New Britain herald., 1925-04-13
Supreme Court Decides That Kansas Indus- trial Tribunal Has No Right To Enforce Set dement's.
Verdict Depriyes Organi- zation of Much of It's Authority in Industry's Differences.

Washington, April 13.--Compul- sory arbitration in industrial disputes is unconstitutional. the supreme court held today.
 The decision, rendered by Justice Nandevanter, was in two cases brought by the Charles Wolff Pack ing company of Topeka, against the Kansas Industrial Relations court.
 When the supreme court had these cases before it in 1923 it held un- constitutional that part of the in- dustriai court act which provided that in labor disputes in essential industries the industrial court could fix wages.
 Kansas Court Action.
 The Kansas supreme court in act ing upon the decision of the federal supreme court construed as not af- fecting that part of it's original de- cision in which it had approved the action Of the industrial court fixing hours of labor and ordered that that part of It's original decision should stand.
 The packing company contended that the Kansas supreme court should have set aside ali of it's orig inal decision sustaining the order of the industrial court, and insisted that the regulation of the hours of labor, especially when coupled with the regulation of pay for overtime, was as objectionable under the fed- eral constitution as the regulation of wages, which the federal supreme court has held invalid.
 The state contended that to de- prive the industrial court of author- ity 10 regulate hours of labor would cripple it to such an extent as to de- priEe it of much of it's value, and would leave it with jurisdiction only over working conditions and the set- clement of industrial disputes in es- sential industries.
 The declared purpose of the Kan sas act, the court said, lis to insure continuity of operation and produc- ton in certain businesses which it calls essential industries, and to that end it provided for compulsory set tlement by state agency of all labot controversies which endanger the intended continuity"
 Although called a court the su- preme declared the state agency in fact was an administrative board since no general authority is given it to fix wages or hours of labor.
 "On the contrary" the opinion continued, "it is but a feature of that Compulsory arbitration) system and is correspondingly limited in pur- pose and field of operation"
 On three separate occasions, the court recalled, decisions had been rendered to the effect that the Kan sas statute undertook to establish "a system of compulsory arbitra- tion," since it dispensed with the consent of the principals to the fiEal determination of the case.
 Quoting a previous decision, Jus tice Nandevantcr declared that, ap- plying it's principles 10 the present case, it must be found that the pack ing business Ifs one which the state is without power to compel the own CT and employees 10 continue"
 As part Of the system Of com pulsory arbitration he said, the au- thority given in the act to fix hours of labor shares the invaIidity of the whole"
 Tt follows" he continued, "that the state court should have declined 10 give effect to any part Of the or der of the state agency"