University of Michigan Law School
University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository
Articles
Faculty Scholarship
1910
Validity of Legislation Limiting Hours of Labor for
Women
Ralph W. Aigler
University of Michigan Law School
Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/articles
Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the State
and Local Government Law Commons
Recommended Citation
Aigler, Ralph W. "Validity of Legislation Limiting Hours of Labor for Women." Mich. L. Rev. 9 (1910): 44-6.
This Response or Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship
Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository.
For more information, please contact [email protected].
MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW
PUBLISHED MONTHLY DURING THE
ACADEMIC YEAR,
EXCLUSIVE
OF OCTOBER,
BY THE
LAW FACULTY OF-THE, UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN
SUBSCRIPTION
PRICE $2.50 PER YEAR.
35 CENTS PER NUMBER
JAMEs H. BRIWSTICR, editor
EVANS HOLBROOK; Acting editor
ADVISORY
HE1NRY M. BATFS
BOARD:
VICTOR H. LANE
HORACE L. WILGUS
Editorial Assistants, appointed by the' Faculty from
the Cla8s of 111:
LEON I. MINER, of Michigan.
ARTHUR J. ABBOTT, of Michigan.
HOWARD L. BARKDULL, Of Ohio.
ALLEN MCK. BOND, of Kentucky.
HOWARD H. CAMPBELL, of Michigan.
CHARLES L. CUNNINGHAM, of'Pennsylvania.
EDMUND C. DICKINSON, of Indiana.
JOSEPH F. GOLDSBERRY, of Ohio.
CARL B. GRAWN, ofMichigan.
H. STANLEY MCCALL, of Ohio.
WM. W. MONTGOMERY, of Washington.
JOHN C. MURRAY, of California.
VICTOR H. NYSEWANDER, of Michigan.
JOHN S. PRESCOTT, Of Michigan.
UcKEE ROBISON, of Michigan.
F1ED J. SLATER, of NeW York.
BURTON A. TYLER, of fllinois.
FRED S. ZICK, ofIllinois.
NOTE AND COMMENT.
VALIDITY op LEGISLATION LMTING Hous
or LABOR rOR WommN.-Public
opinion and the develbpment of social and economic
thought are 'well readin
the decision6, of the courts. An excellent illustration:
of this is-found in the.
NOTE AND COMMENT
244.Ill. 5o9, 91 N. E. 695, derecent case of Ritchie & Co. et al. v. Wayman,
in a statute entitled
legislature
Illinois
the
1893
In
cided April 21, 1910.
other
apparel, and
"An act to regulate the manufacture of clothing, wearing
State inspectors
of
.appointment
the
for
provide
to
and
articles in this State,
enacted, among
therefor,"
to enforce the same, and to make an appropriation
or work-,
factory
any
in
empl6yed
be
shall
female
otier things, that "No
any one
in
hours
forty-eight
or
shop more than eight hours in any one day
supreme
the
98,
Ill.
T55
People,
v.
Ritchie
In
week." (Laws of 1893, p. 99).
Ritchie who had been proscourt of that state reversed a conviction of one
holding that the statquoted,
above
provision
ecuted for a violation of the
the state that 'freeof
ute was unconstitutional because it denied to citizens
In igog the legisconstitution.
the
by
dom to contract which is guaranteed
employed in any
be
shall
lature enacted a statte providing "That no female
more than ten
state,
this
in
laundry
or
factory
mechanical establishment or
as to
arranged
so
be
may
hours during any one day." The hours of work
work
not
shall
they
that
so
time
any
at
permit the employment of, females
any day." (Laws of
of
hours
twenty-four
the
during
hours
'ten
more than
"An Act to regulate and limit the
1909, p. 212). The title of this act was,
establishment or factory
mechanical
any
in
females
of
hours of etiuployment
employees; to provide
such
of
health
the
or laundry in order to safeguard
Proceedings 'having
violation."
its
fof
penalty
a
and
for its, enforcement
Factory 'InspecState
Chief
the
and
been instituted hy the State's' Attorney
the act, a bill
of
violation
for
Ritchie
R.
W.
and
Co.
&
tor against Ritchie
prosecutors
the
against
action
was filed by the defendants in the-criminal
from
restrained
be
Inspector
Factory
and
Attorney
asking that the State's
demurre.r'
A
complainants.
the
enforcing -the provisions of the act as against
the supreme court. ln ihe
to the bill was overruled, and an appeal taken to
that the act was con-'
dissenting,
latter court it was held, Mr. Justice VicxaRs
stitutional.
statute of which the
In i9o6 the supreme court of Oregon had held a
State v. Muller, 48
constitutional.
copy
exact
an
Illinois act of 19o9 'was
to the Supreme
taken
was
Ore. 252, 12o Am. St. Rep. 8o5. This Oregon case
208 U.' S.
Oregon,
v.
Muller
affirmed.
there
and
Court of the United States
power
police
the
under
'was that
412. The conclusion of the supreme court
health,
public
the
promote
to
tending
laws
enact
the states had authority to
if engaged in for lengthy
comfort and welfare, that certain kinds of labor
women, that unhealthy
of
health
the
to
periods of time 'were -deleterious
robust children were
healthy,
that
children,
healthy
women could not..rear
progress, and that
and
of extreme importance in the state's development
The Illinois
power.
police
the
within"
clearly
therefore the legislation was
of reasoning.
line
this
followed
and
adopted
case
Ritchie
court in thp second
is known to all men (and
In the course of its opinion the court said: "It
of as judges) that
ignorant
be
to
profess
cannot
what we kn6w as men we
of matirnal functions, place
woman's physical structure and the performance
that while a man can work
life;
of
battle
her at a great disadvantage' in the
himself, a woman, especto
injury
without
day
a
hours
for more than ten
cannot; that while -a
her,
ially when 'the burdens of motherhood are upon
MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW
man can work standing upon his feet for more than ten hours a day, day
after day, without injury to himself, a woman cannot,.and
that to require
a woman to stand upon her feet for more than ten hours
in
any one day
and perform severe manual labor while thus standing, day
after day, has the
effect to impair her health, and that as weakly and sickly
worfien cannot be
the mothers of vigorous children, it is of the greatest importance
to the public
that the state take such measures as may be necessary
to protecf its women
from the consequences induced by long, continuous labor
in those occupations which tend to break them down physically."
The court attempted to distinguish their holding from
that of. the same
court in the earlier case. After quoting from the earlier
opinion the court
said: "We therefore repeat whaf we have once said,
that it is not at all
clear that the court in rendering the opinion in the Ritchie
case, where an
eight hour *day was held to be unconstitutional, was of.
opinion a statute fixing a ten hour day in which women might work would
be unconstitutional."
It would seem that the court was not very successful
in distinguishing the
two cases.
In addition to the decisions of the Oregon court and
the United States
Supreme Court, supra, the following cases have sustained
similar legislation:
Wenham v. State, 65 Neb. 394, 91 N. W. 42I, 58 L. R. A.
825; Commonwealth
v. Hamilton Maotf. Co., 120 Mass. 383; Washington v.
Buchanan, 29 Wash.
,6o2, 59.L. R. A. 342. In connection with these cases it
is interesting to compare the case of Lochner v..'Nezw York, 198 U. S. 45, in
which it was held that
a New York statute limiting the hours of labor of men
working in bakeries
to ten per day was unconstitutional as denying the freedom
to contract. For
a somewhat extended discussion of the subject of limiting
hours of labor
-for women see 8 MicH. L. Rxv. i.
R. W. A.