Howat v. State of Kansas, s. 154

Decision Date13 March 1922
Docket Number491,Nos. 154,s. 154
PartiesHOWAT et al. v. STATE OF KANSAS. (two cases)
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Redmond S. Brennan, of Kansas City, Mo., and John F. McCarron, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Richard J. Hopkins, Atty. Gen., John G. Egan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baxter D. McClain, of Topeka, Kan., Moorfield Storey, Harold S. Davis, of Boston, Mass., and F. Dumont Smith, of Hutchinson, Kan., for the State of Kansas.

Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

These are two writs of error to the Supreme Court of Kansas sued out (section 237, Judicial Code [Comp. St. § 1214]), with the hope and purpose of testing the validity, under the federal Constitution of the act of the Legislature of Kansas creating a Court of Industrial Relations. Chapter 29, Special Session Laws of Kansas of 1920.

In No. 154, the plaintiffs in error were defendants in proceedings taken in the district court of Crawford county, Kan., to compel them to attend and give testimony under subpoena before the court of industrial relations. They had refused to appear. After arrest and a hearing, they were sentenced to confinement in jail until they should comply with the order. State ex rel. v. Howat, 107 Kan. 423, 191 Pac. 585.

In No. 491, the plaintiffs in error were sentenced to imprisonment for a year as punishment for violation of an injunction issued by the same district court forbidding them to call or cause a strike among the employees in certain coal mines in Crawford county. State v. Howat, 109 Kan. 376, 198 Pac. 686.

We are of opinion that in neither case is the Kansas Industrial Relations Act presented in such way as to permit us to pass upon those features which are attacked by the plaintiffs in error as violative of the Constitution of the United States.

The main purpose of the act is to create an administrative tribunal to arbitrate controversies between employers and employees in certain industrial, mining, and transportation businesses which the act declares to be affected with such a public interest that their continuity is essential to the public peace, the public health, and the proper living conditions and general welfare of the people. The board, miscalled a court, is given power to make investigations on its own initiative or upon complaint of interested persons to consider the wages, the return to capital, and the conditions surrounding the workers in any such employment and business, to summon all necessary parties in interest, to call and examine witnesses, and, after hearing, to make its findings and orders stating specifically the terms and conditions, including wages, upon which such industry or employment shall be carried on in the future. In case the parties do not obey the orders the board is given authority to apply to the Supreme Court of Kansas to compel compliance, and the Supreme Court is authorized to review the orders upon the evidence already heard, and such other new evidence as that court shall permit, and enter and enforce a proper judgment. The board is also authorized, with the consent of the Governor, to make general investigations into industrial and economic conditions to familiarize itself with industrial problems as they may arise. In effect, the act provides for compulsory arbitration between labor and capital in certain industries and employment. It forbids an injunction against a workman or employee to prevent his quitting his employment. It is directed against strikes and lockouts and their declared wasteful and destructive effect, and conspiracies, picketing, and intimidation to induce them. Obviously we should not pass upon the constitutional validity of an act presenting such critical and important issues unless the case before us requires it.

In No. 154, Howat and the other plaintiffs in error were subpoenaed to appear before the so-called court of industrial relations to testify in an investigation into conditions existing in the mining industry in Cherokee and Crawford counties. They failed to appear. The powers of the tribunal in such a case are set forth in section 11 of the act reading in part as follows:

'Said court * * * shall have the power and authority to issue summons and subpoenas andcompel the attendance of witnesses and parties * * * and to make any and all investigations necessary to ascertain the truth in regard to said controversy. In case any person shall fail or refuse to obey any summons or subpoena issued by said court after due service then and in that event said court is hereby authorized or empowered to take proper proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction to compel obedience to such summons or subpoena.'

Under this section, the board made application to the district court of Crawford county, the court of first instance of general jurisdiction in that county, to issue an order directing the plaintiffs in error to attend the board and testify. This order was issued, duly served and disobeyed. The contemnors were then brought into court by attachment. Their plea that the legislation under which they were subpoenaed was void was held to be insufficient and they were committed to jail until they should comply with the subpoena. The contemnors appealed to the Supreme Court of the State, which affirmed the action of the district court, holding that, without regard to the validity of the particular provisions of the Industrial Relations Act of which they complained, they were under legal obligation to obey the subpoena and were in contempt for not doing so. The court invited attention to section 28 of the act which provides that:

'If any section or provision of this act shall be found invalid by any court, it shall be conclusively presumed that this act would have been passed by the Legislature without such invalid section or provision, and the act as a whole shall not be declared invalid by reason of the fact that one or more sections or provisions may be found to be invalid by any court'

—and pointed out that even if the compulsory features of the act, to the constitutionality of which the plaintiff objected were invalid, there still remained in the act provision for investigation and findings by the industrial relations court, in respect to which the power of the Legislature was indisputable and in furthereance of which the machinery for compelling the attendance and testimony of witnesses was appropriate. The court relied on the decision of this court in respect to a similar provision in the Interstate Commerce Law in which the Interstate Commerce Commission was authorized to secure attendance of witnesses at any investigation by it, through a proceeding before a Circuit Court of the United States. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 488, 489, 14 Sup. Ct. 1125, 38 L. Ed. 1047. It would seem to be sustained also by the decision of this court in Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 39 Sup. Ct. 468, 63 L. Ed. 979, wherein it was held that a witness summoned to give testimony before a grand jury in the District Court of the United States was not entitled to refuse to testify, when ordered by the court to do so, upon the plea that the court and jury were without jurisdiction over the supposed offense under investigation because the statute denouncing the offense was unconstitutional.

But even if we did not agree with the state court on this point, what we have said shows that the case was decided and disposed of by that court without any consideration of the application of the federal Constitution to the features of the Kansas statute of which complaint is made. Even if those features are void, these contempt proceedings the state court sustains of general law. We can not, therefore, consider for federal questions mooted and assigned for error. Southern Pacific Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U. S. 601, 610, 33 Sup. Ct. 277, 57 L. Ed. 662, 43 L. R. A...

To continue reading

Request your trial
260 cases
  • Cologne v. Westfarms Associates
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 6, 1985
    ...of the case." United States v. United Mine Workers, supra, 330 U.S. at 293-94, 67 S.Ct. at 696, quoting Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189-90, 42 S.Ct. 277, 280-81, 66 L.Ed. 550 (1922); see also Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458-59, 95 S.Ct. 584, 590-91, 42 L.Ed.2d 574 (1975); Cox, "The V......
  • Fox Film Corporation v. Trumbull
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • August 17, 1925
    ...do not consider the constitutionality of a state statute, unless the case before the court makes it necessary. Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181, 42 S. Ct. 277, 66 L. Ed. 550. The business in which the plaintiffs in these two suits are engaged is clearly interstate commerce. That is determined......
  • Patriarca v. FBI
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • March 18, 1986
    ...to strike against the Government or others operating coal mines, United States v. United Mine Workers, supra; Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 42 S.Ct. 277, 66 L.Ed. 550 (1922). In United States v. Dickinson, 465 F.2d 496 (5th Cir.1972), the district court had ordered that news reporters not ......
  • United States v. United Mine Workers of America Same v. Lewis, John United Mine Workers of America v. United States Lewis, John v. Same United Mine Workers of America v. Same
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1947
    ...is true without regard even for the constitutionality of the Act under which the order is issued. In Howat v. Kansas, 1922, 58 U.S. 181, 189, 190, 42 S.Ct. 277, 280, 281, 66 L.Ed. 550, this Court 'An injunction duly issuing out of a court of general jurisdiction with equity powers, upon ple......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • A Practice Commentary To Judiciary Law Article 19
    • United States
    • Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal No. I-1, May 2003
    • May 1, 2003
    ...See also Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967); United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258 (1947); Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181 (1922); United States v. Terry, 17 F.3d 575 (2d Cir. 1994); United States v. Cutler, 840 F. Supp. 959 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); Baiter v. Regan, 468 N.......
  • Erroneous Injunctions
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 71-6, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...U.S. 561, 600 n.5 (1984) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).247. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967) (quoting Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189-90 (1922)); see also W.R. Grace & Co. v. Loc. Union 759, Int'l Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of Am., 461 U.S......
  • Imperialism and Black Dissent.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 75 No. 2, February 2023
    • February 1, 2023
    ...and its historic rise and fall); supra note 235. (255.) Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 313-15 (1967) (citing Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181 (256.) Id. at 332-33 (Warren, C.J., dissenting). In his dissent in Walker, Chief Justice Warren distinguished Howat and In re Green, 369 U.......
  • Appellate stays in civil cases: Florida and federal courts offer more security flexibility than believed, but stay violations still have teeth.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 86 No. 10, December 2012
    • December 1, 2012
    ...556 U.S. at 419. (10) United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 294 (1947) (citations omitted); see also Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181 (1922); Russell v. United States, 86 F.2d 389 (8th Cir. 1936); Locke v. United States, 75 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. (11) See, e.g., Fla. R. App. P......

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