an act corresponding to that of Assemblyman Shonk. It was promptly passed with but five dissenting votes and sent to the assembly. At 6 a. m. the bill's discharge from the rules committee was moved. It was lost by two votes.

Two hours later at 8: 40 a. m. on April 11-the session closed, "with the greatest saturnalia of legislation ever witnessed in the memory of the oldest legislators."

A clutter of bills had been disposed of in a most remarkable fashion, and legislators and lobbyists were intoxicated from lack of sleep and the chaos. Clerks and employees are said to have been for sixty hours without sleep.

This brings our legislative story to an end, in its general outline. It is important to say, however, that the battle of 1924 was not all political, but that the cleavage among the women themselves over the "women's bills" had grown fiercely wider. The National Woman's Party, maintaining that protection" means "restriction," pressed for the passage of twenty-two bills, among which were those aiming for "industrial equality." The League for Equal Opportunity and the Equal Rights League also took a defiant stand against the "welfare bills" and in favor of a repeal of the night work prohibition for women in occupations at which men are employed at night (the Stapley bill). On the other hand, the Women's Joint Legislative Conference, representing about twenty women's organizations, fought hard for protection," and organized labor is reported to have gone on record as opposed to the anti-night work bill.

The opposing group of women in the contest appeared in large numbers at the February hearings, the women's conference being headed by Mrs. Samuel Bens and supported in its contentions by Industrial Commissioner Shientag, who again urged the need of protection for women. Rose Schneiderman, vice-president of the National Women's

1 Op. cit., April 12, 1924.

Trade Union League, explained that women must have protection for the short time they are in industry, that they cannot do" the same work as a man " and that " equal rights cannot keep them in work for which they are physically unfit." She continued, "And the women who are strong enough to work beside men, and who want to work at the same hours of the day or night and receive the same pay, might be putting their own brothers, or sweethearts, or future husbands out of a job." Doris Stevens, representing the National Woman's Party, urged that women no longer be linked with children in laws relating to industry, that her party would support legislation protecting men and women alike, and that "it is very gallant of you to offer to give women special privileges, but we are convinced that in the end it will do them more harm than good.'

"2

But the New York session closed with no more and no less special protection for women in industry than was on the statute books before it began. The conflicting elements have again become less turbulent, and, as this book goes to print, we are once more in the trough of the legislative wave waiting for another crest in the spring of 1925.

1 Op. cit., March 16, 19, 24. An interview. 2 New York Times, February 27, 1924.

CHAPTER IV

INFLUENCES CONTINUED

We have analysed the influences in New York State which have borne upon the factory law in its restriction of women's working day; and have followed the integration of the social and political machines which have affected the trend of more general legislation for working women. It is evident that the Factory Investigating Commission stimulated the development of this legislation, but while some acts have been passed since the days of this commission, and others have been hotly advocated, much time has been spent in contention against the repeal of statutes already enacted, with relatively small results in the form of new acts.

We will, then, continue the story of influences upon legislation as they have affected more specific occupations. While the daytime hours of women in factories in general (and in mercantile establishments when the proposed regulations affected them also) have been discussed, much remains to be said of particular industries such as canneries, laundries, and homework, and of night work prohibitions; of regulations in restaurants, in elevators, and on transportation lines, of special working conditions, and of the entire prohibition of women's employment in certain occupations.

The subject of daytime hours in factories will be considered first.

403]

203

HOURS OF LABOR-DAY WORK

Factories

I. Canneries

The inclusion of the canning industry in the general factory law of 1899 proved a mistake from the point of view of enforcement, as will be seen in a later chapter. During those years between the hour-limitation act of 1899 which flatly included all factories regardless of their nature, down to 1912 when canneries were completely freed from rules during the rush season, the canners had been actively opposed to any hour limitation and openly violated this provision.

Some canners sought relief by legislative amendment while others adopted the method of passive resistance. And their attitude was rather generally condoned in their communities. In 1907, when the factory law was amended in its hour-limiting provisions in order to effect enforcement, the original bill form followed the English precedent of allowing females over eighteen years of age to work in canneries sixty-six hours a week for a time not exceeding six weeks a year. This was a European custom and it had been permitted by the recent international labor treaty signed at Berne, Switzerland. But in New York, opposition by philanthropic and labor organizations to this exemption for canneries was violent, and the attempt to obtain it was thus temporarily abandoned.

This failure to manifest statutory understanding of the special problem of the canners was sharply regretted by Labor Commissioner Sherman in his annual report.1 His view was that "Reasonable variations from the more regular limitations imposed upon those industries in which work is or can be made regular should be allowed for those in which

1 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, 1907, pp. I. 50.

it cannot," and that such a provision "would render the law more easily and generally enforceable as to them and would in fact reduce their hours of labor, and it would avoid the danger of an adverse decision from the courts as to the constitutionality of the provisions limiting the hours of women's labor." Contrary to the view expressed later by Florence Kelley in her plea for "uniformity" of regulation as she testified in 1912 before the Factory Investigating Commission, the commissioner expressed his objection to having particular industries" unnecessarily and unreasonably embarrassed for the sole purpose of keeping a regulation general and uniform." He sponsored European provisions which were "based upon necessity and equity and are consonant with health, for the reason that in such industries limited overtime during rush periods or seasons would be counterbalanced by reduced hours in slack periods or seasons."

But those who were eager to protect the women employed in canneries, as well as in other factories, were consistently opposed to making any variations of the rule they had succeeded in getting written into the statutes.

And so the controversy continued. In 1910 the so-called Boshart bill was introduced into the legislature by the canners and opposed by the Consumers' League and other organizations. The bill repealed the sixty-hour provision for women and minors during the height of the canning season -the four months from June to October. As a "camouflage" according to the Consumers' League report, the canners added the clause that overtime should not be required beyond an average of sixty hours a week for the whole period. Despite the precaution of its proponents, the bill made little headway. Moreover, emphasis laid upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court which upheld the constitutionality of the ten-hour law for women in Ore