The law in regard to this question is contained in chapter 619 of the Acts of 1913, which provides as follows:

SECTION 1. Every employer of labor, whether a person, partnership or corporation, engaged in carrying on any manufacturing or mercantile establishment in this commonwealth as hereinafter defined, shall allow every person, except those specified in section two, employed in such manufacturing or mercantile establishment at least twentyfour consecutive hours of rest in every seven consecutive days. No employer shall operate any such manufacturing or mercantile establishment on Sunday, unless he shall have complied with the provisions of section three; but this act shall not authorize any work on Sunday not now authorized by law.

SECTION 2. This act shall not apply to (a) janitors; (b) watchmen; (c) employees whose duties include no work on Sunday other than (1) setting sponges in bakeries; (2) caring for live animals; (3) maintaining fires; (4) caring for machinery; (5) employees engaged in the preparation, printing, publication, sale or delivery of newspapers; (6) any labor called for by an emergency that could not reasonably have been anticipated.

Your question is confined to manufacturing establishments. The term "manufacturing establishments" is defined by St. 1909, c. 514, § 17, to mean "any premises, room or place used for the purpose of making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing or adapting for sale any article or part of an article."

By section 5 of chapter 619 of the Acts of 1913 it is provided that

In this act "manufacturing establishments" and "mercantile establishments" shall have the meaning defined in section seventeen of chapter five hundred and fourteen of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and nine, except that neither of said terms shall be held to include establishments used for the manufacture or distribution of gas, electricity, milk or water, hotels, restaurants, drug stores, livery stables, or garages.

I assume that in using the term "manufacturing establishments" you refer to such establishments as are within this definition and are not within the exceptions above mentioned.

The language of the statute is too clear to admit of a possible misunderstanding: "every employer of labor, . . . engaged in carrying on any manufacturing or mercantile estab

lishment in this commonwealth as hereinafter defined, shall allow every person, except those specified in section two, employed in such manufacturing or mercantile establishment at least twenty-four consecutive hours of rest in every seven consecutive days." This is the language of the statute. do not know how your question can be more clearly answered. The language is not ambiguous.

No one regards the work of taking an inventory as rest, nor can the taking of an inventory in the ordinary course of business be regarded as "labor called for by an emergency that could not reasonably have been anticipated," within the provisions of section 2 of chapter 619, above quoted.

Very truly yours,

THOMAS J. BOYNTON, Attorney-General.

Constitutional Law Newspapers.

A law to prohibit contracts by publishers appointing local sole agents for the sale of periodicals would be unconstitutional.

Committee on Legal Affairs.

FEB. 13, 1914.

GENTLEMEN: Your inquiry of February 12 received relative to the constitutionality of House Bill No. 229, entitled "An Act relative to the sale of newspapers and periodicals." The purpose of this act appears to be to prohibit contracts by publishers appointing local sole agents for the sale of periodicals.

The Constitution of Massachusetts enumerates among the natural, inalienable rights of men the right "of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property." Bill of Rights, Art. I.

The Constitution of the United States protects "life, liberty and property." U. S. Const. Amendments, Arts. V and XIV. These provisions of State and Federal Constitutions protect freedom of contract. As our Supreme Judicial Court has expressed it, "the right to acquire, possess and protect property includes the right to make reasonable contracts." Commonwealth v. Perry, 155 Mass. 117, 121.

These rights, however, are subject to limitations, arising under the proper exercise of the police power. . . The nature of the police power and its extent, as applied to conceivable cases, cannot easily be stated with exactness. It includes the right to legislate in the interest

of the public health, the public safety and the public morals. . . . If we are to include in the definition, as many judges have done, the right to legislate for the public welfare, this term should be defined with some strictness, so as not to include everything that might be enacted on grounds of mere expediency. Commonwealth v. Strauss, 191 Mass. 545, 550.

It is difficult to see how the proposed bill falls within the police power. The practice which it prohibits is not contrary to public policy as laid down in the past by the primary tribunal of public policy, to wit, the Legislature. The laws prohibiting contracts which bind a buyer to buy exclusively of the seller contain provisos expressly excepting contracts of the sort aimed at in the proposed bill. See the following quotations:

But the provisions of this section shall not prohibit the appointment of agents or sole agents for the sale of, nor the making of contracts for the exclusive sale of, goods, wares or merchandise. (R. L., c. 56, § 1.)

Provided, that nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit the appointment of agents or sole agents to sell or lease machinery, tools, implements or appliances. (St. 1907, c. 469, § 1.)

The Supreme Judicial Court, in holding one of these statutes constitutional, laid stress on the fact that the statute does not prohibit the appointment of sole agents, and that it allows contracts for the exclusive sale of goods. Commonwealth v. Strauss, supra, p. 551.

There is nothing in the nature of periodicals to distinguish them from other goods with respect to the practice aimed at in the proposed bill. A general law prohibiting the appointment of local sole agents would tend to hamper trade without producing any appreciable general benefit to the citizens of the Commonwealth.

It is my opinion that the proposed bill, if enacted, would be unconstitutional.

Very truly yours,

THOMAS J. BOYNTON, Attorney-General.

On public work for the State, performed outside the Commonwealth, citizens of this State must be given the preference.

The eight-hour law has no extra-territorial effect.

FEB. 13, 1914.

Hon. P. H. CORR, Chairman, Board of Panama-Pacific Managers for

Massachusetts.

DEAR SIR: Your Board requests my opinion upon the following questions, namely:

1. Is there anything in the Massachusetts laws requiring us to employ citizens or residents of Massachusetts on contract work of this kind outside of the State?

2. Is there anything in the Massachusetts laws which requires that men employed on this kind of work shall not labor more than a certain number of hours a day?

Taking up your first question, I find that section 21 of chapter 514 of the Acts of 1909 is as follows:

In the employment of mechanics and laborers in the construction of public works by the commonwealth, or by a county, city or town, or by persons contracting therewith, preference shall be given to citizens of the commonwealth, and, if they cannot be obtained in sufficient numbers, then to citizens of the United States; and every contract for such works shall contain a provision to this effect. Any contractor who knowingly and wilfully violates the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars for each offence.

This statute clearly requires that in the construction of public works by the Commonwealth preference by given (1) to citizens of this Commonwealth, and (2) to citizens of the United States. While it is probable that in the enactment of this statute the Legislature had in contemplation only public works within the Commonwealth, still, it seems to me that a building of the kind to be erected by your Board in San Francisco may also be considered a public work constructed by the Commonwealth, and I am of the opinion that a contract made by your Board for the construction of such building should contain the clause provided for in the section of the statute above quoted. It should not be understood, however, that such a provision in the contract will obligate

the contractor to transport men from Massachusetts to San Francisco, but that it will require the contractor, whenever a citizen of this Commonwealth desires to work at the same terms upon which other men are employed by the contractor in the kind of work applied for, to give such citizen the preference; that is, generally speaking, that other things being equal, a citizen of this Commonwealth must be given work in preference to anybody else, and failing to find a sufficient number of citizens of Massachusetts to do the work in hand, the contractor must give a like preference to citizens of the United States.

Taking up now your second question, I find that sections 1 and 2 of chapter 494 of the Acts of 1911, being the eighthour law of this Commonwealth, provide as follows:

SECTION 1. The service of all laborers, workmen and mechanics, now or hereafter employed by the commonwealth or by any county therein or by any city or town which has accepted the provisions of section twenty of chapter one hundred and six of the Revised Laws, or of section forty-two of chapter five hundred and fourteen of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and nine, or by any contractor or subcontractor for or upon any public works of the commonwealth or of any county therein or of any such city or town, is hereby restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day, and it shall be unlawful for any officer of the commonwealth or of any county therein, or of any such city or town, or for any such contractor or sub-contractor or other person whose duty it shall be to employ, direct or control the service of such laborers, workmen or mechanics to require or permit any such laborer, workman or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary emergency. Danger to property, life, public safety or public health only shall be considered cases of extraordinary emergency within the meaning of this section. In cases where a Saturday half holiday is given the hours of labor upon the other working days of the week may be increased sufficiently to make a total of forty-eight hours for the week's work. Threat of loss of employment or to obstruct or prevent the obtaining of employment or to refrain from employing in the future shall each be considered to be "requiring" within the meaning of this section. Engineers shall be regarded as mechanics within the meaning of this act.

SECTION 2. Every contract, excluding contracts for the purchase of material or supplies, to which the commonwealth or any county therein or any city or town which has accepted the provisions of section twenty of chapter one hundred and six of the Revised Laws, is a party which may involve the employment of laborers, workmen or mechanics shall contain a stipulation that no laborer, workman or mechanic