision of our Supreme Court, in the Kubeck case) are directly at variance with the decisions of the United States courts, as well as those of the higher courts of several of the States on the same class of legislation.

Altogether it is believed that an effort should be made to have the question settled by the highest possible judicial authority without unnecessary delay.

Mention may here be consistently made, also, of the Federal, or United States, "eight-hour" law, as it applies to all laborers, workmen, and mechanics employed upon the public works of the United States.

In the article in our Ninth Biennial Report, herein referred to, mention is made of the arrest of several contractors, on such United States public works, for violation of the said Federal law. In one of said cases, namely, United States vs. Clark & Henry, defendants pleaded guilty and paid a fine of $200. In another, that is to say, United States vs. Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Dredging Company, et al., the case went to trial and defendants were, on June 15, 1900, convicted and fined $150. They took an appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, which appeal was dismissed July 19, 1900, without prejudice, and the fine in question was collected by the United States District Attorney about April 15, 1902.

In the other case, that of the United States vs. Darby Laydon, defendant went to trial; on December 11, 1900, he was convicted and fined $200. He took an appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, and said court dismissed said appeal May 13, 1901. The records show that the United States District Attorney's office caused said fine to be collected about April 15, 1902.

Some time prior to December, 1901, complaint was made to the Bureau of the further violation of this same Federal "eight-hour" law by the abovesaid Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Dredging Company, et al.,

in doing work under a Government contract in Alameda County. This Bureau took up the matter, and securing the evidence necessary, caused complaint to be made to the Federal authorities, with the result that the defendants were arrested and held over for trial before the United States District Court, and their cases are pending in said court. Communications have been sent from this Bureau to the United States District Attorney's office, urging careful attention upon the part of that office to the said case, and the District Attorney has promised to give the same.

About January, 1902, complaint was made to the Bureau that the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Dredging Company, herein before mentioned, was violating the provisions of this same Federal "eight-hour" law in doing work, under contract with the United States Government, upon a dry dock being built for said Government at the Mare Island Navy Yard, in California; said violation consisting in requiring and permitting workmen to work upon said dry dock more than eight hours per calendar day. The agents of this Bureau, seeking to investigate the facts regarding the violation alleged, were refused admission to the Navy Yard by Admiral Miller, the commandant thereof. The Bureau thereupon took the matter up with the Secretary of the Navy, and asked permission for its agents to enter the said Navy Yard for the purpose of ascertaining the facts named. In thus seeking to obtain the said permission, the Bureau sought to enlist the assistance of the several Senators and Congressmen of the State, and it is to be said that in most cases that assistance was promptly and cheerfully rendered. In due course the Secretary of the Navy made an order, and advised this Bureau. of the same, directing the commandant of the Navy Yard at Mare Island to permit the agents of the Bureau to enter the said yard, at all times between sunrise and sunset, on any day. However, meanwhile, owing, it was said, to some disagreement between the contracting parties and the United States authorities, work on the dry dock was discontinued, and the whole matter has for this reason since rested in abeyance. About May 10, 1901, an official communication was received, through the medium of a duly authorized committee, from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 151 of San Francisco, making complaint, in substance: That certain electrical linemen and repairers, in the employ of the Electrical Department of the City and County of San Francisco, were being required and permitted to work, while in said employ, more than eight hours per calendar day, in contravention of the provisions of the charter of said city and county.

The matter was at once taken up by the Bureau with the Joint Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of San Francisco, with the request that the subject-matter of the complaint be investigated, and that in case non-compliance with the provisions of the charter was established as

alleged, the working rules and regulations of the electrical department of the City and County be so modified as to bring the work of all employés of the department within the provisions of the charter.

The Joint Board, consisting of Messrs. Newhall, Watt, Hecht, Howell, Wallace, Mahoney, and Grady, and later including Commissioners Hutton and Parry, cheerfully took up the subject of the complaint and gave the matter careful and earnest attention, with the result that after considerable delay, some of which was unavoidable, it was found that the provisions of the charter were being violated as alleged, in the employment of the electricians in question, and, duly authorized by vote of the Joint Board, its president, George A. Newhall, gave peremptory orders that the provisions of the charter in question be thereafter faithfully observed as regards the employés of the said electrical department.

LAW AS TO SANITARY CONDITION OF WORKSHOPS, ETC.

In the same article herein referred to, mention is again made of efforts, on the part of the Bureau, to enforce compliance with the provisions of a law of the State of California which sought to provide for the sanitary condition of factories and workshops, by investing the Commissioner of this Bureau with authority to ascertain when the inhalation of dust and filaments in such factories might be prevented by the use of mechanical appliances, and to order such appliances to be used when such. inhalation would be prevented thereby. Many of the factories in question complied with the suggestion from the Bureau, and installed and used appliances such as herein referred to.

In a few cases suggestions such as named were ignored, and hence about December, 1900, Messrs. Schaezlein and Burridge, of Hardy Place, San Francisco, were arrested upon a complaint of the Bureau, and charged with having committed a misdemeanor in refusing to install, in their metal-polishing shop, at said place, in compliance with the provisions of the law in question, a suction exhauster designed to purify the atmosphere in said shop. They were, in due time, convicted on said charge in the Police Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and sentenced to pay a fine of $25. They took an appeal to the Superior Court of the said city and county, which court affirmed the decision of the lower court. They thereupon took the case to the Supreme Court of the State of California on writ of certiorari, with result that, after many months' delay, the said Supreme Court, by its decision in the case, held the law in question to be invalid and unconstitutional, as containing a delegation of legislative power to the Commissioner of this Bureau to enact general laws by the provisions of which persons were made to be guilty of criminal offenses. The