The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1917-11-19
COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR QUESTIONS

being lief, undiaturbed in its position al
,nnstitutiohnlity us determined by the
xtIprcm" court Of that STATE: on this
rnut tho federal supreme bench was
equally divided. ons justice not voting.
| or hardly less interest thar these de-
risiuns Of the supreme court Is the acton
vi the court Of last resort Of the state
IJr Massachusetts in declaring unconSti-
/ tutional an act Of that state which I'm
drrtook 10 limit the issue of injunctions
in labor disputes. declaring that injunc'
lions should issue only when property
rights arc affected. and that labor Is
mot property. The court took the view
: TINT this attitude excludes from the pro.
lection of the law those who had nc
! ot hnr property than their right 10 work
aErt hrlL that such a. deprivation could
not be effected by statute.
, I.csiGcs the decisions Of rho supreme
cuur; on the subject of worlImen's COM
pcnsaiinn. the bulletin contains numer'
iuus decisions and rulings by the state
courts questions Of construction and
. cnnstitutionnlity being involved. The
! Kentucky court ii appeals. which had
DECLARED unconstitutional the workmen s
congressional law Of 1914. found the
enactment Of 1916 cnUformable 10 the
icSts If validity established by it,: Will"
I tho supreme court Of Texas sustained
, The ,omrcn.atiou law Of that state in
all points against an opinion or
subordinate court that the provision was
vuid which took from employees or &C
'"cpting employers their option Ia accept
or reject The act.
i The point that continues and ap0ar-
irutly will contru" to furnish the great
est number OF cases for determination
! Is found in tho phrase which appears in
most ri the compensation laws-ln)nry
arising out nf and in the course Of en-
pluyInrni." In the state OF Washington.
however the law does not contain the
limitation. arising ont OF employment"
so that discussion of this point is avoid
I'd the supreme court Of the state say
ing TINT the employee is the soldier Of
organized Industry. acccntlng Kind III
pension IN exchange for absolute lnSuT-
ancc on his masters premises.
No less prolific Of litigation Is the fed
rral liability Inv covering railroads IN
interstate commerce. since not only
must the employing company he an IN
tprstate carrier. bur ihc Injured PerS IN
must ut the time Of his Injury have
been employed i'll interstate commerce
II ia only when h" is so employed that
he can claim III" hcnriiiS OF Inc act.
while, on the other hand. if so employed
hr 10 restricted IL such recovery AS
that statute provides. W::h the vida
extension Of Compensation Legislation
t;nw found III .; ~tairS.l there is corr
sinut contrast. not u E1y conflict, be-
tween the two classes 81 remedy. /. G. by
compensation md by suits for damages
furthermore. as lpprurS from 4 number
nf the cases discussed ~ this bulletin,
II is frequently Il practical impoSSlbilltS
TO determine whether relief should be
sought under the one law or under the
other until the evidence has hcrn sub
mittcd To Il jury and n verdict rendered.
While therefor" such n compilation OF
decisions. selected FOR their particular
interest as illustrating the various legal
phases IT the labor question. possesses
nm attraction for every student "f labor.
il is Of especial value rs indicating those
points in nur Legislative. system which
rcniIirr attention. 10 the end that more
crrtuin and prompt adjustments. may ht
made Of III" rights 81 the respective
nartics To labor contracts. At the snInc
limo, certain boundaries are Indicated
which cnn not be passed without an AL
Iteration If constitutions. III at least OF
yIrw:; nr constitutional. interpretation.
Evidence is not lacking Of changes in
both these respects.