The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-08-04
NEVVY0|R:Kl.AB:|!0|.R. ! |: ! |. [ !.
LAYvTHR0vlNS0Ul' |. IN !
-
Il Restriction 81 Hours Il, of o1f Work x
.# for omen a III u g children
Held lnco onsti itut iioena1.
M
NGEMENT RIGHTS rs
Judge eclaress ActEisa Class
egiislatio 9 i torn ey-G Gen
II 35j5 eral $to Take Appeal.
J.tl & J, ,g "a NJ i, 4 y y \
= s, Al n. " Z. Y .
a EsocI eiIPress..l )


sss EWsYORK.8Augu b.. T het State law
OF New ork @ str1ctins the n labor by
8wome n and hlldrens to ten hours q day
and sixty hours $a week in factories was
declared / to- day by Justice Ohm stead In
IA decision handed down In the Court OF
Special Sessions, to be s"an u nwarranted
invasion OF constitutional rights The
ruling was con CURED IN BY J Justices Me-
Keang and Deuel., III "a
Judge Olmstead ! who declared that the
law was class leg islatl lon, "; said In his
decision ~ 5.
ITO labor and employ labor are Sinher-
ent and inalienable rig ght ssof our cltizens.
and cannot be taken away. /. In whole or
In part, unless upon 4 the broad ground
5of fpuhlic good, which must be appare ent.
and cannot be pred dicated upon leg latlye
dictum. S /. sls ag3 4i3;s n IA sj
UnWarranted INVASION.
#S5.'It may be- sta ted aa a Nv settled legal
proposition, that The light to labor and
contract .forS that labor 4 ID both liberty
8and q property right 81 " hen. therefore,.
ithe Leg stature enaots o statute such as
that under consideration, IT must be ad-
sn1tted that It has lnfringed In the enact
the Il result Was @ mutually satisfactory
4 accorded by, i, the Constitution to the In
$dividual citizen. The people. therefore.
are called upon to Justify this invasion,
and there is but one plea In justt tfication,
that the statute was enacted 4 to protect
the; comfort, 4, welfare 4 and. safety OF the
whole people, and the Individual must
suffer this curtatlment of his granted
rights In the q Interest OF the common
i good. s Al s3 .5
hi I'm tho case under consideration, the
right Of the employed and right Of the
i employer are equal " 4 involved. I Nothing
to the contrary appearing. It must be
assumed that the woman was willing
worker for q willing employer, and that
the result was mutually satisfactory
and profitable, 4 n a 4s4 ts t5 4.
Argument u Unsound.
s The present Constitution Of the State
Of New York was adopted in 1894 and
became effective January I, 1895, All Of
& the rights which adult women possessed
at that time were confirmed by that doc-
ument, One of these rights Ger talnly was
8 the rlght to contract for her labor and
to work when and where she pleased
without reference to the position OF the
hands upon the dial Of the clock.
IT was not until four years after that
the law-Haklng body sought to place the
under consideration upon them,
What was the Legislative talent In doing
5thlsP The Attorney General finds and
urges no other reason than that the gem
eral welfare of the State demands that
the progeny OF women Of the factories
shall have mothers with healthy bodies,
to the end that the State may have
sturdy citizens. Does the State look
merely 10 the children OF the factory
women for Its future good citizens 81 81
''Why should not the housewife. the
woman who tolls at home In mercan-
tile houses, y offices, or she who tolls
empt from legislative interferencs, In,
junotlYa or mandatory. for the same
reason !? Some OF them may be moth-
ers Of future Citizens. and Ii should
be Of as great interest 10 the State
that their progeny should have proper
birth and breeding to conserve It's well
fare. a .5
r54 r54Attormeys1 1enaral Mayer announced
that tS would appeal from tAs dsclsioa.