FACTORY INSPECTION.

BY GEORGE M. PRICE.

The extent of legal protection given to workers is determined not by the number of factory laws upon the statute books, but by the number of laws as are properly administered and by the extent to which their provisions are actually enforced.

The first Factory Inspection Department was organized in England in 1833; in France in 1874; in Prussia in 1878; in Austria in 1883; in Switzerland in 1877; in Russia in 1882; in Belgium, Netherland and Sweden in 1889; in Portugal and Hungary in 1893; in Italy in 1906; and in Spain in 1907.

In the United States, as in Europe, factory inspection lagged behind factory legislation and years elapsed before it dawned upon legislatures that not only factory laws but provisions for their enforcement were needed. The first attempt at factory inspection was made in Massachusetts in 1886, although as early as in 1842, the local school authorities and truant officers were authorized to enforce certain provisions of the child labor law. The same year, 1886, was also marked by the enactment of a factory inspection law in New York State. In Illinois the Department of Factories and Workshops was only established in 1893; in Pennsylvania provision for inspection of factories was made only in 1899; in Wisconsin in 1883; in Maine in 1887; in New Jersey in 1883; in Rhode Island in 1894; in Indiana in 1887; in Tennessee in 1895; in Delaware in 1897; and in Missouri in 1901.

There are therefore a number of states in which as yet no provision is made for factory inspection and administration of labor laws.

There is no uniformity in the United States either as to the scope and functions of the various labor and factory inspection departments or as to their form of organization, or even to their designation. Some of them are called Bureau of Labor Statistics, others Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor, Factory Inspection Department, Department of Factory Inspection, Industrial Commission, etc.

Within the last few years there is noticeable a distinct tendency towards an important change in the powers delegated by legislatures to the departments and bureaus in charge of factory inspection and, consequently, in the forms of organization of these enforcing bodies. As long as labor legislation was limited to the several provisions prohibiting and restricting child and female labor and to making general provisions for the safety and sanitation of factories, the legislatures in each state were enabled to pass general laws

on these subjects and empower an executive officer, of whatever designation, to enforce these general laws. But when the demand arose for more specific legislation and rules and regulations as to safety and health requiring a more specialized application of the law, making distinction between one industry and another, and between various industrial plants, machinery, etc.,-it became impossible to embrace all the various requirements for the safety and protection of workers in one joint legislative enactment. It became imperative for the administrative officers largely to interpret, define and limit the application of the labor law and factory acts, to use judgment in the specific application to different industries and industrial plants, to grant appeals and exceptions, and thus, to exercise not only administrative functions, but also to assert legislative as well as judicial functions which were not intended for them to exercise.

Industrial Commissions.

Wisconsin was the first state to enact an Industrial Commission law, promulgating a general provision that industries should be made as safe as possible and reasonable, and appointing a Commission to interpret, investigate, rule and regulate, as well as to administer the safety and sanitary conditions of industries in the state. Such broad powers as became necessary could not possibly be delegated to a single executive officer and it became necessary therefore to create a commission exercising legislative and judicial as well as administrative functions.

Other states soon followed and within the last few years Industrial Commissions were created in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, California, Colorado and Ohio.

The creation of Industrial Commissions has also led to enlargement of the scope and functions of these commissions, and, while in most of the states, the Workmen's Compensation, for instance, is still outside of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission, New York State has combined the two departments and extended the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission over Workmen's Compensation as well.

The increase of the functions of Industrial Commissions has also wrought many changes in the character of the personnel. More specialization has become necessary and more expert knowledge is at present needed for an inspector than when his functions were entirely limited to the enforcement of the few simple provisions for children and women. Hence, we see the appointment of medical factory inspectors, of chemical engineers, building and fire protection engineers and

other experts in Industrial Commissions and Factory Inspection Departments.

The number of factory inspectors in each Factory Inspection Department or Industrial Commission depends on the state and the liberality with which the state treats such departments. No figures are available for the number of inspectors in the various states within the last year or two. In a bulletin on the Administration of Labor Laws, issued by the American Association for Labor Legislation in 1913, a list of the states has been given with the number of inspectors in each Factory Inspection Department. The number ranges from 1 in Florida, to 343 in New York; with 44 in Illinois, 53 in Massachusetts. 35 in Michigan and Minnesota, 38 in New Jersey, 76 in Pennsylvania and 53 in Wisconsin.

The method of selection and appointment of the higher officers in the Factory Inspection Departments is still political and mostly without regard to the specific qualifications necessary for the positions. Commissioners. Chief Inspectors and other higher grade inspectors in the departments are still appointed for political reasons, with no secure tenure of office and with a probable change with every incoming and outgoing administration. For the lower grades of inspectors and employees. Civil Service has already been introduced in the larger states, although the methods of examination and appointment are still not the best even in the most important states.

The salaries of the inspectors range from $900.00 to $3.500.00 per annum and there is no state which as yet gives a pension for length of service, old age, etc.

Bibliography.

Kingsbury: Labor Laws and Their Enforcement with Specific Reference to Massachusetts.-Longman, Green & Company.

Administration of Labor Laws, Bulletin No. 4, Vol. III.— American Association for Labor Legislation.

Price: Administration of Labor Laws in Certain European Countries.-U. S. Department of Labor, Bulletin No. 142. Article on Administration of Labor Laws, in Commons' and Andrews' "Principles of Labor Legislation."-Harper & Brothers.

Chapter on Factory Inspection in Price's “Modern Factory." -John Wiley & Sons,

COURT DECISIONS IN 1915.

COMPILED BY HARRY W. LAIDLER.

Among the most noteworthy cases of the year were the Danbury Hatters' and the Coppage v. Kansas case, and the decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court affirming the constitutionality of various State laws for shortening the hours of labor for women and providing for compensation for work

men.

The decisions have been divided, following the lead of the U. S. Labor Bureau, into such divisions as "Labor Organizations," "Hours of Labor," "Wages," "Factory Regulations," "Contract of Employment," "Employment Offices," "Restriction of Employment," "Mines," "Railroads," "Workmen's Compensation," "Relief Associations” and “Liability of the Employer for Injuries to Employees." The last named division has been but slightly touched upon in this survey.

I. Labor Organizations.

The most important decisions handed down by the U. S. Supreme Court under this heading during the year 1915 are undoubtedly the Danbury Hatters and the Coppage v. Kansas cases, in the latter of which the court declared unconstitutional a State statute aimed to prevent an employer from forcing his employee to agree not to join a trade union during his term of service. These two decisions are discussed elsewhere.

The courts of last resort of Ohio and Oklahoma followed the lead of the Supreme Court in declaring unconstitutional the laws of their respective states which forbade the discharge of employees because they were, or intended to become, members of labor unions.

A particularly reactionary decision, but one which might reasonably be expected to follow the passage of the reactionary State statute, was handed down by an Alabama court, declaring peaceful picketing illegal! The Supreme Court of the D. of C., on the other hand, refused to grant an injunction against such picketing.

The questionable procedure of declaring a labor leader in contempt of court for failing to obey an injunction which the higher court admitted was violative of fundamental constitutional rights, was indulged in by a Federal Court in a West Virginia case.

Injunctions were issued by a New Jersey court to prevent the fruition of a boycott planned against a firm which had obtained new workers, following a strike, and had continued business as formerly. The cessation of objectionable acts by strikers was declared by another court to be suffi

cient to warrant the court in refusing to grant an injunction. There was one kidnapping case of importance during the year in which the Minnesota court decided against the thugs who had kidnapped a labor leader.

A closed shop agreement was held legal by the Supreme Court of New York (which is not, however, the court of last resort in this state), and a blacklist, illegal by the U. S. District Court. Another case under the general heading was that in which the court compelled the union to reinstate a member, although the union was incorporated outside of the state.

(a) STRIKES, PICKETING AND KIDNAPPING—A judgment of conviction against those engaged in kidnapping and deporting a miner from another State without legal authority was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in the case of State v. Payne (149 N. W., 945). The miner in question, Sjogren, a resident of Michigan, had gone to Crosby, Minnesota, to work in the mines, and during a strike had been selected a member of the strike committee to wait on the superintendent. One night he was forced at the point of the revolver to go into an automobile, was driven to another town and told that unless he got out of the State he "would be shot full of holes." He was then forced to purchase a ticket to Duluth, Minn. The court held that the lower court was justified in declaring the guilt of two of the men involved.

In Stoner v. Robert (43 Wash. Law Rep., 437), the Supreme Court of the D. of C. refused to grant an injunction against peaceful picketing of saloons, which continued to sell beer manufactured by breweries against which a strike and boycott had been declared.

That "peaceful interference" with the business of a firm by means of picketing is illegal, and that there can be, perhaps, in the eyes of the legislature no such thing as peaceful picketing or peaceful persuasion was the opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama, called on to construe a state law in Hardie-Tynes Manufacturing Co. v. Cruse (66 So. 657). The decision is utterly unrepresentative of those handed down in previous years by the courts of the vast majority of states, which hold that picketing, when accompanied by mere peaceful persuasion, is legal, and that only when intimidation, coercion or violence appears is it deemed illegal.

(b) INJUNCTIONS, BOYCOTTS-The cessation of objectionable acts was held by the Washington Supreme Court to be sufficient reason for declining to issue an injunction against strikers who had previously been declared guilty of threats and assaults, in the case of the Commercial Bind