Limitation of Hours of Labor ot women for more than ten hours during any one day, in any mechanical or mercantile establishment, laundry, hotel or restaurant was held constitu tional. As showing the development of the reasons given for such legislation, we quote the following: "It is a matter of universal knowledge with all reason able and intelligent people of the pres ent age that continuous standing on the feet by women for a great many con secutive hours is deleterious to their health. It must logically follow that that which deleteriously affects so great a number of women who are mothers of succeeding generations must nec essarily affect the public health and morals." A like statute was consid ered in State v. Muller, 48 Ore. 252, 1906, and the Court said it was plainly enacted to conserve the public health and welfare by protecting the physical well-being of women. This case went to the United States Supreme Court, Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412, 1908, and the decision of the Oregon Court was affirmed. The plaintiff in error strongly urged the view that women are no longer wards of the state, but citizens in full possession of all civil and political rights, and that any law which regulates their labor and interferes with their freedom of contract is as arbitrary and void as a similar law for adult men. The Court, however, declined to take any such view as this. The opinion refers to the removal of restrictions and the legal equalization of the sexes, but attaches no controlling significance to that tendency. Even, it says, if all political and civil differences should disappear, there would remain the dif ferences of function and structure, af fecting woman's capacity for labor and endurance. And this difference jus tifies discrimination between men and women. In reasonably restricting the labor of women the state exercises the
381
police power of protecting the public health and caring for the vigor of the race. In the words of the Court, "That woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for existence is obvious By abundant testimony of the medi cal fraternity, continuance for a long time on her feet at work, repeating this from day to day, tends to in jurious effects upon the body, and as healthy mothers are essential to vigor ous offspring, the physical well-being of women becomes an object of public interest and care in order to pre serve the strength and vigor of the race." Opposed to these decisions there are only three cases, which we shall take up in the order of their time. The first one is Ritchie v. People, 155 I11. 98, 1895, in which the hours were limited to eight in one day and forty-eight in a week. The courts of Illinois, as well as those of Colorado, tenaciously adhere to the doctrine that no laws of this kind are valid unless they clearly and directly affect the public health and welfare. It was held, therefore, that this law is unconstitutional. The Court said that sex alone will not justify the exercise of the police power because woman has practically the same political and civil, rights as man, and that it is doubtful whether in any case such a law can be sustained for the benefit of the individual himself. In People v. Williams, 116 App. Div. N. Y. 379, 1906, the act prohibited the employ ment of women after nine p. m. and before six a. m. Its primary object undoubtedly was to prevent women from being out late at night and in that way to protect their morals. The Court, however, seems to overlook this entirely. If the object of the statute had been solely to limit the number of hours
