New-York tribune., 1906-12-12
HOMEN AND NIGHT WORK.

All persons interested in bettering the condi-
ton of wage earners will be disappointed at
the decision Of the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court by vote of 3 to > uphOlding
the ruling of the Court of Special Sessions in
pronouncing unconstitutional the law prohibit
ing the employment of women in factories and
workshops between p. III. and 6 a. m. Phi
IanthrOpists familiar with factory conditions
have long been anxious to protect women as
well as children from excessive and unseasona-
bic labor. not only for their own sakes, but
for the sake Of the coming generation. 1t is
the obvious duty of the state to protect the
mothers Of our citizens from labor conditions
either physically or morally injurious, and
any narrow limitation of the police power or
any extension of the theory Of freedom of con-
tract and sacredness of property right which
leaves women and children at the mercy Of
industrial conditions that sap their vitality is
a serious menace to the nation, which should
be met, If need be. by constitutional amend
ment This protective movement has encoun-
tered serious obstacles In the courts hitherto
but there is no cause for disbursement, and
happily the present decision is not final and
the division of the court gives reasonable ground
for nope that in the Court of Appeals the law
Will finally be sustained. Even If it is not, the
effort to safeguard women in factories should
be continued.
Justice Scott in the majority opinion, con-
CURED in by Justices LaughlIn and Clark, holds
that in order 10 sustain the reasona bleness of
the provision forhdding night work for women
Eve must find that, owing to some physical
"Or nervous difference, IT is more harmful for
"a woman to work at night than for 10
do so. for cOncededly the clause in question
would be unconstitutional if it applied to men
"as well as 10 women. We are not aware of
any such difference, and In all the discussions
that have taken place none such have been
pointed out
We do not know in what form this case was
presented and why the upholders of the law
failed to point out this difference, but we think
il can easily be established Night work Is no.
tOriously less healthful than day work for both
men and women Women are unQuestlonably
weaker than men, and it may reasonably be
maintained that what IS physically harmful for
men at the best is much more harmful for
women Social conditions also render it so.
Women cannot safely be about at night as
men can They are subject TO insult and TO
unhealthful moral influences. They cannot go
TO and from their work at night as comforta-
bly,. Transportation facilities are less adequate
at night than in the day, and the state GER
tanly should have right to protect It's women
from the necessity of walking the streets in
the night hours, waiting about unprotected
for infrequent cOnveyances. Furthermore, the
great body Of women workers in factories are
immature probably half of them under age
The state assumes a serious moral RESPONSE
bility when II permits inexperienced girls with
out proper guardianship TO work night after
night in the factories and TO walk night after
night through the streets unprotected and sub
Ject to conditions which tend to break down
the conventional restraints Safeguarding girls /
The broken sleep, irregular meals and artif-
cial light throughout working hours are also
demoraliZng. Any such Industrial system di-
rectly promotes nervous excitement and the
decay Of standards OF department of the great
est value to our civilization.
Justice HOughtOn and Justice Ingraham both |
wrote strong dissenting opinions upholdIng the
act limiting the hours and time Of day in which
women may work in factories as q valid ex-
ercise of police power for the preservation Of |
the public health. and not in conflict with
either the state or the federal constitution JUS
tice HOughtOn says:
Constant night work is unheaIthfuI for men |
and more for women. It is a matter Of
legitimate concern to the state that its women /
shall be healthy; and il is matter of much |
greater concern that its children shall be strong
and grow 10 be self-supporting and active citi- |
zens rather than remain weakly and ultimately |
become a burden upon the public. 1t
seems to that the law is reasonable and one |
which the Legislature had the power to enact |
for the protection Of the health of very large /
class Of citizens Of the state
Justice Ingraham declares that the question |
at issue is whether the attempted exercise of |
police powers may be fairly said to be for /
the safety, health. morals and general welfare |
.of the public" and he is emphatcally of the /
belief that it may.
We hope this case Will be carried 10 the Court !
of Appeals, and. if the decision is not there /:
reversed, that steps will be taken TO secure TO i
the state the constitutional right to protect |
human life from the excessive eIactions of the |
industrial machine. 1t is all very well TO talk |
about freedom of contract, but the poor women |
Of this state who are night workers in factO- |
ries have no freedom of contract They must |
work as they are told TO work. and only as the /
state limits the demands which may be made |
upon them can they be protected from the ne
cessity of working at unhealthful hours.