The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1916-01-28

agencies not only work within ou
state but work without as well. The.
encourage teachers from other state!
to come to Washington with the prom
Use that they can get higher salaries
here. Because Of this our state has
been so flooded with teachers during
the last two years that We now have
surplus of more than one Thousand
unemployed according to the best esti
mate that can be had concerning the
matter. The most serious objection
to this comes from the fact that many
unframed teachers were brought who
departed because of high qualifica.
, tions. These agencies secure the
names and addresses of all the school
officers of the state and indirectly as
well as directly they have applica.
tions made by various teachers and
then of course secure the commission.
= According to the reports given
by these agencies concerning the mum.
ber of teachers they are placing every
year the revenue derived therefrom
seems to be enormous. | do not vouch
for the truth of their statements, but
it is interesting to figure out the pos
sible revenue according to the number
of appointments agreed to have been
me do In he hn tov
significantly says: 1T was generally
believed by the teachers of this state
that the law set forth in the last cleo
tion would apply to such agencies"
After consultation with Mrs. Pres.
ton and the attorney generals office,
the state labor commissioner advised
all county school superintendent that
teachers paid agencies came within
the law and it was unlawful to collect
an employment fee from teachers.
Suit was brought by the above-named
agency in the superior court of King
county to enjoin the county prosecut-
ing attorney and state attorney gen.
eral from enforcing Initiative Law No
s. Prayer for an injunction was de-
MED by Judge Mitchell and appeal
was taken to the state supreme court.
On November 9th, 1915, the supreme
court handed down it's decision revers.
ing the lower court and granting the
injunction. The decision was writ
ten by Judge Chadwick concurred in
by Judges Holcomb. Parker and
Mount, Judges Fullerton, Ellis and
Main dissenting. Analysing the some
what lengthy decision the gist of it,
to be that in the opinion of
the court teachers are not workers" "
in the meaning of the act 1t is held
that the law was intended to protect
the lower forms of manual labor
those least able to protect themselves
against eXtortion. The word work
er" is deemed to apply only to those
who perform manual labor Stress is
laid upon the fact that the title of the
act specifically says An act to pro.
hibit the collection of remuneration
of fees from workers" The trainers
of the bill had in mind covering ev
cry class of employment as witness
Sec. of the act: 1T shall be unlaw
full for any employment agent his
or any other person toI
demand or receive either directly or
indirectly from any PERSON seeking
or from any PERSON on
his or her behalf. any remuneration
or fee whatsoever for furnishing him
or her with employment or with in
formation leading thereto" II was
quite generally understood by the yot
ers during the campaign that the law
was intended to apply to all persons
selling their services, whether mental
or manual, TO employers.
c. j. France, associated with Attor
ney General Tanner for the state, has
filed an able brief with the supreme
court, asking for a re-hearing of the
case, He argues that l..- word work ~
is generally accepted to include all
who perform some act of useful sery'
ice to society, whether it be mental
or manual He contends further that
it was so generally understood by the
voters when the initiative bill was
before the people. He asks the court
that the case be sent back to the
lower court for a trial on its merits
in order that respondents may intro
duce the testimony of educators
prominent in the state school system
tending to show the inherent evil in
teachers employment agencies.
If the decision handed down by the
supreme court in favor of the Pacific
M