Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-08-04
They Are Inherent and lnallen'
able Rights Of American
Citizens.
THEY CANNOT Be TAKEN AWAY
Dc,y York Law Declared Invalid
STATE Atty.-Gen. VIII Take
an Appeal

New York, Aug 3.--The state law
of New York restricting the labor OF
comsn and children 20 10 hours a day
and 60 hours week IN a foctory was
declared today by Justice Olmsted In
a decision handed down IN the court
al special sessions TO be an unwar-
yanted Invasion OF constitutional
RIGHTS. The ruling was concurred I'm
by Justices Mexican and Deuel. Judge
umsted declared that the law was
class legislation.
Justice Olmsted said In his decision:
80 labor and employ labor are In
lerent and inalienuDla rights OF our
citizens and cannot be taken away IN
whole OF ~ part unless upon the broad
ground OF public good, which must be
apparent and cannot be predicated up
OIL legislative dictum,
Hit may be stated as well settled
legal proposition that the right 10 La
Dor and contract for that labor is both
% liberty and Il property right. when,
therefore. the legislature enacts a
statute such as that under Considera-
ton. IL must be admitted that IL has
Mfriuged, IN the enactment, the rights
which are very clearly accorded by
the constitution 10 the individual citi-
GEM The people, therefore, are called
upon 70 justify this invasion and there
is bot one plea IN justification; that
The statute was enacted 70 protect the
comfort. welfare and safety OF the
.I II
suffer this curtailment of his granted
rights in the interest Of the common
good
The present constitution Of the
state Of New York was adopted in
1894 and became effective Jan. l, 1895.
AL Of the rights which the female
adult possessed az that time were
confirmed by that document. one OF
those rights certainly was the right TO
oontrac, Tor her labor and 10 work
when and where she pleased without
reference 70 the position OF the hands
upOn the dial Of the clock II was
not until four years after that the law
making power sought 90 place the linz
itation under consideration upon them.
What was the legislative intention IN
doing this? The attorney general finds
and urges no other reason than that
the general welfare OF the state de-
mands 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 20 the
children Of the factory women for lis
future good citizens? Why should the
housewife. the woman who tolls al
home. in mercantile houses. IN offices.
or she who tolls not al all--the society
wofnaH--be exempt from legislative
Interference. injunctiye or mandatory
for the same reason? Some of them
may be mothers OF future citizens.
aud 10 should be Of as great interest
to The state that their progeny should
have proper birth and breeding 20 con-
serve It's welfare, II this question Of
future citizenship is the only excuse
t1r The assumption OF police power.
what becomes u The rights Of the non
child bearing woman. a considerable
D.ars7'
ATTY. Gen Mayer announced tonight
that he would appeal from the decision
O' fhe court
u win carry the case, II need be-" he
enid. 10 the supreme court of the
tiiel States 80 long a. the question
~ tta conslitWtlonslity Of the statute
hHs been raised