Constitutional History: Examination #1
In June 1885, the state legislature of the Colorado signed a long-term
lease with Standard Oil of Ohio, a subsidiary of the Rockefeller oil empire, to
use 7,000 acres of land for an oil processing, refining, storage, and piping
plant. The Standard Oil plants were to
be the central refining and piping facility for the entire West, and in return,
the state of Colorado was promised (in addition to a nominal rent) that a
minimum of one million barrels of kerosene would be available to the state
annually at a maximum price of one dollar a barrel. The agreement and lease noted that Standard Oil was subject to
all the laws of Colorado and could be taxed in the same manner and to the same
degree as other business concerns.
Within two years of the agreement, refineries had been built, and
Rockefeller=s engineers had constructed pipelines
connecting the refineries to oil fields in Oklahoma and markets on both the
east and west coasts (entering into agreements with every state through which
the pipelines flowed).
In 1890, in a contentious election, the Populist candidate for governor
defeated the incumbent Republican (who had proposed the refinery and pipeline
deal). One of the key issues in the
campaign was the Asellout@ to Standard Oil, and one of the key backers
of the Populists was the National Consumers= League B a group of politically active women
concerned about issues of public health, women in the workforce, and hours and
wages legislation. The Consumers= League immediately opened an investigation
of working conditions in the Standard Oil operations in Colorado. In a lengthy report, published in 1891, they
noted that workers at the facilities worked longer hours, for less pay, and in
poorer conditions than workers in virtually all other major industries in
America; that they suffered higher rates of accidents and lost more days from
work due to illness than comparable groups of workers; and that their employers
were unwilling to acknowledge or deal with any of these problems, but rather
fired workers for talking with union representatives. Their statistical appendix included the following statistics:
A. Rate of
Serious Accidents at Standard Oil Facilities
Refinery
Workers 7 per 1000 person-hours
worked
Pipeline
Workers 5 per 1000 person-hours
worked
Clerical
Workers 2 per 1000 person-hours
worked
Male Workers 6 per 1000 person hours worked
Female Workers 3 per 1000 person hours worked
National
Average 5 per 1000 person hours worked
B. Average Hours
Worked per Day and Week
Refinery
Workers: 12/day; 72/week
Pipeline
Workers: 12/day, 80/week
Clerical
Workers 10/day, 70/week
Male Workers 12/day, 74/week
Female Workers: 10/day, 65/week
National
Average: 11/day, 60/week
C. Weekly and
Hourly Pay Scale
Refinery
Workers: 20 cents/hour (= $14.40/week)
Pipeline
Workers 20 cents/hour
Clerical
Workers 10 cents/hour (= $7.00/week)
Male Workers: 15 cents/hour
Female Workers 5 cents/hour
National
Average: Unknown
The Consumers= Union report was introduced at state
legislative hearing about the oil industry in Colorado, and the Union urged
that a bill be passed that limited working hours and protected workers= pay..
At that hearing, the National Association of Refinery Workers Union also
testified. The Union had a very small
toehold in the industry, but would not reveal hoe many workers belonged (for
fear of them being identified and fired).
They strongly supported a bill to set a the maximum number of hours
women be allowed to work and to end night work by women (all of which was in
the clerical division). Standard Oil
was also asked to testify. They
vigorously denied that working conditions were particularly dangerous to their
workers= health or to public health in Colorado. They had four workers testify-Btwo from the refinery and two from the
clerical division-Bthat
they worked considerably more than the average, did so by choice and to support
their families, and had had no health problems. Professor Ican B. Bought from the State University presented
results from a study he had recently done of the Colorado mining industry that
demonstrated that the accident rate was 15 accidents/1000 hours worked, and
that the accidents and long-term health hazards were far more serious than in
refining. The mining industry, however,
was not regulated. Finally, several
local ranchers testified that they feared that the recent explosions and fires
at the refinery, that had injured their grazing lands, were caused by the
carelessness of overworked workers.
Having completed an exhaustive survey of conditions in the refining
industry and after further pressure from the governor, the legislature passed
the following bill (major sections only reproduced):
Bill to Preserve
the Health of Oil Industry Workers and the General Health of the People of
Colorado (1894).
1. No worker
shall be allowed to work more than 10 hours a day of 60 hours a week in the oil
industry in Colorado; violations of this section shall result in a fine of up
to $2,000.
2. No woman
working in the oil industry shall be allowed to work more than 8 hours a day or
48 hours a week in the oil industry in Colorado; violations of this section
shall result in a fine of up to $2,000.
3. The industry
may pay what they wish to their workers provided that the average weekly pay of
a worker is not less than the average weekly pay before this bill took effect
(regardless of the reduction in hours worked).
Violations of this section will result in a fine of up to $2,000.
4. Working
conditions can and will be inspected regularly by public safety and health
inspectors appointed by the governor.
They will be paid 5% of all fines collected and a fee of $10/inspection
to be collected from the refinery. They had the authority to report violations
of the above provisions as well as to require safety and health actions that
Standard Oil would be required to implement to assure safe working conditions.
5. Fines will be
assessed by trial in county court; appeals will be to the Colorado Supreme
Court.
The law went into
effect in 1895. The reelected Populist
governor appointed three women, all members of the Consumers= League, as refinery inspectors, and they
began monthly inspections in June of that year. The company was cited at this first inspection with fifteen
violationsBeach for employing workers, male and female,
beyond the statutory maximum, and for over one hundred violations of the
minimum wage provision. The inspectors
also noted numerous problems with the heating, lighting, and ventilation of the
building where night-time clerical work was being done, and order Standard Oil
to correct these conditions.
Brought to court, Standard Oil acknowledged that their policies
violated the act, but objected that the act was unconstitutional. They did not defend the case on the
merits. Convicted and fined $40,000,
they appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.
That Court upheld the Colorado law on all counts. Standard Oil then appealed the case to the
federal district court for Colorado, and again lost, as they did as well in the
U.S. Circuit Court. In 1898 the case
was accepted by the United States Supreme Court.
At each level, Standard Oil argued that the Colorado law took their property without due process of law,
denied liberty of contract, and denied equal protection of the law. They entered evidence to demonstrate that
meeting the minimum price/maximum hours provisions of the statute would
increase their costs by $40,000 to $100,000 a year, seriously curtail their
production, and adversely affect their interstate trading of kerosene, and
argued that interstate trade could only be regulated by Congress. Colorado countered that they had made a
reasonable policy choice under their police powers, one fully supported by the
evidence they had considered, and that Congress had not legislated, and in fact
had no authority to so do, in this area under the commerce power. Colorado cited the Slaughterhouse cases,
Munn, Powell; Standard Oil cited Wabash, Ritchie v. the People, and
Lochner. Both sides cited Muller and
the on-going court cases over the ICC regulation of railroads [for the purpose
of this exam, ignore the fact that some of these cases followed this caseByou may use any and all of them].
In 1896, a separate suit had been brought in Colorado court by Mildred
Heartbreak. She was a mother of five
children. Her husband had deserted her
a year earlier, but under Colorado law was not entitled to a divorce until his
desertion had lasted five years. Thus
she was the sole support for her large family.
She had worked 70 hours a week for 5 cents per hour through 1896, doing
night work in the clerical division and day work, once her children were in
school, as well. When the law went into
effect, she was fired, and replaced by a male worker. She brought suit against Colorado for unjustly denying her the
right to work, and against Standard Oil for firing her without cause. In her court case she noted that in Colorado
women had the right to vote, and that married women had had most of their legal
disabilities removed. She felt the
Colorado health law denied her equal protection and the liberty to contract. Standard Oil did not appear in court to
defend their action, but the State of Colorado countered that the act had been
passed to protect the health and welfare of women, whose well-documented health
problems needed protection if they were to be the mothers of the republic. She cited Lochner and Bunting; Colorado
cited Muller. Heartbreak v. Colorado
& Standard Oil was also appealed eventually to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court hears Heartbreak=s case at the same time as the Standard Oil appeal,
and decides them together.
__________________
You are to write the
Supreme Court=s opinion in these two cases: The State of
Colorado v. Standard Oil and Mildred Heartbreak. You are to write as if you were a Supreme Court judge in the late
nineteenth or early twentieth century, and applying court doctrines from that
era. Your opinion should BRIEFLY set
out the most important facts, state clearly the major issues you feel the court
must resolve, resolve those issues drawing on the facts and the precedents of
previous decisions, and support your conclusions by reference to the underlying
public policy concerns you are upholding (police powers, Social Darwinism,
protection of women, etc.). You may
decide the case however you feel appropriate B there is no one right answer, and not every fact given above is
necessarily relevant. The summary
statements of the issues given by both sides are not fully adequate to decide
the case; if you see an equal protection issue, you need to state clearly what
that issue is. If there is a commerce
issue, make sure you state it clearly in light of the facts of the case. If this case involves the Aliberty of contract,@ make clear how it does. Etc.
You should refer to cases that support your positions or particular passages
in these cases, but you need not quote (and if you do, quote only short
passages). You are to assume the case
is properly before the court (that is, technically, that the court has
jurisdiction). How to get started: it
is probably best to decide whether you are going to approach the case from a
police power or liberty of contract position and then approach each issue from
that perspective, considering the case of women workers perhaps separately, and
then examining the commerce issueBbut that is your choice. The
exam is OPEN BOOK You may use
your book, your notes, and any of the class handouts in writing your
answer. You are encouraged to study
with other members of the class and you make work on answers together, but you
may NOT bring a prepared answer to class and copy it into the bluebook. You should, however, have an outline, and
make sure you have identified beforehand any pages in your books and documents
to which you will refer.