The Washington times., 1921-09-17

slow struggle for better conditions.
1t Is the opinion Of those women who
have given themselves to the same
difficult progress.
The amendment provides that:
mo political. civil or legal disability
or inequality on account of sex or
marriage shall exist within the United
States or any territory subject to
the Jurisdiction thereof"
Rushing to the national Constitu-
ton to settle all the complexities Of
life Is a bad enough method in gen.
eral, but this is particularly danger
Gus case. The language is entirely
vague. 1t mentions no law that 1t
wishes repealed. 1t merely throws out
n piece Of general language and turns
the courts loose on its Interpretation.
Would Undo Victories.
The only real forces that might be
found to back up the handful Of
belligerent women who got up the
amendment would be the Industrial
forces that wish to exploit women.
They might well be pleased to have
sweeping clause enabling them to
get the courts to upset all the ptro-
tective legislation recently won for
women.
This is not guesswork. The courts
have already shown what they can
do in the way of twisting such vague
expressions into the form most well
| come to the exploiters. They have
had a good whack at the meaning Of
liberty of contract"
What have they done with II? Lib
erty of contracts has meant the lib
erty Of a workingman to be as many
kinds Of a slave as any powerful
capitalistic combination can force him
to be. Every step forward in hours,
in wages, in conditions Of employ
ment has been fought on the ground
THAT it interfered with the liberty of
some helpless individual to accept
worse conditions or starve.
1t was not so long ago that even
laws putting the cost of accidents
on the employer were viewed with
horror as taking away the employees
liberty to have his leg cut off and
pay the cost himself
What Women Would Lose.
The attempt Of the unions to intro.
duce civilized arrangements into the
coal fields of West Virginia, in place
of the present medieval despotism is
successfully resisted today by the
bunch of barons who assure us that
! they are protecting the freedom of
laboring men to make their own con-
tracts.
To push another meaningless gen.
erality into the Constitution about
women would have some effect, to be
sure. 1t would upset the laws passed
in many States, and passed by Con-
gress for the District of Columbia,
guaranteeing minimum wages for
| women.
II would upset any laws or regula-
tiohs by commissions checking night
work in factories for women. 1t
would upset regulations about their
going to work and leaving work at
different hours from the men. 1t
would give them the holy freedom OF
being deprived of chairs or rest rooms
unless the same accommodations wero
provided for men.
In certain advanced communities
women have the right to a number
of weeks away from work before and
after childbirth. Under the proposed
verbiage they would be fully protected
against this discrimination.
Evil Nonsense.
In short. the proposed amendment
is evil nonsense. It Is the result not
OF thought or work or experience, but
Of joyful bellicosity. 1t is the product
Of score or two OF women who go
about worshipping the word equal
ity" without translating It into any
thing except officeholding.
There are certain actual hardships
left The way to remove them is to
name them and repeal the laws Great
ing them. That Is more laborious, to
be sure. 1t requires more exact think
ing. 1t requires more knowledge and
work.
progress. Enough harm has been
done already by loose tinkering with
the constitution. Any slash at 1t more
harmful that the one now proposed
would be difficult to conceive.
The cheerful aspect is that II has
not a chance on earth OF becoming a