State v. Somerville

Citations

• 67 Wash. 638
• 122 P. 324
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 1224

Syllabus

<p>Constitutional Law — Police Power — Hours oe Services — Reasonableness — Evidence—Admissibility. Under Laws of 1911, p. 131, providing that no female shall be employed eight hours during any day in any mechanical or mercantile establishment, laundry, hotel, or restaurant, except in harvesting, packing, curing or canning perishable fruit, vegetables or fish, the unconstitutionality of the act as an arbitrary and unwarranted exercise of the police power cannot be shown by evidence that defendant’s factory was sanitary and healthful, the labor of female employees light and harmless, and that they could be employed for nine hours a day without endangering or impairing their health or physical condition; since the courts can look only to the law itself and scientific facts of which it can take judicial notice.</p> <p>Constitutional Law — Due Process — Risht to Contract — Female Labor — Eight-Hour Day. Laws of 1911, p. 131, providing that no female shall be employed more than eight hours during any day in any mechanical or mercantile establishment, laundry, hotel, or restaurant, except in harvesting, packing, curing or canning perishable fruit, vegetables or fish, is not unconstitutional as depriving employers and employees in the enumerated callings of their right-to contract without due process of law; all doubts being resolved, in favor of the validity of the law.</p> <p>Same — Class Legislation — Equal Protection oe the Laws. Such act does not violate the constitutional prohibitions against class legislation or deprivation of equal protection of the laws by reason of the exceptions enumerated in the proviso; the classification being within the discretion of the legislature and founded on a reasonable basis.</p>