People v. Press

• Decision Date: 26 March 1915
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CHARLES SCHWEINLER PRESS.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

214 N.Y. 395

108 N.E. 639

PEOPLE

v.CHARLES SCHWEINLER PRESS.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 26, 1915.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

The Charles Schweinler Press, a corporation, was convicted of violating Labor Law (Consol. Laws, c. 31) § 93b, as added by Laws 1913, c. 83, and from an order of the Appellate Division (163 App. Div. 620,148 N. Y. Supp. 725) reversing an order granting motion in arrest of judgment and denying the motion and remanding the case, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The statute for violation of which the appellant was convicted reads as follows:

‘Sec. 93b. Period of Rest at Night for Women. In order to protect the health and morals of females employed in factories by providing an adequate period of rest at night no woman shall be employed or permitted to work in any factory in this state before six o'clock in the morning or after ten o'clock in the evening of any day.’

Alfred E. Ommen, of New York City, for appellant.

Walter J. Carlin, of New York City, for intervener Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers.

Charles A. Perkins, Dist. Atty., of New York City (William A. De Ford, of New York City, of counsel), for the People.

Egburt E. Woodbury, Atty. Gen. (Merton E. Lewis, of Rochester, of counsel), in behalf of Labor Law.

Abram I. Elkus, Robert F. Wagner, and Bernard L. Shientag, all of New York City, for New York State Factory Investigating Commission, as amicus curiae.

HISCOCK, J.

This appeal presents for consideration a question of the constitutionality of certain industrial legislation, so called.

It is undisputed that the appellant caused or permitted a married woman to work in a factory operated by it between the hours of 10 o'clock in the evening and 6 o'clock in the morning, and thereby violated the provisions of the act above quoted, and became subject to the punishment duly prescribed for such violation. It challenges, however, the legality of its conviction for the reason, as claimed, that said act unduly and unjustifiably interferes with the right of an adult woman to contract for her own labor, and thus violates various provisions of the Constitution both of the state and of the United States which in effect provide that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law, and that no unjust discrimination shall be made between different classes of citizens by denial of the equal protection of law.

The answer to this challenge is that night work in factories, as contrasted with day labor, substantially affects and impairs the physical condition of women and prevents them from discharging in a healthful and satisfactory manner the peculiar functions which have been imposed upon them by nature, and that therefore it was within the power of the Legislature to enact the statuteas a police regulation tending to protect the well-being of a large class of citizens and promote the public welfare.

[1] We are therefore presented with the issue whether it can be said that night work by women in factories is so generally and substantially injurious to their health that the Legislature was justified by public considerations in preventing the evil by forbidding the cause. In the determination of this question it will be well first to summarize some of the facts and reasons which induced the legislation, and, second, to test the sufficiency of these as a basis for the statute by certain principles of law applicable to such a case.

There are certain fundamental facts involved in the decision of the question which are beyond any dispute. The statute forbids night work simply in factories. We know, as a matter of common observation, that such labor is generally performed indoors, and that under average conditions and surroundings existing in factories, even when performed in the daytime, it is ordinarily arduous and exacting.

Impairment caused by exhaustion or even ordinary weariness must be repaired by normal and refreshing sleep and rest if health and efficiency are to be preserved. The natural and common order of work and rest is that the former shall be for the most part performed during the hours of day and the latter enjoyed during the night. Habitual and continuous work by night is at variance with this order.

Protection of the health of women is a subject of special concern to the state. However confident a great number of people may be that in many spheres of activity, including that of the administration of government, woman is the full equal of man, no one doubts that, as regards bodily strength and endurance, she is inferior, and that her health in the field of physical labor must be specially guarded by the state if it is to be preserved and if she is to continue successfully and healthfully to discharge those peculiar duties which nature has imposed upon her. This proposition is fully recognized and stated in Muller v . Oregon, 208 U. S. 412, 421, 28 Sup. Ct. 324, 326 (52 L. Ed. 551, 13 Ann. Cas. 957) where it was said:

‘That woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious. This is especially true when the burdens of motherhood are upon her. Even when they are not, by abundant testimony of the medical fraternity continuance for a long time on her feet at work, repeating this from day to day, tends to injurious effects upon the body, and as healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race. * * * Differentiated by these matters from the other sex, she is properly placed in a class by herself, and legislation designed for her protection may be sustained, even when like legislation is not necessary for men and could not be sustained.’

And if any further brief evidence of the truth of the proposition were necessary it would be found in the many statutes which have been adopted in this state without question of their constitutionality particularly designed to protect and preserve the health of women when engaged in various kinds of physical labor.

Moved in part it may be by such general and underlying considerations as these, under and in accordance with two statutes adopted by our Legislature in 1911 and 1912 (Laws of 1911, c. 561; Laws of 1912, c. 21), there was appointed in the latter year a factory investigating commission. This commission considered this subject of night work by women in factories and in 1913 made a report to the Legislature, recommending that there be passed the law now before us prohibiting it. It reported that such prohibition was essential to protect and preserve the health and to some extent the morals of women. It stated:

‘The chief danger of health from night work is * * * due to the inevitable lack of sleep and sunlight. Recuperation from fatigue takes places fully only in sleep, and best, in sleep at night. Hence, night work is, in a word, against nature. When exhausting factory work fills the night, and household work most of the day, health must inevitably be sacrificed. This injury to health is all the greater, because sleep lost at night by working women is never fully made up by day. For, in the first place, sleep in the daytime is not equal in recuperative power to sleep at night. * * * Moreover, quiet and privacy for sleep by day is almost impossible to secure. Upon returning home in the middle of the night or at dawn the workers can snatch at most only a few hours' rest.’

While it is impossible to review at length this report and recommendation and the foundations therefor, it may briefly and generally be stated that it was based upon and supported by quite an extensive investigation by the commission of actual factory conditions in this state where women performed night work, by many opinions of medical and other experts, and examination of other industrial investigations and legislation adopted in other jurisdictions in obedience we must assume to public opinion, forbidding such night work. It was also supported, whether expressly so stated or not, by the general considerations first above set forth. Amongst other things in the report to which special reference may be made, it appeared that in 1906 there assembled in Switzerland representatives of 14 European governments who signed an international convention for the prohibition of industrial work at night by women, and that prior to 1912 all of the powers represented, except one, had ratified the convention, and that in many cases such legislation provided for a longer period of rest at night than that recommended by the international agreement. It also appears now by the briefs submitted to us, whether that was stated in the report or not, that nine of the United States had passed legislation prohibiting such night work by women.

Thus, at the time when this statute was adopted, there was before the Legislature the report of a commission created by it to consider and report on this subject, based on natural laws and on actual investigation, a large volume of expert and medical opinion, and a large number of statutes adopted in various jurisdictions, all of which tended to show a careful and long-continued study and examination of the subject of night work by women, and as a result of such study and examination a widespread belief that such work was so injurious to their health that it ought to be prohibited both for their own sakes and for the sake of the offspring whom they might bear.

We then come to the query whether such facts, evidence, and information furnished a sufficient reason for action by the Legislature and justified the statute which was adopted; and I think the answer must be in the affirmative.

In the decision by the Legislature whether it should adopt such legislation, and in the determination by us whether the Legislature was justified in adopting it, it was and...