View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
JAMES

J.

DAVIS, Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
ETHELBERT STEWART, Commissioner

BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES )
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS \

No. 322

L A B O R LAWS OF T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S S E R I E S

KANSAS COURT OF
IN D U S T R IA L R E L A T IO N S




APRIL, 1923

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1923




CONTENTS.
Page.

Text of law _____________________________________________________________ 1-9
Cases before the court__________________________________________________ 9-28
Synopsis____________________________________________________________ 9-12
Topeka Edison Co.—Wages__________________________________________ 12-14
Joplin & Pittsburg Railway Co.—Wages_____________________________ 14-16
Joplin & Pittsburg Railway Co.—Wages—Hours—Train crew_______16-18
International Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen and Oilers—W ages. 18,19
Flour milling industry—Retention of essential employees___________ 19,20
Fort Scott Sorghum-Syrup Co.— “ One man, one job ”________________20,21
Chas. Wolff Packing Co.—Wages—Equal pay for women___________ 21-23
Topeka Railway Co.—Wages—Fares________________________________24, 25
Other cases__________________________________________________________ 25-28
Legal proceedings affecting the industrial law ________________________ 28-36
State ex rel. Hopkins v . Howat (injunction)_______________________
28
State ex rel. Court of Industrial Relations v . Howat (contem pt)___
29
State v . Howat (conspiracy, contempt)_______________________________29-32
Howat v . Kansas (U. S. Sup.)_______________________________________ 32,33
State v . Howat (contempt) _________________________________________
33
33
State v . Howat (violation)_________________________________________
State v . Scott (constitutionality)____________________________________ 33,34
Court of Industrial Relations v . Chas. Wolff Packing Co. (w ages)___ 34-36
Reports_________________________________________________________________ 37,38
Appendix.—List of references on the Kansas Court of Industrial Re­
lations________________________________________________________________ 39-51




in




BULLETIN OF THE

U .
no

.

S .

B U R E A U

O F

L A B O R

WASHINGTON

322

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

Numerous inquiries have reached the Department of Labor as to
the nature and operations of the industrial court law of Kansas.
This body has been in existence for nearly three years, and during
this initial period has not only made a number of rulings, but has
been a party to or the subject of a number of decisions by the courts
of the State, one case coming also to the Supreme Court of the
United States. Two annual reports have been issued, covering the
first 22 months of the history of the court.
The following account of the law and its workings is based ex­
clusively on the official data named and presents no other viewpoint
or comment than that of the body under consideration or of the
courts in discussing it. A bibliography of books and articles on
the Kansas court of industrial relations, from various viewpoints,
is appended at the conclusion of this record.
TEXT OF LAW.

The provisions of the law are as follows:

ACTS OF 1920— EXTRA SESSION.
C h a pter 29 .— C o u r t o f i n d u s t r i a l r e l a ti o n s .
S ection 1. There is hereby created a tribunal to be known as Court created,
the court of industrial relations, which shall be composed of three
judges who shall be appointed by the governor, by and with the
advice and consent of the senate. Of such three judges first ap­
pointed, one shall be appointed for a term of one year, one for a
term of two years, and one for a term of three years, said terms
to begin simultaneously upon qualification of the persons ap­
pointed therefor. Upon the expiration of the term of the three
judges first appointed as aforesaid, each succeeding judge shall
be appointed and shall hold his office for a term of three years
and until his successor shall have been qualified. In case of a
vacancy in the office of judge of said court of industrial rela­
tions the governor shall appoint his successor to fill the vacancy
for the unexpired term. The salary of each of said judges shall
be five thousand dollars per year, payable monthly. Of the
judges first to be appointed, the one appointed for the three-year
. term shall be the presiding judge, and thereafter the judge whose
term of service has been the longest shall be the presiding judge:
P r o v i d e d , That in case two or more of said judges shall have
served the same length of time, the presiding judge shall be des­
ignated by the governor.
S ec . 2. The jurisdiction conferred by law upon the Public Utili- . P u b l i c utili­
ties Commission of the State of Kansas is hereby conferred upon ties*
the court of industrial relations, and the said court of industrial
relations is hereby given full power, authority and jurisdiction to



1

S T A T I

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

2

supervise and control all public utilities and all common carriers
as defined in sections 8329 and 8330 of the General Statutes of
Kansas for 1915, doing business in the State of Kansas, and is
empowered to do all things necessary and convenient for the ex­
ercise of such power, authority and jurisdiction. All laws relat­
ing to the powers, authority, jurisdiction and duties of the public
utilities commission of this State are hereby adopted and all
powers, authority, jurisdiction and duties by said laws imposed
and conferred upon the public utilities commission of this State
relating to common carriers and public utilities are hereby im­
posed and conferred upon the court of industrial relations cre­
ated under the provisions of this act; and in addition thereto
said court of industrial relations shall have such further power,
authority and jurisdiction and shall perform such further duties
as are in this act set forth, and said public utilities commission
is hereby abolished. That all pending actions brought by or
against the said public utilities commission of this State shall
not be affected, but the same may be prosecuted or defended by
and in the name of the court of industrial relations. Any inves­
tigation, examination, or proceedings had or undertaken, com­
menced or instituted by or pending before said public utilities
commission at the time of the taking effect of this act are trans­
ferred to and shall be continued and heard by the said court of
industrial relations hereby created, under the same terms and
conditions and with like effect as though said public utilities
commission had not been abolished.

Chapter 260, Acts of 1921, created a public utilities commission as
a distinct body and transferred to it the powers and duties of the
court of industrial relations as defined by sections 8328, 8329, and
8330, General Statutes.
Chapter 261 amended section 2 of the industrial courts act, so that
it now reads as follows:

S ec. 2. The court of industrial relations shall have such power,
etc*
authority and jurisdiction, and shall perform such duties as are
in this act set forth.
Emp^ymciits, S ec. 3. (a) The operation of the following named and indicated
etc, a ected.
employments, industries, public utilities and common carriers is
hereby determined and declared to be affected with a public in­
terest and therefore subject to supervision by the State as herein
provided for the purpose of preserving the public peace, protect­
ing the public health, preventing industrial strife, disorder and
waste, and securing regular and orderly conduct of thfe businesses
directly affecting the living conditions of the people of this State
and in the promotion of the general welfare, to w it: (1) The
manufacture or preparation of food products whereby, In any
stage of the process, substances are being converted, either par­
tially or wholly, from their natural state to a condition to be
used as food for human beings; (2) the manufacture of clothing
and all manner of wearing apparel in common use by the people
of this State whereby, in any stage of the process, natural pro­
ducts are being converted, either partially or wholly, from their
natural state to a condition to be used as such clothing and wear­
ing apparel; (3) the mining or production of any substance or
m aterial in common use as fuel either for domestic, manufactur­
ing, or transportation expenses; (4) the transportation of all
food products and articles or substances entering into wearing
apparel, or fuel, as aforesaid, from the place where produced to
the place of manufacture or consumption; (5) all public utilities
as defined by section 8329, and all common carriers as defined by
section 8330 of the General Statutes of Kansas of 1915.
(b) Any person, firm or corporation engaged in any such in­
dustry or employment, or in the operation of such public utility
or common carrier, w ithin the State of Kansas, either in the
capacity of owner, officer, or worker, shall be subject to the proJ

u




r

i

s

d

i

c

t

i

o

n

TEXT OF LAW.

3

visions of this act, except as limited by the provisions of this
act.
S ec . 4. Said court of industrial relations shall have its office at Office,
the capital of said State in the city of Topeka, and shall keep a
record of all its proceedings which shall be a public record and
subject to inspection the same as other public records o f this
State. Said court, in addition to the powders and jurisdiction here- Powers,
tofore conferred upon, and exercised by, the public utilities com­
mission, is hereby given full power, authority and jurisdiction to
supervise, direct and control the operation of the industries, em­
ployments, public utilities, and common carriers in all matters
herein specified and in the manner provided herein, and to do
all things needful for the proper and expeditious enforcement of
all the provisions of this act.
S ec . 5. Said court of industrial relations is hereby granted full
and reff'
power to adopt all reasonable and proper rules and regulations to
govern its proceedings, the service of process, to administer oaths,
and to regulate the mode and manner of all its investigations,
inspections and hearings: P r o v i d e d , h o w e v e r , That in the taking
of testimony the rules of evidence, as recognized by the Supreme
Court of the State of Kansas in original proceedings therein, shall
be observed by said court of industrial relations; and testimony
so taken shall in all cases be transcribed by the reporter for said
court of industrial relations in duplicate, one copy of said testi­
mony to be filed among the permanent records of said court, and
the other to be submitted to said supreme court in case the matter
shall be taken to said supreme court under the provisions of this
act.
S ec . 6. It is hereby declared and determined to be necessary Continuous opfor the public peace, health and general welfare of the people of eratlonthis State that the industries, employments, public utilities and
common carriers herein specified shall be operated with reason­
able continuity and efficiency in order that the people of this State
may live in peace and security, and be supplied with the neces­
saries of life. No person, firm, corporation, or association of per- interference,
sons shall in any manner or to any extent, willfully hinder, delay,
lim it or suspend such continuous and efficient operation for the
purpose of evading the purpose and intent of the provisions of this
a c t; nor shall any person, firm, corporation, or association of per­
sons do any act or neglect or refuse to perform any duty herein
enjoined w ith the intent to hinder, delay, lim it or suspend such
continuous and efficient operation as aforesaid, except under the
terms and conditions provided by this act.
S ec . 7. In case of a controversy arising between employers and Disputes,
workers, or between groups or crafts of workers, engaged in any
of said industries, employments, public utilities, or common car­
riers, if it shall appear to said court of industrial relations that
said controversy may endanger the continuity or efficiency of
service of any of said industries, employments, public utilities or
common carriers, or affect the production or transportation of the
necessaries of life affected or produced by said industries or em­
ployments, or produce industrial strife, disorder or waste, or
endanger the orderly operation of such industries, employments,
public utilities or common carriers, and thereby endanger the
public peace or threaten the public health, full power, authority Jurisdiction,
and jurisdiction are hereby granted to said court of industrial
relations, upon its own initiative, to summon all necessary parties
before it and to investigate said controversy, and to make such
temporary findings and orders as may be necessary to preserve
the public peace and welfare and to preserve and protect the
status of the parties, property and public interests involved pend­
ing said investigation, and to take evidence and to examine all
necessary records, and to investigate conditions surrounding the
workers, and to consider the wages paid to labor and the return
accruing to capital, and the rights and welfare of the public, and
all other matters affecting the conduct of said industries, em­
ployments, public utilities or common carriers, and to settle and



4

KANSAS COUNT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

Orders.

Industrial

ditions.

adjust all such controversies by such findings and orders as pro­
vided in this act. It is further made the duty of said court of
industrial relations, upon complaint of either party to such con­
troversy, or upon complaint of any ten citizen taxpayers of the
community in which such industries, employments, public util­
ities or common carriers are located, or upon the complaint of
the attorney general of the State of Kansas, if it shall be made
to appear to said court that the parties are unable to agree and
that such controversy may endanger the continuity or efficiency
of service of any of said industries, employments, public utilities
or common carriers, or affect the production or transportation of
the necessaries of life affected or produced by said industries or
employments, or produce industrial strife, disorder or waste, or
endanger the orderly operation of such industries, employments,
public utilities or common carriers, and thereby endanger the
public peace or threaten the public health, to proceed and in­
vestigate and determine said controversy in the same manner as
though upon its own initiative. After the conclusion of any such
hearing and investigation, and as expeditiously as possible, said
court of industrial relations shall make and serve uf>on all in­
terested parties its findings, stating specifically the terms and
conditions upon which said industry, employment, utility or com­
mon carrier should be thereafter conducted in so far as the mat­
ters determined by said court are concerned.
S ec . 8. The court of industrial relations shall order sucn
changes, if any, as are necessary to be made in and about the con­
duct of said industry, employment, utility or common carrier, in
the matters of working and living conditions, hours of labor,
rules and practices, and a reasonable minimum wage, or standard
of wages, to conform to the findings of the court in such matters,
as provided in this act, and such orders shall be served at the
same tim e and in the same manner as provided for the service
of the court’s findings in this a c t: P r o v i d e d , That all such terms,
conditions and wages shall be just and reasonable and such as to
enable such industries, employments, utilities or common carriers
to continue with reasonable efficiency to produce or transport their
products or continue their operations and thus to promote the
general welfare. Service of such order shall be made in the same
manner as service of notice of any hearing before said court as
provided by this act. Such terms, conditions, rules, practices,
wages, or standard of wages, so fixed and determined by said
court and stated in said order, shall continue for such reasonable
time as may be fixed by said court, or until changed by agreement
of the parties with the approval of the court. If either party to
such controversy shall in good faith comply with any order of
said court of industrial relations for a period of sixty days or
more, and shall find said order unjust, unreasonable or imprac­
ticable, said party may apply to said court of industrial relations
for a modification thereof and said court of industrial relations
• shall hear and determine said application and make findings and
orders in like manner and with like effect as originally. In such
case the evidence taken and submitted in the original hearing may
be considered.
S ec . 9. It is hereby declared necessary for the promotion of the
general welfare that workers engaged in any of said industries,
employments, utilities or common carriers shall receive at all
times a fair wage and healthful and moral surroundings while
engaged in such labor; and that capital invested therein shall re­
ceive at all times a fair rate of return to the owners thereof. The
right of every person to make his own choice of employment and
to make and carry out fair, just and reasonable contracts and
agreements of employment, is hereby recognized. If, during the
continuance of any such employment, the terms or conditions of
any such contract or agreement hereafter entered into, are by said
court, in any action or proceednig properly before it under the
provisions of this act, found to be unfair, unjust or unreasonable,
said court of industrial relations may by proper order so modify




TEXT OF LA W .

5

the terms and conditions thereof so that they will be and remain
fair, just and reasonable and all such orders shall be enforced as
in this act provided.
S ec . 10. Before any hearing, trial or investigation shall be held . Notice of hearby said court, such notice as the court shall deem necessary shall 1Hgs*
be given to all parties interested by registered United States mail
addressed to said parties to the post office of the usual place of
residence or business of said interested parties when same is
known, or by the publication of notice in some newspaper of gen­
eral circulation in the county in which said industry or employ­
ment, or the principal office of such utility or common carrier is
located, and said notice shall fix the time and place of said
investigation or hearing. The costs of publication shall be paid
by said court out of any funds available therefor. Such notice
shall contain the substance of the matter to be investigated, and
shall notify all persons interested in said matter to be present
at the time and' place named to give such testimony or to take
such action as they may deem proper.
S ec . 11. Said court of industrial relations may employ a com- Employees,
petent clerk, marshal, shorthand reporter, and such expert ac­
countants, engineers, stenographers, attorneys, and other em­
ployees as may be necessary to conduct the business of said
court; shall provide itself with a proper seal and shall have the
power and authority to issue summons and subpoenas and compel
the attendance of witnesses and parties and to compel the pro- Witnesses, etc.
duction of the books, correspondence, files, records, and accounts
of any industry, employment, utility or common carrier, or of any
person, corporation, association or union of employees affected,
and to make any and all investigations necessary to ascertain the
truth in regard to said controversy. In case any person shall fail
or refuse to obey any summons or subpoena issued by said court
after due service, then and in that event said court is hereby
authorized and empowered to take proper proceedings in any
court of competent jurisdiction to compel obedience to such
summons or subpoena. Employees of said court whose salaries are
not fixed by law shall be paid such compensation as may be fixed
by said court, with the approval of the governor.
S ec . 12. In case of the failure or refusal of either party to said Enforcement of
controversy to obey and be governed by the order of said courtorders*
of industrial relations, then and in that event said court is hereby
authorized to bring proper proceedings in the Supreme Court of
the State of Kansas to compel compliance with said order; and in
case either party to said controversy should feel aggrieved at any
order made and entered by said court of industrial relations,
such party is hereby authorized and empowered within ten days
after service of such order upon it to bring proper proceedings
in the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas to compel said
court of industrial relations to make and enter a just, reason­
able and lawful order in the premises. In case of such proceed­
ings in the supreme court by either party, the evidence produced
before said court of industrial relations may be considered by said
supreme court, but said supreme court, if it deem further evidence
necessary to enable it to render a just and proper judgment, may
admit such additional evidence in open court or order it taken
and transcribed by a master or commissioner. In case any con­
troversy shall be taken by either party to the Supreme Court of
the State of Kansas under the provisions of this act, said pro­
ceedings shall take precedence over other civil cases before said
court, and a hearing and determination of the same shall be by
said court expedited as fully as may be possible consistent with
a careful and thorough trial and consideration of said matter.
S ec . 13. No action or proceeding in law or equity shall be Action to sosbrought by any person, firm or corporation to vacate, set aside, or pend*
suspend any order made and served as provided in this act, un­
less such action or proceeding shall be commenced within thirty
.days from the time of the service of such order.



KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

6

S ec . 14. Any union or association of workers engaged in the
operation of such industries, employments, public utilities or
common carriers, which shall incorporate under the laws of this
State shall be by said court of industrial relations considered
and recognized in all its proceedings as a legal entity and may
appear before said court of industrial relations through and by
its proper officers, attorneys or other representatives. The right
of such corporations, and of such unincorporated unions or asso­
ciations of workers, to bargain collectively for their members is
hereby recognized: P ro vid ed , That the individual members of
such unincorporated unions or associations, who shall desire to
avail themselves of such right of collective bargaining, shall ap­
point in writing some officer or officers of such union or associa­
tion, or some other person or persons as their agents or trustees
with authority to enter into such collective bargains and to
represent each and every of said individuals in all matters
relating thereto. Such written appointment of agents or trustees
shall be made a permanent record of such union or association.
All such collective bargains, contracts, or agreements shall be
subject to the provisions of section nine of this act.
Protection of S ec . 15. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporawitnesses.
tion to discharge any employeee or to discriminate in any way
against any employee because of the fact that any such em­
ployee may testify as a witness before the court of industrial
relations, or shall sign any complaint or shall be in any way
instrumental in bringing to the attention of the court of indus­
trial relations any matter of controversy between employers
and employees as provided herein. It shall also be unlawful for
any two or more persons, by conspiring or confederating to­
gether, to injure in any manner any other person or persons,
or any corporation, in his, their, or its business, labor, enterBoycotts.
prise, or peace and security, by boycott, by discrimination, by
picketing, by advertising, by propaganda, or other means, because
of any action taken by any such person or persons, or any cor­
poration under any order of said court, or because of any
action or proceeding instituted in said court, or because any
such person or persons, or corporation, shall have invoked the
jurisdiction of said court in any matter provided for herein.
Restricting out- S ec . 16. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporaPuition engaged in the operation of any such industry, employment,
utility, or common carrier willfully to limit or cease operations
for the purpose of limiting production or transportation or to
affect prices, for the purpose of avoiding any of the provisions
of this act; but any person, firm or corporation so engaged may
apply to said court of industrial relations for authority to limit
or cease operations, stating the reasons therefor, and said court of
industrial relations shall hear said application promptly, and if
said application shall be found to be in good faith and meritorious,
authority to limit or cease operations shall be granted by order of
said court. In all such industries, employments, utilities or com­
mon carriers in which operation may be ordinarily affected by
changes in season, market conditions, or other reasons or causes
inherent in the nature of the business, said court of industrial re­
lations may, upon application and after notice to all interested
parties, and investigation, as herein provided, make orders fixing
rules, regulations and practices to govern the operation of such
industries, employments, utilities or common carriers for the
purpose of securing the best service to the public consistent with
the rights of employers and employees engaged in the operation
of such industries, employments, utilities or common carriers.
Violations.
S ec . 17. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or cor­
poration, or for any association of persons, to do or perform
any act forbidden, or to fail or refuse to perform any act or
duty enjoined by the provisions of this act, or to conspire or
confederate with others to do or perform any act forbidden, or
to fail or refuse to perform any act or duty enjoined by the
provisions of this act, or to induce or intimidate any person,
Unions, etc.




TEXT OF LA.W.

7

firm or corporation engaged in any of said industries, employ­
ments, utilities or common carriers to do any act forbidden, or
to fail or refuse to perform any act or duty enjoined by the
provisions of this act, for the purpose or with the intent to
hinder, delay, limit, or suspend the operation of any of the
industries, employments, utilities or common carriers herein
specified or indicated, or to delay, limit, or suspend the produc­
tion or transportation of the products of such industries, or
employments, or the service of such utilities or common carriers:
P ro vided , That nothing in this act shall be construed as restricting
the right of any individual employee engaged in the operation
of any such industry, employment, public utility, or common car­
rier to quit his employment at any time, hut it shall be unlaw­
ful for any such individual employee or other person to conspire
with other persons to quit their employment or to induce other
persons to quit their employment for the purpose of hindering,
delaying, interfering with, or suspending the operation of any
of the industries, employments, public utilities, or common
carriers governed by the provisions of this act, or for any
person to engage in what is known as “ picketing” or to in­
timidate by threats, abuse, or in any other manner, any person
or persons with intent to induce such person or persons to
quit such employment, or for the purpose of deterring or pre­
venting any other person or persons from accepting employment
or from remaining in the employ of any of the industries, em­
ployments, public utilities, or common carriers governed by the
provisions of this act.
S ec . 18. Any person willfully violating the provisions of this Penalties,
act, or any valid order of said court of industrial relations,
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction
thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction of this State
shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed $1,000, or by im­
prisonment in the county jail for a period of not to exceed
one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

S e c . 19. A n y o fficer o f a n y c o r p o r a tio n e n g a g e d in a n y o f th e Offenses of offiin d u s tr ie s , e m p lo y m e n ts , u t il it ie s o r c o m m o n c a r r i e r s h e r e in cei>s, etc.
n a m e d a n d sp e c ifie d , o r a n y o ffic er o f a n y la b o r u n io n o r a s s o c ia ­
tio n o f p e r s o n s e n g a g e d a s w o r k e r s in a n y s u c h in d u s tr y , e m ­
p lo y m e n t, u t i l i t y o r c o m m o n c a r r i e r , o r a n y e m p lo y e r o f l a b o r
c o m in g w i th i n t h e p r o v is io n s o f t h is a c t, w h o s h a ll w illfu lly u s e
t h e p o w e r, a u t h o r i t y o r in flu e n c e in c id e n t to h is o ffic ia l p o s i­
tio n , o r to h is p o s itio n a s a n e m p lo y e r o f o th e rs , a n d b y s u c h
m e a n s s h a ll in te n tio n a lly in flu e n c e , im p e l, o r c o m p e l a n y o th e r
p e rs o n to v io la te a n y o f t h e p ro v is io n s o f t h i s a c t, o r a n y v a lid
o r d e r o f s a id c o u r t o f i n d u s t r i a l r e la tio n s , s h a ll b e d e e m e d
g u ilty o f a fe lo n y a n d u p o n c o n v ic tio n t h e r e o f in a n y c o u r t o f
c o m p e te n t j u r is d ic ti o n s h a ll h e p u n is h e d b y a fin e n o t to e x c e e d
$5,000, o r b y im p r is o n m e n t in t h e S t a t e p e n i te n t ia r y a t h a r d
la b o r f o r a t e r m n o t to e x c e e d tw o y e a r s , o r b y b o th s u c h fin e
a n d im p ris o n m e n t.

S ec . 20. In case of the suspension, limitation or cessation of Court may asthe operation of any of the industries, employments, publicsume control,
utilities or common carriers affected by this act, contrary to
the provisions hereof, or to the orders of said court made here­
under, if it shall appear to said court that such suspension,
limitation, or cessation shall seriously affect the public welfare
by endangering the public peace, or threatening the public
health, then said court is hereby authorized, empowered and *
directed to take proper proceedings in any court of competent
jurisdiction of this State to take over, control, direct and operate
said industry, employment, public utility or common carrier
during such emergency: P ro vid ed , That a fair return and com­
pensation shall be paid to the owners of such industry, em­
ployment, public utility or common carrier, and also a fair
wage to the workers engaged therein, during the time of such
operation under the provisions of this section.




KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

8

Sec. 21. When any controversy shall arise between employer
and employee as to wages, hours of employment, or working or
living conditions, in any industry not hereinbefore specified, the
parties to such controversy may, by mutual agreement, and with
the consent of the court, refer the same to the court of in­
dustrial relations for its findings and orders. Such agreement
of reference shall be in writing, signed by the parties thereto;
whereupon said court shall proceed to investigate, hear, and de­
termine said controversy as in other cases, and in such case
the findings and orders of the court of industrial relations as
to said controversy shall have the same force and effect as
though made in any essential industry as herein provided.
Sec. 22. Whenever deemed necessary by the court of industrial
relations, the court may appoint such person, or persons, having a
technical knowledge of bookkeeping, engineering, or other technical
subjects involved in any inquiry in which the court is engaged, as
T a k i n g evi­ a commissioner for the purpose of taking evidence with relation
dence.
to such subject. Such commissioner when appointed shall take an
oath to well and faithfully perform the duties imposed upon him,
and shall thereafter have the same power to administer oaths,
compel the production of evidence, and the attendance of wit­
nesses as the Said court would have if sitting in the same matter.
Said commissioner shall receive such compensation as may be pro­
vided by law or by the order of said court, to be approved by
the governor.
P resum ption as Sec. 23. Any order made by said court of industrial relations
to wages.
as to a minimum wage or a standard of wages shall be deemed
prima facie reasonable and just, and if said minimum wage or
standard of wages shall be in excess of the wages theretofore
paid in the industry, employment, utility or common carrier, then
and in that event the workers affected thereby shall be entitled
to receive said minimum wage or standard of wages from the
date of the service of summons or publication of notice instituting
said investigation, and shall have the right individually, or in
case of incorporated unions or associations, or unincorporated
unions or associations entitled thereto, collectively, to recover in
any court of competent jurisdiction the difference between the
wages actually paid and said minimum wage or standard of
wages so found and determined by said court in such order. It
shall be the duty of all employers affected by the provisions of
this act, during the pendency of any investigation brought under
this act, or any litigation resulting therefrom, to keep an ac­
curate account of all wages paid to all workers interested in said
investigation or proceeding: P ro vided , That in case said order
shall fix a wage or standard of wages which is lower than the
wages theretofore paid in the industry, employment, utility or
common carrier affected, then and in that event the employers
shall have the same right to recover in the same manner as pro­
vided in this section with reference to the workers.
Sec. 24. With the consent of the governor, the judges of said
court of industrial relations are hereby authorized and empowered
Investigations. to make, or cause to be made, within this State or elsewhere, such
investigations and inquiries as to industrial conditions and rela­
tions as may be profitable or necessary for the purpose of familiar­
izing themselves with industrial problems such as may arise under
the provisions of this act. All the expenses incurred in the per­
formance of their official duties by the individual members of said
court and by the employees and officers of said court, shall be paid
by the State out of funds appropriated therefor by the legislature,
but all warrants covering such expenses shall be approved by the
governor of said State.
R e m e d ie s cu­ Sec. 25. The rights and remedies given and provided by this act
m ulative.
shall be construed to be cumulative of all other laws in force in
said State relating to the same matters, and this act shall not be
interpreted as a repeal of any other act now existing in said State
with .reference to the same matters referred to in this act, except
Subm issions.




CASES BEFORE THE COURT.

9

where the same may be inconsistent with the provisions of this
act.
Sec. 26. The provisions of this act and all grants of power, Construction,
authority and jurisdiction herein made to said court of industrial
relations shall be liberally construed and all incidental powers
necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this act are hereby
expressly granted to and conferred upon said court of industrial
relations.
Sec. 27. Annually and on or before January first of each year, Reports,
said court of industrial relations shall formulate and make a
report of all its acts and proceedings, including a financial state­
ment of expenses, and shall submit the same to the governor of
this State for his information. All expenses incident to the Expenses,
conduct of the business of said court of industrial relations shall
be paid by the said court on warrants signed by its presiding
judge and clerk, and countersigned by the governor and shall be
paid out of funds appropriated therefor by the legislature. The
said court of industrial relations shall, on or before the convening
of the legislature, make a detailed estimate of the probable ex­
penses of conducting its business and proceedings for the ensuing
two years, and attach thereto a copy of the reports furnished the
governor, all of which shall be submitted to the governor of this
State and by him submitted to the legislature.
Sec. 28. If any section or provision of this act shall be found Provisions sevinvalid by any court, it shall be conclusively presumed that this erableact would have been passed by the legislature without such
invalid section or provision, and the act as a whole shall not be
declared invalid by reason of the fact that one or more sections
or provisions may be found to be invalid by any court.
Approved January 23, 1920.

Chapter 261, Acts of 1921, besides amending section 2 of the above
act, as already noted, provided as follows:

Section 2. In any matter pending before the court of Indus- Joint hearings,
trial relations, it shall be brought to the attention of such court
that there is a matter pending before the public utilities commis­
sion in relation to the rate charged by the employer, the court
of industrial relations may order such matters to be heard and
determined at the same time by such commission and court
of industrial relations, sitting as one body, the presiding judge
of said court of industrial relations presiding, and in case of
a tie vote, the presiding judge of said court of industrial rela­
tions shall cast an additional vote.

Other acts of 1921 confer upon the court of industrial relations
the administration of labor laws and the functions of the industrial
welfare commission relative to the minimum wage law and employ­
ment conditions of women and minors generally; but these functions
and duties will not be considered in the present connection, the ob­
ject of this report being to set forth the status, workings, and results
of the court on its industrial side only.
CASES B E FO R E T H E C O U R T.

SYNOPSIS.

The second annual report of the court of industrial relations gives
a synopsis of the cases filed on the industrial side of the court during
the first two years of its existence, 1920 and 1921.
Docket No. 1. Investigation into the coal industry in Cherokee
and Crawford Counties, the principal mining counties of the State,
initiated by the court. A report of this investigation was printed,
and orders made limiting the check-off system, doing away with ex­



10

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

cessive discounts for money drawn before pay day, and regulating
charges for explosives.
Docket No. 2. Employees of the Topeka Edison Co., a light and
power company, petition for increase in wages; granted.
Docket No. 3. Employees of the Joplin & Pittsburg Railway Co.,
petition for increase in wages; increase granted in part.
Docket No. 4. Case filed by the National Brotherhood of Station­
ary Firemen and Oilers against the Union Pacific and other large
railway systems, with regard to wages; terminated by approving a
settlement made by the parties.
Docket No. 5. Complaint of shopmen against the Santa Fe and
other railroads, involving the question of wages; case dismissed on
parties’ agreement to accept the order of the Federal Railroad Labor
Board.
Docket No. 6. Linemen, employees of Joplin & Pittsburg Railway
Co., complaint with regard to wages; order issued granting increase.
Docket No. 7. Train dispatchers of same company, complaint with
regard to wages; wages found reasonable and no increase granted.
Docket No. 8. Foremen of trackmen of the same company, wage
complaint; order issued granting increase.
Docket No. 9. Substation operators of same company, complaint
as to wages; order issued denying increase.
Docket No. 10. Trackmen’s union, employees of the same company;
complaint as to wages; increase granted.
Docket No. 11. Employees of Topeka Railway Co. (through Local
797, Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway Em­
ployees of America) ; complaint as to wages; order issued partially
granting increase.
Docket No. 12. Employees of Wichita Railroad & Light Co.
(through Local 794, Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric
Railway Employees of America); wage increase; parallel to Topeka
case.
Docket No. 13. Employees of Kansas Flour Mills Co.; complaint
as to wages and working conditions; working conditions (hours) im­
proved and wages increased in part (overtime).
Docket No. 14. Employees of the Western Star Milling Co.; com­
plaint as to wages; satisfactory settlement made and complaint dis­
missed.
Docket No. 15. Employees (shot firers) of Southwest Interstate
Coal Operators’ Association; complaint as to wages; dismissed on
account of settlement.
Docket No. 16. Employees of Atchison Railway, Light & Power
Co.; complaint as to wages; increase granted in part..
Docket No. 17. Employees of Hutchinson Street Railway Co.
(through Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway
Employees of America) ; complaint as to wages; order issued estab­
lishing a scale for a term of three months.
Docket No. 18. Employees of Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Rail­
way Co. (through Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America) ;
complaint as to working conditions; order issued improving same.
Docket No. 19. Employees of Northeast Kansas Telephone Co.
(through Local Union No. 12846); complaint as to wages; order
establishing wage rates.



CASES BEFORE THE COURT.

11

Docket No. 20. Employees of Crawford Telephone & Telegraph
Co.; complaint as to wages and working conditions; minimum wage
scale and improved working conditions established.
Docket No. 21. Employees of Joplin & Pittsburg Railway. Co.
(through Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway
Employees of America) ; complaint as to contract; order issued speci­
fying wages.
Docket No. 22. Section foremen and workers, employees of Salina
Northern Railway Co., complaint as to wages; pending, road in
hands of receiver.
Docket No. 23. Trackmen, employees of Joplin & Pittsburg Rail­
way Co., complaint as to hours and wages; settled under another
docket.
Docket No. 24. Investigation of flour-milling industry; order is­
sued requiring mills to apply for leave to decrease or cease produc­
tion ; docket closed at end of emergency.
Docket No. 25. Employees of J. R. Crowe Coal & Mining Co.,
complaint of lack of work; heard and dismissed for lack of juris­
diction.
*
Docket No. 26. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local No. 417 v. City of Coffeyville, complaint as to wages; hearing
held and matter continued indefinitely.
Docket No. 27. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local No. 417 v. Sinclair Oil Refining Co., Coffeyville, complaint
as to wages; hearing held and matter continued.
Docket No. 28. Fort Scott Sorghum Syrup Co., request for modifi­
cation of terms of conditions of contract; granted.
This completes the list of cases filed in 1920. In 1921 there were
112 docket numbers relating to the single industry of milling, which
were disposed of under what was designated as “ the milling order.”
Other cases are as follows:
Docket No. 29. Employees of the Chas. Wolff Packing Co. (through
Amalgamated Meat Cutters’ Association), complaint as to wages and
working conditions; order issued establishing a minimum wage,
hours, and working conditions; carried to supreme court of State
by the company and there sustained.
Docket No. 30. Investigation by the court into the cause of a strike
at the George K. Mackie Fuel Co.’s mine; order issued directing back
wages, with interest, to be paid the workman and fixing date when
miners were to resume work.
Docket No. 31. Application by a coal company for permission
temporarily to cease the operation of one of its mines; granted.
Docket No. 32. Trackmen, employees of Arkansas Valley Interurban Railroad Co., complaint as to wages; agreement as to wages
and hours of service arrived at by parties under the direction of the
court approved by it.
Docket No. 141. Agent of Coach Cleaners’, etc., Union, complaint
of wrongful discharge of employee by Pullman Co.; right of com­
pany to discharge employee upheld.
Docket No. 142. Trackmen, employees of Kansas City, L. & W. R.
Co., complaint as to wages; satisfactory agreement reached and case
dismissed.



12

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

Docket No. 147. Employees of Topeka Railway Co. (through
Amalgamated Association of Street & Electric Railway Employees
of America), complaint as to wages; order issued reducing wages.
Docket No. 148. Leavenworth & Topeka Railroad Co., application
for certificate authorizing districts to aid in maintenance and recon­
struction of railroads, under chapter 216, Acts of 1921; certificate
issued.
Docket No. 149. Investigation concerning hours and working con­
ditions of women employed in mercantile establishments in the State;
temporary order regarding conditions issued.
Docket No. 150. Employees of Swift & Co., at Parsons, complaint
as to wages and working conditions; recommendations issued and
controversy adjusted on basis of same.
Docket No. 151. Employees of Joplin &Pittsburg Ry. Co. (through
Amalgamated Association of Street & Electric Railway Employees
of America), complaint as to wages; order issued reducing same.
On cross petition of trackmen, reduction in their wages was denied;
similarly of barn men; similarly of part of electrical workers. On
cross petition of substation men for increase, the existing wage was
continued.
Docket No. 152. Question of discontinuance of service at the Hor­
ton Exchange of the Northeast Kansas Telephone Co.; controversy
disposed of through court as intermediary and case dismissed.
Docket No. 153. State v. Wheatley, wages and working condi­
tions in the packing industry in Kansas; closed.
This makes 41 cases, besides the 112 in the milling industry, com­
ing before the court in its first two years. Cases arising during the
first year and continuing during the second involve Docket No. 1,
under which a more complete survey of the coal, industry was made;
Docket No. 12, under which the Wichita Power & Light Co. applied
for a modification of the former order relating to wages and a cross
petition relating to terms of the contract of employment (the ap­
plication for increase in wages was denied and an order issued fix­
ing terms and conditions of working agreement); Docket No. 21, in
which trainmen applied for interpretation and modification of pre­
vious order (order was issued); and Docket No. 24, under which an
order was issued for suspension and revocation of the operation of
the original milling order.
Without attempting to reproduce the entire list of rulings and
orders, the earliest and some of the most important ones are given as
illustrating the actual workings of the court, both in methods and
results. The decisions as reported are summarized, but the findings
and essential bases of fact are believed to be fully indicated.
TOPEKA EDISON CO.— W A G E S .

The first decision rendered bore date of March 29, 1920, and re­
lated to the wages of linemen employed by the Topeka Edison Co.
This company furnishes light and power for various citizens and in­
dustries of Topeka and Oakland and for the street-car systems of
the two cities, and was therefore within the scope of the law as a
public utility. The case was before the court on the complaint of
the attorney general of the State and of four members of the local
union of electrical workers to which the employees concerned be­



CASES BEFORE THE COURT.

13

longed. The controversy related to hours and wages, and the com­
plainants prayed for a due investigation and ascertainment of the
facts, and for such orders and findings as might be just and reason­
able.
The company’s reply admitted the incorporation of the company,
the nature of its business, and also the existence of an unsettled con­
troversy, and set forth its tender of a partial concession to its workers
and their rejection of the same. While denying certain allegations
of its employees, it “ respectfully submits and tenders the issue here
presented, and welcomes the good offices of this court in a judicial
determination of that which is equitable and just in the premises.”
Of this the opinion says:

It would seem, therefore, that while originally this matter was filed as an
action upon a controversy, under the compulsory features of the industrial laws
of the State of Kansas, it is now before the court more in the nature of a
voluntary submission by mutual agreement of a dispute between the above
parties.

There was found to be little conflict in the evidence submitted by
the two parties. The men were skilled, first-class workers, of un­
questioned fidelity, and were engaged in an occupation involving
serious hazards. For several years prior to 1916, the customary wage
had been $2.75 per day. In 1916 an advance was made to $90 per
month of 26 days, for a 9-hour day. In May, 1919, a basic 8-hour
day was adopted, with a rate of 60 cents per hour, time and one-half
for overtime, and double rates for Sunday work. There was a
practice of counting time on the job only, though the men had to
report at the storehouse, collect material and tools, and travel vary­
ing distances on a truck to reach their work. This practice had come
into question, and during the progress of the trial it was mutually
agreed to count the time both going and coming, as well as in the
storehouse, and that employer and workers would share this equally.
It was testified that living costs had so advanced that $4.80 at
the present time did not have the purchasing power of either the
$2.75 per day or the $90 per month when these were the wages paid.
A comparison with rates paid for like work in localities of similar
population and for other work of a comparable nature as to skill,
etc., in Topeka was also made. The seven basic principles of the
recent Federal railroad law were recited, i. e., Wages for similar
work elsewhere, cost of living, hazards, skill required, responsibility,
character and regularity of employment, and inequalities due to
prior adjustments. To these the courts added an eighth: “ The skill,
industry, and fidelity of the individual employee.”
It was pointed out that the law did not use the term, a “ living ”
wage, but a “ fair ” wage, while also having regard for a “ fair rate
of return to the owners.” Workers of the class under consideration
were said to be “ in all fairness entitled to a wage which will enable
them to procure for themselves and their families all the necessaries
and a reasonable share of the comforts of life,” including intellectual
advancement and recreation, the education of their children, and
opportunity to provide for sickness and old age. It was also stated
that the law allows only the fixing of a minimum wage, leaving the
maximum to “ depend upon the skill, fidelity, and industry of the
29723°—23---- 2




14

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

employee, the fair and equitable disposition of the employer, the
prosperity of the business, and other economic circumstances.”
The-men had asked for an advance of 10 cents per hour over the
60-cent rate they had been receiving; and since an agreement had
been reached as to time in the storehouse and on the road, this was
really the only point to be decided. The court issued its order ratify­
ing file agreement made and fixing the rate of pay at 67| cents per
hour for an 8-hour day, time and a half for overtime, and double
time for Sunday work, this rate to be the minimum for six months
from April 1 unless changed by agreement of the parties, with the
approval of the court.
JOPLIN & PITTSBURG RAILWAY CO.— W A G E S .

The court announced on April 23, 1920, its findings in a ease
involving all classes of employees of the Joplin & Pittsburg Railway
Co. of Kansas and Missouri. The complainants were 158 members of
a local union composed entirely of employees of the railway. The
company operates an electric interurban road, carrying freight and
passengers between various points in Kansas and extending also to
Joplin, Mo. This necessitated the decision of a contention raised by
the company that the court had no jurisdiction on account of the
interstate character of the business, which would place the company
exclusively under the provisions of the Federal transportation act of
February 28, 1929.
This contention was decided adversely to the company, and it was
permitted to answer as to the complaints of its employees. It first
alleged a contract dated August 1,1914, to run for six years, which it
held to be in full force and controlling the subject of wages. It also
denied that there was any controversy endangering or likely to
endanger the operation of its business, and f urther alleged its finan­
cial inability to pay a higher wage. A large amount of evidence was
taken, and it appeared that within recent years a strike of 80 days
had occurred paralyzing the business and entailing a loss to the
company of more than $68,000.. A similar strike of nearly one-half
the same duration occurred later. Besides the loss to the company,
there was the wage loss to the men and great economic waste in that
portion of Kansas and Missouri served by the company. A wage
controversy had been submitted to the joint chairmen of the War
Labor Board, and a decision was rendered by them on July 31,1918.
This fixed the rate per hour for shopmen, barn men, motormen, and
conductors. The least skilled labor of a mechanical nature was paid
42 cents per hour, while motormen and conductors began at 38 cents,
and after one yearns service were to receive 42 cents. A higher
wage was paid to machinists, painters, and armature winders, being
51f cents per hour. This award was to continue for the duration of
the war, with right to ask for adjustments not sooner than six months
after Ffebruary 1, 1919. Since the War Labor Board had gone out of
existence, the complainants referred their case to the State industrial
court, while the company relied on the contract of August, 1914.
The court held that the contract of 1914 was not effective, and took
into consideration the various elements involved in the case. Among
these was the considerable variety in skill and responsibility neces­
sary for the performance of the various duties of the employees under



CASES BEFORE THE COURT.

15

consideration. The increase in cost of living was such that some of
the workmen were unable to support their families without getting
into debt or drawing on previous savings. Some did additional labor
after having performed a full day’s work at their regular employ­
ment. Reference was made in the opinion to the decision in the
Topeka Edison Co. case, noted above, as to the rights of workingmen
to procure for themselves and their families 46all the necessaries and a
reasonable share of the comforts of life.” The factors to be con­
sidered, as wages in the locality for like work, cost of living, skill,
degree of responsibility, character of employment, and qualifications
of the individual employee, were enumerated, as in the earlier case.
A serious difficulty was found to exist in the lack of financial ability
of the employer. It was pointed out, however, that the court had
recently authorized an increase in the charges of the company which
would probably considerably increase its earnings. The duty of the
court to permit a fair return was touched upon, but it was declared
4 that wages to labor should be considered before dividends to the
4
investor, and that a business which is unable to pay a fair rate of
wage to its employees will eventually have to liquidate.” The in­
dustry was said to be essential, but its conduct necessitated the pay­
ment of such wages as would retain competent services. The situa­
tion was held to involve a threat of industrial strike, disorder, and
waste. It was felt, therefore, that the court should establish a wage
scale, which was, however, restricted 4 to such employees of the re­
4
spondent as are actually bona fide residents of the State of Kansas
and whose work is located wholly or principally within said State.”
The scale was to come into effect on the 1st day of May, 1920, and to
continue in force for a period of six months, or until changed by
agreement of the parties, with the approval of the court. The follow­
ing is the new wage scale:
Motormen and conductors:
First 3 months------------------------------------- 45 cents per hour.
Next 9 months------------------------------------- 48 cents per hour.
Next 12 months________________________51 cents per hour.
After 2 years---------------------------------------55 cents per hour.
Blacksmiths_____________________________
55cents perhour.
Blacksmith helpers------------------------------------- 45 cents per hour.
Machinists________________________________ 60 cents per hour.
Machinist helpers__________________________ 45 cents per hour.
Carpenters, first class_______________________55 cents per hour.
Carpenters, second class_____________________ 48 cents per hour.
Painters__________________________________ 55 cents per hour.
Painters’ helpers__________________________ 45 cents per hour.
Pitmen___________________________________ 55 cents per hour.
Pitmen helpers____________________________ 45 cents per hour.
Armature winders__________________________60 cents per hour.
Armature winder helpers____________________ 45 cents per hour.
Car cleaners______________________________ 45 cents per hour.
Headlight, tail-light, and telephone men---------$135 per month.
All of said wages to be on the same basis heretofore existing as
to hours of labor and overtime.

Somewhat later the linemen employed by this company also asked
for an advance, which was allowed on the principles announced
above, the rates being fixed at 45 cents, 50 cents, and 62^ cents per
hour for groundmen, second-class linemen, and first-class linemen,
respectively, as against former rates of 42 cents, 46J cents, and 49J
cents per hour. On the same date (July 21, 1920) the train dis


KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

16

patchers were found not entitled to an increase, their present rate
of $160 per month being regarded as fair. “ The work is done by
telephone, and it is such that it requires but a short space of time
to learn the same. The work is not heavy and it is not comparable
with train dispatching on the steam roads, either in the matter of
skill required nor of the responsibility imposed.” Foremen of track­
men, however, were found to be underpaid, in view of the experience
required and the responsibility involved. The rate of $100 per month
was therefore advanced to $115. The trackmen also had their wages
increased on complaint from 42 cents per hour to 45 cents; but sub­
station operators, whose “ work requires no great skill and is not
hard to learn,” and who left their work in, some cases for their
wives or children to perform, were thought to be fairly compensated
at a wage of $102.50. Each of these groups was the subject of a
separate order, being Docket Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, but all orders
bore the same date.
JOPLIN

&

PITTSBURG RAILWAY CO.— W A G E S — H O U R S — T R A I N

CREW

.

Subsequent to the general determination of April 23 the employees
requested an additional increase of wages and the adjustment of a
collective agreement relative to train crew, hours of labor, and days
of work per week.
The court gave its decision on December 9, 1920, and declined to
increase wages on the ground that there was a general tendency
toward a decrease in living costs; and while it had not yet materially
affected the ultimate consumer, there had at least been no advance.
As to the matter of crew, the men wished the contract to require
three men on trains that handled three or more cars at the same
time. The court’s view of this point was that, considering the nature
of the work done upon the freight trains usually handled by this
company, the third man would add an unjust burden to costs of
operation without public benefit—a result which would ultimately
be reflected in lower wages to the men or poorer service to the public.
The next point related to the employment of extra men, the com­
plainants desiring that a minimum of four hours should be paid
for each day that the extra man is called and works. This the court
regarded as reasonable and recommended the insertion of such pro­
vision in the contract. The employees also desired a minimum on
regular runs of 8 hours a day, to be completed in 9 consecutive hours,
with time and one-half for work over 8 hours. Train service con­
tinued throughout 18 hours per day, two shifts being employed, but
with delays of starting and getting into the barn it sometimes hap­
pened that in excess of 9 hours was worked. The court therefore
recommended a provision making a minimum of 8 hours’ work per
day on regular runs to be completed in 9 hours and 30 minutes, with
time and one-half for work over 9 hours.
The next matter discussed was rates for Sunday work. Passenger
trains were regarded as a necessary part of the operation of the road,
and the court did not regard it proper “ to penalize the company for
Sunday work which is absolutely necessary.” However, it held that
no mechanical work should be required on Sunday unless absolutely
necessary for full operation on Monday morning.



CASES BEFORE THE COURT.

17

Another point related to the establishment of an 8-hour day. A
method of putting the 18-hour service day on an 8-hour basis was
worked out by the chief accountant of the court, but it was computed
that this would add $25,000 to the annual operating cost—an amount
that the company could not pay without subtracting from its depre­
ciation fund or failing to pay interest due. The court maintained
its view that “ wages must come before dividends, and a business
which can not pay a fair wage and at the same time earn a reason­
able return must eventually liquidate55; however, taking into consid­
eration the nature of the employment in which the men were en­
gaged, it felt that' the mental and physical strain was not severe, and
that a 9-hour day does not unduly deprive the worker of a reasonable
time for rest, recreation, self-improvement, social diversion, and the
family circle. It therefore declined to institute an 8-hour-day sys­
tem. However, the time worked by the freight-train crews was
found to be excessive, being between 12 and 13 hours, during which
a regular working period of 11 hours was counted on. This day was
said to be too long, being very trying upon the physical strength of
the men and encroaching unduly upon their social rights. “ This
court can not sanction so long a workday.” A 10-hour maximum
was therefore recommended, a 9-hour minimum being the basis, with
time and one-half after 10 hours, a lunch period in the middle of
the day being included.
The court concluded by stating that if its suggestions should be
incorporated into a contract and properly signed by a representa­
tive of the workers the court would approve it.
On July 26, 1921, the trainmen and barn men employed by the
Joplin & Pittsburg Railway Co. filed a complaint through their
local union, No. 497, seeking the adjustment of a controversy aris­
ing out of a threat to reduce wages. The order under which they
had been working expired July 30, and efforts for an agreement
for a new contract had failed. Various questions as to working con­
ditions were also submitted. The company appeared and stipulated
in writing that it would abide by any order the court might make,
to be effective as of August 1, even though made later than that date.
Subsequently the track workers, linemen, and telephone men asked
leave to intervene and protest against proposed reductions in their
wages. This was given, and the company submitted its answer,
setting forth that its proposed rates were reasonable and fair, and
that the income of the road was such that it was not possible to meet
the demands of the workmen without operating at a loss. The court
was requested to take all facts into consideration and render such
findings and orders as might be found suitable in the circumstances.
The opinion was rendered on August 19, 1921.
Several of the points were settled by agreement of the parties,
but not all, the matter of wages remaining as the principal matter
in dispute. It was found that there had been some decrease in the
cost of living in Pittsburg, where many of the employees lived, and
that the recent disturbances in industry had seriously affected the
income of the road. “ However, the court finds that the sweeping
reduction in wages proposed by the respondent is not justified.”
But comparison of rates and conditions of employment of the train­
men showed some reduction of wages to be reasonable, and this was



18

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

allowed. Electrical workers, on the other hand, received some ad­
vance. In the other cases the existing wage was retained without the
reduction sought by the company.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF STATIONARY FIREMEN AND
O IL E R S — W A G E S .

The International Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen and Oilers,
as existing in the State of Kansas, came before the State court of
industrial relations in March, 1920, with a complaint as to the amount
of wages received. The complaint was submitted by the vice presi­
dent of the brotherhood in behalf of himself, an employee of one
of the roads, and of 25 local unions of the brotherhood located at
various points in Kansas. The respondents were nine railroad com­
panies operating in that State as common carriers.
The workmen involved were not directly connected with the move­
ment of the trains, but were engaged in various capacities at work
which directly affected their operation. Among the workmen in­
volved were stationary firemen, engine watchmen, turntable oper­
ators, engine wipers, fire builders, oilers, cinder and ash-pit men,
and, in general, laborers working in and about engines, turntables,
roundhouses, and store and supply houses. The employers are en­
gaged in both intrastate and interstate commerce.
The complaints alleged insufficient pay, and the court found that
the wages were in fact inadequate to supply a family u with the nec­
essaries of life and a reasonable share of the comforts of life,” though
an unmarried man could get along fairly well on the present wage.
The carriers were unwilling to submit the matter to the State court
of industrial relations, the subject being presented by the representa­
tive of the brotherhood with the request that the court take jurisdic­
tion of the controversy and make such investigation as would enable
it to determine a reasonable wage. The railroads filed answers which
were very similar. Among their statements were a general denial,
a claim that the respondents were engaged in interstate commerce,
that under the transportation act of 1920 they are paying wages fixed
by the Director General of the United States Railroad Administra­
tion, that the industrial court has no jurisdiction on account of the
provisions of the transportation act of 1920 for the settlement of
disputes by the Railroad Labor Board, etc. The legal questions in­
volved made it necessary for the court to decide first of all as to its
jurisdiction, and whether its findings would conflict with the provi­
sions of the transportation act of 1920. A quotation was made from
a decision of the United States Supreme Court (Simpson v. Shepard,
230 U. S. 298) setting forth the competence of a State to govern its
internal commerce and adopt measures of a reasonable character in
the interests of its people, “ although interstate commerce may inci­
dentally or indirectly be involved.” It was decided that any action
that the court might take would be presumed to be fair and reason­
able, and if so, no injury could come to interstate commerce and no
unnecessary burden be imposed upon it. Neither could it be pre­
sumed that the Federal Railroad Labor Board would render an
award which would be unfair to the public, nor that the court of
industrial relations would refuse to approve a reasonable order made



CASES BEFORE THE COURT.

19

by the Labor Board if such was accepted by the disputants. The
Kansas law provides only that the orders fixed by its court shall con­
tinue 44for such reasonable time as may be fixed by said court, or
until changed by agreement of the parties with the approval of the
court.” This was held to make it entirely possible for the State and
Federal laws to exist side by side without conflict, leaving each free
to act in its field, and providing a ready means of adjustment if any­
thing in the nature of conflict should arise.
It was concluded, therefore, to issue an order to be effective for six
months from July 1,1920, unless changed by agreement of the parties
with the approval of the court, the scale to- apply only to actual
residents of the State of Kansas, members of the International
Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen and Oilers, and such other rail­
road employees performing the same or similar services as were not
being paid wages under existing agreements. Only a few of the men
were said to be what are usually called 4 skilled laborers.” 44Some
4
of them are what is known as 4common laborers,’ but a very large
number of them are engaged in a work which calls for some skill and
much care and fidelity.”
The eight basic considerations that have been cited in other find­
ings by the court were again mentioned, and it was recognized that
the rates fixed were not so high as for similar work elsewhere, but
they were fixed upon as reasonable in view of the steadiness of the
employment. The highest rate, 60 cents per hour, was ordered paid
to chief stationary engineers, coal-hoisting engineers, and clam-shell
engineers. Stationary firemen and stokers receive 55 cents per hour;
stationary oilers, boiler washers, boiler fillers, water tenders, power
operators, transfer operators, and turntable operators, 53 cents per
hour; pumpers, storehouse and warehouse foremen, and countermen,
50 cents per hour; engine watchmen, janitors, engine washers, engine
wipers, fire knockers, etc., 47 cents per hour; while helpers and
workmen of lower grades receive 45 cents per hour. While much of
the work must be done on all the seven days of the week,4 the mem4
Ibers of the court feel that the seven-day week ought to be discourj aged.” To this end a revolving system was recommended, but the
court did not deem it wise to embody such a system in an order, and
based the wage scale on an eight-hour day with time and one-half for
overtime, Sundays, and legal holidays. This order was issued June
16, 1920, to be effective on the first of the succeeding month.
FLOUR MILLING INDUSTRY— R E T E N T I O N

O F E S S E N T IA L E M P L O Y E E S .

On December 20, 1920, the court reached a conclusion with regard
to regulating the production of the flour mills of Topeka. The
companies had been called to appear to- answer inquiries as to a
reduction of output, following the receipt of information which had
come before the court in an informal way. Managing officers of all
the companies of the city appeared without counsel and submitted
themselves to the jurisdiction of the court for the purposes of investi­
gation, and were 44apparently very frank with the court and supplied
all the information called for without protest.”
The production of flour is one of the industries which is declared by
the industrial court act to be44affected with a public interest,” so that



2 0

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

it was subject to the control of the court and liable to be taken over
for operation if such steps should seem necessary. The act contem­
plates reasonable returns, continuous operation, and a fair wage and
healthful and moral surroundings for workers. Seasons and market
conditions are to be taken into consideration. It appears that the
normal course of operation involved 24 hours5 work, but that the
market conditions of the world were such that the price of flour was
falling, as well as the price of wheat; that there was an abundant
supply of both flour and grain on hand, and that supplies were being
shipped out promptly as rapidly as orders could be obtained, but
that orders were small on account of an apparent expectation of fur­
ther reduction in prices. Not more than 5 or 10 per cent of the
product of the Kansas mills is consumed within the State, the
remainder going into the world market in general competition. The
conditions of this competition were then recited, and the partial
reduction (from a 24-hour day to about 60 per cent capacity) was
found to be a practical necessity due to circumstances beyond the
control of the mills. However, as the act provides for a fair wage
at all times, the court regarded it as necessary, in reducing the hours
of operation, that “ the millers should be very careful and solicitous
concerning the matter of labor.55
“ The evidence before us shows that in the Topeka mills skilled men
in the milling business are being paid a monthly wage, and are
therefore drawing pay whether the mill is running or not. So far
as it is possible to do so, this rule should be recognized in all mills
of the State, for it is necessary in the promotion of the general wel­
fare that skilled and faithful workers should always be available for
these essential industries which so vitally affect the living conditions
of the people.5
5
At the conclusion of the trial a committee was appointed to formu­
late such rules as might seem necessary to enable the court to keep in
close touch with the milling industry and aid it in making necessary
adjustments from time to time. These rules were established on the
24th of February, 1921, and in brief require all milling companies in
the State to make such reports to the court of industrial relations as
it may prescribe; and that companies finding it necessary to run at
less than 75 per cent production must apply to the court, setting forth
their reasons and such other information as the court may require
to enable it properly to pass upon the application. Local market
conditions must be understood and cared for, and “ in so far as it is
reasonably possible, head millers, chief engineers, and all other
skilled workmen 5 in mills in the State should either be paid on a
5
monthly basis or given other employment so as to be readily available
when resumption of full production is possible. Notice should be
given to all employees of contemplated cessation or limitation of
work, in order that they may secure other employment.
FORT SCOTT SORGHUM-SYRUP CO.— “

ONE M A N , ONE JO B ”

The Fort Scott Sorghum-Syrup Co. manufactures sirup from
sorghum cane and furnishes for the most part only seasonal employ­
ment. The grinding of the cane and the first preparation require
somewhat more than 100 men from 50 to 90 days in the fall of the
year, running the plant 24 hours per day. During this time from



CASES BEFORE THE COURT.

2 1

five to seven steam boilers and engines are in use. After that the
process of mixing and refining the sirup and preparing it for table
use and for shipment calls for but a few men and only one steam
boiler.
On July 15, 1920, the company made an agreement with the Inter­
national Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, which was in the nature
of a closed-shop contract. There was no controversy except as to
the number of men employed after the busy fall season was over.
During previous years two engineers and two firemen had been
required to run the necessary boiler and engine, but in the autumn
of 1920 the company found itself doing only about 4 or 5 per cent
of its average business. The company, therefore, sought to reduce
expenses by discharging the two firemen, the two engineers working
alternate shifts and firing their own boilers. This the engineers
were willing to do in view of the small amount of work required,
saying that to fire the engine would not require in excess of two
hours per day. The Engineers’ Union refused to permit this, how­
ever, as it would violate the “ one man, one job ” policy of the union.
Unless some concession could be made it would result in requiring
the company to pay $12 per day for men to perform two hours’ work.
Though the amount was small, it would increase the deficit of a
company operating under vei*y adverse conditions. A general rep­
resentative of the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers,
who was present at the trial, thought that the concession ought to
be arranged, and expressed his belief that local officers had made a
mistake in insisting on the “ one man, one job ” idea. The court
wished to waive decision until the unions could make their own
arrangements, but both parties stated that they had agreed to abide
by the order of the court and insisted upon an immediate and author­
itative decision. The Kansas industrial law recognizes the closed
shop where instituted by mutual agreement, but does not countenance
strikes, boycotts, intimidation, or “ economic pressure.” The present
agreement was satisfactory to the court, being freely arrived at; but
inasmuch as it was unfair to require the employment of two men
to do the work of one, the opinion was expressed that the contract
should be modified so as to permit one man to work at two or more
jobs not requiring excessive periods of time, in which case his union
membership might be transferred without cost to any party so long
as the necessity for such work should continue. An order to that
effect was issued accordingly.
CHAS. WOLFF PACKING CO.— W A G E S — E Q U A L

P A Y FOR W OM EN.

This case is conspicuous as being one that was carried to the
supreme court of the State by the employer on a challenge as to the
constitutionality of the act as creating a wage-fixing body. The de­
cision of the court of industrial relations was rendered May 2, 1921,
though the complaint was filed January 19 and answered January
28. Changes effected by legislative action were responsible for this
delay, as there was considerable change in the personnel of the court
and the working force by reason of such action.
The complaint sets forth that prior to January 1, 1921, the em­
ployees, members of a local union of meat packers and butchers.



22

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

were employed under the terms of a collective agreement which was
to expire on January 1, 1921, unless renewed by the parties. The
employer posted notices that this contract would not be renewed for
another year, and no other contract had been entered into. At the
same time notice was given of a reduction in wages to members of
the union and other employees in the establishment, as well as an
abrogation of a guaranty of at least 40 hours’ work per week and
overtime pay for work done in excess of 8 hours in any one day.
A bonus provided for by the collective agreement was also taken
away. The union therefore petitioned the court to take jurisdiction
and fix a fair and reasonable wage and conditions of employment.
The answer of the packing company admitted the existence of the
agreement which had expired at the date named, claimed a careful
compliance with it during its term, denied any further liability there­
under, and stated that the company had not been given a fair oppor­
tunity to discuss the provisions of any new contract, “ but that the
workers presented a typewritten contract and demanded signature
without discussion.” The company announced its willingness to pay
anything due by virtue of the former contract if ordered to do so by
any court of competent jurisdiction, but alleged a loss during 1920
in excess of $100,000, so that the former wage scale could not be
continued. It offered its books for examination, but denied the juris­
diction of the industrial court to enter any money judgment for
past-due wages under the terms of the old contract if any should be
found.
By amendment of the complaint, there were brought before the
court the conditions of woman workers, who were said to be paid a
much lower wage than men for the same class of work, and the com­
pany in open court consented that any order made by the court should
contain a provision that women and men at the same class of work
should receive the same pay.
The establishment was known as an “ open shop,” and neither party
expressed any desire to change this condition. The court thereupon
proceeded to take testimony as to the present cost of living as com­
pared with one year ago, the evidence being conflicting. The cut
proposed by the employer amounted to about 10J per cent, though
it was not uniform in all lines of work. One of the principal conten­
tions related to the eight-hour basic day. In some departments work
was done under conditions both disagreeable and insanitary, as work
over scalding vats or in rooms filled with steam, or occupations re­
quiring special clothing to protect against blood, water, and steam, or
at work requiring strenuous physical effort. The plant is not a large
one, employing between 300 and 400 workers, and the workers are
frequently shifted from one job to another, the changes sometimes
calling for different rates of pay. The necessity of changing clothing
involved an outlay of the employee’s time, so that to do eight hours’
work necessitated being in the plant from 8^ to 9 hours per day.
“ In view of all these matters, it is the opinion of the court that this
is an employment in which eight hours, as a general rule, should con­
stitute a day’s work.”
However, irregularity in the supply of live stock made it difficult,
if not impossible, for the company to furnish steady employment and



CASES BEFORE THE COURT.

23

avoid pressure at a time of abundant supply. Charges and denials
were made as to the tendency of workers to slow down during the
seventh and eighth hours of the day for the purpose of getting over­
time pay for a ninth hour. “ The evidence is so conflicting that the
court must, of course, call to its aid its general knowledge of human
nature. Overtime should not be considered in the light of extra pay;
the wage should be fair on the eight-hour basic day. Overtime should
be considered as a penalty upon the company to prevent the long
hours and exhaustion of the workers. It is evident, therefore, that
the company should not be penalized when, by reason of circum­
stances over which it has no control, it may be necessary to run the
plant a little longer than the eight-hour day in order to save loss
which would otherwise occur.”
The guaranty of a weekly minimum of employment was also a
difficulty and a subject of controversy. The employees claimed that
they were dependent upon the plant for steady employment, while
the company charged that some of its workers, especially its transient
workers, who remain with it for a very short time, refuse at times to
render service when it is much desired, but if work is slow in the plant
they insist upon claiming the guaranty of 40 hours’ pay. However,
the company recognized the necessity of decent support for regular
workers and announced its willingness to abide by any fair and
reasonable rule promulgated in the order.
The court reviewed briefly the principles upon which it acted,
commenting on the unusual and unstable business conditions of the
day, and presenting its conclusions under 20 heads, the eighteenth of
which is announced as “A Fair and Reasonable Schedule of Minimum
Wages,” to be effective May 2, 1921. This! schedule covers nearly
five printed pages of the report, naming the rate to be paid for each
process in the industry. The principle of the open shop is retained,
as is the basic 8-hour working day, u but a 9-hour day may be ob­
served not to exceed 2 days in any one week without penalty.” How­
ever, if the working hours of a week should exceed 48, all in excess of
48 should be paid for at the rate of time and one-half, while work
for more than 8 hours on more than 2 days of the week must be like­
wise compensated, even though the work hours of the week may not
amount to 48. No weekly guaranty was called for, but monthly
earnings should be made sufficient to constitute a fair wage. Notice
of unemployment should be given in advance, as well as changes of
hours for beginning work. Woman workers should receive the same
wages as men engaged on the same class and kind of work, and their
total working time, inclusive of overtime, should not exceed 54 hours
in any one week nor more than 9 hours in any one day.
The rates of wages were announced as u in the opinion of the court
the equivalent in purchasing power of the wages paid under the con­
tract of 1920,” though they showed some reduction, a in view of the
reduction in the cost of the necessities and comforts of life.” The
fixing of rates is not to be construed as restricting or preventing the
payment of a higher rate. j Other provisions of the order relate to
toilets and dressing roomsj lunch rooms, days off for continuous
workers, etc.



24

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

TOPEKA RAILWAY CO.— W A G E S — F A R E S .

In this case the employees of . the company were members of the
Amalgamated Association of Street & Electric Railway Employees
of America, and entered a complaint on account of insufficient wages.
The court took the matter under advisement, and after a hearing of
both parties accepted the standards adopted in the Topeka Edison
Co. case, with a finding that “ the present wage scale is unreasonably
low and is not a fair scale of wages under the present abnormal con­
ditions as to the cost of living.” A schedule was therefore promul­
gated, fixing hourly rates for each class of employees and observing
the present basis of a 9-hour day and overtime pay. The rates estab­
lished were to “ continue in force and effect for a period of six
months, or until changed by agreement of the parties, with the ap­
proval of the court.”
At the trial of the wage controversy the company offered evidence
to show that its present revenues were insufficient to meet a wage in­
crease, A further hearing was had on this specific point, and testi­
mony received on behalf of the public. It was found that the wage
increase would add a cost of at least $52,000 per annum to the oper­
ating expenses of the road, though the company’s experts claimed
that the amount would be considerably greater. “ This matter, like
all future events, can not be forecast exactly, but the evidence un­
doubtedly shows that an increased revenue will be necessary if the
respondent is to pay the increased wage.” A schedule of fares was
accordingly established, to be effective from August 16,1920, the date
when the wage increase was to begin, for a term of 90 days as a trial
period, at the end of which time a report was to be made showing
the result of such schedule.
This order was issued on August 7, 1920, and the wage and fare
rates established were continued for about one year.* At that time
the company made the contention that living costs had decreased
approximately 20 per cent and that the present revenues were in­
sufficient to pay the increased wages and provide operating expenses
and a fair return upon the investment. The employees, through
their organization, entered complaint that the company was threaten­
ing arbitrarily to reduce the wages allowed by the court in its order
of August 7, on the theory that the order had expired by its own
limitation of time. The court issued a temporary order directing
the company to continue the former wage scale until the matter could
be heard and adjusted.
On August 22, 1921, the court issued its second decision and order,
taking into consideration the conditions existing at that date. The
former order had increased wages approximately 30 per cent, grant­
ing, as noted, an increase in fares. All parties were agreed that,
at the time, no further increase in fares was practical, ^ On the other
hand, though “ Government statistics, apparently reliable,” show a
reduction in the cost of living of approximately 20 per cent, this
was in wholesale prices, which had not yet reached the consumer to
the full extent.
‘
However, the evidence does show that in Topeka, Kans., living costs had
decreased since August, 1920, in a percentage ranging from 10 to 15 per cent.
* * * The employees of the respondent must not be compelled to work for
an inadequate wage in order that their fellow citizens may enjoy cheap trans­




CASES BEFORE THE COURT.

25

portation. In view, however, of the reduction in living costs, it is believed that
some reduction in the wages allowed to the complainant may be made at this
time without a serious injustice to them.

A rate was therefore fixed, which, it was believed, u under the
changed conditions as to living costs, has as great a purchasing value
and will provide as many of the necessaries and comforts of life as
the former wage did at the time it was instituted.” This rate was
to continue until the end of the year, subject to further adjustment
at any time after a 60 days’ trial upon the application of either
party as provided by the law.
Said wage should not be changed by either party arbitrarily at the expiration
of the time above stated, but may be changed by agreement, with the approval
of the court, or, in case of failure to agree, before a change is made the matter
should be submitted to this tribunal for adjustment in order that industrial
strife will be prevented.
OTHER CASES.

The foregoing fuller summaries indicate the methods and prin­
ciples adopted by the court in its various actions. The synopsis of
cases at the beginning of this section shows briefly the entire list for
the two years covered by this review. Docket No. 12 involved prac­
tically the conditions of the Topeka Railway Co. case, the same con­
tention being raised as to the insufficiency of the revenue of the com­
pany to meet an increased wage schedule. However, an earlier stat­
ute placed in the h^nds of the city government the fixing of rates for
utilities operating wholly within the limits of one city. The court
was therefore of the opinion that it had no jurisdiction to alter the
fare schedule of the company, but the evidence was said to show that
there should be an adjustment of the revenues “ at or near the time
the wage order goes into effect.”
In Docket No. 13 a number of unorganized workmen, employed by
the Kansas Flour Mills Co. at its mill at Great Bend, complained of
the length of the working-day, insufficient safety provisions, and an
inadequate wage. The principal contention was as to the hours
of working, the men going on duty at 7 in the morning and leaving
at 7 at night, with one hour off for the midday meal. The company
claimed that short rests were available during the day, so that for a
considerable part of the men the actual time of labor would be be­
tween seven and eight hours, though some worked considerably longer
than that.
The court found that good feeling had existed between the men and
the management and that the men had rendered faithful service,
many of them for years. Wages had been paid for some days when
the mill was idle and for legal holidays. Labor conditions were fair,
in a healthful occupation, devoid of the hazards present in many
other establishments. The one danger in regard to an elevator shaft
was admitted and an immediate remedy was promised, the company
saying that the defect had very recently been called to its attention.
It was found that the wage was a fair one, having been advanced
from time to time during the several years past as the cost of living
increased. Overtime pay had been given at the regular rates where
work in excess of 11 hours was done. Transportation difficulties pre­
vented regular operation, the company being unable to procure cars
as needed.



26

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

The court in its findings commended the company for its fair
treatment in the matter of wages and commended the men for their
faithful service and apparent willingness to work the long hours
necessary to meet emergencies. However, the working-day was de­
clared to be too long as a permanent matter, but under the abnormal
conditions existing at the time an emergency had developed, so that
an absolute fixing of an 8 or 9 hour day was not warranted; it was,
however, directed that the present daily wage should be paid on the
basis of a 9-hour day with a pro rata hourly wage fpr all hours of
service required over and above such period, and that as soon as
conditions warranted a 9-hour day should be established.
In Docket No. 16 the employees of the Atchison Railway Light &
Power Co. united in bringing a complaint as to wages and working
conditions. It was found that the 8-hour day was generally ob­
served, and that the. unfavorable sanitary conditions were to be im­
proved by alterations which the company was arranging to make in
its plant. No order was therefore issued on that point; but for
two of the five groups of workers it was found that, u considering the
skill required and the responsibility assumed, the nature of work,
and the hours employed,” fair wages within the meaning of the stat­
ute were not being paid, so that an increase in respect of these groups
was ordered.
In Docket No. 20, the employees of the Crawford Telephone &
Telegraph Co. complained of their wages and working conditions.
The court in its report stated that 64unquestionably the telephone
operators had been the lowest-paid wage earners of like kind and
skill in the State of Kansas,” and, as an earlier investigation dis­
closed, the wages were so low “ that only the oldest and most skilled
of the operators got a wage sufficient upon which to live decently.”
Increases had been made from time to time, but when this case came
to the court it was found that the rates called for a further advance,
and a minimum weekly rate was established, starting at $8 per week
for beginners, increasing to $15 after one year of service. Linemen,
etc., were to receive $14 per week for the first three months, with
advances to $24 per week after one year of service. Overtime pay,
work on Sundays and holidays, and accommodations for night oper­
ators were also included in the order.
As already indicated, Docket No. 1 was an investigation into the
coal industry in certain counties, undertaken by the court on its own
initiative. This commenced early in April, 1920, and continued
throughout the year, additional inquiries being made also in 1921.
The working conditions of some eight or ten thousand miners were
involved, including also transportation conditions and the retail
trade. The testimony of operators, miners, union officials, and all
parties interested was sought. At the conclusion of the hearings held
at Pittsburg, Kans., the mine center, Presiding Judge Huggins made
an oral statement from the bench summing up rather informally the
conclusions of the court up to that time. An order had been made
prior to the date of this pronouncement, temporary in its effect,
u directing that explosives and other pit material or pit supplies
should be sold to the miners at the old price until a reasonable time
was given in which committees could get together and agree on a
price under the award of the Federal Coal Commission.” This order



CASES BEFORE THE COURT.

27

expired April 15, the expectation being that a prior meeting of the
committee should fix an agreed price. This was not done, and the
operators thereupon advanced the price, because of which a number
of the miners quit work. The court found itself unable to fix the
price at which the material in question should be furnished, “ because
the price is not fixed in Kansas but outside of Kansas, and the most
of the supplies are manufactured outside of the State; therefore no
order that this court can make would be enforceable.”
However, the court found that the price of materials directly
affects the wage, so that it would be necessary to take this into con­
sideration in fixing a wage. “ I understand that the committees
representing the two parties meet to-day in Kansas City, and it is
the hope of the court that some adjustment of the matter will be
made that will be satisfactory to both sides, and for that reason no
further action will be taken by the court at this time on the matter.”
Judge Huggins then took up another matter that had been brought
to the attention of the court by the evidence produced, and that was
the practice of employers of making a discount of 10 per cent on
wages paid in advance of the regular pay day, which occurred twice
per month. Admitting that this interim payment entailed additional
expense for bookkeeping, etc., the charge made seemed to the court
“ to, be absolutely unreasonable.” An order was issued fixing the
minimum charge at 25 cents, with a maximum of 2 per cent where
the amount drawn “ is larger than a mere nominal amount, like $10
or $15.”
Another point taken up was the use of the check-off system. Both
parties seemed to desire to continue the check-off system, but there
was evidence that the system was being used “ to collect funds that
in turn are being used to stimulate opposition to the Government of
the United States of America.” At a convention of the mine workers’
union, held March 12, 1920, an amendment to their constitution was
adopted providing for a fine in the sum of $50 for each offense in
case of “ any member, pit committee, or local officer being a party
to referring cases to the industrial court over the heads of the district
official.” Another new section reported as adopted provided a fine
of $5,000 in case of any district officer of the mine workers referring
any grievance to the industrial court. Money collected by the check­
off system was reported to have been given as a gift or turned over
to a Socialist paper published in Oklahoma, the sum named being
$10,000, many of the miners being members of other parties. It was
also in evidence that attorneys’ fees had been paid out of the dues,
etc., collected, in cases in which the mine workers were not themselves
directly interested, and that cash bonds had been furnished for men
charged with violating the laws of the United States, and in some
instances where they were charged with conspiracy to overthrow the
Government of the United States.

Now, gentlemen, it ought to be apparent to all of you that no Government
can permit such things as that, and the tim e seems to have come when it is a
question whether any organization carrying on that line of business should be
permitted. As I stated a few days ago from this bench, the law under which
w e are operating specifically recognizes labor unions and gives labor unions a
standing in this State which they do not have in any other State in the Union,
so far as I am aware of. It recognizes collective bargaining; it permits the
organization of labor unions into corporations, thus making them a legal entity



28

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

and giving them all the power and authority and all the protection of the law,
the same as corporations engaged in other lines of business. It goes farther
than that, and permits labor unions to bargain collectively on the principle of
agency. Labor unions, unincorporated, without any reference to incorporation,
it permits them to bargain collectively on the principle of agency by the mem­
bers merely signing a written appointment, whereby they may appoint their
president or secretary or any other person to represent them in this collective
bargaining and sign for them. I do not know of any other State in the Union
that has done that, and there was no such law as that in Kansas until this
recent law was enacted. I say that merely to show that there is no disposition
on the part of this court, or of the lawmaking body of the State of Kansas to
do anything to hamper or restrict the proper activities of labor unions. On the
other hand, gentlemen, it must be apparent to all of you that if the State is to
stand and if our form of Government is to endure, we must all obey the law,
individually and collectively—the labor unions as well as the corporations—and
this court would stultify itself if it failed to take notice of this evidence that is
before it in regard to the improper use of funds collected by the check-off sys­
tem. After very grave consideration the court has decided that it is necessary
to make a temporary order in regard to this check-off system, which w ill be
oral only and not formal, and that order is that the check-off system may still
be used for the purpose of checking off the regular dues, union dues, and for
the purpose of checking off sick and death benefits and any other charges of a
purely fraternal nature; even moderate fines imposed for disciplinary purposes
may be checked off, but in such case the purpose of the fine must be certified to
by the local imposing it, and filed with the company to which it is addressed,
signed by the president or secretary of the local which imposes the fine, setting
forth the reason for the fine briefly.
Now, the operators are temporarily forbidden to check off any other charges
than the ones mentioned, and especially are they forbidden to check off any
fines or assessments of any kind under the two new sections of the constitu­
tion which I read to you.

Judge Huggins took up the situation resulting from the refusal
of men connected with the mine workers’ organization to appear and
testify. The statement was made that this subject was “ in course
of adjudication in the regular courts of the land,” and that further
opportunity would be given for the men to appear and be heard.
The statement concluded with an expression of the general purpose
of the State in providing the tribunal for the determination of
grievances, and the hope that with the knowledge of its purpose the
court might find its best friends “ and the best friends of this new
law among the ranks of labor.”
During the year 1922, 10 industrial cases were filed with the court,
of which 7 were disposed of as of January 15, 1923. No particulars
are available at the time of this report.
L E G A L P R O C E E D IN G S

A F F E C T IN G
LA W .

T H E IN D U S T R IA L

As intimated above, legal proceedings arose in connection with
the attendance of witnesses before the court and other activities of
the court. These are enumerated in the second annual report, eight
titles being given. The first case involving the authority of the
court was on relation of Hopkins, attorney general, against Alex­
ander Howat and other members of the miners’ board and officers
of the local unions, for the purpose of obtaining an injunction against
the calling and putting into effect of a strike of the miners in viola­
tion of the industrial act. The trial court issued a permanent in­
junction September 14, 1920, enjoining the parties named from
calling a strike in violation of the law.



LEGAL, PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE INDUSTRIAL LAW*

29

The next case, like the above, was entitled State ex rel. v. Alex­
ander Howat et al., and was an action wherein the defendant, Howat,
and others were adjudged guilty of contempt in failing to respond
to subpoenas issued by the industrial court to appear as witnesses.
The defendants were convicted of contempt and sentenced to im­
prisonment until willing to appear and testify.
The answer to the charge of contempt was that the act was invalid,
various provisions being attacked. The court found that the points
raised “ could have no possible bearing upon the disposition of the
present case.” Furthermore, the law provided specifically that the
unconstitutionality of any section or provision of the act should not
affect the validity of other portions, so that even if the claims were
supported, the points in question would not necessarily be determined.
“ Much of the argument in behalf of the defendants is based upon
objections to the provisions of the statute undertaking to restrain the
conduct of employees in the mining industry and others classified
with it. As already indicated, the validity of those provisions is not
and could not be involved here.”
The intervention by the district court was said to arise from the
fact that the court of industrial relations, in spite of its name, is not
a judicial body but is rather administrative and therefore not capable
of enforcing its own process. The validity of such an arrangement,
whereby a competent court procures the attendance of witnesses be­
fore an administrative body, has been established by the highest
court of the land (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154
U. S. 447, 14 Sup. Ct, 1125).
Another suggestion was that the defendants were protected by a
provision of the State constitution which excuses them from giving
testimony that might incriminate them; but the court would not
assume that the questions to be asked would necessarily call for in­
criminating replies. Another contention was that the act was void
because of its commingling of administrative and judicial functions
conferred upon a single body. As to this the court said: “ The func­
tion of a tribunal of the general character of the court of industrial
relations has become so fully recognized that they do not regard it as
necessary to undertake a review of the subject at this time (6 Ruling
Case Law, 179).” The court continued that in so far as the activi­
ties of the court of industrial relations directly affected the defend­
ants in the present case, they were fully within the scope of a valid
law, so that the judgment of imprisonment was affirmed (State ex rel.
Court of Industrial Relations v. Howat, 107 Kans. 423,191 Pac. 585).
The third case noted was also a contempt proceeding, but related
to the disobedience of Howat and others in violating an injunction
which forbade the calling of a strike (State v. Howat et al., 109
Kans. 376, 198 Pac. 686). A young miner by the name of Mishmash
was regarded by the union as entitled to additional pay on the dis­
covery of his improper rating based on experience. Instead of
going to court, the union undertook to coerce payment by means of
a strike, and when this was enjoined the persistence of Howat and his
fellow officials led to a conviction of contempt and a sentence of one
year in jail. The case was appealed to the supreme court, the con­
stitutionality of the statute being again challenged. In its opinion
29723°—23------3




30

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

the supreme court went at length into the history of the law, the
conditions preceding its enactment, and the purposes of the statute.

Heretofore the industrial relationship has been tacitly regarded as existing
between two members—industrial manager, and industrial worker. They have
joined wholeheartedly in excluding others. The legislature proceeded on the
theory there is a third member of those industrial relationships which have
to do with production, preparation and distribution of the necessaries of life—
the public. The legislature also proceeded on the theory the public is not
a silent partner. Whenever the dissensions of the other two become flagrant,
the third member may see to it the business does not stop. The privilege of
industrial managers to organize is not disputed. The privilege of industrial
workers to organize is expressly recognized. Collective bargaining between the
two organizations is not only encouraged, but is in effect placed on the plane
of duty. The rights of society as a whole, however, are dominant over in­
dustry; and the State is under obligation to intervene to compel settlement of
differences whenever failure of manager and laborer to agree endangers the
public safety or causes general distress.

The nature of the body under consideration was discussed, the
opinion holding that “ the court of industrial relations is, in fact, a
public service commission, the word ‘ court5 having been employed
merely as a matter of legislative strategy.” Its relation to the judi­
cial courts of the State was said to be such that it was clearly within
the power of the latter to issue writs of mandamus for enforcing law­
ful orders of the industrial court.

The statute provides a permanent board of State officers, sitting all the time,
to receive submission of differences and adjust them, without expense to either
disputant. Members of the board are not arbitrators. In actual practice, a
board of arbitration is too frequently a jury packed on both sides. In any
eVent, its verdict is a compromise, and the public interest is not taken into con­
sideration. The court of industrial relations sits to administer industrial jwH-i
tice, and its facilities for doing so are complete. Its command of data and f of
aids to sound conclusion includes everything that both business and govern­
ment are able to supply. It supplants no type of shop committee, no mutual
interest department of any business organization, and no principle of voluntary
adjustment. Its intention is to prevent strife in case of disagreement, by pro­
mulgation of just, reasonable, and law ful regulations, and it must be classified
as an instrument of social progress. W ith a tribunal of this kind to appeal to,
disputants have no moral right, and have no economic excuse, for fighting after
failing to agrea

The power of the court to issue an injunction, as was done by the
district court in behalf of the court of industrial relations, and the
constitutionality of the act creating the industrial court were dis­
cussed in part as follows:

The power of a court in any case to grant an injunction for any purpose is
not statutory. In the absence of statute, power exists in courts to grant in­
junctions for numerous purposes. The power not being statutory, and not being
in derogation of the common law, is not strictly construed. If the power were
statutory, it would be liberally construed, to accomplish just and equitable pur­
poses, because of an express statute of this State.
It is said the injunction was invalid as an attempt to enjoin a crime. If so,
the injunction order was not void, and the defendants are precluded from at­
tacking it in this proceeding.
The purpose of the injunction was not to enjoin crime, and bore no other re­
lation to administration of the criminal law. The purpose was to prevent the
irreparable injury which the petition for injunction alleged would occur, and
which the court found would occur, unless the defendants were restrained from
executing their designs. It might be the defendants would incur sentences to
the penitentiary or to jail, but the imposition of those penalties would not fulfill
the obligation of the State of Kansas to protect its people from the calamitous
consequences of the defendants’ wrongdoing, and for which there was no
redress.
Nor is there in this any invasion of the constitutional right of trial by
jury. * * * The power of a court to make an order carries with it the



LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE INDUSTRIAL LAW.

31

equal power to punish for a disobedience of that order, and the inquiry as to
the question of disobedience has been, from time immemorial, the special func­
tion of the court, In re Debs, 158 U. S. p. 594, 15 Sup. Ot. 910.
It is contended the act creating the court of industrial relations contravenes
section 16 of article 2 of the constitution of the State, in that it contains more
than one subject and the subjects are not clearly expressed in the title.
In a certain sense the act embraces two subjects: Regulation of public utili­
ties and regulation of those industries which have to do with supplying the
people with necessaries of life. In the same sense the second subject is
doubly triple. It embraces food, clothing, and fuel, and it embraces production,
manufacture, and distribution. According to the same method, the act might
be conceived as divided into as many subjects as a carefully prepared index of
its contents would disclose. That, however, is not the method by which to de­
termine the scope of a statute. The question in any case is, Are the particu­
lars so diverse that they may not be connoted in a single generic concept? In
this instance the general concept is enterprise affected with a public interest,
and the grouping is not only natural but consistent and harmonious.
Employers and employees disagree about how the product of their joint con­
tributions to industry shall be divided. In the last analysis, hours, working
conditions, recognition of union, etc., revolve about this fundamental subject of
grievance. The' subject is of great importance to the employer. It is of even
greater importance to the employee, because on wages depend food, clothing,
and shelter; recreation and the details of daily living; the value of the worker
to the community in which he liv e s; and even the length of time he will live.
Disagreements become acute, the contestants become hostile to each other,
sometimes each one resorts to force, and the public, the great employer of
both labor and capital, suffers grievously.

The court concludes that the business of producing coal bears an in­
timate relation to the public peace, good order, health, and welfare;
that such business is affected with a public interest ; and that such
business may be regulated to the end that reasonable continuity and
efficiency of production may be maintained.
It is said the act of 1920 is void because it trenches on personal
liberty. The personal liberty contended for is liberty to leave the
employer’s service. All the leading cases in which the principles in­
volved have been discussed are cited. It is not necessary to review
them. The statute expressly guards the privilege of any employee
to quit his employment at any time. He may quit before controversy
arises, when controversy arises, while controversy is raging, and after
controversy has been adjusted. As many others as desire may do
likewise, and they may do so as the result of mutual-interest con­
sultations. No employee may, however, transgress the limits of his
personal privilege, as defined earlier in this opinion, for the pur­
pose of limiting or suspending production, contrary to the provisions
of the act.
The discussion cited many legal decisions and economic facts, the
conclusions of the court being summarized in a syllabus prepared by
it, which is as follows:

1. The State was authorized to apply for, and the court was authorized to
grant, the injunction, to avert threatened public calamities, irrespective Qf the
State’s ownership of property affected, and without the aid of a statute.
2. The injunction order was not forbidden by section 7149 of the General
Statutes of 1915, relating to granting injunctions in specified cases of indus­
trial disputes.
3. The injunction order was not invalid as an attempt to enjoin the commis­
sion of crime.
4. The defendants were not entitled, in the contempt proceeding, to a trial
by jury.
5. The contempt proceeding was otherwise free from irregularity.
6. The act creating the court of industrial relations is not void under the con­
stitution of this State because of duality of subject, or defect of title, or because



32

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

commingles functions of separate departments of government, or because it
attempts to enlarge the original jurisdiction of this court.
7. The business of producing coal in this State bears an intimate relation to
the public peace, health, and welfare, is affected with a public interest, and may
be regulated, to the end that reasonable continuity and efficiency of production
may be maintained.
8. The act creating the court of industrial relations is a reasonable and valid
exercise of the police power of the State over the business of producing coal,
and does not impair liberty of contract or permit involuntary servitude, con­
trary-to the Constitution of the United States.

it

The two cases last noted were taken to the Supreme Court of the
United States on writs of error, the purpose being to secure a de­
cision as to the constitutionality of the Kansas statute. The Supreme
Court was “ of the opinion that in neither case is the Kansas in­
dustrial relations act presented in such way as to permit us to pass
upon those features which are attacked by the plaintiffs in error
as violative of the Constitution of the United States.” The main
purpose of the act was set out as being the creation of “ an adminis­
trative tribunal to arbitrate controversies between employers and
employees in certain industrial, mining, and transportation businesses
which the act declares to be affected with such a public interest that
their continuity is essential to the public peace, to the public health,
and the proper living conditions and general welfare of the people.”
The body created is said to be a “ board, miscalled a court ” ; while
the act is said to provide, in effect, “ for compulsory arbitration be­
tween labor and capital in certain industries and employment.
* * * Obviously we should not pass upon the constitutional valid­
ity of an act presenting such critical and important issues unless the
case before us requires it.” (Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181," 4^
Sup. Ct. 277.)
Despite the fact that the object of the writ could not be obtained,
the court discussed at some length the points involved in each case.
In the first case, involving contempt for failure to attend as wit­
nesses, it was held that not only did the case cited by the Kansas
court (Brimson case) sustain its position, but another decision of
the Supreme Court (Blair v. U. S., 250 U. S. 273, 39 Sup. Ct. 468)
was also in line* In this case it was contended that the claimed un­
constitutionality of the law denouncing the act as an offense was a
defense against penalties for refusal to testify when ordered by the
court to do so. This contention was rejected, furnishing an exact
precedent for the instant case. However, these were questions of
general law, and the State court had based its conclusions on these
principles, so that no Federal question could be considered.
In the second case, in which there was a conspiracy to disregard
the court of industrial relations, two principal pleas of the defend­
ants were noted, one that the cessation of work or intent to cease
work was simply the exercise of lawful rights, and that any inci­
dental effects on the public were not the primary purpose, but merely
followed on the exercise of legal and constitutional rights; the other
that the invalidity of the industrial court act because in violation of
the Federal Constitution and the rights of defendants thereunder
deprived the courts of any power to issue an injunction. Here again,
the basis was found to be one of general law, the injunction having
duly issued “ out of a court of general jurisdiction with equity
powers, upon pleadings properly invoking its action, and served upon
persons made parties therein and within the jurisdiction.” Such



LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE INDUSTRIAL LAW.

33

being the case, the injunction must be obeyed, even though there be
an erroneous action of the court going so far as to an assumed valid­
ity of an apparently valid but actually void law. “ It is for the court
of first instance to determine the question of the validity of the law,
and.until its decision is reversed for error by orderly review, either
by itself or by a higher court, its orders based on its decision are to
be respected, and disobedience of them is contempt of its lawful au­
thority, to be punished,” citing various Supreme Court decisions.
However, the injunction was not an enforcement of the industrial
relations act. “ It was a proceeding entirely independent of that act,
and the district court in entertaining it did not depend on the con­
stitutionality of that act for its jurisdiction or the justification of its
order. The State supreme court, it is true, did go into an extended
discussion of the constitutional principles upon which the industrial
court act could in its opinion validly rest; but, as the court itself had
before intimated, the decision was not necessary to the conclusion
which it had reached in sustaining the sentence for contempt.”
The State court having, therefore, disposed of both cases on prin­
ciples of general and not of Federal law, it was said that “ we have
no choice but to dismiss the writ of error ” as in the other case.
The fourth case mentioned in the report bears the same title, State
v. Howat, and was a second contempt proceeding against Howat and
one other for the calling of a strike at certain mines in violation of
the injunction before mentioned. There was a conviction and sen-,
tence to pay a fine of $200 and the requirement of a bond of $5,000
that such injunction would not again be violated. This sentence was
also appealed to the Supreme Court of Kansas, where it was affirmed
(202 Pac. 72).
In the fifth case a criminal prosecution was brought against the
same defendants as above, Alexander Howat and August Dorchy,
who were charged, under the criminal provisions of the law, with
calling a strike in the mines of a third company. A jury found them
guilty, and they were sentenced to six months in jail and were re­
quired, before an appeal should be allowed, to give bond in the sum
of $2,000 each that they would not again violate the law. The de­
fendants went to jail under this sentence on September 30, 1921,
and after four months’ service gave the bonds required and appealed
their case to the Supreme Court of Kansas, where it was pending
at the time of the report.
In the sixth case the district court of Wyandotte County held un­
constitutional the seventeenth section of this statute in its provision
forbidding picketing, the court saying that this provision was not
indicated in the title of the act, and that the offense of picketing “ has
nothing to do with the establishment of a court and does not fall
within any of its powers or duties.” However, when this case came
to the supreme court of the State on appeal the decision of the court
below was reversed. It was pointed out that it had already been
determined that the word “ court ” was not used in a technical sense
and does not imply that the tribunal created shall be of a strictly
judicial character. “ The subject of the statute is the regulation of
the relations of employer, employee, and the public in certain indus­
tries by means of a board or commission, which is given a large power
of investigation and control,” one of the principal objects of the act
being to promote the continuous operation of industries; acts tending



34

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

to prevent this would undoubtedly be forbidden, and “ we regard this
prohibition as within the scope of the title of the act.” (State v.
Scott, 197 Pac. 1089.)
In the seventh case, Howat and Dorchy began proceedings before
a United States district judge to secure their release by a writ of
habeas corpus. An attempt was made to raise the question of con­
stitutionality in this proceeding, and after an argument the matter
was taken under advisement by the judge, but before he delivered
any opinion the applicants dismissed their application.
The eighth case noted differs from the others in that it was a pro­
ceeding brought by an employer, the others having had relation to
employees and their union representatives. Mention was made above
(p. 21) of the determination of wages in the case of the Chas. Wolff
Packing Co., and the schedule fixed by the court was attacked by
the company in a proceeding by which it was sought to set aside
the order. The court also brought proceedings for a writ of manda­
mus to compel compliance. (Court of Industrial Relations v, Chas.
Wolff Packing Co., 109 Kans. 629, 201 Pac. 418.)
The first contention related to procedure, the point being that the
court could not sue in its own name or prosecute actions in the
supreme court. The law creating the court was quoted and various
comparable statutes cited, the conclusion being reached that while
the court was not itself directly interested in the result of the action,
the State, the actual party in interest, had authorized the court to
bring the action. The proceeding was therefore declared to be
proper.
lx
The next contention was that as the court was to compel the pay­
ment of wages to certain employees, the proper procedure would be
for those employees to sue on their respective accounts. The court
rejected this, saying that the action was brought to compel the com­
pany to obey an order of the court of industrial relations fixing a
scale of wages and establishing hours of labor to be observed by
the employer in its business. An action in mandamus to compel
such observance was therefore the proper one and properly brought
by the court of industrial relations.
A third point was to the effect that the proceedings of the court
were of a legislative, not a judicial, nature. This was based on a pro­
vision permitting an interested person to commence proceedings in
the courts of the State to compel the court of industrial relations to
make just, reasonable, and lawful orders which, it was claimed, would
in effect be legislation. It was pointed out that the company was not
seeking the establishment of an order, which this provision of the
law bears upon, but was resisting an established order, so that this
contention could avail it nothing. A further insistence that the
orders of the industrial court are not effective until approved by the
supreme court was rejected.
The next point urged was that the fixing of wages is an extra­
ordinary power, not to be exercised except in cases of emergency.
The law provides for a recognition of controversies such as might
endanger the continuity or efficiency of service in an industry de­
clared by the law to be affected by a public interest. Such a state
of affairs was held to have been properly alleged in the case in hand,
so that an emergency was regarded as having arisen justifying the
action taken.



LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE INDUSTRIAL LAW.

35

The final contention was that the act interferes with the freedom
of contract, depriving the defendant of its liberty and property in
violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the
United States. It was variously urged that the employees can not
be governed by the orders of the industrial court, that their wages
are not affected with a public interest so as to be subject to State
regulation, that the right to contract is violated, and that the classifi­
cation of the businesses covered is arbitrary and unjust.
Each of these propositions was considered in order and all were
disposed of in favor of the validity of the law. The statute does in
fact measurably restrict the course of action of both employers and
employees, but neither party is compelled to surrender its rights to
an extent injurious to its own financial success; while the interest of
the public is so clearly demonstrated that the right of the State to
intervene must be sustained. “ The State is not powerless to regulate
the wages to be paid for labor in those enterprises without the con­
tinuance of which the people must suffer.” The discretion of the
legislature in classification was also regarded as properly exercised
in this case, the classification being reasonable and not arbitrary nor
hostile. All justices, therefore, concurred in upholding the law and
approving it as applicable to the case in hand.
The foregoing decision was rendered October 8,1921, fully sustain­
ing the applicability of the law and the power of the court of indus­
trial relations to act as it had. A commissioner was appointed to
take evidence in the case and make findings of fact and conclusions
of law. Further proceedings were had, based on the report of this
commissioner, jand a further decision announced in June, 1922 (207
Pac. 806).
The commissioner found that the plant was a comparatively small
one, employing about 300 workmen, and dependent upon an irregular
local market for the animals to be slaughtered; also that the estab­
lishment was not in and of itself an essential factor in the actual sup­
ply of food to the State. However, it was of that class of establish­
ments over which the court had jurisdiction. An examination of the
specific orders of the court in connection with the determination
made for the adjustment of the controversy between employers and
employees developed the fact that of the 19 paragraphs, serially
numbered, embodying as many points under consideration, 9 were
unenforceable because covering subject matter not properly before
the court. The actual points involved in the controversy were wages „
and hours, and although the entire contract of the workers was be­
fore the court, it was decided that a number of the elements involved
had not come before it in such manner as to give it authority to make
rulings thereon. It was therefore held that paragraphs 1, 5, 6, 7, 8,
10, 12, 13, and 16 were outside the purview of the court and unen­
forceable. These embraced a declaration of the principle of open
shop, advance notice of purpose not to operate on any succeeding day,
advance notice of changing hours of beginning work, the operation
of the seniority rule, the subject of rules and regulations generally,
the employment of a woman to have charge of toilets and dressing
rooms for woman workers, a limitation on the hours of labor of
women, and the establishment of a lunch room. The decision did not
go so far as to pronounce all or any of these subjects outside the



36

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

power of the court’s action, but merely found that the points had not
been submitted to inquiry, and that no jurisdiction had been acquired
in the proceedings under consideration.
It appeared that the plant was operating at the time at a loss, and
the question was raised as to the power of the court to make an order
increasing the wages of employees in the face of such a fact. The
determination of wages in an industry was distinguished from the
fixing of rates of public utilities. It was conceded that in the latter
case no rate can be decreased when the business of the utility is being
conducted at a loss, though prudently and efficiently managed.

But rates and wages are not the same. Rates are compensation paid by those
who desire the services of pubUc-service corporations for the services rendered
by such corporations. Wages, for the purposes now under discussion, are that
part of the cost of the finished product given to those who performed service
in its production.
The operators of a packing plant can not by law be compelled to sell the fin­
ished product of their plants at a price that w ill not allow them a fair return
upon the investment, but that does not say that those operating the packing
plant can not be compelled by law to pay a living wage to their employees, not­
withstanding the fact that the plant is being operated at a loss. An industry
of any kind that can not be operated except at the sacrifice of its employees
ought to quit business. An industry ought not be permitted to recoup its losses
out of the wages of its employees where those employees are in such a condition
that they can not prevent it.

The contention that a man unwilling to work for the wages offered
is at liberty to seek employment elsewhere was then noted, and while
conceding the legal validity of the contention it was pointed out that
economic conditions sometimes render such freedom of action value­
less.
Many a working man can not quit when he desires so to do. He must con­
tinue to work although his wages are not sufficient to properly feed and clothe
him self and his fam ily and educate his children. Public welfare demands that
all industries that provide food, clothing, fuel, and transportation shall continue
to operate, because without their operation suffering must result; but public
welfare likewise demands that the workingman engaged in the production of the
things that minister to the comfort of all must be paid such compensation for
his services as will enable him to live in the manner described in the court of
industrial relations act.

Possible reasons why the plant was operating at a loss were then
considered, but no attempt was made to solve the question involved,
that being the function of the management of the business rather
than of the court. The loss should not be put on the employees cc if
its employees are thereby compelled to work for less than living
wages.” Unsuitable location or improper management are matters
of correction by the company, but recoupment of losses caused by
either of these matters ought not to be brought about by laying a
burden on the workingman to labor for less than a living wage.
A peremptory writ of mandamus was directed to issue to compel
the company to put into effect the portions of the order not nullified
by this finding.
Two judges dissented on the ground that there was no emergency
necessitating the application of the law to the case in hand, the
controversy in this instance not being such as actually to interfere
with the public welfare, in the absence of which “ public interest
does not attach to the conduct of its business, and the powers con­
ferred by the statute are not called into action.”




KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

37

REPORTS.

The statute creating the court of industrial relations provides for
the making of annual reports. Two of these have been published,
the first covering the period of 10 months from the establishment of
the court, February 1, 1920, to November 30 of the same year. Dis­
regarding the public-utility functions, which have since been severed
from the court, it is reported that 28 cases were filed on the industrial
side of the court during the first 10 months. Of these, 25 were
filed by labor and 1 by capital, while 2 were investigations initiated
by the court. Of the 25 cases filed by labor, 20 received formal
attention and decision. In 13 a wage increase was granted, in 3
wages were found to be fair so that no increase was allowed, in 2
only working conditions were involved, while in 1 the employers
took action satisfactory to the employees, the court simply approv­
ing the settlement. The remaining case was merely a referee action
on a collective agreement.
One of the two original investigations related to the coal-mining
and marketing industry of the State and the other to the production
of flour. The former investigation was quite extensive and involved
considerable expense, but the data furnished were expected to be of
continuing value, rendering it possible fairly to estimate the proper
price of coal for some time to prevent profiteering.
Inasmuch as the object of the law is only to establish a minimum
wage, it naturally follows that only low-paid labor, as a rule, comes
before the court. The reports states that “ labor has appeared to be
fairly well satisfied with its treatment by the court of industrial
relations.” In some cases employers voluntarily increased the wages
of some of their employees above the rate fixed by the court.
The court regards the number of cases filed and decided as “ very
poor indication of the activities of the industrial court,” as there is
a large educational value and incidental effect that do not take such
concrete form, but are of real influence in the field in which the
court operates.
The second report covered the year ending December 31, 1921,
during which period there was no exercise of the functions of a
public utilities commission. The addition of administrative duties
relating to other laws was noted in the first section of this article,
but the details in regard to these activities call for no consideration
here. The report states that “ the division relating to industrial
disputes is not the larger part of the work of the tribunal, but is
the department which is new in its conception and operation and,
therefore, is the feature of the work which is attracting the attention
not only of the State but of the Nation as well.” A sketch of the
legal proceedings affecting the work of the court shows the opposi­
tion on the part of the mine union officials, already indicated, this
being the source of six of the eight cases noted in the report. The
decisions, so far as arrived at, have fully sustained the law creating
the court and the activities of the court thus created.
An account of the packing strike of December, 1921, shows the
mode of operation in a case in which no appeal to another court
was taken. A “ plant assembly,” representing both employers and
employees, had arranged a new wage scale to follow the expiration



38

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

in September, 1921, of the scale fixed by Judge Alschuler under the
bureau of conciliation of the United States Department of Labor.
This scale called for a considerable reduction from the expiring rates,
and a strike vote resulted in a strike call on December 1, to be
effective December 5. On December 3 the court held a sitting at
Kansas City, to which representatives of the employers and em­
ployees were summoned, though but one of the latter appeared until
other proceedings were had to bring them before the court. When
finally brought into court, they declared that they had no controversy
which they desired to submit, as did also the employers. The court
then announced that no matter in dispute being before it, it became
its duty to see that the plants were operated with continuity and
efficiency to the end that the food supply of the State be maintained,
as well as a market for the protection of the live-stock producers,
which the court proposed to do.
With the cooperation of local police officers, the provisions of the
law were enforced, the packing houses were able to continue opera­
tion, and within a few days again reached normal production, and the
live-stock market was kept open and not interfered with; all the
meat products that came upon the market were sold, and at prices
not in any way affected by the so-called strike. The court informed
the employees that this court was a means provided by law for the
settlement of the differences between them and their employers, which
means was fully open to them, but that their disputes or demands
could not and must not be enforced by means of violence, picketing,
nor in any other way than by the orderly process of law. This
broke the strike, and these results were accomplished without any
litigation and with very few arrests for violation of law.
This completes the account of the activities of the court in so
far as the data at hand make such a record possible. Following is
a bibliography of books and articles on the subject from various
standpoints, prepared by the librarian of the Department of Labor
library, and giving a quite complete list of the material produced
to date:




APPENDIX.—LIST OF REFERENCES ON THE KANSAS
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.
Compiled by L a u r a A. T h o m p so n .
A d ju st m e n t of I n d u st r ia l D is p u t e s in K a n s a s a n d C olorado.

Monthly Labor Review, March, 1920, p. 214-217.

A l l e n , H e n r y J.

“ Chief aim of government is justice ” : how the Kansas industrial court
aims to bring justice to all sides of a labor controversy.
Open Shop Review, January, 1922, v. 19: 3-18.
------ Debate between Samuel Gompers and Henry J. Allen at Carnegie Hall,
New York, May 28, 1920. New York, E. P. Dutton & Co., 1920. 105 p.
S u b je ct o f th e d eb ate w a s th e com p u lso ry a rb itra tio n o f in d u str ia l d isp u tes w ith
sp ecific refe re n ce to th e K a n sa s C ou rt o f In d u str ia l R ela tio n s.

------ How Kansas broke a strike and would solve the labor problem.
Current Opinion, April, 1920, v. 68: 472^78.
------ Increased production as a remedy for inflation: the Kansas industrial
relations court plan.
( I n Academy of political science, New York. Proceedings, June, 1920,
v. 9: p. 7(1-78.)
R ev iew s th e h isto r y o f th e a c t an d it s o p era tio n d u rin g first t h ie e m o n th s.

-7-7- Is the industrial court making good?
System, January, 1921, v. 39 : 25-26.
------ The Kansas Court of Industrial Relations.
Administration, September, 1922, v. 4; 257-260.
------ Let the people freeze; how Kansas took up the challenge of the coal strike.
Independent, Mar. 13, 1920, v. 101: 385-386.
------ Liberty and law in Kansas. How the industrial court protects the public,
insures justice to labor, and increases production.
American Review of Reviews, June, 1920, v. 61: 597-602.
------ The party of the third part; the story of the Kansas industrial relations
court. New York, Harper & Bros., 1921. 283 p.

R ev iew ed by J a m e s M . L ee in A d m in istra tio n , J u n e, 1 92 1 , v. 1 : 8 4 7 -5 0 , and by
E . M . H o lla n d e r in th e S u rvey, J u n e 2 5, 1 92 1 , p. 4 46.

------ The settlement of labor disputes.
Electric Railway Journal, Oct. 16, 1920, p. 751-754.

A b str a c t o f a d d r e ss d eliv ered b efore A m erican E le c tric R a ilw a y A sso c ia tio n ,
O ctober 13, 192 0 .

------ Speech at annual banquet of the League for Industrial Rights, Waldorf
Hotel, New York, Mar. 5, 1920.
Law and Labor, April, 1920, v. 2: 84-89.

A n a cco u n t o f th e circ u m sta n c es le a d in g to th e a d o p tio n o f th e a ct, th e pu r­
p ose w h ich it w a s ex p e cte d t o fu lfill, an d it s p ro sp ec ts fo r su ccess.

------ Submerged 92 per cen t: how the public can be protected when capital and
labor start a fight.
Credit Monthly, August, 1920, p. 25-27.
A d d ress a t a n n u a l c o n v en tio n o f N a tio n a l A sso c ia tio n o f C red it M en.

------ A substitute for strikes.
Saturday Evening Post, March 6, 1920, p. 6-7, 72, 75.
------ What about the public?
Nation’s Business, June, 1920, v. 8: 18.
See

a ls o




K an sa s.

G o v e rn o r

(A lle n ).

40

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

A m erican F ederation of L abor .

Report of the proceedings of the fortieth annual convention held at Mon­
treal, Canada, June 7 to 19, 1920. Washington, Law Reporter Printing
Co., 1920. 496 p.
R ep ort o f th e e x e c u tiv e co u n cil on K a n sa s C ourt o f In d u str ia l R e la t io n s : p.
8 8 -9 0 . R eso lu tio n s an d d is c u s s io n : p. 3 7 7 -3 8 3 . R e so lu tio n s in str u c te d th e
e x e c u tiv e c ou n cil to, coo p era te w ith o rg a n ized la b o r b od ies in K a n sa s in a n en ­
d ea v o r to secu re rep eal o f th e a ct. S ec tio n o f th e r ep o rt r e la tin g to th e K a n sa s
co u rt rep rin ted in A m erican F e d e r a tio n ist, J u ly , 1920', p. 0 2 7 -6 2 9 . R ep o rt o f th e
e x e c u tiv e c o u n cil a lso p u b lish ed sep a r a te ly .

------Report of the proceedings of the forty-first annual convention held at
Denver, Colo., June 13 to 25, 1921. Washington, 1921.

R ep ort o f th e e x e c u tiv e co u n cil (p. 1 2 5 -1 2 7 ) recom m en d ed c o n tin u a tio n o f
efforts to secu re rep eal o f th e K a n sa s in d u str ia l co u rt la w a s “ in im ic a l to th e
in te r e s ts n o t o n ly o f la b o r b u t th e farm ers and th e p eo p le g e n e r a lly .” R eso lu ­
tio n s con d em n in g th e cou rt and com m en d in g th e o rg a n iz e d w ork ers o f K a n sa s fo r
o p p o sin g th e la w : p. 379.

------ Report of the executive council to the forty-second annual convention, Cin­
cinnati, Ohio, June 12, 1922. Washington, 1922. 151 p.

Thp sec tio n o f “ L e g isla tiv e a tta c k s on tra d e-u n io n s ” (p. 35—11) d isc u sse s th e
K a n sa s in d u str ia l la w , th e D u ell-M iller b ill, th e C olorado in d u str ia l co m m issio n
la w , a n d P r e sid e n t H a r d in g ’s p ro p o sa l to r eg u la te tra d e-u n ion s.

------ A. F. of L. to fight the no-strike court. Gompers urges the use of the
“ elect friends ” policy to repeal Kansas law.
New York Call, September 8, 1920, p. 1-2.

G ives te x t o f le tte r to K a n sa s S ta te F ed e ra tio n o f L ab or u rg in g th a t th e c ou rt
o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s a c t be m ad e th e le a d in g is su e in th e S ta te e lec tio n s a n d
su g g e stin g th e c a llin g o f a con feren ce. P rin ted in p a r t a lso in C h ristia n S cie n ce
M on itor an d o th er p ap ers o f sa m e d ate.

A n o th er D e c isio n from t h e K a n s a s C ourt of I n d u st r ia l R el a t io n s .

Law and Labor, June, 1920, p. 152.

C ase in v o lv in g em p lo y ees o f J o p lin & P ittsb u r g R y. Co.

T h e A n t ist r ik e B il l .

New York Call, December 31, 1921, p. 8.

On th e p rop osed N ew Y ork in d u str ia l c o u rt a c t.

A r bitr a tio n , C om pulso ry or V o lu n ta r y .

New Republic, May 25, 1920, v. 22: 396-398.

E d ito r ia l c o n tr a stin g th e K a n sa s com p u lso ry sch em e w ith th e p la n o f th e
P r e sid e n t’s seco n d in d u str ia l con feren ce.

A re W e R eady for I n d u st r ia l S l a v er y ?

Independent, March 13, 1920, v. 101: 385-386.

A t L a s t , t h e I n d u st r ia l C ourt .

Illinois Law Review, March, 1920, v. 14: 585-594.

A t k in s , W illard E.

The Kansas Court of Industrial Relations.
Journal of Political Economy, April, 1920, v. 28: 339-352.

A c r itic a l a n a ly s is o f th e p ro v isio n s o f th e la w . A su m m a ry o f th e fir st c a se
b efore th e c ou rt (T o p ek a E d iso n C o.) is ap p en d ed .

B o w ers , J o h n H.

The Kansas Court of Industrial R elations: The philosophy and history of
the court. Chicago, A. C. McClurg & Co., 1922. 133 p. (The National
social science series.)
“ P ro fe sso r B o w e rs is fra n k ly a p r o ta g o n ist o f th e c o u r t a n d in h is book
a rg u e s str o n g ly fo r it s p r o v isio n s.”— E d ito r ’s p refa ce.

C a n n o n , >J a m e s P.

The story of Alex. Howat.
Liberator, April, 1921, p. 25-27.

“ C a n ’t -S tr ik e L a w ” P roves a “ B loomer .”

American Federation of Labor Weekly News Letter, February 19, 1921.

N ew s ite m reg a rd in g th e d ifferen ces w h ic h h a v e a rise n b e tw e e n G ov. A lle n
a n d J u d g e H u g g in s reg a rd in g th e fu n c tio n s o f th e cou rt.

•* C a n ’t -S t r ik e ” L a w s are I ntended to B rea k U n io n L abor ’s S p ir it .

Kansas Trade Unionist, February 24, 1922, p. 1.




APPENDIX----LIST OF REFERENCES,

41

Chenery , W illiam L.
Texas anti-strike law.
Survey, December 4, 1920, v. 45 : 362-363.
------ A reply to criticism of W. L. Merritt.
Survey, February 21, 1921, v. 45: 701-702.

P o in ts o f sim ila r ity a n d c o n tr a st w ith th e K a n sa s a ct a re n o te d b riefly.

Colorado I ndustrial Commission .
Monthly Labor Review, March, 1920, p. 216-217.

T h e a c t o f 1 9 1 5 cre a tin g th e com m ission (ch . 1 8 0 ) con ferred on it c erta in
p ow ers as to th e a d ju stm e n t o f in d u str ia l d isp u tes. I t w a s m ade u n la w fu l for
em p loyers to d eclare or cau se a lo ck o u t or for em p loy ees to go on str ik e p rior
to or d u rin g an in v e stig a tio n or a rb itra tio n o f a d isp u te. A su m m ary o f th e
in d u stria l c a se s b efore th e com m ission in 1 921 is g iv e n in th e 5 th a n n u a l rep ort
o f th e com m ission , p. 1 2 0 -1 3 8 .

Condit, K. H.
The Kansas industrial court.
American Machinist, October 21, 1920, v. 53: 749-752.
Constitutional P rovision for Creation of I ndustrial Court
Monthly Labor Review, November, 1920, p. 193-194.

N ebraska .

in

B y v o te a t sp ec ia l elec tio n , S ep tem b er, 192 0 , th e c o n s titu tio n o f N eb rask a w as
am en d ed so a s to a u th o riz e th e e sta b lish m e n t o f an a g en cy sim ila r in scop e and
p ow er to th e co u rt o f in d u str ia l r ela tio n s o f K an sa s.

Court of I ndustrial R elations May E nforce an Order
W hether the B usiness is R unning at a L oss or N ot.
Law and Labor, October, 1922, v. 4: 283-284.
C ou rt o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s
K a n sa s, 2 0 7 P a c . 8 0 6 ).

v.

for

L iving W ages

C has. W olff P a c k in g Co. (S u p rem e C ourt o f

Courts of I ndustrial I njustice .
Nation, April 3, 1920, v. 110: 416.

E d ito r ia l c r itic iz in g th e in d u str ia l cou rts b ills, p a tte rn e d a fte r th e K a p sa s a c t,
b efore N ew Y ork and o th e r S ta te le g isla tu r e s.

T he Courts U phold Governor A llen .
Outlook, May 12, 1920, v. 125: 58.

E d ito r ia l on d ecisio n u p h o ld in g c o n stitu tio n a lity o f th e K a n sa s co u rt of
in d u str ia l r e la tio n s act.

D amaged P anaceas .
Nation, December 28, 1921, v. 113: 748.
D ean , J. S.
The fundamental unsoundness of the Kansas industrial court law.
American Bar Association Journal, July, 1921, v. 7: 333-336.
D ecision of Court of I ndustrial R elations of K ansas in Meat P acking
Company Case .
Monthly Labor Review, July, 1921, p. 206-208.
C ase o f M ay e t a l.

v.

C h as. W olff P a c k in g Co.

D ecision of K ansas Court of I ndustrial R elations as
of R ailroads.
Monthly Labor Review, August, 1920, p. 142-143.

to Certain

E mployees

S u m m ary o f case o f W en d ele v . U n io n P acific R ailroa d Co. b ro u g h t on b eh a lf
o f th e I n te r n a tio n a l B ro th erh o o d o f S ta tio n a r y F irem en a n d O ilers reg a rd in g
w ag es.

D ecision of K ansas Court of I ndustrial R elations
urban R ailways .
Monthly Labor Review, June, 1920, p. 106-107.

as to

W ages

on I nter-

R ev iew o f th e fin d in g s o f th e cou rt (A p ril 23, 1 9 2 0 ) in c a se in v o lv in g em p loy ees
o f J o p lin & P ittsb u r g R a ilw a y C o. o f K a n sa s an d M isso u ri.

D ecisions A ffecting K ansas Court of I ndustrial R elations.
Monthly Labor Review, November, 1920, p. 191-193.

S u m m ary o f th e c a se o f H o w a t an d o th er officials o f th e m in e rs’ u n ion w ho
refu sed to te s tify b efo re th e c o u rt o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s a n d w ere co m m itted to
ja il. (S ta te e x rel C ou rt o f In d u str ia l R e la tio n s v . H o w a t, 1 91 P a c . 5 8 5 .)

D uffus , W illiam M.
The Kansas Court of Industrial Relations.
American Economic Review, June, 1920, v. 10: 407-412.
A n a n a ly s is o f th e ter m s o f th e la w w ith h isto r y o f it s enactment.



42

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

E asley , R alph M.
Is the labor problem unsolvable? Gompers-Allen debate demonstrates there
is no overnight nickel-in-the-slot machine solution of capital and labor
problems—Attempts to force men by law to work have uniformly proven
a failure.
National Civic Federation Review, July 10, 1920, p. 1-2, 5, 20.
E wing , A ndrew J.
The danger of the Kansas Court of Industrial Relations to business as well
as union labor, by a member of “ The party of the third part ” . . .
[Wichita, Kans., the McCormick-Armstrong Press] 1921. 39 p.
F eis , H erbert.
The Kansas court and the national strike.
Survey. December 15, 1922, v. 49 : 372-374.
In th e v iew o f th is w riter “ it is s t ill too ea rly to d ec la re th e K a n sa s c o u rt
e ith e r a g re a t su cc e ss or a g re a t fa ilu r e .” T h e o u tsta n d in g le sso n o f it s reco rd is
th a t “ no sim ila r n a tio n a l la w h a s tily e n a c ted w ou ld h a v e v ery good c h a n c es o f
su c c e ssfu l o p e r a tio n .”

------ Kansas miners and the Kansas court.
Survey, February 25, 1922, v. 47: 822-826, 867.

A c r itic a l a n a ly sis o f th e w ork o f th e cou rt d u rin g th e first tw o y ea r s a n d o f th e
co n d itio n s w h ic h it m u st m eet b efo re it can h op e for p erm a n en t a n d u n ite d
su p p o rt.

T he F ight of the Miners for I ndustrial L iberty in K ansas : A plea for fair
treatment for the men of the mines.
Kansas Trade Unionist, February 10, 1922, p. 4.
F itch , J ohn A.
The case against the law.
Survey, May 29, 1920, v. 44 : 303.
------ Industrial peace by law—the Kansas way.
Survey, April 3, 1920, v. 44 : 7-8, 48.
A c r itic a l
w r ite r , “ its
to som e o f
rejo in d er o f

d isc u ssio n o f th e K a n sa s in d u str ia l c o u r ts a ct. In th e v ie w o f t ills
a ssu m p tio n s are fu n d a m e n ta lly u n so u n d a n d its p u rp o ses run c o u n ter
th e m o st d eep ly sig n ific a n t p u rp o ses o f m odern c iv iliz a tio n .” F or
p re sid in g ju d g e o f th e cou rt, see S u rv ey , M ay 2 9, 1 92 0 , p. 3 0 1 -3 0 3 .

------ Shall strikes become crimes? The “ industrial court ” movement and what
it means.
Labor Age, March, 1922, v. 11: 1-3.
F ourteen P oints of the N ew K ansas I ndustrial Court L aw .
Current Affairs (Boston), March 15, 1920, p. 15.
F reeman , J ohn A.
Forgetting American principles—fallacies in antistrike agitation.
American Federationist, November, 1922, v. 29: 838^839.
Gompers, Samuel .
Benevolent (?) compulsion in Colorado.
American Federationist, June, 1916, v. 23 : 437-452.
D isc u ssio n o f th e C olorad o com p u lso ry a rb itra tio n la w .

------ Debate between Samuel Gompers . . . and Henry J. Allen at Carnegie
Hall, New York, May 28, 1920. New York, E. P. Dutton & Company, 1920.
105 p.
S u b ject o f d eb a te w a s th e com p u lso ry a rb itra tio n o f in d u str ia l d isp u te s w ith
sp ecific r efe re n ce to th e K a n sa s C ou rt or In d u str ia l R ela tio n s.

------ Discontent can not be outlawed.
American Federationist, November, 1920, v. 27: p. 1011-1014.

E d ito r ia l on th e K a n sa s C ou rt o f In d u str ia l R e la tio n s and sim ila r p rop osed
le g isla tio n .

------ The issues that face America.
American Federationist, May, 1920, v. 27: 422^34.

E x tr a c ts from a d d resses m ad e b efo re jo in t s e s s io n s o f th e le g is la tu r e s in N ew
* J e r se y and N ew Y ork, M ar. 2 2 an d 2 9, 1 9 2 0 , g iv in g p o in t o f v ie w o f la b o r on.
th e K a n sa s a c t : p. 4 3 1 -4 3 4 .

------ Labor’s protest against a rampant tragedy.
American Federationist, June, 1920, p. 521-532.

D em an d fo r rep eal o f E sch -C u m m in s ra ilro a d la w a n d K a n sa s C ou rt o f I n ­
d u str ia l R e la tio n s la w : p. 5 31.




APPENDIX----LIST OF REFERENCES.

43

Gompers, S amuel —Concluded.
Testimony before joint labor and industries committee of New York State
Legislature on tbe Duell-Miller industrial relations (antistrike) bill,
Assembly Chamber, Albany, Mar. 1, 1922.
American Federationist, April, 1922, v. 29: p. 253-262.
------What’s the matter with Kansas? Proposed law to prevent strikes.
American Federationist, February, 1920, v. 27: 155-157.
Gompers S ees L abor D efying Court L aw . Warns that an industrial rela­
tions act here will not be obeyed.
New York Times, January 6, 1922, p. 17.
S ta te m e n t o p p o sin g th e N ew Y ork in d u stria l c o u r ts b ill p rop osed b y tb e B oard
of T rad e a n d T ra n sp o r ta tio n .

Governor A llen D efends I ndustrial Court B efore B ankers .
New York Evening Post, October 5, 1922, p. 1, 9.
H aling F lour I ndustry to Court for S hutting D own Mills .
Nation’s Business, January, 1921, v. 9: 42, 44, 46.

A rticle in clu d es com m en ts from M odern M iller, N o r th w e ste r n M iller, N a tio n a l
M iller, a n d A m erica n M iller.

H appenings in L egislature. Allen admits its failure. Court engineer admits
division of court and utilities would add over $60,000 additional expense.
Kansas Trades Unionist, February 4, 1921, p. 1.
H ayes , E llen .
Kansas and Howat.
Nation, April 20, 1921, v. 112: 505.
C om m en t on a r tic le by C lyd e M. R eed in N a tio n o f A pr. 6, 1921.

H och, H.
Kansas experiment.
Chicago Legal News, March 4, 1920, v. 52: 252.
H pqver, H erbert C.
t Hoover decries Kansas labor law. Defends industrial conference plan of
conciliation.
New York Times, March 25, 1920, p. 17.
Su m m ary o f ad d ress b efore B o sto n C ham ber o f C om m erce, M arch 24, 1 920.
S e e a ls o N a tio n a l L ab or D ig e st, M ay, 1920, p. 13.

Hours, Charles A.
The Kansas industrial court act upheld.
Law and Labor, July, 1920, v. 2: 173-176.

R ev iew s th e circ u m sta n c es o u t o f w h ich th e te s t o f th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f
th e K a n sa s in d u str ia l cou rt a c t a ro se, and q u otes a t le n g th from th e opin ion o f
J u d g e C urran (S ta te o f K a n sa s v . H o w a t e t al. in th e D is tr ic t C ourt o f C raw ford
C ou n ty, K a n s.).

H owat, A lex.
Kansas stands for freedom.
Labor Age, December, 1921, p. 12-13.
------ Speech before the American Federation of Labor convention at Montreal,
June 16, 1920, on the Kansas Court of Industrial Relations and the opposi­
tion of the Kansas miners to it.
{ I n American federation of labor. Proceedings, 1920. p. 380-582.)
H owat A ppeal from Contempt Comes up T o-day.
New York Call, March 7, 1921, p. 5.
R ev iew s th e h isto r y o f th e fo u r ch a rg es a g a in s t H o w a t.

H uggins, W illiam L.
A few of the fundamentals of the Kansas industrial court act.
American Bar Association Journal, June, 1921, v. 7: 265-270.
------ Is there a labor problem? Speech before Rotary Club at Topeka, Kans.,
Oct. 30, 1919. [Topeka, State printing plant, 1919?] 7 p.
C o n ta in s su g g e stio n fo r an in d u str ia l cou rt.

------ Justice and industrial relations. Address before the International conven­
tion of Rotary clubs, Atlantic City, N. J., June 22, 1920. 7 1. (mimeo­
graphed).



44

K A N S A S COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

H uggins , W illiam L.—Concluded.
Labor and democracy. New York, Macmillan, 1922. 213 p.

A n a cc o u n t b y th e p r e sid in g ju d g e o f th e K a n sa s C ou rt o f I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s
o f its first e ig h tee n m o n th s’ w ork . In th e v iew o f th is a u th o r th e K a n sa s a c t pro­
v id e s a w a y by w h ic h lab or can be p ro te cte d from a la rg e p a r t o f th e e v ils o f u n ­
e m p loy m en t, overw o rk , an d u n d er p ay, w h ile a t th e sa m e tim e th e g en e ra l p u b lic
can be p ro te cte d fro m th e e v ils w h ich fo llo w in th e w ak e o f in d u str ia l w a r fa r e .
R ev iew ed by J. M. L ee in A d m in istra tio n , O ctober, 1 92 2 , p. 4 9 3 -4 9 4 .

Speech delivered before the Kansas Legislature, January 9, 1920.
Topeka, Kans., State printing plant, 1921. 19 p.

R ep ly by th e a u th o r o f th e in d u str ia l cou rts b ill to c r itic ism s o f its p ro v isio n s.

Why compulsory arbitration in Kansas? The State’s argument.
Survey, May 29, 1920, v. 44 : 301-303.

R ep ly to u n fa v o r a b le c r iticism o f th e la w by J oh n F itc h in S u rv ey o f A p ril 3,
1 92 0 .

H umble , H. W.
The Court of Industrial Relations in Kansas.
Michigan Law Review, May, 1921, v. 19: 675-689.

A n a n a ly s is o f th e ju risd ic tio n , p ow ers, a n d m eth o d s o f proced u re o f th e cou rt.

T he I ndustrial Court.
New York Times, February 18, 1921, p. 10.

E d ito r ia l on th e H o w a t d ec isio n w h ic h is regard ed a s a “ w elcom e sig n th a t th e
c ou rt is p io n e er in g to good p u rp ose in th e d ifficu lt field o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s .”

I ndustrial Court L aw of K ansas H eld Constitutional .
Monthly Labor Review, July, 1921, p. 208-209.
H o w a t case.

I ndustrial Court L aw P roves a F ailure in R ailroad S trike.
Kansas Trade Unionist, September 29, 1922, p. 1.
I ndustrial Court P roposed by K ansas Governor as a W ay to E nd S trikes .
National Coal Association Weekly Digest January 14, 1920, p. 16-17.
I ndustrial R elations L aw of K ansas D eclared Constitutional .
Commercial and Financial Chronicle, May 22, 1920, v. 110: 2150-2152.
I owa. S t a t e l a w l i b r a r y . L e g i s l a t i v e r e f e r e n c e d e p a r t m e n t .
Courts of conciliation for industrial disputes. 1921. 32 p. ( I t s Legisla­
tive bulletin, no. 2.)
C o n ten ts.— S u m m ary o f le g isla tio n : foreign la w s, S ta te la w s.— R efe re n ce s a n d
ex c e rp ts from a rtic le s r e la tin g to com p u lsory a rb itra tio n .— A c tiv itie s o f th e
K a n sa s c o u rt.— C o n stitu tio n a lity o f th e K a n sa s la w .
J ohnsen , J ulia E. c o m p .

Kansas court of industrial relations. New York city, H. W. Wilson Co.,
1922. 71 p. (the reference shelf . . . v. 1, no. 4).
C o n ta in s b rie f for d eb ate, r ep r in ts o f selected a r tic le s, a n d a b ib lio gra p h y .

K ansas .
The court of industrial relations. Created by the special session of the
Kansas Legislature, January 5 to 27, 1920. Also statements and message
of Governor Henry J. Allen, outlining the need and character of the pro­
posed legislation. Topeka, printed by Kansas State printing plant, 1920.
31 p.
C o n ten ts.— P r e lim in a r y sta te m e n t.— M essag e o f G overn or H en ry J . A lle n .—
T h e in d u str ia l c ou rt la w , a s e n a c ted by sp ec ia l se ssio n o f th e K a n sa s L e g isla ­
tu re .— L e g isla tiv e h isto r y o f S en a te b ill N o. 1, “ T h e in d u str ia l c o u r t b ill.”

The Kansas Court of Industrial Relations. A modern weapon . . . Topeka,
Printed by Kansas State printing plant, 1921. 46 p.

C o n ten ts.— T h e u n a n sw ered q u estio n .— T h e g ro w th o f th e in d u str ia l cou rt
id ea .— T h e in d u str ia l com m a n d m en ts.— L e g isla tiv e h isto r y o f in d u str ia l cou rt
b ill (S e n a te b ill N o. 1 ) .— E x c e rp ts from a d d ress b;, G overn or A lle n , K a n sa s
B a n k e rs’ A sso c ia tio n , M ay 2 0 , 1 9 2 0 .— In d u str ia l ju stic e . A d d ress b efo re th e
In te r n a tio n a l C on v en tion o f R ota ry C lubs, A tla n tic C ity , N . J ., J u n e 2 2 , 1 9 2 0 ,
by W . L . H u g g in s, p re sid in g ju d g e, c o u rt o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s.— A d d ress o f
H on . F . D u m on t S m ith .— J u d g e D illa r d ’s p lea .— R Ssum S o f th e c o u rt’s a c tiv itie s .




APPENDIX----LIST OF REFERENCES.

45

K ansas . C ourt of in d u stria l rela tio n s.
First annual report of the court of industrial relations, State of Kansas,
February 1, 1920, to November 30, 1920. Including the Report of the
Public U tilities Commission, December 1, 1918, to January 31, 1920.
W. L. Huggins, presiding judge; Clyde M. Reed, judge; George H. Wark,
judge. Topeka, State printing plant, 1921. 902 p.
In clu d es o p in io n s and ord ers filed on th e in d u str ia l sid e and s ta tis tic s o f
p u blic u tilitie s rep o rtin g to th e p u b lic u tilitie s com m ission . R ep o rt o f cou rt
issu e d sep a r a te ly (1 6 p .), su m m arized in M o n th ly L abor R ev iew , Ju n e, 1 921.
p. 1 3 3 -1 3 4 .

------------- Second annual report of the court of industrial relations for year end­
ing December 31, 1921. Topeka, Kansas State printing plant, 1922.

In clu d es b esid es th e rep o rt o f th e in d u stria l d iv isio n (p. 7 -1 7 ) th e rep o rts o f
th e labor d iv isio n , w o m en ’s d iv isio n , and em p loy m en t serv ice w h ich w ere p laced
u n d er th e c o u rt o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s b y a c t o f la w s 192 1 , ch. 2 6 2 -2 6 3 . B rie f
rev iew in M o n th ly L abor R ev iew , S ep tem b er, 1 922, p. 12r-13.

------------- . . . The State of Kansas, on the relation of Richard J. Hopkins,
attorney general: W. J. Price, P. C. Hiller, P. Sullivan, and Charles White,
complainants, v . The Topeka Edison Co., a corporation, respondent.
Opinion and order. Dated March 29, 1920. 12 p.
A t h ea d o f t i t l e : D o ck et N o. 3 2 5 4 -1 -2 .
F ir s t d ec isio n o f th e cou rt. R ela ted to w a g e s o f lin em en em p loyed by th e
T op ek a E d iso n Co. S u m m ary o f d ecision in M o n th ly L ab or R ev iew for M ay,
1920, an d a lso in L aw and L ab or o f sa m e d ate.

------------- . . . Clyde Davidson, secretary; J. A. Graves, president; Frank
O’Shea, W. E. Freeman, J. S. Brown, Herbert Eaton, Thomas Clark, members
of the Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway Employees of
America, complainants, v . The Joplin & Pittsburg Railway Co., a corporation,
respondent. Opinion and order. Dated April 23, 1920. 12 p .
A t h ead o f title : D ock et N o. 328 3 .
C ase r ela ted to w ag es on in teru rb a n r a ilw a y s. S u m m ary in M o n th ly L abor
R ev iew for J u n e, 1920, an d a lso in L aw an d Labor of sam e d ate.

------------- . . . H. W. Wendele, vice president of the International Brotherhood
of Stationary Firemen and Oilers . . . complainant, v . the Union Pacific
Railroad Co. et al., respondents. Opinion and order. Dated June 15, 1920.
16 p.
A t h ead o f title : D ock et N o. 3293.
C ase r e la te d to w ag es p aid m em bers o f lo c a l u n io n s o f th e In te r n a tio n a l
B ro th erh oo d o f S ta tio n a r y F irem en and O ilers. S u m m ary in M o n th ly L abor
R ev iew fo r A u g u st, 1 920, and a lso in L a w and L abor o f sa m e d ate.

------------- . . . In re application of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.;
Union Pacific Co. et al. . . . for horizontal increases of 35 per cent in freight
rates, 20 per cent in milk rates, 20 per cent in passenger fare, and 50 per cent
in Pullman fares covering Kansas intrastate business.
Opinion and order. Dated October 9, 1920. 20 p.
A t h ead o f title : D ock et N o. 3451.

------------- . . . The Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway
Employees of America, local union No. 497, complainants, v . The Joplin &
Pittsburg Railway Co., respondent. Opinion. Dated December 9, 1920. 7 p.
A t head o f t it le : D ock et N o. 3653.
C ase in v o lv ed q u estio n s o f h ou rs and w a g e s con cern in g w h ic h th e com p an y
and th e officers o f th e u n ion h ad been u n ab le to a gree in n e g o tia tin g a n ew co n ­
tra c t. S u m m ary in L aw and L abor, F eb ru a ry , 1921.

--------------. . . In the matter of the investigation concerning the continuity of
production in the flour-milling industry at Topeka and other points in the
State of Kansas. Opinion. Dated December 20, 1920. 10 p.

A t h ead o f title : D ock et N o. 3 803.
In v e stig a tio n in stitu te d by th e cou rt on its ow n m o tion . E v id en ce sh ow ed th a t
red u ced p rod u ction w a s d u e to w orld m a rk et c o n d itio n s and n o t to an effort to
con trol p rices. A p p oin ted a c o m m ittee o f th ree to fo r m u la te r u le s and r eg u la ­
tio n s fo r th e p u rp ose o f sec u r in g a rea so n a b le c o n tin u ity a n d efficiency o f pro­
d u ction .

29723°—23------4




46

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

K ansas . C o u r t o f i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s —Concluded.
. . . In the matter of the application of the Fort Scott Sorghum-Syrup Co.,
a corporation, of Fort Scott, Kans., for an order modifying the terms
and conditions of contract between said company and certain of its
employees. Opinion. Dated February 11, 1921. 7 p.
A t h ead o f t it le : D o c k et N o. 3 88 5 .
S u m m ary o f d ecisio n in M o n th ly L ab or R ev iew , A p ril, 1 9 2 1 , p. 1 25, and L aw
a n d L ab or, A p ril, 1 9 2 1 , p . 1 0 0 -1 0 1 .
’
C ase in v o lv e d tra d e-u n ion p o licy o f “ o n e m an , one jo b .”

--------------• • . In the matter of establishing of rules and regulations pertain­
ing to the milling industry in the State of Kansas. Order. Dated February
24, 1921. 4 p.

A t h ea d o f t i t l e : D o c k et N o. 3 80 3 .
R eq u ires a ll m illin g c om p an ies o p e r a tin g m ills in K a n sa s to m ak e r ep o rts to
th e c ou rt o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s, a n d t o m ak e a p p lic a tio n fo r p erm issio n to re­
d u ce p ro d u ctio n .
F o r su m m ary, s e e M o n th ly L ab or R ev iew , A p ril, 1 9 2 1 , p. 124.

--------------. . . W. B. May, president, Orville A. Chase, secretary . . . of local
union 176 of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butchers Workmen of
North America, a labor union, complainant, v . the Chas. Wolff Packing Co., a
corporation, respondent. Opinion. Dated May 2, 1921. 16 p.
A t h ea d o f t i t l e : D o c k et N o. 3 92 6 .
S u m m ary in M o n th ly L ab or R ev iew , J u ly , 1 92 1 , p. 2 0 6 -2 0 8 , and L aw and
L ab or, J u n e , 1 92 1 , p. 1 4 4 -1 4 6 .

--------------- . . In the matter of the investigation and inquiry into conditions
obtaining in the coal-mining industry. Summary of findings and report.
Dated August 6, 1921. 20 p.
A t h ea d o f t i t l e : D ock et N o. 3 25 3 .

--------------Rules, practice, and procedure. 1920. 8 p.
Judges, W. L. Huggins (presiding), Clyde M. Reed, George H. Wark.
Clerk, Carl W. Moore.
--------------Selected opinions and orders (including rules, practices, and pro­
cedure). Topeka, State printing plant, 1922. 90 p.

“ T h is p a m p h le t d oes n o t c o n ta in a ll th e o p in io n s filed and o rd ers m ad e by
th e co u rt o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s, b u t i t is in te n d ed to p re se n t ty p ic a l d ec isio n s
w h ic h w ill illu s tr a te th e w ork o f th e co u rt a n d th e a d m in istr a tio n o f th e in d u s­
tr ia l a c t .”— P re f.

------ G o v e r n o r (A llen).
Message of Governor Henry J. Allen to the Kansas Legislature in extraor­
dinary session January 5, 1920. Topeka, Kans., State printing plant,
1920. 14 p.
A fte r r e v ie w in g th e coa l str ik e in w in te r o f 1 9 1 9 a n d th e a c tio n o f th e S ta te
in o p e r a tin g th e m in es, th e m e ssa g e recom m ends! th e p a ssa g e o f a la w c r e a tin g a
c o u rt o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s d esig n ed to p re v en t str ik e s in e ss e n tia l in d u str ie s.

--------------Inaugural address delivered at the statehouse, Topeka, Kans., Mon­
day, January 10, 1921. Topeka, State printing plant, 1921. 8 p.

R ecom m en d ed th a t th e cou rt o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s be r eliev ed o f th e burd en o f
p u b lic -u tility r eg u la tio n .

--------------Special message by Governor Henry J. Allen to the legislature of
Kansas, Wednesday, January 26, 1921. Topeka, Kans., State printing plant,
1921. 6 p.

R ecom m en d ed th e r e e sta b lish m e n t o f th e p u b lic u t ilit ie s c om m ission a n d th e
c o n so lid a tio n u n d er th e a d m in istr a tio n o f th e c ou rt o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s o f th e
w ork o f th e in d u str ia l w e lfa r e co m m issio n , fa c to ry in sp e c tio n , a n d o th e r a c tiv itie s
o f th e com m ission er o f lab or. (F o r la w s e n a c ted in a cco rd a n ce w ith th e reco m ­
m en d a tio n s e e Ch. 2 6 6 -2 6 3 , K a n sa s la w s o f 1 9 2 1 .)
S e e a ls o A llen , H en ry J.

------ G o v e r n o r (D avis).
Message of Governor Jonathan M. Davis to the legislature of the State of
Kansas, January 9,1923. Topeka, Kans., State printing plant, 1923. 24 p.
R ecom m en d ed th e rep eal o f th e cou rt o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s la w a s h a v in g fa ile d
o f it s e x p r esse d p u rp o se an d th e e n a c tm e n t in it s stea d o f a la w c re a tin g th e
office o f in d u str ia l com m ission er (p . 1 2 - 1 5 ) .




APPENDIX----LIST OF REFERENCES.

47

K ansas . L a m , s t a t u t e s , e t c .
An act creating the court of industrial relations, defining its powers and
duties, and relating thereto, abolishing the public utilities commission,
repealing all acts and parts of acts in conflict therewith, and providing
penalties for the violation of this act. Topeka, Kans., State printing
plant, 1920. 14 p.

F orm s ch a p ter 29 o f la w s o f K a n sa s, 192 0 .
ch. 2 6 0 -2 6 3 .
------ S u p r e m e c o u r t .

F or a m en d in g a c ts

see

L aw s, 192 1 ,

Decision of the Supreme Court of Kansas. The State, ex rel. Richard J.
Hopkins, as attorney general, et al., appellee, v . Alexander Howat et al.,
appellants. Appeal from Crawford County, affirmed. Decided June 11,
1921. Topeka, Kans., State printing plant, 1921. 58 p.

A t h ead o f title : N o. 2 35 0 5 . S u m m ary o f d ecision in M o n th ly L abor R ev iew ,
J u ly , 1921, p. 2 0 8 -2 0 9 , and L aw an d L abor, J u ly , 1 92 1 , p. 1 6 3 -1 6 8 . F o r s ta te ­
m en t o f U . S. S u prem e C ourt in d ec lin in g to rev iew th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f th e
a ct on an a p p ea l in con tem p t p ro ceed in gs s e e 42 Suprem e C ourt R ep o rter 2 77 ; L aw
an d L ab or, A p ril, 1 92 2 , p. 9 6 -9 8 .

------------- Decision of the Supreme Court of Kansas. The court of industrial
relations, plaintiff, v . the Charles Wolff Packing Co., defendant. Original
proceedings in mandamus. Questions of law decided. October 8, 1921.
[Topeka, 1921?] 20 p.
A t h ead o f t it le : N o. 2 3,7 02 .
C ase in v o lv ed th e a u th o rity o f th e cou rt o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s to d ire c t th e
p a y m en t o f a sc a le o f w a g e s fixed by it. S u m m arized in M o n th ly L abor R ev iew ,
Jan u a ry , 1 92 2 , p. 194—195, a n d in L aw and L abor, J a n u a ry , 1 92 2 , p. 2 0 -2 2 .
F or la te r d ec isio n in c o n tin u a tio n o f th is p ro ceed in g s e e M o n th ly L abor R ev iew ,
N ovem b er, 1 9 2 2 , p. 2 0 0 -2 0 2 , and L aw an d L abor, O ctober, 1 9 2 2 , p. 2 8 3 -2 8 4 .

T he K ansas Challenge to U nionism .
New Republic, June 1, 1921, v. 27: 3-5.
K ansas Court of I ndustrial R elations.
Industry (W ashington), February 1, 1920, p. 7-11.
R ep r in t o f te x t o f th e act.

------Monthly Labor Review, March, 1920, p. 214—
215.
S u m m ary o f p ro v isio n s o f th e la w .

------Monthly Labor Review, May, 1920, p. 52-54.

A rev iew o f th e first d ecision ren d ered by th e cou rt (M arch 2 9, 1 9 2 0 ) r ela tin g
to w a g es o f lin em en em p loyed by th e T op ek a E d iso n Co.

------ Review of Reviews, May, 1921, v. 63: 539-540.

S u m m ary o f a r tic le in N a tio n of A p ril 6, 1921, by C lyde M. R eed.

T he K ansas Court of I ndustrial R elations and
tion A ct.
Law and Labor, August, 1920, v. 2: 203-204.
S u m m ary o f th e case o f W en d ele

v.

the

F ederal T ransporta­

U n io n P a c ific R ailroa d Co.

T he K ansas Court of I ndustrial R elations. New law to safeguard in the
public interest the production in essential industries.
Labour Gazette (Canada), March, 1920, v. 20 : 300-302.
T he K ansas Court of I ndustrial R elations on H ours of L abor. Amalga­
mated Association of Street and Electric Railway Employees v . Joplin &
Pittsburg Railway Co.
Law and Labor, February, 1921, v. 3: 38-40.
T he K ansas Court of I ndustrial R elations on the F lour-Milling I ndustry .
Law and Labor, January, 1921, v. 3: 9-10.
T he K ansas Court of I ndustrial R elations R egulates L abor P roblems in
the P acking I ndustry .
Law and Labor, June, 1921, p. 144-146.
T he K ansas Court of I ndustrial R elations R enders I ts F irst D ecision.
Law and Labor, May, 1920, p. 128.
Case of Topeka Edison Oo.
K ansas I ndustrial Court.
Railway Review, February 7, 1920, v. 66: 222-223.



48

KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

T he K ansas I ndustrial Court.
Survey, February 7, 1920, V. 43: 552.

B r ie f su m m a ry o f th e p ro v isio n s o f th e a c t.

T he K ansas I ndustrial Court A ct : A criticism of certain provisions of the
law.
Labour Gazette (Canada), May, 1920, v. 20: 550-552.
S u m m ary o f a r tic le by P ro f. W . E . A tk in s in J o u r n a l o f P o litic a l E co n o m y fo r
A p ril, 1920.

K ansas I ndustrial Court B ills .
Law and Labor, February, 1920, v. 2: 31-33.
S u m m a ry o f a ct.

K ansas I ndustrial Court on “ One Man , One J ob,” a closed-shop agreement,
law ful in itself, which operates to create a condition of waste, must be modi­
fied to eliminate the waste.
Law and Labor, April, 1921, p. 100-101.
S u m m ary o f th e o p in io n r e la tin g to F o r t S c o tt S orgh u m -S yru p Co.

T he K ansas I ndustrial S nag.
Literary Digest, December 31, 1921, v. 71: 14.
K ansas S tate F ederation of L abor.
Proceedings of the fourth annual convention held in Salina, Kans., May
10-12, 1920. 116 p.
R e so lu tio n s c on d em n in g th e cou rt o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s a c t and p led g in g th e
su p p o rt o f th e S ta te fed e r a tio n to th e m in e r s : p. 11—13.

K ansas S trike Cure.
Literary Digest, February 7, 1920, v. 64: 17-18.
K opelin , L ouis .
Manufacturers in 21 States seek industrial court law. Employers have
awaited Howat’s conviction as signal to force legislation.
New York Call, February 20, 1921, p. 2.
L abor O p in io n : Expressions by the labor press on the “ industrial court ” idea.
Labor Age, March, 1922, v. 11: 15.
L abor O ppo sin g A n t is t r ik e B ill : Illinois measure to prohibit “ unwarranted
industrial warfare ” would, it is alleged, do away with trade-unions.
Christian Science Monitor, March 23, 1921, p. 5.
G ives t e x t o f I llin o is b ill.

L ackland , George.
Colorado tries to outlaw strikes. How the industrial commission works.
Labor Age, March, 1922, v. 11: 4-6.
L awyer ’s V iew I ndustrial Court. Digest of remarks by Judge C. J. Evans
in debate with Attorney Huggins at open forum.
Kansas Trades Unionist, February 10, 1922, p. 1.
T he L eague for I ndustrial R ights S upports Governor A llen in the F ight
for the S upremacy of L aw .
Law and Labor, May, 1920, v. 2: 123.

T eleg ra m s ex ch a n g ed b etw een th e e x e c u tiv e sec r eta r y o f th e lea g u e a n d G ov­
ern o r A llen .

Merritt, W alter Gordon.
Social control of industrial warfare . . . [New York?] 1920. 45 p.
R ep rin ted in p art from th e U n p a rtiz a n R ev iew .
In clu d es d isc u ssio n o f th e K a n sa s c o u r t o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s la w .

------ The Texas open-port law.
Survey, February 21, 1921, v. 45: 700-701.
M ontague, R ichard .
The Kansas industrial court.
Pacific Review, December, 1921, p. 387-396.
T he N ebraska L abor A mendment .
Survey, January 8, 1921, v. 45: 525.

T e x t o f c o n stitu tio n a l a m en d m en t (sec. 9 o f A rt. X IV ) p e r m ittin g th e e n a c t­
m e n t o f la w s fo r th e in v e stig a tio n a n d d ete r m in a tio n o f in d u str ia l d isp u te s and
th e cre a tio n o f an in d u str ia l co m m issio n to a d m in iste r su ch la w s.




APPENDIX----LIST OP REFERENCES.

49

'New Y ork T imes .
[Articles on the Kansas Court of Industrial Relations.]
New York Times, February 22, 1922, p. 6; February 23, 1922; p. 15;
February 24, 1922, p. 5; February 25, 1922, p. 19; Feb. 26, 1922, p. 14.
O’H a n l o n , F. M.

W ill New York coerce workers?
Labor Age, March, 1922, v. 11: 7.
P eterson, E lmer T.
You can’t make a man work.
Outlook, April 19, 1922, y. 130: 645-647.
P ittman , A.
What I learned about the court in Kansas.
System, January, 1921, v. 39: 26-28.
P ltjmb, Glenn E.
Plumb dissects Oklahoma industrial court b ill; it is similar to labor law s
proposed for several States.
Labor (W ashington), February 5, 1921, p. 2.
T he P ower of the Court of I ndustrial R elations to E nforce its Orders
as to H ours and W ages U pheld .
Law and Labor, January, 1922, v. 4: 20-22.
C ourt o f in d u str ia l r ela tio n s
K a n sa s, 2 01 P ac. 4 1 8 ).

v.

C has. W olff P a c k in g Co. (S u p rem e C ourt o f

P roposed S tatutes for the S ettlement of L abor D isputes .
Law and Labor, March, 1922, v. 4: 62-66.

S u m m ary o f th e K en yon b ill (F e d e r a l) and th e N ew Y ork b ills.

R ecent D ecisions of the K ansas Court of I ndustrial R elations.
Monthly Labor Review, April, 1921, p. 122-125.

S u m m a ries o f d ec isio n s r e la tin g to J o p lin & P ittsb u r g R a ilw a y Co. a n d its
em p loy ees, th e flou r-m illin g in d u stry , a n d F o r t S c o tt S orgh um -Syru p Co.

R eed, Clyde M.
Getting the jump on strikes. Even union members have sought the aid
of the Kansas industrial court how the experiment is working out as
shown by typical cases that it has dealt with.
Nation’s Business, September, 1920, p. 20-21.
A u th o r is on e o f th e ju d g es o f th e K a n sa s cou rt o f in d u str ia l r e la tio n s.

------ Kansas court of industrial relations.
Nation, April 6, 1921, v. 112 : 505-507.
B y o n e o f th e ju d g e s o f th e cou rt.

R egulation of W age S cale by Court of I ndustrial R elations of K anisas.
Monthly Labor Review, January, 1922, p. 194-195; November, 1922, p.

200-202.

A R eply to Governor A llen and Others .
Nation, February 22, 1922, p. 211-213.
T he R ight to S trike in K ansas .
Industrial Information Service, June 30, 1921, p. 3-4.

On th e d ec isio n o f th e K a n sa s S u prem e C ou rt u p h o ld in g th e c o n s titu tio n a lity
o f th e in d u str ia l cou rt act.

R odrick, A. H.
Again—the Kansas industrial court.
Factory, April, 1922, p. 418-419, 434 ff.
Seitz, D on C.
Labor court for labor law.
Nation, May 17, 1922, v. 114: 597.
Seven Millers of K ansas .
Literary Digest, December 4, 1920, v. 67: 16.
S hields , A rt.
Fighting the industrial court in Kansas.
Labor Age, February, 1922, v. 11: 3-5.



KANSAS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

50

S m ith , F. D.
Police power and the Kansas industrial court.
American Bar Association Journal, August, 1921, v. 7: 415—
419.
------ Strikes, strikers, and stricken—The Kansas industrial court.
Century Law Journal, December 17, 1921, p. 443-451.
S tanley , W. E.
Kansas industrial dourt act.
American Bar ^Association Journal, September, 1920, v. 6: 39-42.
S tate F ederation of L abor Outlines Speaker Campaign [for repeal of the
Kansas industrial court act].
Kansas Trade Unionist, July 29, 1921, p. 1.
R e p r in ts a ffid a vit m ad e by th e m em bers o f th e ju ry w h ich c o n v icte d H o v a t.
T h is s ta te s th a t w h ile u n d er th e sp ecific in str u c tio n o f th e tr ia l ju d g e th e y w er e
forced to b rin g in a v er d ic t o f g u ilty , th e m em bers o f th e ju ry w ere a ll o p p osed
to th e in d u s tr ia l cou rt la w .

S terling, R. E.
Charges against mills unproved. Kansas industrial court find no support
for allegation that flour concerns decreased operations in order to in­
fluence the price of their product.
Northwestern Miller, December 22, 1920, p. 1448.
S toddard , W il l ia m L.
Industrial courts, collective agreements, or what?
Administration, September, 1922, v. 4: 261-268.
S upreme Court of K ansas U pholds I ndustrial Court A ct. The right to strike
is not superior to the police power of the State to protect essential industries
against interruption from industrial controversies.
Law and Labor, July, 1921, p. 163-168.
S ta te ex rel. H op k in s v . H o w a t e t al. (S u p rem e C ourt, K a n sa s).

S upreme Court W ill N ot R eview the Constitutionality of the Kansas Court
of Industrial Relations on an appeal in contempt proceedings.
Law and Labor, April, 1922, v. 4: 96-98.
H ow at

v.

K a n sa s (U n ite d S ta te s S u prem e C ourt, M arch, 1 3 ).

T exas P rotects the Operation of Common Carriers.
Law and Labor, November, 1920, p. 264.
T e x t o f T e x a s open p o r t la w .

T ip p e r , H en ry .

Labor courts do not solve problem.
Automotive Industries, March 16, 1922, v. 46 : 629.
28 L abor H earings by Court Costly for K ansas F armer.
Kansas Trades Unionist, February 18, 1921, p. 1.

C om m en t on sp ec ia l m e ssa g e o f G overn or A lle n and o p p o sin g s ta te m e n ts m a d e
by J u d g e H u g g in s.

U nited Mine W orkers of A merica.
Official statement by the international executive board United Mine Work­
ers of America in regard to the Kansas controversy. Indianapolis, 1921.
15 p.
S e ts fo r th th e p o sitio n o f th e board in th e co n flict w ith H o w a t.

U niversity D ebaters’ A nnual . Constructive and rebuttal speeches delivered
in debates of American colleges and universities during the college years
1920-21-1921-22. New York, H. W. Wilson Co., 1921-1922. 2 v.

19202 1 : T h e K a n sa s C ou rt o f In d u str ia l R e la tio n s, p. 1 0 5 -1 3 9 (U n iv e r s ity
o f T ex a s v . C olu m b ia U n iv e r sity d eb a te, w ith b r ie fs a n d b ib lio g r a p h y ).
1 9 2 1 - 2 2 : K a n sa s C ou rt o f In d u str ia l R ela tio n s, p. 1 -5 1 (U n iv e r sity o f M ic h ig a n ).

Vance, W. R.

Kansas Court of Industrial Relations with its background.
Yale Law Journal, March, 1921, v. 30:456-77.
V orse, Mary H.
Ma and Mr. D a vis: The story of Alexander Howat’s fighting district.
Survey, December 15, 1922, v. 49: 359-360.




APPENDIX----LIST OF REFERENCES,

51

W alker, P. F.
The Kansas Court of Industrial Relations. An attempt that is being
watched with keenest interest.
Industrial Management, April, 1920, v. 59: 290-293.
O u tlin es th e m a in p ro v isio n s o f th e la w , it s p lan o f o p era tio n , and som e o f th e
o b je c tio n s to it.

------ A year of the Kansas industrial court.
Management Engineering, September, 1921, v. 1:
W alsh , F rank P.
Henry Allen’s industrial court.
Nation, June 5, 1920, v. 110: 755-757.

1 7 0 -1 7 4 :.

A c riticism o f th e la w w ith th e h isto r y o f its e n a c tm e n t and o f th e o p p o sitio n
o f th e K a n sa s m in e rs to it.

W hat K ansas is D oing A bout L abor.
Review, March 20, 1920, v. 2: 169-270.
W hite , W illiam A llen .
Industrial justice—not peace.
Nation’s Business, May, 1922, p. 14-16.

In th e v ie w o f th is w riter “ an in d u s tr ia l cou rt h a s o n ly o n e r ea so n fo r b ein g —
to g e t rid of th e c o m p etitiv e lab or m a rk et and p u t labor in to in d u str y a s a com ­
m o d ity a ffected by it s p u b lic u se .”

W hitcomb, E dna O.
How Kansas undertakes to abolish industrial strife.
American Review of Reviews, March, 1920, v. 61: 292-294.
W hy the K ansas I ndustrial Court R eorganized.
Factory, April 1, 1921, v. 26: 842+.
W ieck , E dward A.
Kansas Court of Industrial Relations.
Nation, April 27, 1921, p. 625.

L etter c o m m en tin g on a r tic le by C lyd e M. R eed in N a tio n o f A pr. 6, 192 1 .

W oll, Matthew .
How the Kansas plan defies fundamental American freedom.
American Federationist, May, 1922, v. 29: 317-323.

B rie f su b m itted a t th e h ea r in g b efore th e N ew Y ork S ta te L e g isla tu r e on th e
D u ell-M iller in d u str ia l cou rt b ill, M ar. 1, 192 2 .

------ Industry’s eternal triangle.
Nation’s Business, June, 1920, v. 8: 16-17.
C ase o f th e u n io n s a g a in s t th e K a n sa s a ct.

Yarnell, R ay .
Speaking of antistrike laws—Kansas seeks to prevent repetitions of No­
vember’s bitter experiences through establishing an industrial relations
court.
Nation’s Business, March, 1920, v. 8: 16-17.
Y oung, J. S.
Industrial courts: With special reference to the Kansas experiment.
Minnesota Law Review, June, 1920, p. 483-512; December, 1920, p.
39-61; February, 1921, p. 185-215; April, 1921, p. 353-366.
R ev iew s th e le g a l p h a se s o f in d u str ia l c o u rt le g isla tio n .




A D D IT IO N A L C O P IE S

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY B E PROCURED FROM
TH E SU PERIN TEN DENT OF DOCUMENTS
GOVERNM ENT PRIN TING OFFICE
W ASHINGTON, D . C.
AT

10 C E N T S P E R C O P Y

PURCHASER AGREES NOT TO RESELL OR DISTRIBUTE THIS
COPY FOR PROFIT.— PU B . R ES. 57, APPROVED MAY 11, 1922
V