The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-03-23

Two recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court upho1dtng the validity of the California eight-hpur Flaw for women lay welcome stress upon the freedom and the wide dis cretionary powers of the Legislature to enact such legislation
 Here was a law for women which went further than any other in the l United States, prescribing the shorf-z est workday yet enacted, including In it's scope a larger number of occupa- tions than any similar statute Here I were cases involving emp1oyments never before considered by the Su- preme Court of the United States in relation to woman's hours Of labors in hotels and hospitals.
 Both decisions were unanimops 1 Justice Hughes writing the opinions. In both, the responsibility for dectd-s ing the need, the expediency, or wis dom of the low is with emphasis held to be the function and duty of I the legislature; the court limits it. self to considering whether in view of the underlying facts in each case the Legislature has acted arbitrar- l fly or unreasonably-
 Facts Instead of Theories.
 Thus the decision rests on facts, not theories or distractions. Practi- cal exingencies. experience" the nature of the work 'tthe nature of the business, ,-these are the words, and these concrete Considerations l which recur in the courts clear and concise opinions.
 In the first case. in question. the proprietor of the GIenwood Hotel at 4 Riverside was convicted of employing a woman more than eight hours in I one day. in violation of the California l act of 1911, which included women l employed in hotels as well as in fac I tories. stores and other industrial oc- equations
 In 1918. the law was amended to include also women employees of hos T pitfalls, excepting graduate nurses The trustees of the Samuel Merritt i Hospital at Alameda and one of their l employees sought, in two other test this amended act.
 The two familiar objections were l raised as to the freedom of contract and equal protection of the law It was asserted that the eight hour law f deprived women employed in hotels lsof their liberty to work any number of hours, and discrirnfnated against them in comparison with other wom- en not included.
 Freedom of Contract.
 In reply, Justice Hughes again lpointed out that ttthe liberty of con- Il tract guaranteed by the Constitution is freedom from arbitrary restraint, T. u1lISASOuADl0 reg T ulations to safeguard the public fn- terests.'' Upon this point 2 he con- tinues, the recent decision of this court upholding other statutes limit ing the hours of labor Of women must
 be regarder as decisive" "
 Two such statutes were upheld by
 the court during the year 1914, those
 of Massachusetts and Ohio In both cases the court based it's favorable verdict upon the first and only pre-
 ceding decision of this Character
 the well known Oregon ten hour case.
 Muller vs. Oregon, decided in 1908.
 In the Haw1ey case. the fifty-four hour law of Ohio was upheld, the 1 plaintiff having been convicted of em- . ploying in a millinery establishment more than fifty-four hours in one ] week.
 Now the court is unable to per ceive any reason why the states pow :. CT thus to limit hours ssnay be uI3- held in respect to a woman in a mill linery establishment, and denied as I to a chaInbermafd in hotel" sIt l is nanifestly impossible to say,H writes Justice Hughes, s.that the mere fact that the statute of California pro- 2 vfdes for an eight-hoJr day., or maximum of forty-eight hours g J week, instead of $en hours a day ol hfty-four hours week. changes the principles at stake.
 It is conceivable that the nmita, E ton of women's hours of 1a6or nligh . .tbe pushed to a wholly indefens951e exreme,'' but says the court, ssther, is no ground for the conclusion her.
 that the limit of the, unreasonabI, g exertion of protective authority haa a been overstepped-
 Way Open for New Laws. Thus the protagonists of any flu 2 ture acts have only to show reasona 2 ble ground for the exercise of sucl + protection The decision goes far be Iyond even the widely inclusive stat
 tute in question It opens the way fo
 a scientific study of all occupations = particularly the trades involving tn a use of poisons or dangerous processe s in which medical investigation ma, 2, well show that eight hours daily ex s posture is too great a health risk. k It was further urged against tn r California law that it discriminate
 unfairly because its classification
 were s'based on the nature of the em z pIoyer's business and not upon tn a character of the employees work. a The court replies: ssIt is sufficient t a say that the character of the wor e may largely depend upon the natur Is and incidents of the business in con
 necfion with which the work is done.
 Thus as to hotels, the court finds.
 Hotels, as a class are distinct es e n tabIishments. The women empIoye 'A in hotels are for the most part cham : bermaids and waitresses; and it can 7' not be said that the conditions C
 work are identical with those wlic
 obtain in establishments of a diffe1 ,s ent character. or that it was beyon "a the legislative power to recognize th a differences that exist
 a As to the objection that certai n other establishments, such as board sr inghouses, were omitted on tn l. court says:
 .s ssyshe sT,agis1at11re is 41ot 1,oI,rd i 2 order to support the consultations
 validity of it's regulation, to extend
 to all cases which it might possibl at reach. If the law presumably hii 3f the evil where it is most felt, 1t is nc vs to be oyerthroWn because there ar