Miller v. Wilson
Decision Date | 23 February 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 112,112 |
Citation | 236 U.S. 373,35 S.Ct. 342,59 L.Ed. 628 |
Parties | F. A. MILLER, Plff. in Err., v. F. P. WILSON, Sheriff of the County of Riverside, State of California |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Frank P. Flint and Henry S. Van Dyke for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 374-377 intentionally omitted] Messrs. William Denman, Louis D. Brandeis, G. S. Arnold, and Mr. U. S. Webb, Attorney General of California, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 377-379 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff in error, the proprietor of the Glenwood Hotel in the city of Riverside, California, was arrested upon the charge of employing and requiring a woman to work in the hotel for the period of nine hours in a day, contrary to the statute of California which forbade such employment for more than eight hours a day, or forty-eight hours a week. Act of March 22, 1911; Stat. 1911, p. 437. It was stated in the argument at this bar that the woman was employed as a chambermaid. Urging that the act was in violation of the state Constitution, and also that it was repugnant to the 14th Amendment, as an arbitrary invasion of liberty of contract, and as unreasonably discriminatory, the plaintiff in error obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the supreme court of the state. That court, characterizing the statute as one 'intended for a police regulation to preserve, protect, or promote the general health and welfare,' upheld its validity and remanded the plaintiff in error to custody. 162 Cal. 687, 124 Pac. 427. This writ of error was then sued out.
The material portion of the statute, as it them stood, was as follows:
As the liberty of contract guaranteed by the Constitution is freedom from arbitrary restraint,—not immunity from reasonable regulation to safeguard the public interest,—the question is whether the restrictions of the statute have reasonable relation to a proper purpose. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549, 567, 55 L. ed. 328, 338, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 259; Erie R. Co. v. Williams, 233 U. S. 685, 699, 58 L. ed. 1155, 1160, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1097, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 761; Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1, 18, 59 L. ed. ——, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240. Upon this point, the recent decisions of this court upholding other statutes limiting the hours of labor of women must be regarded as decisive. In Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412, 52 L. ed. 551, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 324, 13 Ann. Cas. 957, the statute of that state, providing that 'no female shall be employed in any mechanical establishment or factory or laundry' for 'more than ten hours during any one day' was sustained as applied to the work of an adult woman in a laundry. The decision was based upon considerations relating to woman's physical structure, her maternal functions, and the vital importance of her protection in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race. 'She is properly placed in a class by herself,' said the court, In Riley v. Massachusetts, 232 U. S. 671, 58 L. ed. 788, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 469, the plaintiff in error had been convicted upon the charge of employing a woman in a factory at a different hour from that specified in a notice posted in accordance with the statute relating to the hours of labor. The general provisions of the statute being found to be valid, the particular requirements which were the subject of special objection were also upheld as administrative rules designed to prevent the circumvention of the purpose of the law. The case of Hawley v. Walker, 232 U. S. 718, 58 L. ed. 813, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 479, arose under the Ohio act prohibiting the employment of 'females over eighteen years of age' to work in 'any factory, workshop, telephone or telegraph office, millinery or dressmaking establishment, restaurant, or in the distributing or transmission of messages more than ten hours in any one day, or more than fifty-four hours in any one week.' The plaintiff in error was charged with employing a woman in a millinery establishment for fifty-five hours in a week. The constitutionality of the law as thus applied was sustained by this court.
It is manifestly impossible to say that the mere fact that the statute of California provides for an eight-hour day, or a maximum of forty-eight hours a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Katzev v. County of Los Angeles
...and it may confine its restrictions to those classes of cases where the need is deemed to be clearest.' (Miller v. Wilson (1915), 235 U.S. 373, 382-384, 35 S.Ct. 342, 344, 59 L.Ed. 628, L.R.A.1915F 829, affirming In re Miller (1912), 162 Cal. 687, 124 P. 427; [see, also,] Patsone v. [Common......
-
Jones v. Russell
... ... v. Massachusetts, 232 U.S. 671, 34 S.Ct. 469, 58 L.Ed ... 788; Hawley v. Walker, 232 U.S. 718, 34 S.Ct. 479, ... 58 L.Ed. 813; Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 35 ... S.Ct. 342, 59 L.Ed. 628, L. R. A. 1915F, 829; Ozan Lbr ... Co. v. Union County Bank, 207 U.S. 251, 28 S.Ct. 89, 52 ... ...
-
Klein v. City of Louisville
... ... Law Rep. 1357; Hager v. Gast, supra; Jones v. Russell, 6 S.W. (2d) ___, decided May 8, 1928; Com. v. Jarrett, 213 Ky. 618, 281 S.W. 805; Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 35 S. Ct. 342, 59 L. Ed. 628, L.R.A. 1915F, 829; Com. v. Ward, 136 Ky. 146, 123 S.W. 673. Also it is evident that a bridge ... ...
-
Meridian Laundry Co., Inc. v. James
... ... Holden ... v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 42 L.Ed. 780; Muller v ... Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 52 L.Ed. 551; Miller v ... Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 59 L.Ed. 628; Stettler v ... O'Hara, 69 Ore. 519, 139 P. 743; People v ... Elleding, 254 Ill. 589, 98 N.E. 982; Am ... ...
-
Sex Equality's Irreconcilable Differences.
...the constitutional relevance of "individual exceptions" since woman "is properly placed in a class by herself"); Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 380, 382 (1915) (upholding a law that prohibited women but not men from working in hotels for more than eight hours a day on the ground that the S......
-
REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
...See L'Hote v. New Orleans, 177 U.S. 587, 596-97 (1900). (289.) See Bosley v. McLaughlin, 236 U.S. 385, 392 (1915); Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 380 (1915); Hawley v. Walker, 232 U.S. 718, 718 (1914) (mem.); Riley v. Massachusetts, 232 U.S. 671,680 (1914); Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, ......
-
Making constitutional doctrine in a realist age.
...from confining "its restrictions to those classes of cases where the need is deemed to be clearest." Id. at 540 (quoting Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 384 (170) See id. at 541 ("(W]e give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires."). (171) Id. at 538-39 ......
-
Constituting Workers, Protecting Women: Gender, Law, and Labor in the Progressive Era and New Deal Years.
...U.S. 385, 392-94 (1915) (reviewing an eight-hour daily maximum for women, as applied to graduate nurses in hospitals); Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 379-82 (1915) (evaluating statutory limitations of an eight-hour day for women in a wide range of occupations); see also Hawley v. Walker, 2......