Thomas A. Smith.
Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Statistics and Information of Maryland. 1903. Thomas A. Smith, Chief. (Volume 1904) online
. (page 8 of 30)
Online Library → Thomas A. Smith → Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Statistics and Information of Maryland. 1903. Thomas A. Smith, Chief. (Volume 1904) → online text (page 8 of 30)
Font size
No... I
No
No... Gas
No
O.K...
O.K...
O.K...
8;l.
â–
6
O.K.
— -
—
TABLE 5.— District E.
=
. —
~^=:S
P
â– I
on"
J,:
ITST
ii'^J,
j;
&n
5-
^
Articles Made
or I'artially
Made.
5
1""
M
1 .
.S
.6W
of Persons
Employed.
Employed
Under 16
Years of
Age.
Employed Under 16
12 Years ofi Who Could
Age or Not Read
tftder. I or Write.
Employed
Not of
Family.
2-5S
1^
1
IS
si
si
II
13
1
^
1
1
1°
p
Street and Number.
p
1
6
in tlic Workroom.
E^
Il
j
1
1
1
1
1 1
S S
1
s
1
i
.1 .
3-
HB°'o
IJ
^1
Is
11
1
F
Factory
Factory
Oct. 2.
Oct. 2.
200 W. Baltimore
Ru
sia....
Pants
Front
Front
9
Fourth
5 tables, 13 chairs, 2 racks ....
5SX17.-CI2
'l-'^H
r.
1
7
60
Clean....
Clean ....
Yes. . .
Yes. . .
No...
No...
s
No...
No...
Gas..
Gas. .
O.K...
0. K. . .
O.K.
1
Factory
200 W. Baltimore
Kii
Third
18,648
810
8
3ct. 2.
200 W. Baltimore
Rn
60
Clean....
Yes...
Yes..
200 W. Baltimore
Clean....
Yes...
No...
No...
;as..
O.K
200 W. Baltimore
r,as..
O.K.
Km
Clean....
Yes...
No...
No...
^as..
0. C...
0. K.
56i W. Lexington
Kn
Coats
Clean....
Yes...
No...
No...
Coal.
O.K...
O.K.
E
i
Stop
420 W. Lexington
Third
Clean....
Yes...
Yes..
No...
Coal.
O.K
Sliop
Factory
1(11
sia....
Coats
Yes...
No...
No...
Coal.
O.K...
O.K
Oct. 5.
-I'.ilo
794
O.K
15-21 W. Fayette
many ...
Skirts.*
Front
Front
Fifth
36 machines
10 tables, 36 chairs
1 2SX3S1.2 j
7
5.
7
50
Clean....
Yes...
Yes..
15
Yes..
Gas..
O.K...
O.K.
E
E
E
E
Factory
Shop
shSE ;::;;;;:
Shop
Shop
Oct. 2.
Oct. 5 .
Oct. 5.
Oct. 5.
Oct. 5.
Oct. 5.
IS-21 W. Fayette
M.I
ryiand .
Coats and Pants.
Front .
Fronl
Third
17 machines
2S
30
Clean....
Yes...
Yes . .
Yes..
r,a.
O.K...
O.K.
Coats
498
No...
Gas.
O.K...
O.K.
17 N. Eutaw
17 N. Eutaw
17 N. Eutaw
103 Park avenue
103 Park avenue
103 Park avenue
Coats
Front
Back
Third
chairs .;
4
Clean....
Yes...
No...
No...
Gas..
0. K. . .
O.K
Coats
Dack
Third
No...
Gas..
O.K...
O.K.
Front
s
Third
lie
Clean....
Yes. . .
Yes..
No...
Gas..
O.K...
O.K
Back. . . .
8
Third
No...
Gas..
O.K...
O.K
Oct. I:
Oct. 5.
ryland .
Front
Tliird
4 machines
Clean ... .
Yes. . .
No...
Yes..
Gas..
O.K...
O.K
Back
Third
No...
Yes..
Gas..
O.K...
0. K
Ua
"
Third
I machine.
3 tables, 2 chairs
19X14X 9
I9S
â–
*
'
"
'
'
60
Clean....
Yes...
No...
Yes . .
Gas..
O.K...
O.K.
STATISTICS AND INFORMATION. 77
DETAIL TABLES.
In the tables that follow it will be found that the columns
headed "Number of Rooms in the House," "Number of
Families in the House," "Number of Persons in Families in
the House," and "Number of Water-Closets to Building,"
have duplication of figures; that is, the number to a house is
repeated for each floor or room examined and reported on.
Thus, No. 112 Albemarle street has three factories, all on
second floor, but there are only four families in the whole
house, with twelve persons comprising these four families;
but owing to the repetition of figures in the columns referred
to, some one might think there were four families on each
floor:
THE TEST GASES IN COURT OF APPEALS
The cases of Louis Hyman and Isaac Plumack having been
consolidated and appealed to the Court of Appeals of the State,
the case was put on the docket as No. lo, and briefs were filed
by Attorney-General Wm. Shepard Bryan for the State, and
by Hon. Jacob Moses assisting, representing the labor organiza-
tions, while Messrs. Foutz & Norris and Mr. Myer Rosenbush
filed briefs for the appellee. The briefs of the attorneys on
both sides follow:
BRIEF FOR THE STATE, BY ATTORNEY GENERAL
WM. SHEPARD BRYAN, Jr.
The controlling question in this case is the constitutional validity of
Chapter loi of the Acts of 1902, prohibiting the use of rooms and apart-
ments in tenement or dwelling houses for the manufacture of clothing
and other articles by any persons except the immediate members of the
families living there, which immediate members of such families are
limited to a husband and his wife, and their children or the children of
either. The Act further prohibits the use of any such apartment for
such purpose of manufacture by families living therein "until a permit
shall have first been obtained from the Chief of the Bureau of Indus-
trial Statistics, stating the maximum number of persons allowed to
be employed therein." Such permit is only to be granted after an
inspection of the premises, and is liable to be revoked by the Chief of
the Bureau of Industrial Statistics "at any time the health of the com-
munity or of those employed or living therein may require it."
Permits are to be annually applied for ; are required to be kept posted
conspicuously in one of the rooms to which they relate. Every person,
firm or corporation contracting for. the manufacture of any of the
mentioned articles, or giving out the incomplete material from which
any of them may be made, or employing persons in any tenement or
dwelling house or other building to make wholly, or to partly finish
the mentioned articles "shall keep a written register of the names of
all persons to whom such work is given to be made or with whom they
may have contracted to do the same." Such register shall be furnished
on demand of the Chief of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or one of
his deputies.
8o REPORT OF THE BUREAU OE
Authority is also given to the Chief of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
and to certain of his assistants to enter any room in any tenement or
dwelling-house, workshop, manufacturing establishment, mill, factory
or place where any goods are manufactured, for the purpose of inspec-
tion. Access and information in regard to such places is required to
be furnished by the persons, firms, or corporations owning or con-
trolling or managing such places to the Chief of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, or his deputies, "at any and all reasonable times while work
is being carried on."
This Statute was declared invalid by the late Judge Ritchie in the
Criminal Court of Baltimore, in the case of Tlic State vs. Morris Legum,
on December 17, 1902, and a learned and careful opinion was filed by
that able judge in which the objections to the validity of the law are
stated with force and clearness.
Argument.
It is respectfully maintained that the Act of 1902, above referred to,
was well within the power of the Legislature, and that it does not con-
flict v>^ith any clause of either the State or the Federal Constitution.
"'This police power of the State,' says another eminent judge, 'ex-
tends to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort and quiet of
all persons, and the protection of property within the State, according
to the maxim, Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, which being of uni-
versal application, it must, of course, be within the range of legislative
action to define the mode and manner in which every one may so use
his own as not to injure others.' And again: By this 'general police
power of the State, persons and property are subjected to all kinds of
restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health
and prosperity of the State; of the perfect right in the Legislature, to
do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general prin-
ciples, ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned.'
"And neither the power itself, nor the discretion to exercise it, as
need may require, can be bargained away by the State."
Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, (6th Ed.) 706.
Thorpe vs. Rutland & B. R. R., 27 Vermont, 140, 149.
"Neither the amendment — broad and comprehensive as it is — nor any
other amendment, was designed to interfere with the power of the
State, sometimes termed its police power, to prescribe regulations to
promote the health, peace, morals, education and good order of the
people, and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the State,
develop its resources and add to its wealth and prosperity."
Judge Field in Barbier Case, 113, U. S. 31.
STATISTICS AND INP'ORMATION. ' 8l
"What is termed the police power has been the subject of a good
deal of consideration by both the Federal and State Courts, and all
agree that it is a difficult matter to define the limits within which it is
to be exercised. Every well organized government has the inherent
right to protect the health and provide for the safety and welfare of its
people. It has not only the right, but it is a duty and obligation which
the sovereign power owes to the public, and as no one can foresee the
emergency or necessity which may call for its exercise, it is not an
easy matter to prescribe the precise limits within which it may be
exercised. It may be said to rest upon the maxim, 'salus populi suprema
lex' and the constitutional guarantees for the security of private rights
relied on by the appellant have never been understood as interfering
with the power of the State to pass such laws as may be necessary to
protect the health and provide for the safety and good order of society.
'Property of every kind,' says Mr. Justice Story^ 'is held subject to
those general regulations which are necessary for the common good
and general welfare. And the Legislature has the power to define
the mode and manner in which every one may use his property.' 2 Vol.
Story Const."
Deems vs. Baltimore, 80 Md. 173.
So the ChiiEF Justice in deciding the recent case of State vs. Broad-
belt, 89 Md. 585, quoted with approval Chief Justice Shaw's famous
judgment in Com. vs. Alger, 7 Cush. 84, as follows:
"Whilst it is undoubtedly true that the police power cannot be put
forward as an excuse- for oppressive and unjust legislation, it may,
most certainly, be resorted to for the purpose of preserving the public
health, safety or morals, or the abatement of public nuisances ; and a
large discretion 'is necessarily vested in the Legislature to determine,
not only what the interests of the public require, but what measures
are necessary for the protection of such interests.' Lawton vs. Steele,
152 U. S. 133. As observed by Chief Justice Shaw, in Commonwealth
vs. Alger, 7 Cush. 84: 'Every holder of property, however absolute
and unqualified may be his title, holds it under the implied liability
that his use of it may be so regulated that it shall not be injurious to
the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right to the enjoyment
of their property, nor injurious to the rights of the community. * * *
Rights of property, like all other social and conventional rights, are sub-
ject to such reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as will prevent
them from being injurious, and to such reasonable restraints and regu-
lations established by law, as the Legislature, under the governing
and controlling power vested in them by the Constitution, may think
necessary and expedient.' 'This power, legitimately exercised, can
neither be limited by contract nor bartered away by legislation.' Holden
vs. Hardy, supra."
$2 REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF
It is to be borne in mind that this police power — this power to
legislate for the public health and public morals and public safety and
public convenience, is confided to the discretion of the legislative
branch of the State Government.
No matter whether the action that co-ordinate branch of the govern-
ment was, in the opinion of the Courts, just or unjust, wise or foolish,
if the Courts can see that it had, "a real and substantial relation" to
any one of the heads of the police power, they are not authorized to
interfere, and to override and nullify the legislative will.
Lake Roland R. R. vs. Baltimore, yy Md. 380, 381.
Powell vs. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 684.
Mugler vs. Kansas, 123 U. S. 661, 662, 663.
Spriggs vs. Garrett Park, 89 Md. 406, 411.
Stevens vs. State, 89 Md. 674.
State vs. Broadbelt, 89 Md. 577.
State vs. Knowles, 90 Md. 646.
Of course every intendment is made by the Courts in favor of the
constitutionality of a Statute. The Court, unless the contrary is mani-
fest, will presume that the Legislature acted within its constitutional
limitations.
R. R. vs. Matthews, 174, U. S. 96.
Mugler vs. Kansas, 123 U. S. 661.
Powell vs. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 684.
Co. Com. vs. Meekins, 50 Md. 39, 40.
Baltimore vs. State, 15 Md. 453.
In re Ten Hour Law, 61 L. R. A. 614.
Cooley on Constitul. Limit., 216.
Indeed, if one construction, of which a Statute is susceptible, would
make it valid, and another equally plausible construction would make
the Statute unconstitutional, the validating construction will be adopted
by the Courts; for it will not be presumed that the Legislature in-
tended to pass a void or unconstitutional Statute.
Temmick vs. Owings, 70 Md. 251.
U. S. vs. Coombs, 12 Peters, 76.
Hooper /s California, 155 U. S. 657.
Broughton vs. Pensacola, 93 U. S. 269.
Gordon vs. M. & C. C, 5 Gill, 241.
As illustrating exertions of the police power by the Legislature,
which have been held by the Courts as not infringing any constitutional
prohibitions, the following adjudications are cited:
A Statute of the State of Utah limiting hours of labor in mines to
8 hours a day was valid.
Holden vs. Hardy, 165 U. S. 368.
STATISTICS AND INFORMATION. 83
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held valid a Statute limiting
the hours of labor of conductors, gripmen and motormen on street
railway cars to 10 hourg a day.
In re Ten Hour Law, 61 L. R. A. 612.
A Statute requiring immediate payment of wages of discharged
employes is valid.
R. R. vs. Paul, 173 U. S. 404.
A Statute invalidating a sale of a stock of goods in bulk, without
ascertaining the seller's creditors, is valid.
McDaniels vs. Connelly, 60 L. R. A. 947.
An Act limiting the hours of labor of women is valid.
Wenham vs. Nebraska, 58 L. R. A. 825.
Forbidding a barber shop to remain open on Sunday, while hotels,
baths, livery stables, etc., do so, is not denying to barbers the equal
protection of the laws.
Utah vs. Sopher, 60 L. R. A. 468.
V
The State can discriminate between the restrictions placed upon
electric cars and upon other vehicles using the public streets.
Detroit Railway vs. Osborne, 189 U. S. 383.
A Statute requiring workmen to be paid in cash or requiring the
redemption of store orders in cash is a valid exercise of the police power.
Knoxville Co. vs. Harbison, 183 U. S. 13, 21.
Harbison vs. Knoxville Co., 103 Tenn. 421.
A special tax on the business of hiring persons to go to work beyond
the limits of the State is valid.
Williams vs. Fears, 179 U. S. 270.
A law providing for the inspection of coal mines where more than
five men are employed is not unconstitutional, nor does the fact, that,
while at least four inspections are required, there- is a discretion lodged
in the inspectors to inspect more frequently, if t" jy see fit, affect the
validity of the Act.
St. Louis Con. Coal Co. vs. Illinois, 179 U. S. 203.
It is within the province of the State to entirely prohibit the sale of
cigarettes after they have been taken from the original packages, where
there is no discrimination against those imported from other States,
and there is no reason to doubt the Act in question is intended for the
protection of the public health.
Austin vs. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343.
84 REPORT OF THE BUREAU OE
In Missouri vs. Lay ton, 62 L. R. A. 163, it was held that the statutory-
prohibition of the manufacture or sale of baking powder containing
alum is not unconstitutional, in view of the dispute as to the fact of
its wholesomeness, which prevents the Court from taking judicial notice
that it is wholesome and innocuous.
See also the famous oleomargarine case of —
Powell vs. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678.
A rule of the Board of Education requiring the pupils to go directly-
home when dismissed from school was upheld in Michigan (Jones vs.
Cody, 62 L. R. A. 160) under statutory authority to pass rules relative
to anything whatever that may advance the interests of education, the
good government and prosperity of the free schools and the welfare of
the public concerning the same.
It can scarcely be contended that this Statute was intended to give
to the Board of Education broader and more plenary powers than the
Legislature itself possesses under the name of the police power.
So likewise in Tennessee, a Statute forbidding the taking of a note
for an interest in a patent, which note does not, on its face, state that
fact, is not unconstitutional, and its passage is within the police power
of the State.
Tennessee vs. Cook, 62 L. R. A. 174.
Can it be successfully contended that the prohibition of persons
manufacturing garments in dwelling or tenement houses has "no
relation" to the health of the public who may purchase the clothing
so manufactured? Or of the unfortunate and frequently abject and
ignorant workmen and workwomen who may be crowded in unhealthy-
numbers into living rooms to work? The Court will judicially know
that the health of the community may be imperilled by the spread of
disease through sweatshop garments. The Court will also judicially
know that the health of men and women and also of little children is
sometimes undermined and destroyed by underpaid, underfed families
crowding in unhealthy numbers in a single room, in which they eat
and sleep and work in squalid misery.
That the Act confides to the Chief of the Bureau of Industrial Statis-
tics the power to revoke the permit to members of the same family to
manufacture clothing in a dwelling or tenement house "at any time
the health of the community or those employed or living therein may
require it," without making any provision for the review by a judicial
tribunal of his findings of fact or of law, is no objection to the con-
stitutionality of the law.
That there is no constitutional objection to permitting an executive
oflficer to decide finally and without appeal any question either of law
or of fact was held in
Reetz vs. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505.
STATISTICS AND TNI'ORMATION. 85
Authorizing a State Board of Health to make rules for the preven-
tion of the spread of disease is not an unlawful delegation of legisla-
tive power. And a regulation requiring school children to be vac-
cinated during a smallpox epidemic is not invalid.
Blue vs. Bleach, 155 Indiana 121.
An Act of the Connecticut Legislature authorizing a railroad com-
mission to order railway tracks at a highway crossing to be removed
when such action was deemed necessary was held valid.
Woodruff vs. N. Y. & N. E. R. R., 20 Atl. Rep. 17, 22.
See also— Atlantic Express Co. vs. R. R., 18 L. R. A. 393.
R. R. Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307.
Detroit, etc., R. R. vs. Osborne, 62 L,. R. A. 149.
There has for many years been an ordinance in force in the City of
Baltimore requiring, under a penalty, street car tracks to be repaired
whenever "any part thereof shall, in the opinion of the City Commis-
sioner, require repairing."
City Code of 1893, Art. 41, Sec. 12.
A milk inspector could by ordinance be given lawful authority to
destroy (without opportunity to appeal or to have a review of his
decision) milk which he found, on inspection, to be impure.
Deems vs. Baltimore, 80 Md. 164.
See also — Boehm vs. Baltimore, 61 Md. 260.
Of course, if, before the Chief of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
could revoke a permit to prevent the spread of disease, it were necessary
that there should be a judicial investigation with the accompanying
inevitable delays, the whole purpose of the revocation of the permit
would be, in many instances, defeated.
The spread of diseases occasioned by the continued operation of the
sweatshop might be accomplished while the Court was hearing evi-
dence and determining whether any preventive measures should be taken.
It is respectfully submitted that while it is very possible that the
Chief of the Bureau of Labor Statistics might render himself liable
civilly or criminally, or both, if he arbitrarily and corruptly or
maliciously revoked a permit without any reasonable ground for be-
lieving that there was any lawful occasion for doing so ; or that even
an injunction might be obtained on showing such facts nullifying
such corrupt and maliciously given order of revocation — although the
legal propriety of the issuance of such an injunction, in any event, is
very much doubted — the fact that it is conceivable that the power may
86 REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF
at some time be abused is no ground for holding invalid this Statute
passed for the salutary purpose of mitigating the evils flowing from
the manufacture of sweatshop clothing.
Bevard vs. Hoffman, i8 Md. 479.
Friend vs. Hamill, 34 Md. 304.
Elbin vs. Wilson, 33 Md. 142.
Hardesty vs. Taft, 23 Md. 530.
Baltimore vs. O'Neill, 63 Md. 344.
O'Neill vs. Register, 75 Md. 425.
Knell vs. Briscoe, 49 Md. 414.
State vs. Carrick, 70 Md. 586.
Roth vs. Shupp, 94 Md. 55.
The right of the Legislature to adopt stringent measures to stamp
out the evils incident to the unregulated manufacture of clothing in
sweatshops can not, however, in any way depend upon the enquiry
whether there is or not any civil or criminal remedy against the
executive officer for the malicious or corrupt abuse of the power
given him.
The State refers to and relies upon the very able Brief filed at the
January Term, 1903, in this Court, by Attorney General Rayner, State's
Attorney McLane, Mr. Jacob M. Moses and Mr. John Phelps, in the
case of State vs. Legum, being case No. 43 at the January Term, 1903,
of this Court.
SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEF FOR APPELLANT,
BY HON. JACOB M. MOSES.
Arbitrary power will not be presumed to be granted an official. It
cannot be conferred by mere implication. In order to confer arbitrary
power upon an official, the language of the Statute must clearly show
such an intention upon the part of the Legislature. If such an inten-
tion cannot be gathered from the Statute, then it is clear that such
powers are not conferred.
Now, what is the "arbitrary power" which this Act is supposed to
confer upon the Chief of the Bureau? It is (according to the opinion
of the late Judge Ritchie) that, "so far as any restraint is to be
found in the Act, he (the chief) gives or refuses the permit as he
pleases."
Let us see what powers and duties the Act confers upon the Chief
and his deputies :
I. The Chief must appoint two assistants whose duty it shall be to
make inspections of the tenements and factories, etc. (Sec. 149 Gg).
STATISTICS AND INFORMATION. 87
2. Authority is conferred upon the Chief and his assistants to enter
any room in any tenement, etc., where any goods are manufactured, for
the purpose of inspection. The persons controlling such places must
furnish access and information to the said Chief or assistants at any
reasonable time while work is being carried on (Sec. 149 i-'f).
No
No... Gas
No
O.K...
O.K...
O.K...
8;l.
â–
6
O.K.
— -
—
TABLE 5.— District E.
=
. —
~^=:S
P
â– I
on"
J,:
ITST
ii'^J,
j;
&n
5-
^
Articles Made
or I'artially
Made.
5
1""
M
1 .
.S
.6W
of Persons
Employed.
Employed
Under 16
Years of
Age.
Employed Under 16
12 Years ofi Who Could
Age or Not Read
tftder. I or Write.
Employed
Not of
Family.
2-5S
1^
1
IS
si
si
II
13
1
^
1
1
1°
p
Street and Number.
p
1
6
in tlic Workroom.
E^
Il
j
1
1
1
1
1 1
S S
1
s
1
i
.1 .
3-
HB°'o
IJ
^1
Is
11
1
F
Factory
Factory
Oct. 2.
Oct. 2.
200 W. Baltimore
Ru
sia....
Pants
Front
Front
9
Fourth
5 tables, 13 chairs, 2 racks ....
5SX17.-CI2
'l-'^H
r.
1
7
60
Clean....
Clean ....
Yes. . .
Yes. . .
No...
No...
s
No...
No...
Gas..
Gas. .
O.K...
0. K. . .
O.K.
1
Factory
200 W. Baltimore
Kii
Third
18,648
810
8
3ct. 2.
200 W. Baltimore
Rn
60
Clean....
Yes...
Yes..
200 W. Baltimore
Clean....
Yes...
No...
No...
;as..
O.K
200 W. Baltimore
r,as..
O.K.
Km
Clean....
Yes...
No...
No...
^as..
0. C...
0. K.
56i W. Lexington
Kn
Coats
Clean....
Yes...
No...
No...
Coal.
O.K...
O.K.
E
i
Stop
420 W. Lexington
Third
Clean....
Yes...
Yes..
No...
Coal.
O.K
Sliop
Factory
1(11
sia....
Coats
Yes...
No...
No...
Coal.
O.K...
O.K
Oct. 5.
-I'.ilo
794
O.K
15-21 W. Fayette
many ...
Skirts.*
Front
Front
Fifth
36 machines
10 tables, 36 chairs
1 2SX3S1.2 j
7
5.
7
50
Clean....
Yes...
Yes..
15
Yes..
Gas..
O.K...
O.K.
E
E
E
E
Factory
Shop
shSE ;::;;;;:
Shop
Shop
Oct. 2.
Oct. 5 .
Oct. 5.
Oct. 5.
Oct. 5.
Oct. 5.
IS-21 W. Fayette
M.I
ryiand .
Coats and Pants.
Front .
Fronl
Third
17 machines
2S
30
Clean....
Yes...
Yes . .
Yes..
r,a.
O.K...
O.K.
Coats
498
No...
Gas.
O.K...
O.K.
17 N. Eutaw
17 N. Eutaw
17 N. Eutaw
103 Park avenue
103 Park avenue
103 Park avenue
Coats
Front
Back
Third
chairs .;
4
Clean....
Yes...
No...
No...
Gas..
0. K. . .
O.K
Coats
Dack
Third
No...
Gas..
O.K...
O.K.
Front
s
Third
lie
Clean....
Yes. . .
Yes..
No...
Gas..
O.K...
O.K
Back. . . .
8
Third
No...
Gas..
O.K...
O.K
Oct. I:
Oct. 5.
ryland .
Front
Tliird
4 machines
Clean ... .
Yes. . .
No...
Yes..
Gas..
O.K...
O.K
Back
Third
No...
Yes..
Gas..
O.K...
0. K
Ua
"
Third
I machine.
3 tables, 2 chairs
19X14X 9
I9S
â–
*
'
"
'
'
60
Clean....
Yes...
No...
Yes . .
Gas..
O.K...
O.K.
STATISTICS AND INFORMATION. 77
DETAIL TABLES.
In the tables that follow it will be found that the columns
headed "Number of Rooms in the House," "Number of
Families in the House," "Number of Persons in Families in
the House," and "Number of Water-Closets to Building,"
have duplication of figures; that is, the number to a house is
repeated for each floor or room examined and reported on.
Thus, No. 112 Albemarle street has three factories, all on
second floor, but there are only four families in the whole
house, with twelve persons comprising these four families;
but owing to the repetition of figures in the columns referred
to, some one might think there were four families on each
floor:
THE TEST GASES IN COURT OF APPEALS
The cases of Louis Hyman and Isaac Plumack having been
consolidated and appealed to the Court of Appeals of the State,
the case was put on the docket as No. lo, and briefs were filed
by Attorney-General Wm. Shepard Bryan for the State, and
by Hon. Jacob Moses assisting, representing the labor organiza-
tions, while Messrs. Foutz & Norris and Mr. Myer Rosenbush
filed briefs for the appellee. The briefs of the attorneys on
both sides follow:
BRIEF FOR THE STATE, BY ATTORNEY GENERAL
WM. SHEPARD BRYAN, Jr.
The controlling question in this case is the constitutional validity of
Chapter loi of the Acts of 1902, prohibiting the use of rooms and apart-
ments in tenement or dwelling houses for the manufacture of clothing
and other articles by any persons except the immediate members of the
families living there, which immediate members of such families are
limited to a husband and his wife, and their children or the children of
either. The Act further prohibits the use of any such apartment for
such purpose of manufacture by families living therein "until a permit
shall have first been obtained from the Chief of the Bureau of Indus-
trial Statistics, stating the maximum number of persons allowed to
be employed therein." Such permit is only to be granted after an
inspection of the premises, and is liable to be revoked by the Chief of
the Bureau of Industrial Statistics "at any time the health of the com-
munity or of those employed or living therein may require it."
Permits are to be annually applied for ; are required to be kept posted
conspicuously in one of the rooms to which they relate. Every person,
firm or corporation contracting for. the manufacture of any of the
mentioned articles, or giving out the incomplete material from which
any of them may be made, or employing persons in any tenement or
dwelling house or other building to make wholly, or to partly finish
the mentioned articles "shall keep a written register of the names of
all persons to whom such work is given to be made or with whom they
may have contracted to do the same." Such register shall be furnished
on demand of the Chief of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or one of
his deputies.
8o REPORT OF THE BUREAU OE
Authority is also given to the Chief of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
and to certain of his assistants to enter any room in any tenement or
dwelling-house, workshop, manufacturing establishment, mill, factory
or place where any goods are manufactured, for the purpose of inspec-
tion. Access and information in regard to such places is required to
be furnished by the persons, firms, or corporations owning or con-
trolling or managing such places to the Chief of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, or his deputies, "at any and all reasonable times while work
is being carried on."
This Statute was declared invalid by the late Judge Ritchie in the
Criminal Court of Baltimore, in the case of Tlic State vs. Morris Legum,
on December 17, 1902, and a learned and careful opinion was filed by
that able judge in which the objections to the validity of the law are
stated with force and clearness.
Argument.
It is respectfully maintained that the Act of 1902, above referred to,
was well within the power of the Legislature, and that it does not con-
flict v>^ith any clause of either the State or the Federal Constitution.
"'This police power of the State,' says another eminent judge, 'ex-
tends to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort and quiet of
all persons, and the protection of property within the State, according
to the maxim, Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, which being of uni-
versal application, it must, of course, be within the range of legislative
action to define the mode and manner in which every one may so use
his own as not to injure others.' And again: By this 'general police
power of the State, persons and property are subjected to all kinds of
restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health
and prosperity of the State; of the perfect right in the Legislature, to
do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general prin-
ciples, ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned.'
"And neither the power itself, nor the discretion to exercise it, as
need may require, can be bargained away by the State."
Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, (6th Ed.) 706.
Thorpe vs. Rutland & B. R. R., 27 Vermont, 140, 149.
"Neither the amendment — broad and comprehensive as it is — nor any
other amendment, was designed to interfere with the power of the
State, sometimes termed its police power, to prescribe regulations to
promote the health, peace, morals, education and good order of the
people, and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the State,
develop its resources and add to its wealth and prosperity."
Judge Field in Barbier Case, 113, U. S. 31.
STATISTICS AND INP'ORMATION. ' 8l
"What is termed the police power has been the subject of a good
deal of consideration by both the Federal and State Courts, and all
agree that it is a difficult matter to define the limits within which it is
to be exercised. Every well organized government has the inherent
right to protect the health and provide for the safety and welfare of its
people. It has not only the right, but it is a duty and obligation which
the sovereign power owes to the public, and as no one can foresee the
emergency or necessity which may call for its exercise, it is not an
easy matter to prescribe the precise limits within which it may be
exercised. It may be said to rest upon the maxim, 'salus populi suprema
lex' and the constitutional guarantees for the security of private rights
relied on by the appellant have never been understood as interfering
with the power of the State to pass such laws as may be necessary to
protect the health and provide for the safety and good order of society.
'Property of every kind,' says Mr. Justice Story^ 'is held subject to
those general regulations which are necessary for the common good
and general welfare. And the Legislature has the power to define
the mode and manner in which every one may use his property.' 2 Vol.
Story Const."
Deems vs. Baltimore, 80 Md. 173.
So the ChiiEF Justice in deciding the recent case of State vs. Broad-
belt, 89 Md. 585, quoted with approval Chief Justice Shaw's famous
judgment in Com. vs. Alger, 7 Cush. 84, as follows:
"Whilst it is undoubtedly true that the police power cannot be put
forward as an excuse- for oppressive and unjust legislation, it may,
most certainly, be resorted to for the purpose of preserving the public
health, safety or morals, or the abatement of public nuisances ; and a
large discretion 'is necessarily vested in the Legislature to determine,
not only what the interests of the public require, but what measures
are necessary for the protection of such interests.' Lawton vs. Steele,
152 U. S. 133. As observed by Chief Justice Shaw, in Commonwealth
vs. Alger, 7 Cush. 84: 'Every holder of property, however absolute
and unqualified may be his title, holds it under the implied liability
that his use of it may be so regulated that it shall not be injurious to
the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right to the enjoyment
of their property, nor injurious to the rights of the community. * * *
Rights of property, like all other social and conventional rights, are sub-
ject to such reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as will prevent
them from being injurious, and to such reasonable restraints and regu-
lations established by law, as the Legislature, under the governing
and controlling power vested in them by the Constitution, may think
necessary and expedient.' 'This power, legitimately exercised, can
neither be limited by contract nor bartered away by legislation.' Holden
vs. Hardy, supra."
$2 REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF
It is to be borne in mind that this police power — this power to
legislate for the public health and public morals and public safety and
public convenience, is confided to the discretion of the legislative
branch of the State Government.
No matter whether the action that co-ordinate branch of the govern-
ment was, in the opinion of the Courts, just or unjust, wise or foolish,
if the Courts can see that it had, "a real and substantial relation" to
any one of the heads of the police power, they are not authorized to
interfere, and to override and nullify the legislative will.
Lake Roland R. R. vs. Baltimore, yy Md. 380, 381.
Powell vs. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 684.
Mugler vs. Kansas, 123 U. S. 661, 662, 663.
Spriggs vs. Garrett Park, 89 Md. 406, 411.
Stevens vs. State, 89 Md. 674.
State vs. Broadbelt, 89 Md. 577.
State vs. Knowles, 90 Md. 646.
Of course every intendment is made by the Courts in favor of the
constitutionality of a Statute. The Court, unless the contrary is mani-
fest, will presume that the Legislature acted within its constitutional
limitations.
R. R. vs. Matthews, 174, U. S. 96.
Mugler vs. Kansas, 123 U. S. 661.
Powell vs. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 684.
Co. Com. vs. Meekins, 50 Md. 39, 40.
Baltimore vs. State, 15 Md. 453.
In re Ten Hour Law, 61 L. R. A. 614.
Cooley on Constitul. Limit., 216.
Indeed, if one construction, of which a Statute is susceptible, would
make it valid, and another equally plausible construction would make
the Statute unconstitutional, the validating construction will be adopted
by the Courts; for it will not be presumed that the Legislature in-
tended to pass a void or unconstitutional Statute.
Temmick vs. Owings, 70 Md. 251.
U. S. vs. Coombs, 12 Peters, 76.
Hooper /s California, 155 U. S. 657.
Broughton vs. Pensacola, 93 U. S. 269.
Gordon vs. M. & C. C, 5 Gill, 241.
As illustrating exertions of the police power by the Legislature,
which have been held by the Courts as not infringing any constitutional
prohibitions, the following adjudications are cited:
A Statute of the State of Utah limiting hours of labor in mines to
8 hours a day was valid.
Holden vs. Hardy, 165 U. S. 368.
STATISTICS AND INFORMATION. 83
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held valid a Statute limiting
the hours of labor of conductors, gripmen and motormen on street
railway cars to 10 hourg a day.
In re Ten Hour Law, 61 L. R. A. 612.
A Statute requiring immediate payment of wages of discharged
employes is valid.
R. R. vs. Paul, 173 U. S. 404.
A Statute invalidating a sale of a stock of goods in bulk, without
ascertaining the seller's creditors, is valid.
McDaniels vs. Connelly, 60 L. R. A. 947.
An Act limiting the hours of labor of women is valid.
Wenham vs. Nebraska, 58 L. R. A. 825.
Forbidding a barber shop to remain open on Sunday, while hotels,
baths, livery stables, etc., do so, is not denying to barbers the equal
protection of the laws.
Utah vs. Sopher, 60 L. R. A. 468.
V
The State can discriminate between the restrictions placed upon
electric cars and upon other vehicles using the public streets.
Detroit Railway vs. Osborne, 189 U. S. 383.
A Statute requiring workmen to be paid in cash or requiring the
redemption of store orders in cash is a valid exercise of the police power.
Knoxville Co. vs. Harbison, 183 U. S. 13, 21.
Harbison vs. Knoxville Co., 103 Tenn. 421.
A special tax on the business of hiring persons to go to work beyond
the limits of the State is valid.
Williams vs. Fears, 179 U. S. 270.
A law providing for the inspection of coal mines where more than
five men are employed is not unconstitutional, nor does the fact, that,
while at least four inspections are required, there- is a discretion lodged
in the inspectors to inspect more frequently, if t" jy see fit, affect the
validity of the Act.
St. Louis Con. Coal Co. vs. Illinois, 179 U. S. 203.
It is within the province of the State to entirely prohibit the sale of
cigarettes after they have been taken from the original packages, where
there is no discrimination against those imported from other States,
and there is no reason to doubt the Act in question is intended for the
protection of the public health.
Austin vs. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343.
84 REPORT OF THE BUREAU OE
In Missouri vs. Lay ton, 62 L. R. A. 163, it was held that the statutory-
prohibition of the manufacture or sale of baking powder containing
alum is not unconstitutional, in view of the dispute as to the fact of
its wholesomeness, which prevents the Court from taking judicial notice
that it is wholesome and innocuous.
See also the famous oleomargarine case of —
Powell vs. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678.
A rule of the Board of Education requiring the pupils to go directly-
home when dismissed from school was upheld in Michigan (Jones vs.
Cody, 62 L. R. A. 160) under statutory authority to pass rules relative
to anything whatever that may advance the interests of education, the
good government and prosperity of the free schools and the welfare of
the public concerning the same.
It can scarcely be contended that this Statute was intended to give
to the Board of Education broader and more plenary powers than the
Legislature itself possesses under the name of the police power.
So likewise in Tennessee, a Statute forbidding the taking of a note
for an interest in a patent, which note does not, on its face, state that
fact, is not unconstitutional, and its passage is within the police power
of the State.
Tennessee vs. Cook, 62 L. R. A. 174.
Can it be successfully contended that the prohibition of persons
manufacturing garments in dwelling or tenement houses has "no
relation" to the health of the public who may purchase the clothing
so manufactured? Or of the unfortunate and frequently abject and
ignorant workmen and workwomen who may be crowded in unhealthy-
numbers into living rooms to work? The Court will judicially know
that the health of the community may be imperilled by the spread of
disease through sweatshop garments. The Court will also judicially
know that the health of men and women and also of little children is
sometimes undermined and destroyed by underpaid, underfed families
crowding in unhealthy numbers in a single room, in which they eat
and sleep and work in squalid misery.
That the Act confides to the Chief of the Bureau of Industrial Statis-
tics the power to revoke the permit to members of the same family to
manufacture clothing in a dwelling or tenement house "at any time
the health of the community or those employed or living therein may
require it," without making any provision for the review by a judicial
tribunal of his findings of fact or of law, is no objection to the con-
stitutionality of the law.
That there is no constitutional objection to permitting an executive
oflficer to decide finally and without appeal any question either of law
or of fact was held in
Reetz vs. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505.
STATISTICS AND TNI'ORMATION. 85
Authorizing a State Board of Health to make rules for the preven-
tion of the spread of disease is not an unlawful delegation of legisla-
tive power. And a regulation requiring school children to be vac-
cinated during a smallpox epidemic is not invalid.
Blue vs. Bleach, 155 Indiana 121.
An Act of the Connecticut Legislature authorizing a railroad com-
mission to order railway tracks at a highway crossing to be removed
when such action was deemed necessary was held valid.
Woodruff vs. N. Y. & N. E. R. R., 20 Atl. Rep. 17, 22.
See also— Atlantic Express Co. vs. R. R., 18 L. R. A. 393.
R. R. Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307.
Detroit, etc., R. R. vs. Osborne, 62 L,. R. A. 149.
There has for many years been an ordinance in force in the City of
Baltimore requiring, under a penalty, street car tracks to be repaired
whenever "any part thereof shall, in the opinion of the City Commis-
sioner, require repairing."
City Code of 1893, Art. 41, Sec. 12.
A milk inspector could by ordinance be given lawful authority to
destroy (without opportunity to appeal or to have a review of his
decision) milk which he found, on inspection, to be impure.
Deems vs. Baltimore, 80 Md. 164.
See also — Boehm vs. Baltimore, 61 Md. 260.
Of course, if, before the Chief of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
could revoke a permit to prevent the spread of disease, it were necessary
that there should be a judicial investigation with the accompanying
inevitable delays, the whole purpose of the revocation of the permit
would be, in many instances, defeated.
The spread of diseases occasioned by the continued operation of the
sweatshop might be accomplished while the Court was hearing evi-
dence and determining whether any preventive measures should be taken.
It is respectfully submitted that while it is very possible that the
Chief of the Bureau of Labor Statistics might render himself liable
civilly or criminally, or both, if he arbitrarily and corruptly or
maliciously revoked a permit without any reasonable ground for be-
lieving that there was any lawful occasion for doing so ; or that even
an injunction might be obtained on showing such facts nullifying
such corrupt and maliciously given order of revocation — although the
legal propriety of the issuance of such an injunction, in any event, is
very much doubted — the fact that it is conceivable that the power may
86 REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF
at some time be abused is no ground for holding invalid this Statute
passed for the salutary purpose of mitigating the evils flowing from
the manufacture of sweatshop clothing.
Bevard vs. Hoffman, i8 Md. 479.
Friend vs. Hamill, 34 Md. 304.
Elbin vs. Wilson, 33 Md. 142.
Hardesty vs. Taft, 23 Md. 530.
Baltimore vs. O'Neill, 63 Md. 344.
O'Neill vs. Register, 75 Md. 425.
Knell vs. Briscoe, 49 Md. 414.
State vs. Carrick, 70 Md. 586.
Roth vs. Shupp, 94 Md. 55.
The right of the Legislature to adopt stringent measures to stamp
out the evils incident to the unregulated manufacture of clothing in
sweatshops can not, however, in any way depend upon the enquiry
whether there is or not any civil or criminal remedy against the
executive officer for the malicious or corrupt abuse of the power
given him.
The State refers to and relies upon the very able Brief filed at the
January Term, 1903, in this Court, by Attorney General Rayner, State's
Attorney McLane, Mr. Jacob M. Moses and Mr. John Phelps, in the
case of State vs. Legum, being case No. 43 at the January Term, 1903,
of this Court.
SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEF FOR APPELLANT,
BY HON. JACOB M. MOSES.
Arbitrary power will not be presumed to be granted an official. It
cannot be conferred by mere implication. In order to confer arbitrary
power upon an official, the language of the Statute must clearly show
such an intention upon the part of the Legislature. If such an inten-
tion cannot be gathered from the Statute, then it is clear that such
powers are not conferred.
Now, what is the "arbitrary power" which this Act is supposed to
confer upon the Chief of the Bureau? It is (according to the opinion
of the late Judge Ritchie) that, "so far as any restraint is to be
found in the Act, he (the chief) gives or refuses the permit as he
pleases."
Let us see what powers and duties the Act confers upon the Chief
and his deputies :
I. The Chief must appoint two assistants whose duty it shall be to
make inspections of the tenements and factories, etc. (Sec. 149 Gg).
STATISTICS AND INFORMATION. 87
2. Authority is conferred upon the Chief and his assistants to enter
any room in any tenement, etc., where any goods are manufactured, for
the purpose of inspection. The persons controlling such places must
furnish access and information to the said Chief or assistants at any
reasonable time while work is being carried on (Sec. 149 i-'f).
Online Library → Thomas A. Smith → Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Statistics and Information of Maryland. 1903. Thomas A. Smith, Chief. (Volume 1904) → online text (page 8 of 30)
Using the text of ebook Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Statistics and Information of Maryland. 1903. Thomas A. Smith, Chief. (Volume 1904) by Thomas A. Smith active link like:
read the ebook Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Statistics and Information of Maryland. 1903. Thomas A. Smith, Chief. (Volume 1904)
read the ebook Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Statistics and Information of Maryland. 1903. Thomas A. Smith, Chief. (Volume 1904)
