Muller v. Oregon

No. 107

Argued January 15, 1908

Decided February 24, 1908

208 U.S. 412

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Syllabus



The peculiar value of a written constitution is that it places, in

unchanging form, limitations upon legislative action, questions relating

to which are not settled by even a consensus of public opinion; but when

the extent of one of those limitations is affected by a question of fact

which is debatable and debated, a widespread and long continued belief

concerning that fact is worthy of consideration.



This Court takes judicial cognizance of all matters of general knowledge

-- such as the fact that woman's physical structure and the performance

of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage which justifies a

difference in legislation in regard to some of the burdens which rest

upon her.



As healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical

wellbeing of woman is an object of public interest.  The regulation of

her hour of labor falls within the police power of the State, and a

statute directed exclusively to such regulation does not conflict with

the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.



The right of a State to regulate the working hours of women rests on the

police power and the right to preserve the health of the women of the

State, and is not affected by other laws of the State granting or

denying to women the same rights as to contract and the elective

franchise as are enjoyed by men.



While the general liberty to contract in regard to one's business and

the sale of one's labor is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, that

liberty is subject to proper restrictions under the police power of the

State.



The statute of Oregon of 1903 providing that no female shall work in

certain establishments more than ten hour a day is not unconstitutional

so far as respects laundries.



48 Oregon, 252, affirmed.



The facts, which involve the constitutionality of the statute [208 U.S.

413] of Oregon limiting the hours of employment of women, are stated in

the opinion. [208 U.S. 416] BREWER, J., lead opinion



MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the court:



On February 19, 1903, the legislature of the State of Oregon passed an

act (Session Laws 1903, p. 148) the first section of which is in these

words:



SEC. 1.  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 [208 U.S. 417] at any time so that they shall

not work more than ten hours during the twenty-four hours of any one

day.



Sec. 3 made a violation of the provisions of the prior sections a

misdemeanor subject to a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $25. 

On September 18, 1905, an information was filed in the circuit court of

the State for the County of Multnomah, charging that the defendant on

the 4th day of September, A.D. 1905, in the county of Multnomah and

State of Oregon, then and there being the owner of a laundry, known as

the Grand Laundry, in the city of Portland, and the employer of females

therein, did then and there unlawfully permit and suffer one Joe

Haselbock, he, the said Joe Haselbock, then and there being an overseer,

superintendent, and agent of said Curt Muller, in the said Grand

Laundry, to require a female, to-wit, one Mrs. E. Gotcher, to work more

than ten hours in said laundry on said 4th day of September, A.D. 1905,

contrary to the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against

the peace and dignity of the State of Oregon.



A trial resulted in a verdict against the defendant, who was sentenced

to pay a fine of $10.  The Supreme Court of the State affirmed the

conviction, State v. Muller, 48 Oregon 252, whereupon the case was

brought here on writ of error.



The single question is the constitutionality of the statute under which

the defendant was convicted so far as it affects the work of a female in

a laundry.  That it does not conflict with any provisions of the state

constitution is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court of the

State.  The contentions of the defendant, now plaintiff in error, are

thus stated in his brief:



(1) Because the statute attempts to prevent persons sui juris from

making their own contracts, and thus violates the provisions of the

Fourteenth Amendment, as follows:



No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any

State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws. [208 U.S. 418]



(2) Because the statute does not apply equally to all persons similarly

situated, and is class legislation.



(3) The statute is not a valid exercise of the police power.  The kinds

of work prescribed are not unlawful, nor are they declared to be immoral

or dangerous to the public health; nor can such a law be sustained on

the ground that it is designed to protect women on account of their sex.

 There is no necessary or reasonable connection between the limitation

prescribed by the act and the public health, safety, or welfare.



It is the law of Oregon that women, whether married or single, have

equal contractual and personal rights with men.  As said by Chief

Justice Wolverton in First National Bank v. Leonard, 36 Oregon 390, 396,

after a review of the various statutes of the State upon the subject:



We may therefore say with perfect confidence that, with these three

sections upon the statute book, the wife can deal not only with her

separate property, acquired from whatever source, in the same manner as

her husband can with property belonging to him, but that she may make

contracts and incur liabilities, and the same may be enforced against

her, the same as if she were a femme sole.  There is now no residuum of

civil disability resting upon her which is not recognized as existing

against the husband.  The current runs steadily and strongly in the

direction of the emancipation of the wife, and the policy, as disclosed

by all recent legislation upon the subject in this State, is to place

her upon the same footing as if she were a femme sole not only with

respect to her separate property, but as it affects her right to make

binding contracts; and the most natural corollary to the situation is

that the remedies for the enforcement of liabilities incurred are made

coextensive and coequal with such enlarged conditions.



It thus appears that, putting to one side the elective franchise, in the

matter of personal and contractual rights, they stand on the same plane

as the other sex.  Their rights in these respects can no more be

infringed than the equal rights of their brothers.  We held in Lochner

v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, that [208 U.S. 419] a law providing that no

laborer shall be required or permitted to work in bakeries more than

sixty hours in a week or ten hours in a day was not, as to men, a

legitimate exercise of the police power of the State, but an

unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right and

liberty of the individual to contract in relation to his labor, and, as

such, was in conflict with, and void under, the Federal Constitution. 

That decision is invoked by plaintiff in error as decisive of the

question before us.  But this assumes that the difference between the

sexes does not justify a different rule respecting a restriction of the

hours of labor.



In patent cases, counsel are apt to open the argument with a discussion

of the state of the art.  It may not be amiss, in the present case,

before examining the constitutional question, to notice the course of

legislation, as well as expressions of opinion from other than judicial

sources.  In the brief filed by Mr. Louis D. Brandeis for the defendant

in error is a very copious collection of all these matters, an epitome

of which is found in the margin.* [208 U.S. 420]



While there have been but few decisions bearing directly upon the

question, the following sustain the constitutionality of such

legislation:  Commonwealth v. Hamilton Mfg. Co., 120 Massachusetts 383;

Wenham v. State, 65 Nebraska 394, 400, 406; State v. Buchanan, 29

Washington 602; Commonwealth v. Beatty, 15 Pa.Sup.Ct. 5, 17; against

them is the case of Ritchie v. People, 155 Illinois 98.



The legislation and opinions referred to in the margin may not be,

technically speaking, authorities, and in them is little or no

discussion of the constitutional question presented to us for

determination, yet they are significant of a widespread belief that

woman's physical structure, and the functions she performs in

consequence thereof, justify special legislation restricting or

qualifying the conditions under which she should be permitted to toil. 

Constitutional questions, it is true, are not settled by even a

consensus of present public opinion, for it is the peculiar value of a

written constitution that it places in unchanging form limitations upon

legislative action, and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular

government which otherwise would be lacking.  At the same time, when a

question of fact is debated and debatable, and the extent to [208 U.S.

421] which a special constitutional limitation goes is affected by the

truth in respect to that fact, a widespread and long-continued belief

concerning it is worthy of consideration.  We take judicial cognizance

of all matters of general knowledge.



It is undoubtedly true, as more than once declared by this Court, that

the general right to contract in relation to one's business is part of

the liberty of the individual, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to

the Federal Constitution; yet it is equally well settled that this

liberty is not absolute, and extending to all contracts, and that a

State may, without conflicting with the provisions of the Fourteenth

Amendment, restrict in many respects the individual's power of contract.

 Without stopping to discuss at length the extent to which a State may

act in this respect, we refer to the following cases in which the

question has been considered:  Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578;

Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45.



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

wellbeing of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in

order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race.



Still again, history discloses the fact that woman has always been

dependent upon man.  He established his control at the outset by

superior physical strength, and this control in various forms, with

diminishing intensity, has continued to the present.  As minors, though

not to the same extent, she has been looked upon in the courts as

needing especial care that her rights may be preserved.  Education was

long denied her, and while now the doors of the schoolroom are opened

and her opportunities for acquiring knowledge are great, yet, even with

that and the [208 U.S. 422] consequent increase of capacity for business

affairs, it is still true that, in the struggle for subsistence, she is

not an equal competitor with her brother.  Though limitations upon

personal and contractual rights may be removed by legislation, there is

that in her disposition and habits of life which will operate against a

full assertion of those rights.  She will still be where some

legislation to protect her seems necessary to secure a real equality of

right.  Doubtless there are individual exceptions, and there are many

respects in which she has an advantage over him; but, looking at it from

the viewpoint of the effort to maintain an independent position in life,

she is not upon an equality.  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.  It is impossible

to close one's eyes to the fact that she still looks to her brother, and

depends upon him.  Even though all restrictions on political, personal,

and contractual rights were taken away, and she stood, so far as

statutes are concerned, upon an absolutely equal plane with him, it

would still be true that she is so constituted that she will rest upon

and look to him for protection; that her physical structure and a proper

discharge of her maternal functions -- having in view not merely her own

health, but the wellbeing of the race -- justify legislation to protect

her from the greed, as well as the passion, of man.  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.  Many

words cannot make this plainer.  The two sexes differ in structure of

body, in the functions to be performed by each, in the amount of

physical strength, in the capacity for long-continued labor,

particularly when done standing, the influence of vigorous health upon

the future wellbeing of the race, the self-reliance which enables one to

assert full rights, and in the capacity to maintain the struggle for

subsistence.  This difference [208 U.S. 423] justifies a difference in

legislation, and upholds that which is designed to compensate for some

of the burdens which rest upon her.



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

political 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 v. New York, 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. Footnotes BREWER, J., lead

opinion (Footnotes)



* The following legislation of the states imposes restriction in some

form or another upon the hours of labor that may be required of women: 

Massachusetts:  1874, Rev.Laws 1902, chap. 106,  24; Rhode Island: 

1885, Acts and Resolves 1902, chap. 994, p. 73; Louisiana:  1886,

Rev.Laws 1904, vol. 1,  4, p. 989; Connecticut:  1887, Gen.Stat.Revision

1902,  4691; Maine:  1887, Rev.Stat. 1903, chap. 40,  48; New Hampshire:

  1887, Laws 1907, chap. 94, p. 95; Maryland:  1888, Pub.Gen.Laws 1903,

art. 100,  1; Virginia:  1890, Code 1904, title 51A, chap. 178A,  3657b;

Pennsylvania:  1897, Laws 1905, No. 226, p. 352; New York:  1899, Laws

1907, chap. 507,  77, subdiv. 3, p. 1078; Nebraska:  1899, Comp.Stat.

1905,  7955, p. 1986; Washington:  Stat. 1901, chap. 68,  1, p. 118;

Colorado:  Acts 1903, chap. 138,  3, p. 310; New Jersey:  1892,

Gen.Stat. 1895, p. 2350,  66. 67; Oklahoma; 1890, Rev.Stat. 1903, chap.

25, art. 58,  729; North Dakota:  1877, Rev.Code 1905,  9440; South

Dakota:  1877, Rev.Code (Penal Code  764), p. 1185; Wisconsin:  1897,

Code 1898,  1728; South Carolina:  Acts 1907, No. 233.



In foreign legislation, Mr. Brandeis calls attention to these statutes: 

Great Britain, 1844:  Law 1901, 1 Edw. VII. chap. 22.  France, 1848: 

Act Nov. 2, 1892, and March 30, 1900.  Switzerland, Canton of Glarus,

1848:  Federal Law 1877, art. 2,  1.  Austria, 1855; Acts 1897, art.

96a,  1-3.  Holland, 1889; art. 5,  1.  Italy, June 19, 1902, art. 7. 

Germany, Laws 1891.



Then follow extracts from over ninety reports of committees, bureaus of

statistics, commissioners of hygiene, inspectors of factories, both in

this country and in Europe, to the effect that long hours of labor are

dangerous for women, primarily because of their special physical

organization.  The matter is discussed in these reports in different

aspects, but all agree as to the danger.  It would, of course, take too

much space to give these reports in detail.  Following them are extracts

from similar reports discussing the general benefits of short hours from

an economic aspect of the question.  In many of these reports,

individual instances are given tending to support the general

conclusion.  Perhaps the general scope and character of all these

reports may be summed up in what an inspector for Hanover says:



The reasons for the reduction of the working day to ten hours -- (a) the

physical organization of women, (b) her maternal functions, (c) the

rearing and education of the children, (d) the maintenance of the home

-- are all so important and so far-reaching that the need for such

reduction need hardly be discussed.

