New-York tribune., 1906-08-04
LABOR LAW UPSET.
VOlfEN,S CLAUSE WRONG
Justice OEnnsted Holds They Haze
Right to Work at 4Al Hours


y.stIce olmsted, OF the Court of Special ses-
t,ors. IN an opinion handed down yesterday. in
which his associates, Justices Mexican and
peae, concurred. held that the State Legislature
bss no right 70 formulate laws in restriction OF
labor.
The opinion was rendered in the case Of she
People agt David I. Williams a printer, OF
EeVenth avenue, who was arrested last January
charged with violating Section "a OF the Gem
sral Laws relative 20 labor, which forhids The
employment Of minors or OF women before
sa. m. and after 9 p. M or more than ten hours
day consecutively, or more than sixty hours a
seek. in factory.
When Williams was arrested he admitted tha.
bis place Of business could be considered a fac
sOTy under the law, and that he had at times
employed women after hours
When the case came before the court to-day
attorney General Mayer appeared for the prose-
cution and Frederick B. HOuse for Williams.
Nr. Mayer argued that the law forbiddingy the
employment Of women was in the interests OF
sutuTe generations. and was constitutional
Mr. House held that the law was unconstitu-
fional. inasmuch as it was an invasion Of the
constitutional rights OF individuals TO enjoy lib
erty and prosperity.
In the course OF a twenty page typewriter
opinion Justice Olmsted says that the question
Cor the law, and yet that did not take into con-
sIderation the great number of non-child bear
ing women He considered the law as Of class
legislation. He said the law only forbade the
employment OF women in factories after hours,
and did not forbid their working at their homes
he considered the law an "unwarranted inva-
sion Of constitutional rights"
The justice granted the arrest Of Judgment
asked for. and discharged the defendant
lows:
To labor and employ labor are inherent and
inalienable rights OF our citizens and cannot be
taken away in whole or in part unless upon the
broad ground OF public good. which must be ap-
parent and cannot be predicated upon legis-
latiVe dictum-
In the case under consideration the right Of
the employed and the right OF the employer are
equally involved. Nothing TO the contrary ap-
peaTlng, il must be assumed that the woman
was a willing worker for willing employer, and
profitable No argument IS needed TO show that
both the employer and the employed have been
.aI .c1a N 9; tnelr rights by the law in cues
uonal power OF the Legislature?
no PRECEDENT CITED, SAYS COURT.
No case exactly In point with that at bar has
been cited by counsel The attention OF the
court has been called 90 cases decided in the
states OF Massachusetts, Illinois CRitchie VS..
Ihe People), Nebraska and Washington. In
these cases the issue the constitutionality OF
Statutes limiting the number OF hours in any
one day or week during which women might be
employed at labor in a factory. That is not the
issue here While the statute under considera-
Jion fxes a limitation as TO daily and weekly
employment this action IS brought under a
provision which prohibits the employment Of
women after 8 o'clock p m. and before o'clock
IN the morning, and the only evidence Of any
such employment in this case is that ar the hour
OF A0:2D ?. N. q woman was found so employed
in defendants factory. The information Of the
District Attorney charges the employment even
Jess explicitly. How long the woman worked on
the day in question, how long she worked that
week or how many hours OF labor she had con-
fTacted 20 perform on the night she found
working IN the factory-none OF these things
appear The sole fact before us IS that a woman
was employed in factory work for q, few min
utes during hours when the statute declares II
was unlawful so 10 employ her.
The present constitution OF the State OF New
York was adopted IN 1S94, and became effective
January i, 1885 All OF the rights which
adult women possessed at that time were con-
flrrned by that document One OF those rights
certainly the right TO contract for her labor
and 20 work when and where she pleased. with
ont reference TO the position OF the hands upon
The dial Of the clock. II was not until four
years after that the laWmaking power sought
70 place the Limitation under consideration upon
them. What was the legislative intent IN doing
this? The Attorney General finds and urges no
other reason than that the general welfare OF
the state demands that the progeny OF women OF
The factories shall have mothers WIN hea4tny
bodies, 10 the end that the state may have
sturdy citizens. Does the state look merely 70
the children of the factory women for Its future
good citizens? Why should the housewife, the
woman who tolls at home, in mercantile houses,
in Offices, or she who tolls not al all-the society
goman-be exempt from legislative interference.
3njunCtiye mandatory, for the same reason!
Some OF them may be mothers or future citizens,
ard Il should he OF great interest 10 the state
that their progeny should have proper olrrh ana
breeding 20 conserve its welfare. X this QueS-
fion Of future citizenship is the only excuse Tor
the assumption OF police power. what becomes or
the rights Of the non-child bearing woman, a
considerable class? What OF the woman beyono
he age Of child bearing physically strong. nav
ing expert technical knowledge, with opportunity
70 employ Il in a factory, and at no other time
than during the hours which the statute pro-
hiblts-a woman who is sui juris, and who IS
desirous Of exercising her right OF contract and
20 work at her accustomed trade but is pre-
vented from doing so by this statute surely
upon the theory of the Attorney General, tne
general welfare as not concerned IN the matter
~ her employment. With no other excuse TINS
Statute would appear to be most palpable special
cass legislation.
WHERE STATE DOES NOT INTERFERE
The statute which would prevent Katie Mead
rom working in factory after y O'CLOCK at
night under the best sanitary conditions, offers
no prohibition against her doing the same Work
u z hail bedroom IN a tenement house under
conditions more detrimental 10 her health. she
may work at her usual employment all nIgnt II
che pleases and the state does not interfere 20
prevent possible injury 20 her possible chnoren'
VINO may be its future citizens
A dressmaker or a milliner has factory with
IN the meaning OF the law IL he or She have
out ore employe. The employer, even though
.sne be a woman, may work when and so long
as Il pleases her. The single eInploye. on the
contrary. If she he a woman. may not work
aster o'clock at night nor before O'Clock IN
me morning. Why this distinction between two
possible mothers Of future citizens II this be
simply health regulation? The relation OF the
SUBJECT Of this statute 20 the public health ana
'oarnon welfare seems altogether too remote TO