Dept. of L. 779); the carpenter shop in the quartermaster's shop at the United States Military Academy, West Point, N. Y. (In re McCreery, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 134); a lighthouse depot at which a material portion of the work consists in the manufacture and repair of materials, appliances, and vessels (In re Wygant, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 118); the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, where ink, paper, and other materials are fashioned by workmen into bank notes, treasury certificates, etc., and sometimes bound into book form (In re Clark, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 120); a sawmill at Ft. Meade, at which lumber is sawed and dressed and shingles are made (In re Herron, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 124); a blacksmith shop, at which bolts, drills, and other articles and tools used in irrigation work are made and repaired (In re Fenton, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 127); an electric light and power plant of an executive department, at which ice is also made (In re Pyrah, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 129); the mail bag repair shop of the Post Office Department, at which a variety of mail equipment is made (In re claim Kennedy, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 131); the mechanical plant of the Smithsonian Institution, at which steam power and electric light are generated, and cases, cages, and museum furniture are made (In re Strong, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 132); a carpenter and machine shop connected with an Indian industrial school at which mission furniture is made (In re Clarke, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 133); and an army quartermaster's depot, at which clothing and tents are made, is a manufacturing establishment (In re Nicholas, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 125).

The following have been held not manufacturing establishments: The local office of the Weather Bureau at Detroit, though a printing press is there operated (In re McAllister, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 121); a lighthouse tender, a vessel attached to a lighthouse depot and used in transporting workmen and supplies, and in the placement and upkeep of aids to navigation (In re Lambert, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 122); the Naval Observatory (In re Lamkin, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 128); a laboratory used only for making tests of materials (In re Meissner, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 131); and an aqueduct and filtration plant, the function of which is to collect, purify, and deliver city water (In re Schlosser, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 133).

It has been further held that hauling and trucking oats from car to dock by laborer in Army Quartermaster's Department is not work in or in connection with a manufacturing establishment (In re Gray, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 118); that the driving of piles by an employé of the Bureau of Fisheries at work about a lobster pound is not work done in a manufacturing establishment (In re Feltis, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 123); and that a storekeeper-gauger of the Internal Revenue Service is not employed in a manufacturing establishment (In re Roberts, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 127).

10 Neither the Naval Observatory (In re Lamkin, Op. Sol. Dept. of L., 128), nor the Military Academy at West Point, is an arsenal (In re Mackay, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 136). Carpenter work on an icehouse for Ft. Robinson, a mile distant, is not work in an arsenal. In re Olson, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 136.

river and harbor or fortification work,12 or in hazardous employment of construction work in the reclamation of arid land or the

11 The Naval Academy at Annapolis is a navy yard (In re Brown, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 137), as is also the naval experiment station at Annapolis (In re Bullard, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 140); but a naval observatory is not (In re Lamkin, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 128).

An employé at a naval station, also designated a coaling depot, is employed in a navy yard (In re Burke, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 139), as is also a gardener at a naval training station (In re Pangburn, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 138); but a laundress at a naval home-an asylum for disabled navy officers, seamen, and marines-is not employed in a navy yard (In re Carey, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 139).

12 An artisan repairing cables in the underground electric system at Ft. Adams is engaged in the construction of fortification work, which refers to work authorized by the fortification appropriation acts. In re Buzby, Op. Sol. Dept of L. c. 141. A machinist working on gun carriages at a seacoast fortification, though under the Ordnance Department rather than the Engineer Department, is engaged in the construction of fortification work. In re Moore, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 143. Claimant was employed as carpenter in the Quartermaster Department of the War Department at Ft. Clark, Tex., when his eyes were injured by the reflection of the sun from the white rocks and white sand. It was held that the place of employment properly came under the designation of "construction of * * * fortification work." (This opinion alters the former holding on this subject in the cases of James Ryan and W. E. Burgess.) In re Kearney, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 147. A laborer on the United States dredge Dalecarlia, while engaged in reclamation work in Anacostia river, funds for which were appropriated by Congress, the District of Columbia reimbursing the general government for one-half the expenses of such work, was employed in the construction of river and harbor work within the meaning of the Act. In re Bristow, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 150. Work or duties performed in an establishment not expressly included in the act, though similar to those performed in an establishment which is expressly included, does not of itself bring the former place within its provisions. Engineer of steamer attached to Key West Barracks, Fla., not entitled to compensation as being engaged in construction of river and harbor or fortification work. In re Jerman, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 152. The Washington (D. C.) Aqueduct, Great Falls, Md., though under control and supervision of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, War Department, is not comprehended within the term "in the construction of river and harbor or fortification work." In re Rollins, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 153. A laborer employed at Ft. Huachuca, Ariz., in a rock-crushing plant used to crush rock for the preparation of concrete required in new construction work at that post, is engaged in the con

management and control of the same,13 or in hazardous employment under the Isthmian Canal Commission.14 As a matter of course, government employés not within the terms of the Act, either specifically or by necessary implication, are not entitled to compensation.15 Persons rendering services chiefly of a domestic and non

struction of fortification work. In re Montes, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 153. Carpenter work on an icehouse for Ft. Robinson, a mile distant, is not done in the construction of fortification work; the "construction" of such work does not include the erection of an ice plant. In re Olson, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 141.

13 A machine attendant at the ice plant of the Roosevelt Dam is engaged in hazardous employment (In re Riggs, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 155), as is also a ditch rider, required to ride at night and discover and attend to breaks in a canal (In re Redburn, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 154), and one employed in a branch of the forestry service under the Indian Office of the Interior Department (In re Ives, March 10, 1915, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. p. 175). But a clerk employed at a soda fountain in a store under the Reclamation Service is not engaged in hazardous employment (In re Arnold, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 158), nor is a cook's helper, working in cooking quarters (In re Jones, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 155).

Work authorized by Act March 1, 1907, to construct a reservoir for storing water for irrigating lands on an Indian reservation is construction work in the reclamation of arid lands (In re Arnold, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 156), as is also work in a quarry to obtain rock for damming the Colorado river to protect a valley and supply water for irrigation (In re Skill, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 157).

14 The following were engaged in hazardous employment: A policeman employed in the Isthmian Canal Zone (In re Golden, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 159); a laborer with a gang at work clearing ground, using a machete in cutting trees (In re Pedez, Dec. 17, 1910, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 171); a time inspector required to attend men occupied in actual construction work of Isthmian Canal (In re Van Sittert, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 169); a water boy serving water to men employed in actual construction work of Isthmian Canal (In re Garsia, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 166); a hospital orderly in attendance upon persons violently insane (In re Small, Oct. 13, 1909, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 164); a plumber and tinner working on roofs and stacks (In re Thennard, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 167); and an ambulance teamster in the Canal Zone (In re Thompson, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 165).

15 In re Fernandez, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 187.

A skilled laborer employed in the office of the Supervising Architect of the Treasury Department is not covered by the Act, as that branch of the service

hazardous character are not entitled to compensation.18 An employé of a manufacturing establishment is entitled to compensation,

was not included, either specifically or by implication. In re Briscoe, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 776.

In re

Persons not entitled to compensation: A carpenter working on improvements to the water supply system at West Point. In re Mackay, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 176. A rural mail carrier. In re Morgan, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 177. A lineman employed by the Signal Corps of the Army. In re Lawrence, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 178. An elevator conductor in a local federal building. Cassidy, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 180. An electrician's helper employed in an executive department at Washington. In re Fowler, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 180. A stevedore employed in the army transport service. In re Hogan, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 180. A laborer in a local custom house. In re Washington, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 181. A painter employed by an Indian agent at an Indian school. In re Cadwalader, Feb. 15, 1909, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 182. A laborer employed in painting at an army barracks. In re Posey, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 183. A launch operator in the Quartermaster's Department of the War Department. In re Eaton, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 183. A deck hand on a vessel attached to Governor's Island, N. Y. In re Cowan, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 184. A laborer employed at a national park. In re Johnson, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 185. A laborer employed in the construction of a power plant in the congressional buildings. In re Smith, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 186. A powder man employed by the Government Road Commission of Alaska. In re McCormick, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 186. A quartermaster on a lighthouse tender (law since amended, Dec. 11, 1909, No. 2206). In re Veseth, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 185. A seaman on a vessel of the Naval Auxiliary Service. In re Evenson, April 30, 1912, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 187. A laborer employed by the United States in the work of raising the Maine. In re Fernandez, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 187.

16 In re Reisinger, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 161.

Persons not engaged in hazardous employment: A janitor rendering services chiefly of a domestic character. In re Jarvis, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 174. A cook in a hotel kitchen. In re Reisinger, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 161. A laborer employed in a mess hall under the Quartermaster's Department, Canal Zone. In re Traviso, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 161. A scytheman in a grass-cutting gang. In re Migeles, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 162. A scavenger occupied in collecting garbage and hauling it away in carts. In re Gill, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 170. A hospital laborer performing the manual service usual about a hospital. In re Renwick, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 172. A cemetery laborer, wheeling stone in a barrow. In re Carney, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 173. A laborer on a delivery wagon. In re Palacios, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 162. A telephone operator. In re Etienne, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 163. A water boy delivering water to grass

though at work elsewhere at the time of injury," and not engaged in manufacturing operations.18 A navy yard employé, though injured while at work on a naval hospital outside the yard, is employed in a navy yard.19

DIVISION II.-ARISING IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT

§ 105. In general

It is essential to the right to compensation that the injury shall have been received in the course of the workman's employment; that it shall have been received while he was doing some act reasonably incidental to his work.20 An accident or injury is so received where it occurs while he is doing what a man in like employment may reasonably do within a time during which he is so employed, and at a place where he may reasonably be during that time.21 "Course of employment" includes acts in which the em

cutting gangs at work about various commission properties. In re Price, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 163. A storeroom clerk. In re Inniss, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 160.

17 In re Melling, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 129. 18 In re Nicolas, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 125. 19 In re Blount, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 137.

20 Edgley v. Firth, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 651; Gallup v. City of Pomona, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 242; Moor v. Manchester Liners, Ltd. (1910) 3 B. W. C. C. 529.

Under the provisions of section 21 of article 20 of the Constitution, it is only injuries incurred by an employé "in the course of" the employment, that the Legislature may commit to a state Industrial Accident Board the power to redress. McCay v. Bruce, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 975.

21 Bryant v. Fissell, 84 N. J. Law, 72, 86 Atl. 458.

An injury occurs in the course of the employment, when it occurs within the period of employment at a place where the employé may reasonably be, and while he is fulfilling the duties of his employment, or engaged in doing something incidental to it. Larke v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 90 Conn. 303, 97 Atl. 320.

"In the course of" points to the place and circumstances under which the