NEW YORK. 



589 



A labor-" strike " of unusual proportions 

 occurred in the city of New York in the 

 spring and early summer. Near the end of 

 April the painters demanded the adoption of 

 eight hours as a working-day, without any 

 corresponding reduction in their wages. This 

 was refused by their employers, and they im- 

 mediately ceased work. Their example was 

 soon followed by the carpenters, bricklayers, 

 and others in the building-business, and the 

 movement gradually spread until it included 

 nearly every class of artisans. There were 

 organizations in the various trades, and the 

 employers also formed an association to resist 

 the demands of the "strikers." The strike 

 lasted until after the middle of June, and oc- 

 casioned heavy losses both to employers and 

 employed, and caused much suffering and 

 hardship among the latter class. The number 

 of laborers engaged in the movement was esti- 

 mated at about 40,000, and the loss for one 

 month has been thus stated : 



Direct loss to working-men, in wages, one 



month $1,400,000 



Direct loss to employers, in profits, one month 1,152,000 



Total loss to working-men and employers $2,552,000 



Add to this, indirect loss to industry and tax- 

 able values, equal $5,760,000 



The strike was brought to an end gradually 

 in June, some of the men having gained the 

 object aimed at, and others returning to work 

 at ten hours a day, but it is believed that in 

 most cases there was an ultimate return to the 

 old basis. 



8ome trouble was occasioned in the public 

 schools of Long Island City in the early part 

 of the" year by the refusal of certain Roman 

 Catholic pupils to be present during the read- 

 ing of the Scriptures. The Board of Educa- 

 tion of the city had directed the reading of 

 some portion of the Bible as an opening exer- 

 cise in the schools and had excluded the 

 pupils altogether who refused to be present 

 during such exercise. An appeal was made to 

 the State Superintendent of Public Instruction 

 for a decision in the matter, and he declared 

 the course of the City Board of Education to 

 be "without warrant of law." He said that 

 religious training formed no part of the object 

 of the public schools, and that no discrimina- 

 tion should be made on the ground of religious 

 belief. He quoted with approval a former de- 

 cision to the following effect : 



A teacher has no right to consume any portion 

 of the regular school-hours in conducting religious 

 exercises, especially where objection is raised. The 

 principle is this: Common schools are supported 

 and established for the purpose of imparting instruc- 

 tion in the common English branches ; religious in- 

 struction forms no part of the course. The proper 

 places in which to receive such instruction are, 

 churches and Sunday-schools, of which there is 

 usually a sufficient number in every district. The 

 money to support schools comes from the people at 

 large irrespective of sect or denomination. Conse- 

 quently, instruction of a sectarian or religious de- 

 nominational character must be avoided, and teach- 

 ers must confine themselves, during school-hours, 

 to their legitimate and proper duties. 



An important decision was rendered in the 

 Superior Court of the City of New York on 

 the 14th of June, affecting the right of the 

 Governor of the State to surrender to a for- 

 eign power a person charged with crime with- 

 in the jurisdiction of such power, and arrested 

 in this State. One Carl Vogt had been ar- 

 rested in New York at the instance of the Bel- 

 gian minister, charged with having murdered 

 a nobleman in Belgium. He had been retained 

 in custody, and a warrant for his extradition 

 to the Belgian authorities had been issued by 

 Governor Hoffmann, when he was brought 

 before Judge Curtis of the Superior Court, on 

 a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that 

 the Governor had no power to deliver up any 

 person to a foreign power, as the Constitution 

 of the United States prohibits any State from 

 entering into "a treaty, alliance, or confedera- 

 tion " with such a power without the consent 

 of Congress. The language of the court was 

 as follows : 



The Constitution of the United States regarded the 

 substance of things and not forms, and it is difficult 

 to find in that brief instrument a superfluous word, 

 or one without a distinct meaning. When it declares 

 that no State shall, without the consent of Congress, 

 enter into agreement or compact with a foreign 

 power it prohibits any arrangement by which, at the 

 request of a foreign power, a State can deliver up a 

 person charged with a crime to such foreign power. 

 The request of the minister is the request of the for- 

 eign Power he represents, and the acceding to it on 

 the part of the State, acting through its agent, the 

 Governor, constitutes an agreement between the 

 State and the foreign power, precisely such as the 

 Constitution of the United States prohibits by the 

 use of the words "agreement or compact," thereby 

 meaning any arrangement between the two not em- 

 braced by the terms " treaty, alliance, or confedera- 

 tion," previously therein forbidden. The exercise 

 of such a power by a State is also inconsistent, and 

 at variance with the powers conferred on the Federal 

 Government. It would prejudice the treaty-making 

 power, and the power to entertain diplomatic rela- 

 tions solely conferred upon the latter. There could 

 be no useful concurrent exercise of these powers, 

 but, on the contrary, when the individual States 

 entertain the requests and enter into agreements with 

 the ministers of foreign powers, a labyrinth of con- 

 fusion and disasters is opened. It was doubtless to 

 avoid this that all relations between the several 

 States and foreign governments were so carefully 

 watched and restricted by the Constitution at the 

 very formation of the Government. 



It is to be regretted that this country shall be the 

 refuge of a criminal from any nationality. Treaties, 

 with provisions for the extradition of persons charged 

 with crime after an examination before a judicial 

 officer, exist between the General Government and 

 many foreign states. It is difficult to conceive why 

 such an arrangement does not exist with a govern- 

 ment like Belgium, whose liberal legislation and en- 

 lightened administration of justice are reflected in 

 its marked developments of material prosperity. It 

 is true that the States may, as a part of their ordi- 

 nary police powers, reserved to them, remove any 

 person guilty or charged with crimes ; but it is to be 

 observed that in this the States act simply with a 

 view to their own protection and welfare, and total- 

 ly irrespective of the foreign governments in which 

 the crimes were committed. In this contingency 

 the person removed may still assert before our courts 

 any rights that have been infringed upon, but when 

 delivered over to a foreign power he may be de- 



