W.C. Ritchie & Co. v. Wayman

• Decision Date: 21 April 1910
• Citation: 244 Ill. 509,91 N.E. 695
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: W. C. RITCHIE & CO. et al. v. WAYMAN et al.

244 Ill. 509

91 N.E. 695

W. C. RITCHIE & CO. et al.

v.WAYMAN et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 21, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Richard S. Tuthill, Judge.

Suit by W. C. Ritchie & Co. and others against John E. W. Wayman and others. From an adverse decree, defendants appeal. Reversed.

W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., John E. W. Wayman, State's Atty., and Zach Hofheimer, for appellant Wayman.

W. H. Stead, Atty.

Gen. (Samuel A. Harper, of counsel), for appellant Davies.

Louis D. Brandeis, for other appellants.

Haynie & Lust (William Duff Haynie, of counsel), for appellees.

HAND, J.

This was a bill in chancery filed in the circuit court of Cook county by the appellees, W. C. Ritchie & Co., an Illinois corporation, and W. E. Ritchie, its president and general manager, and Anna Kusserow and Dora Windeguth, two of the employés of said corporation, against the appellants,John E. W. Wayman, as state's attorney for Cook county, and Edgar T. Davies, chief state factory inspector for the state of Illinois, to enjoin the enforcement against W. C. Ritchie & Co. and its officers and employés, and all persons similarly situated in the state of Illinois who may become parties to this suit, of ‘An act to regulate and limit the hours of employment of females in any mechanical establishment or factory or laundry in order to safeguard the health of such employés; to provide for its enforcement and a penalty for its violation.’

The bill avers that W. C. Ritchie & Co., an Illinois corporation, is engaged in the city of Chicago in the business of manufacturing paper boxes, paper box machinery, etc., and that W. E. Ritchie is the president and general manager of said corporation; that Anna Kusserow and Dora Windeguth, who are citizens of the United States and are of the ages of 45 and 32 years, respectively, are in the employ of W. C. Ritchie & Co. in its business of manufacturing paper boxes, paper box machinery, etc., and that they have each been so employed for many years, and sets forth in detail the services which they each perform in said business. It is also averred that W. C. Ritchie & Co. have in their employ in said business, in addition to Anna Kusserow and Dora Windeguth, 750 females, and that during the rush season in said business, and to enable said corporation to fill its orders and comply with its contracts, it is necessary that its female employés work more than 10 hours per day. It is also averred that W. E. Ritchie, as general manager of said corporation, and with the knowledge and consent of said corporation, has employed and allowed an adult female to work in said business of manufacturing paper boxes, paper box machinery, etc., more than 10 hours in one day. It is also averred that the said paper box factory is situated in a well lighted, heated, and ventilated building, and that the conditions surrounding its employés while at work are sanitary and healthful. It is also averred that the defendants, John E. W. Wayman, as state's attorney, and Edgar T. Davies, as chief state factory inspector, have instituted proceedings against W. E. Ritchie and the corporation for a violation of the said act, which act, exclusive of the title, reads as follows:

‘Section 1. Be it enacted by the people of the state of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: That no female shall be employed in any mechanical establishment or factory or laundry in this state, more than ten hours during any one day. The hours of work may be so arranged as to permit the employment of females at any time so that they shall not work more than ten hours during he twenty-four hours of any day.

‘Sec. 2. Any employer who shall require any female to work in any of the places mentioned in section 1 of this act, more than the number of hours provided for in this act, during any day of twenty-four hours, or who shall fail, neglect or refuse so to arrange the work of females in his employ that they shall not work more than the number of hours provided for in this act during any one day, or who shall permit or suffer any overseer, superintendent or other agent of any such employer to violate any of the provisions of this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined for each offense in a sum of not less than $25 or more than $100.

‘Sec. 3. The state department of factory inspection shall be charged with the duty of enforcing the provisions of this act and prosecuting all violations thereof.

‘Sec. 4. All acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.’ Approved June 15, 1909; in force July 1, 1909 (Laws 1909, p. 212).

It is also averred that said act is unconstitutional and void, and the prayer of the bill is that the defendants be enjoined from enforcing the provisions of the said act as against the complainants.

The defendants interposed a demurrer to said bill, which was overruled, and, the defendants having elected to stand by their demurrer, the court entered a decree perpetually enjoining the defendants from enforcing against the complainants, and against all other persons who are similarly situated and who may intervene in this cause, any of the provisions of said act, and the defendants have prosecuted an appeal to this court.

The case of People v. Bowes-Allegretti Co., 91 N. E. 701, in which a judgment of conviction for the violation of said act has been entered against the defendants by the municipal court of Chicago, and which case is now pending in this court upon writ of error, has, upon the joint motion of the parties to that case, been consolidated with this chancery suit, and that case was argued orally with the chancery suit and submitted upon the briefs filed in the chancery suit. The question of the jurisdiction of a court of chancery to entertain the bill filed in this case was not raised in the court below, and has not been raised in this court. We will therefore consider the errors assigned upon the records filed in the chancery suit and in the criminal case together, and file but one opinion in the consolidated case.

The object of this litigation is to test the constitutionality of the act of 1909, which is generally referred to as the ‘Woman's Ten-Hour Law,’ and the various contentions of the parties will be taken up and will be disposed of so far as we think their consideration necessary for a proper disposition of the question involved.

It is first contended that the act of 1909, known as the ‘Woman's Ten-Hour Law,’ is in conflict with section 2 of article 2 of the Constitution of 1870, which provides that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,’ in this: That it deprives W. C. Ritchie & Co. of the right to freely contract with its female employés, and the right of its female employés to freely contract with W. C. Ritchie & Co., for their labor-a property right-by prohibiting adult female employés from agreeing to work, and from working, more than ten hours in any one day in the business of manufacturing paper boxes, paper box machinery, etc., as that business is carried on by W. C. Ritchie & Co. in the city of Chicago.

The legislation passed in comparatively recent years in this state, and in general by the states of the Union, has emancipated women, so that they now have the right to contract substantially as do men. It has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States in Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 25 Sup. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937, that a law prohibiting men from working in bakeries more than 10 hours a day, or 60 hours in a week, was an arbitrary interference with the freedom of contract guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which amendment is substantially the same, so far as it guarantees to the citizen the right of freedom of contract, as is the provision of our state Constitution heretofore quoted. It was conceded, upon the oral argument by appellants, that if the statute now under consideration had been passed with a view to limit the employment of men in mechanical establishments, factories or laundries to ten hours during any one day it would be an arbitrary interference with the right of men to contract for their labor, and unconstitutional and void. If, therefore, such an enactment would be void as to men, does it necessarily follow that such enactment must be held invalid when by its express language the enactment is limited to women, as is the statute now under consideration? This court has recently held that the disposition of property may be limited or regulated when the public interest requires that its disposition should be limited or regulated. City of Chicago v. Schmidinger, 243 Ill. 167, 90 N. E. 369. If, therefore, the public interest requires that the time which women shall be permitted to work in any mechanical establishment or factory or laundry should be limited to ten hours in any one day, we are unable to see why this statute is not constitutional.

The right of the individual to contract with reference to labor is held inviolable under the Constitution on the ground that the privilege of contracting with reference to labor is a property right, within the purview of the Constitution. Frorer v. People, 141 Ill. 171, 31 N. E. 395,16 L. R. A. 492. There inhere in the state, however, certain sovereign powers, among which powers is that characterized as the police power, which, when broadly stated, is that power of the state which relates to the conservation of the health, morals, and general welfare of the public, and the property rights of the citizen are always held and enjoyed subject to the reasonable exercise of the police power by the state. If this statute can be sustained, it must be sustained, we think, as an exercise of the police power. In City of Chicago v. Bowman Dairy Co., 234 Ill. 294, 297, 84 N. E. 913, 914, it was said: ‘The police power is said to be an attribute of sovereignty and to exist without any...