Court is empowered to impose and administer all Oaths, as well those that are necessary for promoting Justice between Party and Party, as those necessary to the Conviction and Punishment of Offenders; and to punish at the reasonable Discretion of the Court, all contempts committed against the Authority of the same: And the said Court shall have Power to issue all Writs of Prohibition and Mandamus, according to the Law of the Land, to all Courts of inferior Judiciary Powers, and all Processes necessary to the furtherance of Justice, and the regular Execution of the Laws.

Jurisdiction conferred by statute may unquestionably be limited, regulated or taken away by statute.

Referring once more to your second question, as I have above indicated, property rights may not be held to be personal rights for the purpose of depriving property of the security guaranteed by the Constitution, but the proposed measure provides that certain rights shall be held to be personal rights for the purposes of this act, and the purposes of the act being to prohibit the use of the writ of injunction in labor disputes, and the right to this writ being, as above stated, not a constitutional but a statutory right; though the provision of the act referred to in your second question may be of doubtful constitutionality, still, under the rule that doubt as to the construction of a statute must be resolved in favor of its constitutionality, I am of the opinion that your second question should be answered affirmatively.

In connection with the question as to the constitutionality of this measure my attention has been directed to that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which provides that no State shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held that this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not operate to prohibit the State from establishing its own police regulations; that State laws relating to the health, safety or morals of the people may be enacted as freely as before the adoption of this amendment; and further, that this amendment does not interfere with the classification of the citizens of a State as a matter of public policy of the State.

It is not the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment . to prevent the States from classifying the subjects of legislation and making different regulations as to the property of different individuals differently situated. The provision of the Federal Constitution is satisfied if all persons similarly situated are treated alike in privileges conferred or liabilities imposed.

Field v. Barber Asphalt Co., 194 U. S. 621.

Classification (by legislation) is not invalid because not depending on scientific or marked differences in things or persons or in their relations. It suffices if it is practical, and is not reviewable unless palpably arbitrary.

Orient Insurance Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 562.

When legislation applies to particular bodies or associations, imposing upon them additional liabilities, it is not open to the objection that it denies to them the equal protection of the laws, if all persons brought under its influence are treated alike under the same conditions.

Missouri Ry. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 209.

The right to the equal protection of the laws was certainly not denied, for it is apparent that the same law or course of procedure is applicable to any other person in the State, under similar circumstances and conditions.

Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 106.

This proposed bill selects and classifies the property rights therein specified, and by roundabout phraseology denies to those rights the benefit and protection of the writ of injunction in cases of labor trouble. Though the threatened damage be great and irreparable the writ is not to issue for their protection if this bill becomes law. The bill contemplates a radical change in our law and a new departure in the public policy of the Commonwealth, but, as I have stated, the right of property to the protection of the writ of injunction is a statutory right and is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

The result of my examination of authorities in connection with your inquiry is that I do not find that this bill is obnoxious to any constitu tional provision.

Very truly yours,

THOMAS J. BOYNTON,

Attorney-General.

IV.

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING LABOR IN THE INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF GOVERNOR WALSH, 1914. 1. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

It has been more than half a century since the people of Massachusetts have considered their constitution as a whole for the purpose of revising it and making it consistent with the conditions of the day. The strong public demand for certain changes in our Constitution compels the Legislature, year after year, to consider the same proposals for its amendment. The time of committees and of the Legislature itself is consumed, the length of the session is extended, and the normal business of legislation is embarrassed by these constantly recurring demands. The failure of the Legislature to act on them only incites their advocates to more vigorous insistence, and tends to foment distrust of our representative government among a large body of intelligent, patriotic citizens.

Therefore, I recommend that the Legislature cause to be assembled with the consent of the electorate a body of citizens, who shall be selected without party designation, to formulate amendments to our Constitution, which, submitted to the voters of the State, will tend to settle otherwise irrepressible controversies, and will make our Constitution conform more nearly to the needs and to the public opinion of the day.

The following proposals I suggest as the most persistently pressing for constitutional authority:

5. Rights of cities and towns to deal in necessaries of life in times of public distress.

8. Homestead legislation, whereby the Commonwealth may help people of small means to acquire homes of their own.

10. The making of workmen's compensation compulsory.

2. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.

The Workmen's Compensation Act has now passed the experimental stage in operation and has demonstrated the wisdom of its enactment. There is no longer even serious denial that the old employers' liability system, based upon negligence, was unjust in part and inconsistent with

modern industrial conditions, and so unworthy of any humane and intelligent people that the result has been the acknowledgment by the State of a new responsibility to the victims of industrial injury.

The compensation act was drawn upon conservative lines, limiting the scope of its benefits in order to impose no undue burden upon employers which might be prohibitive of industry. Experience and study here and in other Commonwealths now warrant the recommendation of changes in the law which will increase the measure of its benefits to the employee, and of the enactment of legislation to provide for regulation by the State of liability insurance companies to protect the employer against unjust and excessive rates.

I therefore recommend the following amendments to the act:

First. That compensation paid under the act be increased from half wages to 65 per cent. of the average weekly wage of the injured employee, the minimum and maximum payments to remain as at present.

Second. That payments to dependents in fatal injury cases be extended to cover a period of five hundred weeks from the date of the injury, the maximum payment not to exceed $4,000.

Third. That payments on account of partial incapacity be extended to cover a period of five hundred weeks from the date of injury.

Fourth. That in the payment of compensation by a lump sum the Industrial Accident Board may be given the power to fix the sum to be paid, so that the matter of agreement as to payment of compensation by a lump sum shall not be a matter of bargaining between the employee and the insurer.

Fifth. That the act may be amended so that it may be given extraterritorial effect by express legislative intent.

Sixth. That the Industrial Accident Board be given the power to require the payment of bills for medical, surgical and hospital attendance beyond the first two weeks after the injury in cases in which in its judg ment such attendance is required.

Seventh. That compensation and payments be so readjusted that a youth who loses an arm, or suffers a serious impairment of like nature. shall receive such compensation as shall enable him to provide for his future by receiving a training in a self-sustaining occupation.

Eighth. That the Board shall have the same power to fix rates and the same supervision over liability insurance companies as the Public Service Commission now has over the railroads of the State, and that the Board have the necessary power to obtain all information required by it from such insurance companies.

In connection with the last recommendation it should be called to your attention that investigations of the Industrial Accident Board have shown that of each dollar of premium paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act 45 cents has been paid in losses and 55 cents is retained by the insurance company for their various purposes. This average is the amount the insurance companies claim they must have to do business, but this should not be a matter of mere guesswork; the rates should be reasonable and consistent with the public interest. The need of adherence to this principle was emphasized in the results of special study begun in November, 1912, by the Accident Board, which showed that only 12 per cent. of the premiums charged went to pay claims under the act. When, in January, 1913, the report of the results of this inquiry was to be submitted to the Governor, the insurance companies, which up to that time had been protesting that the rates were not high enough, made a horizontal reduction of 25 per cent., effective after July 1, 1912. The reduction was a horizontal reduction, and, while in some cases entirely justified, was in the greater number of cases wholly inadequate. This action in itself, taken with the fact that reductions since made make the total reduction 35 per cent. of the rate originally charged, points to the necessity of the regulation of the companies by the Board which is administering the act.

This need for regulation extends also to fire and life insurance. The first act of the workman in buying his home is to insure his house against fire, otherwise no workman could own a home. Recent inquiries have shown that competition for fire insurance business and waste resulting therefrom have opened the door in the United States for arson and crime, and the nation pays the bill. The waste of fire loss in this country is a burden which bears heavily on industry, and is not tolerated in European countries. The prudent workman with a family regards it as a necessary expense to be protected by insurance in case of death. The abuse of life insurance, and the improper use of capital and surplus in the hands of life insurance companies, is an old story, and this waste, which might be removed by regulation, should not be permitted to continue.

3. INVESTIGATION OF LABOR DISPUTES.

Public opinion in nine cases out of ten will determine the issue of strikes when their causes are understood, and neither the employer nor the employees will dare to be wrong when they know that public authorities will investigate the facts and make them publicly known. This is a species of moral compulsion which is wholesome, and cannot be objection