State v. Howat

• Decision Date: 19 July 1920
• Docket Number: 23,013
• Citation: 191 P. 585,107 Kan. 423
• Parties: THE STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS et al., Appellee, v. ALEXANDER HOWAT, AUGUST DORCHY, THOMAS HARVEY, and ROBERT B. FOSTER, Appellants
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

191 P. 585

107 Kan. 423

THE STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS et al., Appellee, v. ALEXANDER HOWAT, AUGUST DORCHY, THOMAS HARVEY, and ROBERT B. FOSTER, Appellants

No. 23,013

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 19, 1920

Decided July, 1920

Appeal from Crawford district court; ANDREW J. CURRAN, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS--Jurisdiction Conferred by Statute Relative to Investigation and Operation of Mining Industries Not Obnoxious to the Constitution. The legislature may create an administrative body and empower it to investigate conditions existing in the mining industry, make findings and reports, and establish rules with reference to the operation thereof designed, among other purposes, to promote the health and safety of employees and the continuity of production, so long as the regulations are reasonable and not upon some special ground obnoxious to constitutional provisions.

2. SAME--One Provision of the Statute Being Held Unconstitutional Does Not Invalidate the Entire Act. In view of the provision of the statute creating the court of industrial relations, that if any part thereof shall be held to be invalid it shall be conclusively presumed that the legislature would have passed the act without it, any portions thereof which are not objectionable in themselves must be enforced regardless of whether or not other portions may be open to constitutional objections.

3. SAME--Statute Authorizing Investigation of Mining Industries Valid--Duty of Witness to Obey Subpoena--Contempt. The provisions of the statute creating the court of industrial relations authorizing that body to conduct investigations of the character indicated in the first paragraph of this syllabus are valid, and one who refuses obedience to an order of the district court requiring him to appear as a witness in such an investigation cannot be heard, in a proceeding against him for contempt on account thereof, to question the validity of other portions of the act because of constitutional guarantees which are not invaded by the requirement made of him.

4. SAME--Finding of Disobedience of Subpoena Warranted. The finding that the defendants disobeyed the order of the district court is held to have been warranted.

5. SAME--Provision Authorizing District Court to Compel Obedience to Subpoena Not Unconstitutional. The provision of the act creating the court of industrial relations that in case of the refusal of any person to obey a subpoena issued by that body it may take proper proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction to compel obedience thereto authorizes the district court to make an order for the appearance of such person before the industrial court, and to commit him for contempt in case of his refusal. The provision is not open to constitutional objection on the ground that such action of the district court would be nonjudicial.

6. SAME--Disobedience of Subpoena on the Ground of Self-incrimination--Not Available to Defendants. The disobedience of an order to appear as a witness in such an investigation as that referred to in the first paragraph hereof cannot be justified on the ground that questions might be asked the answers to which would tend to self-incrimination.

7. SAME--Special Session of the Legislature--Call Within Discretion of the Governor. Under the provision of the constitution authorizing the legislature to be convened by proclamation on extraordinary occasions, the governor is the final judge of the existence of conditions justifying the calling of a special session. (Farrelly v. Cole, 60 Kan. 356, 56 P. 492, followed.)

8. SAME--No Defect in Title of Act Creating Court of Industrial Relations. The act creating the court of industrial relations is held not to be void by reason of any defect in the title; nor because it makes applicable to that body the laws previously relating to the public utilities commission; nor on the ground that it commingles in one body executive, legislative, and judicial functions.

9. SAME--Immaterial Objections to Statute. Various objections to the act are held not to be material in this proceeding.

10. SAME--No Conflict between Provisions of Statute Creating the Court and Congressional Legislation. Legislation by congress concerning the unlawful restraint of interstate commerce and control of fuel by the government during the war, and the appointment by the president of a commission to hear and determine matters of hours, wages and conditions in the mining industry, do not so fully occupy the field covered by the act creating the court of industrial relations as to prevent that body from investigating conditions in the mining district of this state, making reports thereon, and exerting some degree of regulation with reference thereto.

Phil H. Callery, of Pittsburg, John F. Clarkson, Byron Coon, both of Albia, Iowa, and Redmond S. Brennan, of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellants.

Richard J. Hopkins, attorney-general, A. B. Keller, county attorney, F. Dumont Smith, of Hutchinson, and Fred S. Jackson, attorney for the court of industrial relations, for the appellee.

OPINION

MASON, J.:

On April 9, 1920, Alexander Howat and three others were adjudged guilty of contempt in failing to obey an order of the district court requiring them to appear as witnesses before the court of industrial relations, in an investigation to be conducted by it relating to the conditions existing in the mining industry in Cherokee and Crawford counties. They were committed to jail until they should submit to be sworn and testify in such proceeding. They appeal.

The investigation originated in complaints of miners who were members of a labor union of which the defendants were officers. It was directed (among other subjects) to working conditions in the coal mines with reference to hours of labor, provisions for safety and sanitary conditions; miners' incomes with relation to living costs; plans of mining as to continuity of production; conditions of the mines with reference to future supply, and the cost of production as compared with previous years; school and church privileges and general social surroundings; and complaints of mine workers, or owners, and of the public. In response to the charge of contempt made against them, the defendants on April 8, 1920, filed in the district court an answer consisting of twenty-three paragraphs. The first twenty-one alleged that the act undertaking to create the court of industrial relations was void because in conflict with various provisions of the state and federal constitutions, and that therefore that body had no legal existence and the district court was without jurisdiction to enforce attendance upon it. The twenty-second paragraph denied the violation of any lawful order of the district court, and the twenty-third was a general denial. On June 26 the defendants filed in this court a motion, which was granted, for leave to withdraw all grounds of defense based upon the alleged violation of any constitutional rights. On July 2 the defendants asked that the order of allowance be vacated and that they be permitted to withdraw the motion, in order that their contentions as to the invalidity of the industrial-court act might be considered. Permission was given to present whatever constitutional questions might affect the disposition of the case, the court suggesting to counsel that the actual question involved appeared to be of a much narrower scope than might be indicated by some of the allegations of the answer. The defendants, on June 26, also asked a continuance of the cause from the date to which it had been assigned (July 6) on the ground that by reason of other engagements their attorneys had not had sufficient time for preparation, and that one of them could not be present on that date, which request was renewed when the case was called for hearing. The applications for a postponement were denied. The only question involved in the present proceeding is whether the defendants may be required to attend as witnesses before the court of industrial relations--a question which involves no difficult or complicated legal problems and to which an early answer should be given, since it involves no more than the right of a witness to refuse obedience to a subpoena. The defendants elected to submit the case on briefs without oral argument, being allowed until July 17 to prepare additional typewritten briefs if desired. On July 16 a brief was filed in their behalf, presenting a number of new propositions, introduced by the statement that the time for filing it had been limited to a brevity out of all proportion to the importance of the case. If the questions argued in the additional brief were required to be determined in this proceeding, ten days would indeed have been a very short time in which to prepare it, although it would appear to have been by the defendants' own choice that the preparation was delayed until the case had been reached for hearing. Inasmuch as we regard it as unnecessary to pass at this time upon the more difficult propositions advanced, the time allowed is considered by us to be ample under the circumstances.

1. Most of the constitutional objections raised by the defendants are directed to provisions of the act creating the court of industrial relations the validity or invalidity of which can in our judgment have no possible bearing upon the disposition of the present case. The statute makes the new body the successor of the public utilities commission, the functions of which are devolved upon it. (Laws 1920, Special Session ch. 29, § 2.) It, therefore, has a legal existence unless that commission was a nullity, which is not suggested. The legislature has undertaken to...