in the situation described in the first excerpt , what is the inspector's opinion of employer Taylor, ibbotson, and Co.?

Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:

My Lord, in the case of Taylor Ibbotson, and Co., I took the evidence from the mouths of the boys themselves. They stated to me that they commenced working on Friday morning, the 27th of May last, at six, A.M, and that, with the exception of meal hours and one hour at mIdnIght extra, they did not cease working till four o'clock on Saturday evening, having been two days and a night thus engaged. Believing the case scarcely possible, I asked every boy the same question, and from each received the same answer. I then went into the house to look at the time-book, and in the presence of one of the Masters referred to the cruelty of the case, and stated that I should certainly punish It with all the severity In my power  My Lord, by a clause In the factory act, it Is enacted that, “no more than one penalty can be obtalned from any one person for any one description of offence in any one day” Had I laid the information, therefore, on all the boys for the same offence, the penalty could have only been 20/. [About $100 in 2010] a sum which appeared to me inadequate to the gross nature of the offence committed, I therefore, my lord, varied the Information, so as to enable me to sue for 80/ [about $400 In 2010], being four full penalties, could I have obtained them, laying the first for working two boys more than twelve hours on the Frlday; the second for working a boy before five o'clock on the Saturday morning; the other for working two boys in the night time, between FrIday and Saturday; and the fourth for keeping a false time-book, as to the hours of working. These views, however my lord, were not responded to, I very much regret to say, by the magistrates before whom the case was heard. The parties were only fine 50/. [about $50 fo In 2010] on each Information, and wIth an aggregate of penalties of 102 [about $100 In 20101 escaped.  —Robert A. Baker, Superintendent of Factory Inspections, 1836

in the situation described in the first excerpt , what is the inspector's opinion of employer Taylor,ibbotson, and Co.?

The inspectors' opinion is that they should be punished for violating the factory law of 1833.

Explanation:

In the text above, the imposters recognize that they have changed things that they should not have and that they have engaged in criminal and vile activities that violated the law established in the country. They believe that all people who engage in criminal activities should be punished and they should not be freed from it, as they must pay for their mistakes.

We can see this in the excerpts:

"I then went into the house to look at the time-book, and in the presence of one of the Masters referred to the cruelty of the case, and stated that I should certainly punish It with all the severity In my power..."

"I therefore, my lord, varied the Information, so as to enable me to sue for 80/ [about $400 In 2010], being four full penalties, ..."

answer: me

explanation:

because it’s me

a yes vote means: the legislature, with a two-thirds vote, could change daylight saving time if the change is allowed by the federal government. absent any legislative change, california would maintain its current daylight saving time period