the grounds of said controversy from the parties to the same; and if, in their judgment, there shall be occasion so to do, they shall have the right to propose to the parties to said controversy, or to any of them, that the same shall be settled by arbitration; and if the opposing parties to said controversy shall consent and agree to said arbitration, it shall be the duty of said Board of Public Works to provide in due form for the submission of the said controversy to arbitration, in such manner that the same may be finally settled and determined; but if the said corporation or the said person in its employment or service, so engaged in controversy with the said corporation, shall refuse to submit to such arbitration, it shall be the duty of the said Board of Public Works to examine into and ascertain the cause of said controversy, and report the same to the next General Assembly.

SEC. 2. And be it enacted, That all subjects of dispute arising between corporations, and any person in their employment or service, and all subjects of dispute between employers and employees, employed by them in any trade or manufacture, may be settled and adjusted in the manner heretofore mentioned.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever such subjects of dispute shall arise as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for either party to the same to demand and have an arbitration or reference thereof in the manner following, that is to say: Where the party complaining and the party complained of shall come before, or agree by any writing under their hands, to abide by the determination of any judge or justice of the peace, it shall and may be lawful for such judge or justice of the peace to hear and finally determine in a summary manner the matter in dispute between such parties; but if such parties shall not come before, or so agree to abide by the determination of such judge or justice of the peace, but shall agree to submit their said cause of dispute to arbitrators appointed under the provisions of this act, then it shall be lawful for any such judge or justice of the peace, and such judge or justice of the peace is hereby required, on complaint made before him, and proof that such agreement for arbitration has been entered into, to appoint arbitrators for settling the matters in dispute, and such judge or justice of the peace shall then and there propose not less than two nor more than four persons, one-half of whom shall be employers and the other half employees, acceptable to the parties to the dispute, respectively, who, together with such

judge or justice of the peace, shall have full power finally to hear and determine such dispute.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That in all such cases of dispute as aforesaid, as in all other cases, if the parties mutually agree that the matter in dispute shall be arbitrated and determined in a different mode to the one hereby prescribed, such agreement shall be valid, and the award and determination thereon by either mode of arbitration shall be final and conclusive between the parties.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful in all cases for an employer or employee, by writing under his hand, to authorize any person to act for him in submitting to arbitration and attending the same.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That every determination of dispute by any judge or justice of the peace shall be given as a judgment of the court over which said judge presides, and of the justice of the peace determining the same; and the said judge or justice of the peace shall award execution thereon as upon verdict, confession or nonsuit; and every award made by arbitrators appointed by any judge or justice of the peace under these provisions of this statute, shall be returned by said arbitrator to the judge or justice of the peace by whom they were appointed; and said judge or justice of the peace shall enter the same as an amicable action between the parties to the same in the court presided over by said judge or justice of the peace, with the same effect as if said action had been regularly commenced in said court by due process of law, and shall thereupon become a judgment of said court, and execution thereon shall be awarded as upon verdict, confession or nonsuit; in the manner provided in article seven of the Public General Laws of Maryland; and in all proceedings under this act, whether before a judge or justice of the peace, or arbitrators, costs shall be taxed as are now allowed by law in similar proceedings, and the same shall be paid equally by the parties to the dispute; such award shall remain four days in court during its sitting, after the return thereof, before any judgment shall be entered thereon; and if it shall appear to the court within that time that the same was obtained by fraud or malpractice in or by surprise, imposition or deception of the arbitrators, or without due notice to the parties or their attorneys, the court may set aside such award and refuse to give judgment thereon. [Approved April 1, 1878.

KANSAS.

66

In 1899, pursuant to the Special Session Laws of the preceding year, the board of railroad commissioners went out of existence, and all its powers devolved upon a court of visitation." The new body was further charged with the duty of summarily settling railroad strikes, empowered to enforce its decrees when the railroad companies are at fault, and given similar control over telegraphs; and a state solicitor was appointed to represent the people in proceedings before the court of visitation.

Since 1886 there has been a law providing for county tribunals and umpires of voluntary arbitration. A tribunal, licensed for one year by the court having jurisdiction, consists of four persons, one of whom is chairman; a fifth person is appointed umpire and sworn to make an award whenever the tribunal fails to do so in three meetings.

SPECIAL SESSION LAWS OF 1898, CHAPTERS 28 AND 38.* Chapter 28, which created the court of visitation is in substance as follows:

Section 1 denominates it a court of record and prescribes the qualifications of the judges thereof.

Section 5 provides that there shall be a state solicitor and that his duty shall be to appear and represent the state in all proceedings and actions before the court of visitation to which the state is a party.

Section 8 defines the power and jurisdiction of the court to try and determine all questions as to what are reasonable freight and other

The Western Union Telegraph Company v. Myatt, state solicitor, et al., Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, First Division, November, 1899. This case arose on an application for a temporary injunction, and the complainant, "a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York and a citizen of that state," showed that the prescribed rates were confiscatory in that they were less than the cost of performing the service. The injunction was granted.

The federal court held that the defendants were not general officers of the

charges connected with the transportation of property between points in the state; to apportion charges between connecting roads, determine all questions relating to charges for use of cars, etc.; to regulate charges for part car-load and mixed car-load lots of freight, etc.; to classify freight; to apportion transportation charges among connecting lines; to require the construction of depots, switches, etc., for public convenience; to compel reasonable and impartial train and car service; to regulate crossings and intersections of railroads and regulate the operation of trains over them; to prescribe rules concerning the movements of trains to secure safety to employees and the public; to require the use of improved appliances and methods to avoid accidents and injuries to persons; to restrict railroad corporations to operations within their charter powers, prevent the oppressive exercise thereof, and compel performance of all duties required of railroads by law; to summon juries, as a court of equity, in any case or matter before it, the qualifications of the jurors being prescribed; to exercise other and further powers as are given by the said act or as may be conferred by law.

Section 9 clothes the court with full common-law and equity powers as to matters within its jurisdiction; permits writs and process to compel attendance of parties and witnesses, the production of books, etc., to execute its decrees and orders, including writs of injunction and mandamus; allows the appointment of receivers to carry its judgments into effect; and authorizes punishment for contempt.

Section 14 makes it the duty of the state solicitor to file information in the name of the state upon receiving sworn information of violation of law on the part of any railroad company.

Section 21 provides that any person, corporation, county, etc., interested in any information or complaint shall be made a party to the proceedings.

Section 22, that any aggrieved person, corporation, etc., though not a party to the suit, may enter appearance therein at any time on show

state; therefore, the suit was not against the state, and hence not within the prohibition of the eleventh amendment to the federal constitution; they were not a court within the meaning of section 720 of The Revised Statutes of the United States which prohibits the grant of a writ of injunction whose effect would be to stay proceedings in a state court; that the acts relating to the court of visitation were violative of the state constitution in attempting to confer inconsistent legislative and judicial powers upon the same body concerning the same subject-matter. "By the language of the act under consideration, the court of

ing that the decree of the court is being violated, and secure enforcement thereof.

Section 24 authorizes the court to order the information to be amended so as to bring the entire schedule of rates of the railroad company before it for consideration, if it deems it probably unjust to merely change the rate between the points mentioned in the information.

Section 28 provides for such decree at the conclusion of every trial as the pleadings and proofs warrant. After the trial of any action involving the reasonableness of a general schedule of freight charges, the court shall specially find the facts it deems most material, the value of the road and all property used in connection therewith, the actual cost, the amount of capital stock, the bonded and other indebtedness, what part is fictitious or fraudulent, if any, the average yearly revenue, the sources from whence derived, whether they will probably increase or diminish, the average expenses of operation and maintenance, etc. The court shall thereupon enter decree in accordance with its findings and decision, adjudging and decreeing what are reasonable rates for each and every service at issue in the case, and perpetually enjoining the defendant from demanding or receiving any other or different rates. The decree shall embody a complete schedule of the charges adjudged to be reasonable, and the classification of freight necessary for the explanation thereof.

Section 29 permits rehearing any order or decree, by the court, as a court of chancery.

Section 30 requires that copies of each order or decree determining what are reasonable charges shall be printed by each railroad company affected, and posted in a place convenient for public use.

Section 31 prescribes that in certain cases, companies owning connecting lines must be joined as defendants, and the hearing and decree shall include the joint rates and apportionment thereof.

Section 32 provides that if any company fails to comply with any

visitation can prescribe a tariff of rates and charges, judicially determine the reasonableness thereof, and then enforce their judicial determination in as radical a method as could be devised." It was held that such determination was not due process of law, and that to attempt to sequestrate the property of the complainant without due process of law is to deny to the complainant the equal protection of the laws and is violative of the first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. The federal court, having declared the acts in question wholly void, or void in part, said: "It is unnecessary to