NOTES OF RECENT CASES affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Muller v. Oregon, 28 Sup. Ct. .Rep. 324. The decision proceeds on the theory of the inherent difference in physical structure of the two sexes and the necessity of protecting women both for their own sakes and the welfare of posterity. The claim against its validity was based on the i4th Amendment to the Constitution. In holding that contention without merit the court said : " The limitations which this statute places upon her contractual powers, upon her right to agree with her employer as to the time she shall labor, are not imposed solely for her benefit, but also largely for the benefit of all. "We have not referred in this discussion to the denial of the elective franchise in the State of Oregon, for while that may disclose a lack of politi cal equality in all things with her brother, that is not of itself decisive. The reason runs deeper, and rests in the inherent difference between the two sexes, and in the different functions in life which they perform. "For these reasons, and without questioning in any respect the decision in Lochner r. New York, [198 U. S. 45, 49 L. Ed. 937, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 539], we are of the opinion that it cannot be adjudged that the act in question is in conflict with the Federal Constitution, so far as it respects the work of a female in a laundry, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oregon is affirmed." So far only two decisions have denied, in any way, the right of the state to reasonably regulate the hours of employment of women, — that of Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 98, and People v. Williams, 81 N. E. 778. The first of these was largely decided on the now discredited theory that legislation of this kind must be omnibus in order to escape the charge of class-legislation, and the second on the ground that the act, which only forbade labor between six o'clock P.M. and nine o'clock A.M., did not ap pear to the New York Court to be promoted by the desire to protect the health of the women con cerned, the Court absolutely overlooking the fact that morals, and not health, were the main objects of legislative concern, and that the state is as much interested in the one as in the other. The ques tion is still an open one, however, as to how far the Supreme Court of the United States will and should go in opposing the individual opinions of its members as to the necessity of a regulation (which is pre-eminently a question of fact and not of law) to the opinions of the State Courts and the State Legislatures. The Fourteenth amendment was certainly adopted solely for the purpose of pre venting oppression, and not for the purpose of tying the hands of the state when it sought to pro
267
tect the lives and health of its citizens. It would certainly seem that the local legislature and the local courts are better able to judge of the fact as to whether or not certain employments are injuri ous, or hours of labor too exacting, than a court thousands of miles from the scene of the indus try, which can only view the case from the library and the printed record. This fact the Supreme Court of the United States seems to have fully recognized until called upon to announce its judg ment in the case of Lockner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, and this last mentioned decision stands by itself, and cannot on principle be reconciled with any of its predecessors. ANDREW A. BRUCE. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Regulation of Rates.) N. Y. Ct. of App. — The New York Legis lature in 1905 passed a law providing for the appointment of a commission to determine, upon complaint of municipal authority or consumers, the maximum price to be charged for service by gas and electric light companies. The validity of the statute is considered by the Xew York C'ourt of Appeals in Trustees of Saratoga Springs r. Sara toga Gas, E. L. & P. Co.. 83 X. E. Rep. 693. The statute was attacked on several constitutional grounds, only one of which is held by the court to be meritorious, though an elaborate discussion is given of the others. It was claimed that the act was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the commission and so blended legislative and executive or administrative powers as to violate the Federal Constitution, guarantying to every, state a republican form of government. Reference is made by the court to the fact that at the time the Federal Constitution was adopted, the highest judicial tribunal in New York was composed of the memebers of the State Senate and certain other judges and brushes aside at once the claim of unconstitutionality on that ground. Reference is made to the inability of the legislature to examine into and determine upon the question of reasonableness in rates for each particular gas company in the state and to the fact that matters of that character such as regulation of rates of carriers are now very generally put in the hands of boards of commissioners, and while stating that the considerations of convenience or necessity would not justify overriding the constitution, they may be taken into consideration on the question as to how far the principle preventing delegation of legislative power may be considered to extend, and holds that the constitution is not violated in that respect in the case at bar. The statute enacts that " the price so fixed by the commission shall be the maximum price to be charged for a term of three years and until after
