The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-04-11
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

THE labor law provision that in
order to protect the health and morals
of females employed In factories by pro-
Nlding an adequate period OF rest at
night no woman shall be employed or
permitted to work in any factory in this
state before o'clock In the morning
or after 10 o'clock in the evening OF amy
day il valid and constitutional en-
actment as n police regulation In tho
interest OF the general health and public
welfare Of the people of the State. The
Legislature and the courts in the adop
ton and Justification OF such legislation
could take into account the report OF
appointed to investigate the
subject OF night work by women In FAC
tories, medical and expert opinion there
on. common knowledge and belief evil
denced by statutes adopted in various
to the effect that II was
injurious to the extent of justifying
thereof between the hours
stated. Constitutional objection to such
a statute is not to he based upon the
fact that IN exceptional cases such en-
ploy ment would work no substantial
harm nor upon the fact that IL was OPP
posed by some OF those whom II sought
to protect nor because some cases which
might have been included in the statute
were omitted"
recommendation to I've laid before
the constitutional convention provides
that the failure Of an accused person to
testify in his own behalf may he con-
sidered by the jury, although with the
proyiso that no inquiry he allowed into
his past record when he In under cross
examination. ON the subject of The
present statute on the subject the VIZ
giniu LuU Register says:
1.-THE absurdity also OF refusing to
allow the failure OF the accused 10 tes
tify in his own behalf to he used against
him and positively forbidding any allu-
sion IN argument to such failure should
lie corrected. The aim Of the criminal
trial is to acauit the innocent and con-
Wet the guilty. An innocent man need
never fear the ordeal OF the witness
box \ guilty man always does. " n
man by keeping off the stand leads
jury to believe him guilty. should they
not he allowed to draw an Inference
from his failure to testify? What good.
sensible reason can he urged for the
present state Of the law? IL II not
against all reason" And the fact IS
that most jures do draw an inference
from the silence Of the accused. for
they know of his right to testify. The
fact is that In our administration OF
the criminal law We are century
behind the times In tenderpess
toward the criminal we have hardened
our hearts as to the Just enforcement
OF the law We have retained prac-
tically all the bars which were erected
to aid him when he stood accused and
upon trial was not allowed counsel
Why should We not now give the law
chance and at least put IL upon an
equality with the criminal II is about
time We brought some some good, hard.
logical common sense to the reforma-
ton OF our criminal procedure
The Central Law Journal says that
II has been thought by good many
that the losing lawyer has something
Of an immemOlial right To go outside
and "cuss" the court. and now comes
along the kentucky Court ~ Appeals and
holds that he actually has such a RICH,
in regard to a jury which has rendered
a verdict against his client ,Smallwood
vs York, l13 : W $50, All of this
however. is To he taken with a grain
Of allowance. for he must not attribute
tn ,he jury the commission Of crime
involving moral turptude for which the
jury might he indicted or punished
This leaves. nevertheless, large latitude
IN explosive utterances for the relief
of mind surchargcd with grief and
commendable anxiety to explain the de-
feat OF an attorney to his once hopeful
client.
While the court LET the attorney of In
the above case. I'm which one OF the jury
objected To- his Vitriol.c elopuence. en-
ployed after verdict we are somewhat
grieVed to see il deploring the use by
the attorney oc this safety valve hN call
ing +, highly improper" Pretty soon
We may expect that such q court vii
/. .,f,tf. tnh n no