The Technicality That Defeated Everett’s Ten-Hour Law
A local labor case against a merchant was dismissed, exposing a legal system that the paper argues favors corporations over human rights.
We have just been treated to another law travesty, one of the many that go to make the sum total of disgust with the tortuous turnings of legal procedure. We refer to the Rahlinger ten-hour case which was dismissed by Justice Shelter last Tuesday. In this case the violation of law was plain; it was pretty conclusively shown in court that the complaining witness had been worked over the ten-hour limit. The question turned on fixing responsibility. Rahlinger had a special sale on and claimed that the sales manager was responsible as the girl was working under the latter's orders. The girl was paid by Rahlinger, however, when she quit her position. Justice Shelter took the case under advisement to determine whether Rahlinger or the man conducting the sale was responsible to the law. As the complaint was entered against Jackson, the sale manager, the dismissal of the case is evidence that the court arrived at the conclusion that the complaint had been entered against the wrong man. We are not finding fault particularly with Justice Shelter, but rather at a system which allows the merest technicalities to interfere with administrative justice. The law was plainly violated, yet everybody got off scot-free.
“Abstruse reasoning and mouldy precedents weigh more in most courts than plain horse sense.”
Everett has a long history of labor agitation, from the 1916 Free Speech fight to the early mill workers' struggles. This 1911 editorial captures the persistent frustration with a legal system perceived as a tool for corporate obfuscation, a sentiment that resonates through modern debates about wage theft and regulatory capture.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.