Muller vs. 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 …show more content…
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
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html ).
8. Reason: We can understand the policy rational of the Court in making this decision. Being that there was no explicit law on the books, the Court felt that the best interest of society would call for an establishment of such a rule to allow the case to be heard. As such it is possible for a reasonable person
Congress and Abraham Lincoln were able to pass the 13th Amendment, but shortly after the end of the war Abraham Lincoln was shot while attending a play at a theater. After Abraham Lincoln passed away Congress had a more difficult time under Andrew Johnson who tried to veto a Republican bill. Congress retaliated by voting to impeach the Andrew Johnson. Afterward Congress was able to pass the 14th and 15th Amendments. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments changed the United States by increasing the federal government’s power over the States and this had an affect across society.
Also, there were no safety rules which caused multiple accidents resulting in injuries. One of the mill worker Amelia wrote – “most of the women work on average 13 hours a day. It was worse than the poor peasant of Ireland or the Russian serf who labors from sun to sun” (“Lowell Mills...”, n. d.). Despite this hard labor, most of them were receiving less pay as compared to men. Hence, when in 1834, when the owners decided to cut their wages further, the mill girls had enough. Most of them organized and went on strike. Even though the strike was unsuccessful, they were successful in establishing a first women union in the US. The union requested safer workplace and a shorter workday. With their persistent efforts, the government of Massachusetts passed a law in 1874 which limited the workday to 10 hours for women and
The movement was one example where the working class converged to persuade the government to lessen their work hours. Although the 1833 Factory Act was a disappointment for the workers since it did not grant a ten-hour day, it did reduce the working hours for children. It also created allowed for the passing of the 1847 Ten Hours Act, which made it illegal to work more than ten hours a day. The combined effort of the working class became a relentless burden on the government as it became hard to ignore the demands of the people and they felt obliged to pass limited form to avoid further more violent
It was not until after the Civil War that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were enacted and began protecting individuals against the states. The Fourteenth Amendment has been the principal means by which this protection has been accomplished. It reads, in part, “No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Supreme Court had interpreted this guarantee of liberty to embrace the fundamental liberties in the Bill of Rights, meaning that the state governments must observe and protect them to the same extent as the federal government this is also known called incorporation. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are said to be incorporated against the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There has been an ongoing debate on the Supreme Court about the extent of incorporation, and whether the entire Bill of Rights, or only some of it’s guarantees, should be incorporated against the states.
Carries lawyer then made the move to take it to the U.S Supreme Court which he claimed that Carrie Bucks due process law
For example; when Lyddie worked in the Tavern, she remembered that, “At the inn, I worked sometimes fifteen-sixteen hours a day and they paid my mother fifty cent a week, if they remembered” (93). This shows the long hours Lyddie had to work and under pay her. It even states that sometimes, she wasn’t get paid. In addition; the long hours also has a huge impact on the workers’ health Paterson shows this through Betsy, who said, “When I started in the spinning room I could do a thirteen hour a day and to spare. However, in those days I had a hundred thirty spindles to tend. Now, I have twice that many at a speed that would make the devil curse. I am worn out”(91). The girls would get tired and their health was impacted by the amount of work. The petition can help workers to get more pay and to work less hours in a
In the trial, Louis D. Brandeis defended the law successfully getting a vote of 9-0 that upheld the Oregon law, which made it to where women could not work for more than 10 hours a day. Brandeis showed the link between long work hours and women's health and explained that Oregon's law is a valid use of power. So his argument appealed to the court and influenced the final decision. In the end, a 9-0 vote upheld the Oregon law and successfully convicted Muller.
The Mill Girls quickly got together and formed their first strike in order to get their normal wages back. Sadly their efforts failed as their bosses denied their regular wages back. On 1836 the Mill Girls broke out in another strike for the same reason as before; wage cuts. Their second attempt for their wages were denied. 1845, The petition for 10 hour work day campaign was planned out. The women organized and worked together to prepare after their first two failures, their petition was passed. The petition was passed in the year 1847 in New Hampshire the first state to have 10 Hour Work Day campaign, but never actually went into
The 14th Amendment states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United State; 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. (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1).
Factories did not just hire the man of the family, it hired the whole family. Children worked in the factories as young as the age of seven which is when” Sam Patch first started at Samuel Slaters White Mill (Johnson p 30).” Since the children were small they could get under the machinery and keep things clear so the machines would continue to run. Some factories primarily hired young women to operate their facility. As stated in Morals of Manufactures (1837), young women would leave their families to live in boarding houses owned by the factories (Martineau). This concept was to protect the women from the evils of the world. They were required to work fourteen hours a day with thirty minutes for eating twice a day. If that was not bad enough, many slept five people to a room. Lack of space and privacy prevented them from wondering about life outside the factory. Harriet Martineau was very concerned with the life these women were being forced to live and the freedoms they were not allowed to have such as participating in dances. She felt they were no better off than slaves based on their living and working conditions. If that was not enough, some of the factory owners tried to extend the work day while governing meal times. This created family conflict because not all factories were on the same schedule.
The first document worth considering is the “1846-47 Factory Legislation Debates.” It contains several different viewpoints regarding labor which are defended by different supporters as the debate of the proposed 10 Hours Bill which took place in the House of Commons. The debate begins with John Fielden’s claim that women and children are working far too many hours a week. It is important to consider that Fielden is among the top cotton producers in England, so his position for more regulation is surprising. More regulation would surely mean fewer profits, but Fielden considers the risks to workers so immense that it is worth the cost. He goes on to propose a new twelve-hour workday that includes two hours set aside for meals (Fielden,
The dissolution of this old order meant that workers could be hired and fired at will and had to sell their labour for whatever the going rate was, and that rate was determined by their competition with each other to work cheaply enough to gain them an advantage in the job market. Traditional rules and protections went by the board in the new factories, which often ran for twenty-four hours a day (two twelve-hour shifts), seven days a week under the most inhumane conditions. Women and children were absorbed into the work force as well, often preferred because they cost much less than men. Living standards and educational levels actually declined in many areas. Many of the industries severely polluted their environments, their machinery maimed and killed many workers, and food in the new factory towns was often of poor quality and in short