has fully and fairly investigated and fixed what it believes to be reasonable rates, the party affected thereby has not been deprived of due process of law. San Diego Land & Town Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 739, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 804, 43 L. Ed. 1154; Spring Valley Water Works v. San Francisco, 82 Cal. 286, 22 Pac. 910, 1046; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Garrett, supra. Many other cases are cited in the briefs of defendants fully supporting their contention. Due process

of law merely requires such tribunals as are proper to deal with the subject in hand. Reasonable notice and a fair opportunity to be heard before some tribunal before it decides the issues are the essentials of due process of law. It is sufficient for the protection of his constitutinoal rights if he has notice and is given an opportunity at some state of the proceeding to be heard. Towns v. Klamath County, 33 Or. 225, 63 Pac. 604.

We think we should be bound by the judgment of the legislature that there is a necessity for this act, that it is within the police power of the state to provide for the protection of the health, morals and welfare of women and children, and that the law should be upheld as constitutional.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed. McBride, C. J., not sitting.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon, in the Case of Simpson vs. O'Hara, et al, 70 Ore.

261; 141 Pac. 158

MCBRIDE, C. J. This suit is similar in substance and is brought for the same purpose as the case of Stettler v. O'Hara, 139 Pac. 743, in which Mr. Justice Eakin, speaking for the court held the act in question to be a valid exercise of the police power, and not in conflict with either the Constitution of the United States or of this State. It is suggested, however, on this appeal that in the case of Stettler v. O'Hara, before cited, this court did not pass upon the contention raised in the pleadings and upon the argument, that the minimum wage act is inimical to that portion of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides: "No state shall make or enact any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." While this particular clause of the amendment is not especially discussed, it was certainly intended by that opinion to express the conviction of this court that the act in question violated no precept of the Fourteenth Amendment, which it will be noted does not attempt to define the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities therein protected. Having determined in preceding case that the police power of the State legitimately extended to the right to prevent the employment of women and children for unreasonably long hours or at unreasonably small wages, and that the State had a right to use the machinery of a Commission to determine to the extent stated in the opinion the length of time and at what wages such persons might be employed, it would seem to follow as a natural corrolary that the right to labor for such hours and at such wages as would reasonably seem to be detrimental to the health or welfare of the community is not a privilege or immunity of any citizen. The guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment are not new in American his

tory; they existed substantially in the Constitution of many of the states, and, excepting as to the status of the negro, were well-nigh universal in the United States. Primarily, for the better protection of a newly-enfranchised race, it was thought expedient to make the general government a coguarantor with the states of these fundamental privileges of freemen. But that the effect of this would be to limit the power of the states to enact reasonable laws for the protection of their women and children again the consequences of labor for a lenbth of time tending to impair health or at a wage barely sufficient to sustain life never entered the imagination of the statesmen who framed it. Local self government lies at the very foundation of freedom and the private and local affairs of a community are sacred from the interference of the central power unless oppressive and unreasonable encroachment on the liberties of the citizen renders such interference imperatively necessary, and such is not the case here.

The decree of the circuit court is affairmed.

Text of Oregon Ten Hour Law for Women

Hours of Employment for Women, L. O. L. 5037

No female shall be employed in any manufacturing, mechanical, or mercantile establishment, laundry, hotel, or restaurant, or telegraph or telephone establishment or office, or by any express or transportation company in this State more than ten hours during any one day or more than sixty hours in one week. The hours of work may be so arranged as to permit the employment of females at any time so that they shall not work more than ten hours during the twenty-four hours of one day or sixty hours during any one week.(Laws 1907, Chap. 200, p. 360, Sec. 1; Laws 1909, Chap. 138, p. 205.)

Employers to Furnish Seats, L. O. L. 5038

Every employer in any manufacturing, mechanical, or mercantile establishment, laundry, hotel or restaurant, or other establishment employing any female, shall provide suitable seats for all female employes, and shall permit them to use such seats when they are not engaged in the active duties of their employment.-(Laws 1907, Chap. 200, p. 360, Sec. 2.)

Penalty for Violations by Employers, L. O. L. 5039

Any employer who shall require any female to work in any of the places mentioned in Section 5037 more than the number of hours provided for in this Act during any day of twenty-four hours, or who shall fail, neglect or refuse to so arrange the work of females in his employ so that they shall not work more than the number of hours provided for in this Act during any day of twenty-four hours, or who shall fail, neglect or refuse to provide suitable seats, as provided in Section 5038, or who shall permit or suffer any overseer, superintendent, or other agent of any such employer to violate any of the provisions of this Act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined for each offense not less than $25.00 nor more than $100.00.(Laws 1907, Chap. 200, p. 360, Sec. 3.)