LEGISLATION TO PROTECT WOMEN

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 192, 8 May 1908, Page 3

LEGISLATION TO PROTECT WOMEN

By a decision of ,tho highest court/of the Republic—the United States Supreme Court. —(says .an American correspondent.' of tho " Argus");'woman is placed in a class apart from that occupied by men as far as tho making of : Special laws for her protection are concerned. According, to this much discussed, judicial.: .designed for tlie protection.'pf'wo'mnn 11 may'.be sus•tained (l ~9,yen • is,','.not necessary, for, men aiicl"could' 'not'',-bo' sustained.":. The; ruling occurred in an' appaal from a laiv; of the State > of' Oregon forbidding the': employment of women in factories for more than:ten hours a ; day. A laundryman attacked. tho. Act on tho ground that it infringed tho right of contract guaranteed', by the Federal Constitution. V ... , r It is curious to note that the decision" is iu diametric opposition to; that of the New York. Court' of .Appeals, last j'ear,' when . a similar measure adopted by the New York Legislature ■ was declared unconstitutional on vthe ground, as the court expressed: |it, . that " under/our laws men and women stand alike in their, constitutional rights,' and I 'tliero is. no warrant for making any discrimination between th'enj with ■ respect to. the liberties, of ..persons or contracj." . •' ■: The contrary decision of the Federal Supreme Court,is based riot so nnicli; on legal hair : fsplittings as..;on medical*-'and 'socialgrounds.. The- physical structure of .-women, say'the judges, justifies legislation to protect her from the'greed as well as the passion of man —having: in view not -morel"'.- her.- own health,- but the well-being, of the race. The marrow of the written decision is/contained' in tho following excerpt:—.:. "~ I "The limitations which this statute'places upon her contractual powers, upon 1 lier right to agree-with her employer as. to the time sho shall labour, are not imposed, solely- for her benefit, but also,largely for the .benefit of all. Many .words 'cannot make this plainer. The - two' sexes differ •in 'structure of body," in tho -functions to be performed by '. each,' in the amount of physical strength,: in the. capacity for long continued labour, particularly when done - standing, the influence ' of vigorous health upon' the future; itell-being of the race, the self-relianco which onables ouo to assert fullvrights, and in the capacity:: to. maintain the struggle for' subsistence! This difference justifies a difference in legislation l and upholds.that which is designed to compensate for' some'of'the' burdens .which :rest upon her." ; v-, ..The 'finding has , been widely - commented upon, and tho general conclusion ..is-that .it is economically, sound.: It is novel, however in that .for'the -fii-st/time is the doctrine of one law for' the wonlan and another--for the man specifically adopted and incorporated as the law of the\land by the ultimate court of appeal. In twenty or'more States'there are ,laws limiting the working hours of women, .some of. them having' been passed ,30 years ago. Until now, however,: the question of: the constitutionality of- these enactments has-been the subject of controversy., '