Muller v Oregon, History_Other, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - History Other

Muller v Oregon

Muller v Oregon As the economic changes swept through America with the Industrial Revolution, so did society and the traditional roles of men and women. These changes hit the lower class women particularly hard because not only did they have to work long hours at a factory; they also had to maintain the household as traditions required of women. With all of these responsibilities that women now had, perhaps the strain hit women because rarely had they been required to do so much. Oregon saw this and created a law in 1903 that stated that women were only allowed to work a maximum of ten hours a day. Similar laws had been passed in other states so it made some people wonder, did the Oregon law violate the women’s freedom of contract implicit in the liberty protected by due process? In other states, people had broken these laws or brought them before the court claiming that the restraint on the number of hours was unconstitutional and the fourteenth amendment was used against the law. Although similar laws had been defeated by the Supreme Court’s ruling before Muller v. Oregon, that does not mean that they were previously unconstitutional and did not violate the fourteenth amendment for women’s freedom. The time of the Industrial Revolution allowed little room for smaller companies to make a name because the big businesses had monopolies over certain areas of industry. Therefore, for a person to make a name for himself, he had to do so with ambition, money, reputation, and inner strength. By reason of an owner not possessing these qualities, then by the rigors of business owning he would be mentally crushed by the amount of work that falls upon the owner’s shoulders. In addition, even though labor came cheaply to the wealthy owners, labor was still an issue because of the Unions that were forming to protect the rights of workers. Business owners in Oregon did not have to worry about overworking their employees because if they grew sick and unable to work then there would be another to take his or her place. However, when the law was passed, that stated that women who worked in factories, work no more than ten hours a day; the owners had to be more careful of how many hours they demanded of their female employees lest they create a lawsuit. Curt Muller, an owner of Great Laundry, on September 4, 1905, required one Mrs. E. Gotcher to work more than ten hours in one day. Joe Haselbock who was a superintendent at Great Laundry reported this offense. There was information filed on September 18 and with section 3 of the stature violated, he was to pay a fine of no less than ten dollars and no greater than twenty-five dollars. This was appealed until it reached the Supreme Court for Muller’s reasoning that the law passed by the state of Oregon was unconstitutional, therefore he should not have to pay the fine. Written in his brief, he states: “(1) Because the stature 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. (2) Because the stature does bit apply equally to all persons similarly situated, and is class legislation. (3) The stature is not a valid exercise of the police power. The kinds of work proscribed 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 but the act and the public health, safety or welfare.” (Touro) The odds of this statement deriving from just Muller is low because a few years before this incident, there was another case in New York about the limiting of hours per day. This case was Lochner v. New York (1905) and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the ten-hour work day for bakery workers was unconstitutional because the hours that were spent working bore no ill-bearing on the employee’s health. Although Muller v. Oregon started the same year, with the innovation and popularity of newspapers and the increased ability in communications, it is likely that information about the Lochner v. New York had spread to Oregon. This is the most likely reason why Muller decided to fight the fine because it had already been done in New York; the lawyers there were able to prove that it did violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Louis L. Brandeis was a Boston attorney who had already made a name for himself in the New England area for defending the public interest. By request of Josephine Goldmark and Florentine Kelley of the Consumers’ League, Brandeis took this case to show how the Oregon law related to public health and safety. The Consumers’ League was an extremely effective league for women’s reform organization for its time. His report contained the traditional precedents for the court, which were two pages long. Brandeis also gave the court non legal evidence that was a hundred-thirteen page report that told the court how the long hours at factories affected women economically, sociologically, and physically. The Consumers’ League helped to supply Brandeis with the sources and materials that he needed to win Muller v. Oregon. Brandeis did not think women to be inferior nor subservient to men, however his approach to dealing with the case had to include such notions and the age-old belief that men were better because of the time period that this case took place in. The time period that this case was in is called the Progressive Era (1890-1920) which dealt with the industrial revolution, political corruption, and the many reform movements that gained more economic and social power in every passing year. These people believed in faith in progress, rejected Social Darwinism and Laissez-fair, and wanted a pro-active government, a breaking up of trusts, and the application of religious and moral values with laws. The leaders of these reform movements were very liberal and wanted a change from what America had become, a few wealthy people running the nation while the vast majority of people, immigrants, were poverty stricken. There were many people who were a part of these reform movements and some people were also a part of the upper class in American society in the early 1900’s. Not every person believed everything that was said by the reformers, but the points that the reformers made must have made some of the upper class wonder about American society in that day. Some people must have wondered about the integrity and fairness that was being bestowed upon the labor force that kept the Industrial Revolution going. In the response to Brandeis’s one-hundred thirteen page report on how working long factory hours affected the women, “Justice Brewer’s opinion not only acknowledged the brief, a highly unusual step, but conceded that women were in fact different from men, and thus needed this type of factory protection.” (Backgrounder) This points out the judge’s recognition of Brandeis’s report and his approach to the case of relating the reasoning behind the law to the health of the women. The fact that the health of the bearers of the next generation should be in the interest of the public connected with some of the Oregon’s supporters. If the women were supposed to work and maintain the household as their predecessors had, how were they going to find that many hours in the twenty-four hour day? In past courses, including Lochner v. New York, the business owners had gotten what they wanted and with little trouble because the plaintiffs tended to have evidence that pointed to the law being unconstitutional. Therefore, “The passage of so much state social legislation sent conservatives scurrying to the Supreme Court for redress. Such persons believed that no government had the power to deprive either workers or employers of the right to negotiate any kind of labor contract they wished.” (Garraty, 650) These people who believed that the government could not interfere only became more certain of themselves when cases emerged and then were decided in favor of the owners. The business owners became so certain of themselves because of the United States government business policy of laissez-fair. That was the reasoning of why Muller v. Oregon ended at the Supreme Court and by Brandeis’s report on why women were different than men and needed rules, Oregon was able to win the lawsuit. “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 arranged as to permit the employment of females at any time so that they shall work no more than ten hours during the twenty-four hours of any one day.” (Brewer) The regulations behind the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution are to protect one’s business and sales of labor however is subject to proper restraints under the state. By the evidence thus shown, although federal laws have to be obeyed throughout the United States of America, there are certain areas of law making that are created and regulated at the state level. Brandeis’s report on women being different than men showed the Supreme Court a different side of women and their abilities. Even though this lawsuit was to declare the Oregon Stature unconstitutional, it was the first to have laws set on the number of hours allowed to work in a day and showing other states the proper reasoning to make sure that it was not called unconstitutional. “The regulation of her hours of labor falls within the police power of the State, and a stature directed exclusively to such regulation does not conflict with the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Touro) Bibliography:

Word Count: 1705