after, make a succinct report to the Governor and Legislature of its work and the proceedings under this Act during the preceding two years.

Section 21. There is hereby appropriated out of the general fund of the State of Oregon the sum of thirty-five hundred ($3,500.00) dollars per annum, or so much thereof as may be necessary per annum, to carry into effect the provisions of this Act and to pay the expenses and expenditures authorized by or incurred under this Act.

Filed in the office of Secretary of State, February 17, 1913.

Extracts from the Decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon, in the Case of Stettler vs. O'Hara,

et al, 69 Ore. 519; 139 Pac. 743

EAKIN, J. The purpose of this suit is to have determined judicially whether either the fourteenth amendment of the Federal Constitution, or Section 20, Article I, of the Oregon Constitution is an inhibition against the regulation by the legislature of the hours of labor during which women may be employed in any mechanical or manufacturing establishment, mercantile occupation, or other employment requiring continuous physical labor; or against the establishment of a minimum wage to be paid therefor. Some features of these questions are practically new in the courts of this country. There have been some utterances by the courts of last resort to the effect that it is such an inhibition. Some of these cases relate exclusively to the limitation of the hours of employment, others to the wages to be paid on contracts with the state or municipality; but the cases so holding are based largely on the fact that such regulation deprives the individual of liberty and property without due process of law, namely, that it is not within the police power of the state and violates the liberty of contract. The first case holding such a statute unconstitutional is Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, Sup. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937, annotated in 3 Ann. Cas. 1133. A similar case is Richie v. People, 155 Ill. 98, 40 N. E. 454, 29 L. R. A. 79, 46 Am. St. Rep. 315. In the former case, in the appellate division of the state court two of five judges were in favor of upholding the law; in the supreme court of the state three of the seven judges were so minded; and in the United States court four of the nine judges favored such a disposition of the case. The opinions in those decisions are based upon different theories, showing that judicial opinion has not reached any settled or stable basis upon which to rest.

It has only been during the last few years that the matter of legislation upon the question of the limitation of hours of labor has been agitated in legislative bodies or in the courts. The decisions of the courts have been based upon first impression and may be liable to fluctuation from one extreme to the other before the extent of the power of legislation on these questions is finally settled. The entry of woman into the realm of many of the employments formerly filled by man, in which she attempts to compete with him, is a recent innovation; and it has created a condition which the legislatures have deemed it their duty to investigate and to some extent govern. It is conceded by all students of the subject, and they are many and their writings extensive, that woman's physical structure and her position in the economy of the race renders her incapable of competing with man either in strength or endurance. This is well emphasized by Justice Brewer in Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412, 28 Sup. Ct. 324, 52 L. Ed. 13 Ann. Cas. 957, an appeal from Oregon questioning the constitutionality of the law fixing the maximum hours of labor for woman, where he says:

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 well-being 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 con-
tinued 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 pre-
served. *
* 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. *
* That her
physical structure and a proper discharge of her
maternal functions-having in view not merely her
own health, but the well-being 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.
This difference justifies a differ-
ence in legislation and upholds that which is designed
to compensate for some of the burdens which rest
upon her.

* * *

The conditions mentioned in the above quotation lie at the foundation of all legislation attempted for the amelioration of woman's condition in her struggle for subsistence. In many states as well as in foreign countries special study and investigation have been given to this question as to the effect of long hours of labor and inadequate wages upon the health, morals, and welfare of woman, with a view to remedy the evil results as far as possible. There seems to be a very strong and growing sentiment throughout the land, and a demand that something must be done by law to counteract the evil effects of these conditions.

There is only one federal inhibition urged against this statute, namely:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction an equal protection of the law.-Fourteenth Amendment.

It may probably be conceded that the public welfare statute in question here violates this clause as abridging privileges of citizens if it cannot be justified as a police measure; and we will assume, without entering into a discussion of that question or citation of authorities, that provisions enacted by the state under its police power that have for their purpose the protection or betterment of the public health, morals, peace, and welfare, and reasonably tend to that end, are within the power of the state notwithstanding that they may apparently conflict with the fourteenth amendment of the Federal Constitution.

So that the first and principal question for decision is whether the provisions of the act before us are within the police power of the state. Professor Tucker, in 8 Cyc. 863, says:

Police power is the name given to the inherent sovereignty which it is the right and duty of the government or its agents to exercise whenever public policy, in a broad sense, demands, for the benefit of society at large, regulations to guard its morals, safety, health, order, or to insure in any respect such economic conditions as an advancing civilization of a highly complex character requires.

This is a comprehensive definition, and we will accept it without further detailed analysis or citation of authority. As will appear from the cases cited above we can accept as