of their time for recreation during a pleasant part of the day, or to enable them to go home in the interim, that clause of the law which requires consecutive employment was aimed to eliminate this practice.

The damaging effect of this clause in the statute was so evident to Miss Swartz, that she requested that it be modified. After an interview with several advocates of protective legislation for women, it was agreed that Bernard L. Shientag, counsel to the Industrial Commission be asked to interpret the law as liberally "as is legally possible."

Following soon upon this request, Mr. Shientag wrote his ruling in a letter to John Mitchell, chairman of the commission. The letter ran,

In view of the foregoing, and because of the ambiguous provisions of the present law, dealing with the period during which the hours of the women in question are to be performed and in view of the peculiar operating conditions to which transit companies are subject, I advise

that the time allowed for meals be an unbroken period but if one hour is allowed, the employee must stop work within ten hours of the time of beginning, if four hours is allowed, the employee must be released for the day within thirteen hours after reporting for duty. "In no case however, is the woman allowed to work more than nine hours per day or 54 hours per week, or after 10 o'clock in the evening or before 6 o'clock in the morning."

On September 10, 1919, in accordance with this legal advice, orders were sent to the railway companies by First Deputy Commissioner John L. Gernon requiring them to observe the law as interpreted. The order was to take effect immediately. Thus, practically speaking, the consecutive hours requirement was removed. But the other restrictions upon hours still remained. These, particularly the pro

hibition of night work, so interfered with the seniority system that the consequences were serious.

For the purpose of discovering just how serious the consequences were, Miss Swartz, on October 6, 1919, wrote letters of inquiry to each of the companies. She asked for explicit information regarding the effect of the law upon the employment of the women-just what proportion of women the companies were compelled to "lay off" as a result of the transportation law. Excerpts from the four letters received are of interest.

From the Eighth Ave. Railroad Company, October 7,

1919:

I am not just clear as to what you request in your letter of the 6th inst., but will state that the operation of the Transportation Law to which you refer resulted necessarily in the discharge, or laying off, or whatever else it may be terminated, of every woman employed in this Company's service with the exception of one employed for part of her time as cleaner in this office. The proportion eliminated is, therefore, 26/27.

(Signed)

From the New York and Queens County Railway, October 7, 1919:

it was necessary for us to dispense with the services of all of the women who were employed as conductors. We were unable to retain any and had none in any other occupation other than that of conductor. Incidentally we dispensed with the services of one woman who was caretaker of the women's room. (Signed)

From the New York Railways Company, October 22, 1919:

It was necessary for this company to drop from its service all women conductors, numbering 200 in all, and also three other women employees engaged in miscellaneous capacities.

The

only other employees affected by this law were those employed as car cleaners in our Car Equipment Department and whose working hours we rearranged in order to comply with the law. We have 17 women employees in this capacity.

(Signed)

From the Brooklyn Rapid Transit, November 26, 1919:

. . . I have to advise you that the number of women ticket agents employed prior to the enactment of the so-called Lockwood Bill vary, the greatest number at any one time being 1087. As a result of the enforcement of the transportation law, this number has been reduced to approximately 750.

On April 1st, of this year, we employed 290 female guards, all of whom have been taken out of service as a result of this law. (Signed)

To sum up the effects of the New York transportation act upon the employment of women in the light of the foregoing data, there seems little question that a substantial number of women employees were dismissed because of the law. Just how many women fell into this group cannot be determined because other forces were at work which materially affected their dismissal. Principal among these forces was the fact that the majority of these women had been taken into employment as a war emergency and were being dismissed at the close of the war. To consider the law itself however, it is clear that it was in marked opposition to present railway service requirements; so much so that there seems a choice of only two explanations for its passage. Either the bill was championed by those who would discourage the employment of women in the transportation

It would be interesting to know what has developed in respect to women's employment on the transportation lines since the return to peace time conditions and the modifications in the law. I have made a serious effort to secure this information but have so far been unsuccessful.

service altogether, as was the case with the legislation affecting women core makers; or else the bill was introduced and fostered by those who had no scientific knowledge of the industry to which it applied.1 If there was no thought of eliminating women, the assumption was naïve that the factory and mercantile law could be extended to the railway service without regard to the character of that industry. On this point the Bureau of Women in Industry commented as follows:

However, in drawing up legislation for industries such as the transportation service, which must operate continuously day and night with the familiar rush and the high peaks in the number of cars, it is obvious that different kind of legislation than that modelled after our factory and mercantile acts is required.?

PART II: SOME EFFECTS OF LAWS OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK

STATE

HOURS OF LABOR-TRANSPORTATION SERVICE

The subject of women employed in the transportation service has been further investigated by the Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor. The material was gathered in June, July and September of 1919 and January of 1920; the cities chosen for study were Chicago, Boston, Detroit and Kansas City. Since a good deal of attention was given by the bureau to the effects of restrictive legislation upon women employees the report may be considered in some detail. While some particular facts,

This seems hardly probable, following so closely upon the careful analysis of the transportation industry in New York by Benjamin Squires. Op. cit.

The Bulletin. New York State Industrial Commission, September, 1919, p. 237.

'Women Street Car Conductors and Ticket Agents. Bulletin of the Women's Bureau, No. 11. United States Department of Labor, 1921.

such as the number of women employed in different occupations and their length of service, are not given, there are important data on women's wages compared with those of men, the nature of the runs, etc. The material offered in the report is sufficiently analogous to that just given for New York, to be a basis for some noteworthy comparisons. "The purpose of the investigation," the bureau explained (p. 14),

was to discover in several localities the hours of work and wages of women street car conductors and ticket agents; the relation of the work of women to that of men, as shown by methods of granting seniority rights to men and women, and by special regulations for women; and the effect on hours and numbers of women employed of the enforcement of legal regulation of hours for women employed in transportation.

In Detroit the women were employed as conductors in the face of opposition of the union; in Kansas City, with its qualified coöperation. The laws for the protection of women were the same for the two cities except that the Michigan law stated the maximum hours to be ten a day and 54 a week, while that in Missouri made nine hours the maximum day with a 54-hour week. Neither state prohibited night work nor prescribed the length of time in which runs should be made. (These are important differences from the New York law for it was these provisions that constituted the greatest obstacles to retaining women in New York.) According to the Women's Bureau survey, women's schedules were adjusted to meet the requirements of the law in these two cities, without seeming to disqualify such women for employment.

In Detroit, the senority list was maintained for men and women together but women were permitted to choose only those runs which did not exceed their maximum hour limit. The result of this order was that while in July 80.9 per