The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-01-16

Another case of wide Interest,
in which the constitutionality of a la
Dor law Is involved, was argued yes
terday before the superior court. 1t
Is the case of the State against Robert
Beatty e. Co., yarn manufacturers, of
Philadelphia. who were convicted and
fined 81 and costs for suffering and
permitting adult women to work In
their factory over twelve hours a day
and more than sixty hours a week,
which is made a misdcmeanor subject
to- a $500 fine by one of the clauses of
the act of April %, 1897, formerly
known as the factory law.
The indictment contained two
counts. In the first count the defen-
dants We're charged with being. on the
18th, 18th, 10th, goth. ?ist and 22d days
of April, 1899, engaged In the manu-
facture of yarn in a certain building,
and manufactory, situate In the coun-
ty OF Philadelphia, where they en-
ployed "one Sarah Throp and Ellen
Ward, adult women, to labor. and by
reason thereof Sarah Throp and Ellen
Ward, said women, did voluntarily
labor in said building and yarn manu-
factory of the said Robert Beatty and
John r.. Beatty for n longer period
than sixty hours in the said week.
commencing on the 18th Cf April, 1899.
In the second counts the defendants
were charged with being engaged In
the manufacture of yarn in the said
manufactory, and did then and there
suffer Sarah Throp and Ellen Ward
to be employed at labor for longer
m ~
said days, and for longer period than
sixty hours in said week. commencing
on the 10th of April, 1882 contrary to
the provisions of the general assembly
of the commonwealth Of Pennsylvania,
approved the 10Th day Of April, 1891"
DEFENDANTS POSITION.
The defendants demurred to the in
dictinent, the grounds of the demur-
rer being that neither count set out
an offense known to the laws of the
state; that the act of 1S47. in so far
| as it limits the right of adult women
to work, is contrary to the corstitu-
tion of the United States, being. as
was alleged. an unjust interference
with her right of acquiring and pos
| sessing property and pursuing her own
| happiness; that it Is also contrary 10
! the constitution Of the United States
| because it is an attempt to deprive
her of liberty and property without
| due process of law. The Philadelphia
quarter sessions court overruled the
| demurrer and hence the appeal
EX-Judge Theodore +. jenkins and
| Alexander Simpson. jr., of Philadel.
phia, for the appellant and appellee.
| respectively.
Judge jenkins pointed out that while
the act was presumably drafted for the
health and safety of the public, it only
| legislatcS for a particular class, dis
eliminating between men and women.
| He also showed how the law would
| permit a woman to work as long as
she pleased in a counting house OF a
railroad company, but only so many
hours week in similar position in
| manufacturing establishment.
| Mr.. Simpson referred with emphasis
to the opinion of the court below sus-
tanning the law on the ground that il
was permissible as police regula-
ton, safeguarding as it does tha
health Of factory employees. He also
called particular attention to the fact
that the manufacturers and not the
two supposedly aggrieved women are
taking the appeal.
Four cases transferred from Harris
burg were also argued yesterday. They
were all appeals by property owners
from the common pleas Of Dauphir
county in city assessment cases.
THE HARRISBURG CASES.
The first was that of Dr. George r.
Nish. who seeks to evade a grading
assessment. He owns a twenty-eigh.
acre farm on Cameron street in the
southerly part of Harrisburg. He con.
tends that it IL rural property and
should not have been assessed by tho
foot-front rule. This form of assess
ment is also attached. as it is claimed
to be repugnant to the constitution
inasmuch as it assesses without any
ascertainment of benefits He alsc
contends, laterally. that the street was
at one time macademized and that the
subsequent grading is not such an
original Improvement as can be as.
sesscd against abuttire property.
The city holds that the street being
supplied with electric lights, fire hy,
drants. sewers and a hagstone side
| VAIN, 10 pioieltN. u'uics
that the street was ever pronounced
improved other than tn dump som,
broken stone on 1t at the expense oi
the general city appropriations.
Two of the other three cases Were
grouped together. They are thu ap,
peals of Miller & Herbzter and Mar,
garent Nj. Funk. property holdets or
Fourth and Sixth streets. a direct
continuous thoroughfare. which in 1S9.
was asphalted and the case assessed
under the fOot-frOnt rule. to the abut
ting property holders, The appellant,
allege that the street was previousl,
macadamized and therefore not asses
sable to abutting property owners. ant
that the foOt-front rule is unconstitu
tional, for the reasons set forth in thu
case above.
The fourth appeal, that OF John Nc
Pherran. was the same as the two pre-
ceding ones, except that he signed tn,
petition for the pavement. The ap
pellant claimed this did not enter int,
the case, as every citizcn has a righ
to petition for an impI ovelnent Will
prejudicing himself. The city argue
that inasmuch as the contract was tn
direct result of the petition, he wa
responsible for 1t in measure an.