Evening star., 1915-03-13
Opinion by Justice Hughes.

Justice Hughes, rendering the unani-
nous opinion of the United States Su-
preme Court, in the California case, said ::
1T is manifestly impossible to say that
the mere fact that the statute Of Cali
fornia provides for an eight-hour day, or
a maximum of forty-eight hours a week.
instead of ten hours a day or ffty-four
hours a week. takes the case out of the
domain Of legislative discretion. This is
not to imply that Limitation of the hours
| of labor of women might not be pushed
to wholly indefensible extreme, but
there is no ground for the conclusion here
that the limit of the reasonable exertion
| of protective authority has been over
stepped. Nor, with respect to liberty of
contract. are we able to perceive any rea-
son upon which the states power thus to
limit hours may be upheld with respect
| to women in a millinery establishment
and denied as to chambermaid in a
hotel
In this decision the California statute
| was upheld both as to its classification of
employment, which Is identical with the
| local act. and as to the right to legislate
especially for women. Therefore" says
Justice Mccoy, .if the local act is to be
| held unconstitutional, 1t will be on the
ground that it may be interpreted as
| limiting the number Of days to six. 1t
cannot be said that an act Of Congress
| is taken out Of the domain of legislative
| discretion, because it limits to six the
| number of days in a week during which
! women may be employed in the occupa-
| tions mentioned. as there is no ground
| for the conclusion here that the limit of
the reasonable exertion of protective au-
thority has been overstepped
zone Day of Rest" Sustained.
| The court also points out a decision
by the court of appeals of New York
which sustained the "one day of rest
in seven law, which required that
every person, with a few exceptions,
employed in any factory or mercantile
establishment shall be allowed "at least
twenty-four consecutive hours of rest
in every seven consecutive days" The
validity of this statute. 1t is pointed
out, was sustained without any refer
ence to the religious character of the
day which was set aside and without
reliance upon any peculiar strain of
the work prohibited.
Justice Mccoy also states that the
penalty section of the act does not
bring 1t within those cases which hold
that a person affected by the law must
not by provision for excessive pen
alties be inundated into compliance
with the law without fair opportunity
to test it except at the risk of an
appropriation of all his property or an
extra ordinary and unreasonable loss in
the event that the law is upheld.
The suit which raised the question
as to the laws constitutionality was
filed by Attorney A. S. Worthington
for Basil B. Earnshaw. stockhoider
OF the Congress Hall Hotel Company.
who sought to enjoin the Commits
sioners from attempting to enforce the
act and to prevent the corporations
compliance with its provisions.
The bill alleged that the act is
wholly void far it applies to
hotels and restaurants. as it would. if
enforced. deprive both the employers
and the employees of their property
without due process of law. and also of
the equal protection of the law: that
the act discriminates without sufficient
cause against hotels and restaurants
in favor of boarding houses. apartment
houses, clubs and private houses: and
surther that the penalties prescribed
:or violations of the act are so enor-
nous and so severe to intimidate
the defendant corporation from resort
ing to the court to test the validity of
the act.
Corporation Counsel Syme moved to
dismiss the bill. maintaining the law
institutional. not discriminatory and
not prescribing prohibitive penalties