The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-02-22
.INnusrRIAL LEGIsLATIoN.

/. INDUSTRIAL LEGISLATION.
There is pending in New York leg
islatiOn similar to that embodied in
the Industrial court law of Kansas.
| Probably the labor unions of that
state will oppose passage of the bill,
and its operation if it pass, just as
they have done in this state.
labor unions might have prevented
the enactment of this sort of legisla-
ton here and elsewhere if they had
not persistently tried to evade the
powers of the long established courts
by emitting to incorporate. Even
now, if they would remedy this ornis-
sion they might arrest the trend to-
ward the establishment of special
courts designed to act in connection
with disputes between employees and
employers.
Legal machinery already in exist
ence would be found sufficient to han
die any situation that might arise and
recent decisions where organized Ia
Dor has appealed to the regularly
constituted courts of justice have
shown that these courts are ready to
give them square deal.
The record end temptations of la
Dor unions necsssitate the full appli-
cation of responsibility to these insti-
tutions. 1t is not necessary to say
whether they are better or worse than
other institutions, for mere surrey
of their records shows frequent
breaches of contract and disregard OF
the rights of Others. whether employ
ers or workmeh. which calls, for both
moral and legal responsibility. Their
| collective activities ST could be accou.-
panied by collective responsibility.
The talk of compulsory incorpora-
ton of labor unions is prompted by
these fundamental considerations.
But Incorporation is supposed to be a
privilege limitation, and not an ex-
tension of liability, and therefore con-
ditions should be developed which
will make labor unions see the desir-
ability of incorporating rather than
| attempting to compel them to incor-
porate. Experiences in other coun-
tries demonstrate that laws which for
babe the existence of unions, except
upon a basis of Incorporation. resulted
in the development of lawIess and
subterranean orga mutations. Such a
condition is to be avoided.
The remedy, says Law and Labor
is to make voluntary associations
suable before the law and, as is true
in a number OF states, the members of
those associations responsible for the
uncollected part of any judgment aft
er the collective funds have been ex-
hausted. II members OF labor unions
are thus held responsible for the acts
of their joint Officers and servants, as
in the Danbury Hatters' case, where
the members were sued, or as in Ger
tain other cases where the union was
sued and the members were COM
PEELED to pay the unsatisfied portion
OF the judgment, the attitude of the
members of labor unions toward the
selection and conduct of their officers
and agents would change from pas
sivity to active intervention and re-
straint. With such a condition before
them, it points out. labor unions would
voluntarily seek Incorporation for rea-
sons similar to those which actuate
business men.
Until recently, organized labor has
SHE'D at and frequently denounced the
established courts. AS result of this
attitude there has arisen the existing
tendency toward the establishment OF
special courts to deal with labor dis
putes. The unions still have it in their
power to arrest this tendency.
Under the peculiar wording of the
Sherman antitrust law, it has been
held that a voluntary association is a
person within the meaning of that
law and on that theory judgments of
100000 and 100000 have been filed
and entered against the United Mine
I Workers of America in the federal
courts. The supreme court of the
United States has now before it the
question as to whether these judg-
ments should be sustained. II union
members knew that their organize
tions were subject to action of this
sort they would see to it that their Of
ficers kept within the law.
.-.-