The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1912-10-19
Recall OF Judges and judicial Deci-
sions-cases Involving the Principle
The Logical Conclusion.

(Written specially for The Catholic
Bulletin by Rev. J. T. Roche,
LII. d.
Two notorious decisions have been
cited within the past few months as
| justification for the recall of judges
and judicial decisions. / propose in
this article to discuss these decisions,
not as one versed in the law but from
the standpoint of common sense,
which plays large part in legal and
other questions.
Both of these cases came UP before
the courts of New York state and the
decisions in both cases have a bearing
upon the ordinary rights of the citizen
and both deal with the right of men
and women to earn their living by pur-
suing lawful trades and occupations.
The first or the Tenement House
Case (9S N. Y. 98) dealt with the
rights of "a, certain Mr. Jacobs who
was prosecuted and imprisoned be-
cause he had worked in his own home
at his trade of cigar-making The
statute involved in his case made it
a criminal offense to manufacture to-
bacco products in certain houses in
Brooklyn and New York City. Os-
tensibly a health measure, it did not
contain a single provision to improve
the conditions of work or living. When
the law was passed over two thousand
cigarmakers were supporting them
selves and their families by working
at home, and Al per cent of the total
cigar output in New York City was
manufactured in apartment houses or
tenements. The lew forced the work
ers into the factories, despite the dec
laration of the New York Board of
Health that the health of the tene-
ment house population is not leopard
lied by the manufacture of CIGARS
The Tobacco Trust was really behind
the law and was responsible for it's
passage.
The New York Court of Appeals de-
cided that the statute was not a 1egiti-
mate health regulation and recognized
the sound principle of constitutional
law that an individual cannot be made
a criminal for working at lawful
trade in his own home.
This decision has been attacked vio-
lently on the ground that cit has re-
tarded by at least twenty years the
work of tenement reform" We have
quoted the declaration of the New
York Board of health, showing that it
had no bearing upon tenement reform.
The decision was in accordance with
justice, common sense and those fund
amental rights which are frequent
ly attacked by misguided reformers
in their zeal to remedy social and eco
nomic ills. ~ @5 r.
s..... Woman Labor.
The second decision dealt with the
case of a woman employed at remun-
erative wages, and with her right to
labor at night at the only skilled trade
she knew. The Legislature of New
York State had passed a law forbid
ding women to be employed after 9
o'clock in the evening and before 6
o'clock in the morning. The woman,
Jams Printing Company. Her occupa-
ton was that of magazine binder
She was skilled worker, twenty-five
years of age, was helping to support
a family and was receiving liberal
wages. The binding had to be done
at night. The building in which she
was employed was sanitary; working
lSn 4ha
Williams Company did not wish to dis
charge faithful employees, who had
been with them for many years and
who knew no other trade The prin-
ciple involved was whether women
were entitled as of right to earn their
living by pursuing lawful trade and
working at night, whenever neces-
sary." To deny them that right was
to deprive many of them of means
Of livelihood and to drive them out of
the only skilled trade they knew. 1t
was in the interests of the women
themselves that the court recorded it's
decision and as a distinguished jurist
puts it, thousands of women thanked
their God that it could SO hold"
4 Another Case.
Another case involved what is
known as the "Workmen's Compensa-
ton Act" The New York Court of
Appeals (201 N. Y. 271) held that the
law was unconstitutional on the
ground that it took the property of
the employer and gave it to the work
man without consideration or due pro-
Ecess of law. The principle is certain
ly correct one. Any statute which
seizes upon the property of an indi-
vidual or corporation and gives it to
another without compensation for the
same is certainly a dangerous piece of
Legislation. Let us see what are the
facts in the particular case under con-
sideration. I will quote from sum-