Dorchy v. State of Kansas

Citation68 L.Ed. 686,44 S.Ct. 323,264 U.S. 286
Decision Date10 March 1924
Docket NumberNo. 163,163
PartiesDORCHY v. STATE OF KANSAS
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Redmond S. Brennan, of Kansas City, Mo., John F. McCarron, of Washington, D. C., Frank Bonar Hegarty, of Kansas City, Mo., and Phil. H. Callery, of Pittsburg, Kan., for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. John G. Egan, of Topeka, Kan., Chester I. Long, of Wichita, Kan., and Richard J. Hopkins, of Topeka, Kan., for the State of Kansas.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court of Industrial Relations Act was approved January 23, 1920. Laws of Kansas, 1920, Special Session c. 29. The purpose of the statute is to insure continuity of operation in coal mining and other businesses declared to be affected with a public interest.1 The means provided for accomplishing this is a system of compulsory arbitration of industrial disputes. The instrument is the so-called industrial court. Upon it is conferred power to investigate all matters involved in such controversies; to make findings thereon; to issue such orders as it may deem needful, fixing the wages to be paid, the hours of work, the rules for work, and the working and living conditions. The provisions in aid of the enforcement of this system are both comprehensive and detailed. The employer is prohibited, among other things, from limiting or ceasing operations with a view to defeating the purpose of the statute. Likewise, every association of persons (e. g., trade unions) is prohibited from acting to that end. In effect, strikes and lockouts, the boycott and picketing, are made unlawful. Any person violating any provision of the statute, or any order of the so-called court, is declared guilty of a misdemeanor. Some of the provisions of the act were considered in Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181, 42 Sup. Ct. 277, 66 L. Ed. 550, and in Charles Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 262 U. S. 522, 43 Sup. Ct. 630, 67 L. Ed. 1103.

Section 19 provides that any officer of a union of workmen engaged in an industry within the provisions of the act, who shall willfully use the power incident to his official position to influence any other person to violate any provision of the statute or any valid order of the Court of Industrial Relations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed $5,000, or by imprisonment at hard labor, not to exceed two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Under this section an information was filed against Dorchy, a union official, for calling a strike in a coal mine. He was found guilty. The judgment entered was affirmed by the highest court of the state, 112 Kan. 235, 210 Pac. 352; and a rehearing was denied. The case is here on writ of error under section 237 of the Judicial Code as amended (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1214). It is contended that section 19 is void, because it prohibits strikes; and that to do so is a denial of the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

After the judgment under review was entered in the Supreme Court of Kansas, this Court declared, in the Wolff Packing Co. Case, supra, p. 544, that the system of compulsory arbitration as applied to packing plants violates the federal Constitution. For the reasons there set forth, it is unconstitutional, also, as applied to the coal mines of that state. The question suggests itself whether section 19 has not, therefore, necessarily fallen as a part of the system of compulsory arbitration. If so, there is no occasion to consider the specific objection to the provisions of that section. This Court has power not only to correct errors in the judgment entered below, but, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, to make such disposition of the case as justice may now require. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Dennis, 224 U. S. 503, 506, 32 Sup. Ct. 542, 56 L. Ed. 860. In determining what justice requires the Court must consider changes in law and in fact which have supervened since the judgment was entered below. Watts, Watts & Co. v. Unione Austriaca di Navigazione, 248 U. S. 9, 21, 39 Sup. Ct. 1, 63 L. Ed. 100, 3 A. L. R. 323. If section 19 falls as the result of the decision in the Wolff Packing Co. Case, the effect is the same as if the section had been repealed without any reservation.

A statute bad in part is not necessarily void in its entirety. Provisions within the legislative power may stand if separable from the bad. Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45, 54-56, 29 Sup. Ct. 33, 53 L. Ed. 81; Carey v. South Dakota, 250 U. S. 118, 121, 39 Sup. Ct. 403, 63 L. Ed. 886. But a provision, inherently unobjectionable, cannot be deemed separable unless it appears both that, standing alone, legal effect can be given to it and that the legislature intended the provision to stand, in case others included in the act and held bad should fall. Section 19 does not, in terms, prohibit the calling of strikes or influencing workingmen to strike. It merely declares that one who uses his offcial position, or his position as an employer, to 'influence, impel, or compel any other person to violate any of the provisions of this act, or any valid order of said Court of Industrial Relations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.' Most of the provisions of the original act are very intimately connected with the system of compulsory arbitration. Whether section 19 is so interwoven with the system held invalid that the section cannot stand alone, is a question of interpretation and of legislative intent. Compare Butts v. Merchants Transportation Co., 230 U. S. 126, 33 Sup. Ct. 964, 57 L. Ed. 1422. Section 28 of the act,2 (which resembles that discussed in Hill v. Wallace, 259 U. S. 44, 70, 71, 42 Sup. Ct. 453, 66 L. Ed. 822) provides a rule of construction which may sometimes aid in determining...

To continue reading

Request your trial
248 cases
  • Cobb v. Department of Public Works
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • July 11, 1932
    ...enjoined. Primarily the task of determining the intent of the State legislature is that of the State's courts. Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S. 286, 290, 44 S. Ct. 323, 68 L. Ed. 686. Section 266 of the Judicial Code, as amended (title 28, USCA § 380), in part provides: "It is further provided t......
  • Louk v. Cormier
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • July 1, 2005
    ...intent, `but it is an aid merely; not an inexorable command.'" Singer, Statutes § 44:8, at 585-86 (quoting Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 264 U.S. 286, 44 S.Ct. 323, 68 L.Ed. 686 (1924)). See also Hodges v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 110 W.Va. 649, 656, 159 S.E. 834, 837 (1931) ("[A severability] dec......
  • Mississippi State Tax Commission v. Flora Drug Co
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 22, 1933
    ... ... or throwing light on the issues joined in this controversy ... Muller ... v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 52 L.Ed. 551; Dorchy v ... Kansas, 264 U.S. 286, 68 L.Ed. 686 ... Under ... section 6, of the Act there is levied and assessed an excise ... or privilege ... ...
  • Cunningham v. Matrix Fin. Servs., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • March 31, 2021
    ...remainder of the statute in force so long as the result is consistent with the intent of the legislature.4 Dorchy v. Kansas , 264 U.S. 286, 289–290, 44 S.Ct. 323, 68 L.Ed. 686 (1924). "[W]hen a portion of a statute is unconstitutional, ‘the traditional rule is that the unconstitutional prov......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • CONGRESSIONAL RULES OF INTERPRETATION.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 63 No. 6, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...context, in which boilerplate arguments are much more common). (173.) See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919. 932-35 (1983); Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U.S. 286, 290 (174.) Kapaun v. Fed. Land Bank of Omaha, 269 N.W. 564, 565 (N.D. 1936). (175.) Brian Charles Lea, Situational Severability, 103 VA. L. R......
  • Severability as Conditionality
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 64-5, 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...298 U.S. at 312-13; R.R. Ret. Bd., 295 U.S. at 361-62; Hill, 259 U.S. at 71.30. 286 U.S. 210, 234 (1932); see also Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U.S. 286, 290 (1924) ("But a provision, inherently unobjectionable, cannot be deemed separable unless it appears both that, standing alone, legal effect c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT