Say What!?

In Mueller v. Oregon (1908) the Court upheld an Oregon law that limited women to no more then ten hours of labor a day. Our Con Law book was evaluating why this law would be okay when the Court had previously said that a law limiting bakery workers to ten hours a day (Lochner) was not okay. It was during the book's discussion of this that I found one of most amusing typos ever*:

"The Court cited the 'inherent difference between the two sexes,' the public interest in 'healthy mothers,' and the need to protect women as indicia of the pubic interest behind the law."

Did you catch that?

Nice to know that there is a pubic interest that lawmakers feel the need to protect. Just think if this typo had occured elsewhere.

On police cars it would now read: "To serve and protect the pubic."

Instead of the local Department of Public Works, it would now be The Department of Pubic Works.

The judge at a sentencing: "I hereby sentence you to 80 hours of pubic service."

The title on the newsletter from Career Services: "Pubic Interest Press"

The sign at the entrance to the library: "Welcome to The Pubic Library"

Instead of the Museum of Public Relations, we'd have the Museum of Pubic Relations.

On the next ballot there would be a referendum for Pubic Health Reform.



*Yes, only a law student such as myself would find typos amusing. What can I say? By the way, for the sake of citing my source, the typo was found in American Constitutional Law by Massey, Second Edition on the top of page 472.