LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 University of California. 
 
 RECEIVED BY EXCHANGE 
 
 Class 
 
 t-xj^-k ( 
 
 \2>o 
 
IOWA ECONOMIC HISTORY SERIES 
 
 EDITED BY BENJAMIN F. SHAMBAUGH 
 
LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
IOWA ECONOMIC HISTORY SERIES 
 EDITED BY BENJAMIN F. SHAMBAUGH 
 
 HISTORY OF 
 
 LABOR LEGISLATION 
 
 IN IOWA 
 
 BY 
 E. H. DOWNEY 
 
 OP THE 
 
 UNtVERSlTV 
 
 OF 
 
 PUBLISHED AT IOWA CITY IOWA IN 1910 BY 
 THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA 
 
EXCHANGJ^ 
 
 
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION 
 
 The Iowa Economic History Series as undertaken by 
 The State Historical Society of Iowa is inspired by the 
 conviction that history is more than politics and biogra- 
 phy : as a record of the evolution of hmnan institutions it 
 includes the social and economic life of man. In writing 
 the history of Commonwealths it is no longer possible to 
 ignore industrial developments — especially in this com- 
 mercial age. 
 
 Underlying the researches which are to be embodied 
 in this series of publications is the idea that history may 
 be exploited in the cause of social betterment. A knowl- 
 edge of past conditions will surely assist in explaining 
 and illuminating the complex present, just as an intelli- 
 gent appreciation of present conditions must inevitably 
 afford viewpoints from which to interrogate the past with 
 profit. To put history to some practical use is the supreme 
 aim of industrial and economic research. And in the so- 
 called legislative reference movement we are even now 
 witnessing the birth of ''applied history". 
 
 The History of Labor Legislation as presented by Mr. 
 Downey in the following pages was written in the winter 
 of 1907-1908. Subsequent to that time some modifications 
 in the laws affecting labor were made by the Thirty-third 
 
 <>l-l\)i)' 
 
viii EDITOK'S INTRODUCTION 
 
 General Assembly, which met in regular session in 1909. 
 And so there has been added to this volume an appendix, 
 prepared by the author, in which all such modifications 
 are clearly pointed out. 
 
 Benj. F. Shambaugh 
 
 Office op the Superintendent and Editor 
 The State Historical Society of Iowa 
 Iowa City 1910 
 
Of THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 Of 
 
 AUTHOR'S PREFACE 
 
 An attempt is made in the following pages to treat the sub- 
 ject of labor legislation in Iowa historically. Under each 
 division of the main subject the principal laws that have been 
 enacted are set forth, with some account of the conditions and 
 influences that led to their passage and some discussion of 
 their practical operation. For the most part attention is 
 confined to formal legislation, but in the case of employers' 
 liability a rather full exposition of the Common Law ap- 
 peared necessary in order to make the meaning and effect of 
 the statutes intelligible. 
 
 The materials for a history of labor legislation in Iowa 
 are scant and unsatisfactory. Economic statistics are far 
 less complete in Iowa than in the more advanced industrial 
 States. Labor questions have rarely been a factor in politi- 
 cal campaigns, nor have they received much attention in the 
 newspapers of the day. Only within a few years have the 
 records of labor unions and employers ' associations been pre- 
 served. For many of the topics considered in the following 
 pages the materials for an adequate treatment do not exist. 
 
 The writer's thanks are due first of all to Professor Isaac 
 A. Loos of The State University of Iowa, at whose suggestion 
 this work was undertaken and whose counsel has been relied 
 upon at every stage of its progress. Professor Benj. F. Sham- 
 baugh of the same University freely gave to the writer the 
 benefit of his wide and thorough knowledge of Iowa history, 
 and also carefully read and revised the manuscript. What- 
 ever merit this history may possess is in large measure due to 
 
X AUTHOR'S PREFACE 
 
 him. Professor Henry W. Farnam of Yale University has 
 had general supervision of the work on behalf of the Car- 
 negie Institution. Valuable hints as to methods and arrange- 
 ment were received from a perusal of Doctor Alba M. Ed- 
 wards's Labor Legislation in Connecticut. Many courtesies 
 were extended to the writer by officials of the Iowa Bureau of 
 Labor Statistics, the State Mine Inspectors, the Board of 
 Control, the Railroad Commissioners, and the Wardens of the 
 Iowa penitentiaries. Mr. A. J. Small of the State Law Li- 
 brary was very kind in placing the great resources of that 
 collection at the writer's disposal. Especial thanks are due 
 for information furnished by the officers of the Iowa Feder- 
 ation of Labor and of District Thirteen of the United Mine 
 Workers of America. A multitude of facts have been received 
 from labor leaders, employers, club women, and humanitarian 
 workers in all parts of the State. The number of persons 
 rendering direct assistance is so large that it is impossible 
 to mention them all by name ; but without their help the prep- 
 aration of this volume would have been impossible. 
 
 The undertaking of the present study was rendered possible 
 by an appointment as Research Assistant in The State His- 
 torical Society of Iowa. The expenses of the collection of 
 data were borne by the Carnegie Institution of Washington. 
 
 E. H. Downey 
 
 The State Historical Society of Iowa 
 Iowa City 1908 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 I. Introduction 1 
 
 II. Wage Legislation 7 
 
 III. Convict Labor Legislation 18 
 
 IV. Mine Labor Legislation 33 
 
 V. Eailway Labor Legislation 76 
 
 VI. Factory Laws 95 
 
 VII. Child Labor Legislation 110 
 
 VIII. The Law of Employers' Liability .... 148 
 
 IX. Miscellaneous Labor Legislation .... 186 
 
 X. The Iowa Bureau op Labor Statistics . . . 193 
 
 Appendix — Recent Labor Legislation . . 209 
 
 Notes and References 217 
 
 Index 275 
 
Of THt 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 or 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Labor legislation, as the term will be used in these pages, 
 embraces all statutory provisions designed to regulate the 
 conditions of employment or to protect wage-earners from 
 exploitation. The need for such regulation and protection 
 grows out of the capitalistic system of production which 
 creates a large class divorced from ownership in the instru- 
 ments of production, having no share in the direction of in- 
 dustry and dependent upon wages for subsistence. Labor 
 legislation is, then, a concomitant of the Industrial Revolu- 
 tion and has been enacted in one country after another as 
 modem industrialism has extended itself over the world. 
 
 Capitalistic industry is still in an early stage of develop- 
 ment in Iowa, and the State is still predominantly agricul- 
 tural, the bulk of the population consisting of independent 
 producers rather than of wage-laborers. Accordingly, the 
 labor legislation of Iowa is smaller in amount and less ad- 
 vanced in character than that of many of the American Com- 
 monwealths. 
 
 Iowa first received a separate Territorial government in 
 1838; but prior thereto the region now embraced within its 
 borders had been incorporated with the original Territory 
 of Wisconsin, and still earlier with the Territory of Michigan. 
 The laws of the new government were derived in the first in- 
 stance from those of its predecessors; so that for the begin- 
 nings of Iowa legislative history we must look to the Terri- 
 tories of the Old Northwest. 
 
 But of labor legislation there was extremely little in the 
 Territories of which Iowa formed a part prior to 1838. In 
 those frontier communities the differentiation of industry had 
 
2 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 hardly begun. Almost the entire population was agricultural 
 and land-owning. Towns were few and small. Manufac- 
 tures, except those of the household, did not exist. There 
 were no railways, and no mining on a large scale. The only 
 important class of wage-earners were the members of the var- 
 ious hand-trades found in every community — though there 
 was, besides, a considerable number of persons who occa- 
 sionally worked for wages. Accordingly, there are early laws 
 regulating apprenticeship, providing for mechanics ' liens, and 
 exempting wages from attachment. Prisons, too — those in- 
 evitable accompaniments of civilization — were found upon the 
 frontiers; and laws governing prison labor were among the 
 earliest enacted in the new Territories. But no beginning 
 was made of the more important classes of labor legislation 
 until long after Iowa had attained Statehood. 
 
 The coming of the railways in the early fifties gave rise 
 to a new set of labor problems with which the legislature has 
 been called upon to deal from time to time ever since 1851. 
 The coal mining industry attained importance about a decade 
 later, and mine labor legislation began in 1872. The develop- 
 ment of manufacturing on an important scale came much later. 
 In recent years, however, there has been a great growth of 
 factory production and a marked concentration of population 
 in towns and cities. A large wage-earning class has come 
 into existence and is becoming conscious of its political power. 
 The special problems of factory, child, and woman labor have 
 begun to press for solution. Labor questions have increas- 
 ingly occupied the attention of the Greneral Assembly, and the 
 volume of labor legislation has grown apace. 
 
 Laws are not, in general, the spontaneous work of legis- 
 latures. This is particularly true of labor laws in a com- 
 munity such as Iowa. A majority of our legislators come 
 from rural districts or country towns, and, however sincerely 
 devoted to the public weal, are necessarily uninformed as to 
 the needs and demands of wage-earners. Most members of 
 the legislature serve but for short terms, so that they have 
 
INTRODUCTION 3 
 
 little opportunity to familiarize themselves with legislative 
 questions. The sessions of the General Assembly are brief, 
 and the number of bills presented is so large that only those 
 which are persistently pressed upon the attention of the mem- 
 bers have any chance of passage. Moreover, much of the 
 legislation demanded by working men is opposed by powerful 
 railway and mining corporations, wealthy manufacturers, and 
 influential men of business. The natural conservatism of farm- 
 ers and the fear of frightening capital and enterprise away 
 from the State make the legislature reluctant to adopt any 
 measure distasteful to these interests. Hence, it is only by 
 the pressure of public opinion or by the political power of 
 the class most concerned that legislation in the interest of 
 labor has been or can be secured. 
 
 There appears to have been very little concerted effort in 
 support of labor legislation prior to 1876, when the Knights 
 of Labor organized in Iowa. By the middle of the following 
 decade this organization had a membership of twenty-five 
 thousand and was a power in the politics of the State. There- 
 after the Knights of Labor gradually declined in numbers, and 
 finally disappeared (except for a few local bodies) early in 
 the nineties. During the period of their strength the Knights 
 were very influential in securing legislation on behalf of labor. 
 The establishment of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics in 
 1884, the important mine legislation of 1880, 1884, and 1888, 
 and the prohibition of black-listing in 1888 were principally 
 due to their exertions.^ 
 
 The Knights were replaced by the Iowa Branch of the 
 American Federation of Labor, formed in 1893. Though 
 checked for a time by the prolonged industrial depression 
 following that year, this Federation has enjoyed a healthy 
 growth since 1898 and now (1908) has more than forty thou- 
 sand members. The Federation maintains a very efficient 
 ''legislative committee," which not only brings the demands 
 of organized labor to the notice of the General Assembly, but 
 keeps the record of each member of the legislature upon every 
 
4 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 question affecting the interests of labor. All of the very nu- 
 merous labor laws enacted since 1893 have been secured very 
 largely through its influence.^ 
 
 The most important of these laws are: the amendment of 
 the mechanics ' lien law in 1894 ; the acts of 1896 and 1898 for 
 the inspection of illuminants used in coal mines; the act of 
 1900 for the certification of mine foremen and hoisting en- 
 gineers ; the factory act of 1902 ; the laws passed in the same 
 year restricting contract labor in the State prisons and pro- 
 viding for shot examiners in coal mines ; the compulsory edu- 
 cation laws of 1902 and 1904 ; the child labor law of 1906 ; the 
 assumption of risk act of 1907 ; and the laws of 1907 limiting 
 the hours of labor for certain railway employees, regulating 
 the height of wires strung above railway tracks, forbidding 
 the storage of powder in coal mines, and providing for the 
 licensing and inspection of private employment agencies. 
 Moreover, the Federation has succeeded in defeating a num- 
 ber of proposed measures — notably boycott, anti-picket, and 
 wage-garnishment bills — adverse to the interests of labor. 
 
 With the Federation of Labor have cooperated, wherever 
 their own interests were affected, the great railway brother- 
 hoods and the several trades unions within the Federation 
 itself. The most important of these is the powerful United 
 Mine Workers of America, organized in Iowa in 1898 and now 
 numbering some seventeen thousand members in this State. 
 
 Thus, from 1876 to the present day labor organizations 
 have been the main factor in securing legislation in Iowa in 
 the interest of wage-earners. Since nearly all of the impor- 
 tant labor laws of this State have been enacted within the 
 past thirty years it follows that the existing legislation upon 
 this subject is directly traceable to the influence of organized 
 labor. Without that influence few of the labor laws would 
 have been passed when and as they were ; while many of them, 
 probably, would not have been passed at all. 
 
 The interests opposed to labor legislation have not lacked 
 organization or capable leadership. The leading railways of 
 
INTRODUCTION 5 
 
 the State have repeatedly used their great influence against 
 proposed legislation demanded by wage-earners.^ The Iowa 
 Coal Operators' Association, the State Manufacturers' Asso- 
 ciation, the Ketail Merchants' Association, and various Citi- 
 zens' and Industrial Alliances, either maintain regular legis- 
 lative committees or send special representatives to Des 
 Moines to urge the passage of their own bills and to oppose 
 those supported by organized labor. Many of the measures 
 proposed by labor organizations have been defeated by such 
 opposition; and many of the labor laws actually passed rep- 
 resent compromises between the opposing interests. 
 
 Iowa has had the very great advantage of the previous 
 experience of more advanced industrial communities in deal- 
 ing with labor problems. Most of the legislative questions 
 which have arisen in this State had come up long before in 
 other States and had been more or less intelligently handled. 
 The legislature of Iowa has thus been able to avoid some 
 costly mistakes and to adopt laws at the outset which had 
 been perfected through the tedious process of evolution else- 
 where. But the cases are far more numerous in which the 
 General Assembly of Iowa has failed to profit by the experi- 
 mentation of other States. Time and again laws which had 
 been thoroughly tested elsewhere and had proven success- 
 ful have been rejected, and measures enacted in their stead 
 which experience had shown to be inadequate. The result has 
 been the frequent amendment, repeal, and reenactment of 
 statutes which might just as well have been made efficient 
 from the beginning. 
 
 Much of this failure to make intelligent use of the rich 
 social and political experience of other communities is due 
 to sheer lack of information. Men who give but a few months 
 of their time once in two years to the work of law-making 
 can hardly be expected to know at first hand what is being 
 done outside of their own State. A bureau of information or 
 research, similar to the Wisconsin Legislative Reference De- 
 partment., which should utilize the scholarship of the State 
 
6 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 to collate the legislation and digest the experience of other 
 States and countries, would probably do as much as any 
 agency whatever to promote the cause of wise social legis- 
 lation. 
 
 The labor legislation of Iowa, on the whole, fairly repre- 
 sents the industrial development of the State and the political 
 intelligence of the people. A study of that legislation ought, 
 therefore, to throw some light upon many phases of Iowa 
 industrial historv. 
 
II 
 
 WAGE LEGISLATION 
 
 Wage laws aim to secure the prompt and full payment of 
 the laborer's wages and to protect him against oppression by 
 unscrupulous creditors. The working man ordinarily lives 
 from hand to mouth, owning little or no property and depend- 
 ent upon his daily earnings for subsistence. To the merchant 
 the non-payment of an account means only a reduction of his 
 profits for the week or month. To the day-laborer the loss 
 of even a week's wages entails privation, if not distress. It 
 has been thought just, therefore, that the payment of wages 
 should be secured by stronger legal guarantees than ordinary 
 debts. Further, the wage-earner is usually weaker economic- 
 ally than either his debtors or his creditors. He is peculiarly 
 susceptible to the temptations of the credit system — which 
 possesses for him greater evils than for any other class. The 
 interference of the law is generally thought necessary to aid 
 him in maintaining a cash system, and to shield him from 
 the extortion of the money-lender. 
 
 mechanics' liens 
 
 The legislation upon the subject of mechanics' liens began 
 when Iowa was a part of Michigan Territory. The Legisla- 
 tive Council of that Territory established a mechanics' and 
 merchants' lien for the city of Detroit and county of Brown 
 in 1827.* Two years later the provisions of this act were ex- 
 tended to the other counties of the Territory;^ and later still 
 (1833) the earlier laws were replaced by a more elaborate 
 statute,'' the provisions of which were extended over the Ter- 
 ritory of Wisconsin in 1836 "^ and over the Territory of Iowa 
 in 1838.^ These Michigan laws served only as a point of de- 
 
8 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 parture ; for the settlement of Iowa had scarcely begnn before 
 they were superseded. 
 
 The first labor law enacted by the Legislative Assembly 
 of the Territory of Iowa was **An Act relative to Mechanics' 
 Liens", which was approved December 17, 1838.^ It secured 
 payment for labor performed or material furnished under 
 contract with the owner of real estate for the construction or 
 repair thereon of any house or other building, mill, or ma- 
 chinery, by a lien upon the building with its appurtenances 
 and upon the lot or tract of land upon which the same was 
 erected. Section five gave persons employed on mineral lands 
 a similar lien upon the ground on which they were employed. 
 The judicial process for enforcing the lien was amended in 
 1840;^^ and in 1843 the earlier laws were combined, with a 
 few changes, in one statute. ^^ 
 
 Important changes in the law of mechanics' liens were 
 made in the Code of 1851}'^ Every person who by virtue of 
 a contract with the owner of a piece of land should perform 
 work or furnish material especially for any building was given 
 a lien upon the land, including the building and its appurte- 
 nances, ''against all persons except incumbrancers by judg- 
 ment rendered, and by instrument recorded before the com- 
 mencement of the work or the furnishing of the material. "^^ 
 The word "owner" was defined as "any person who has any 
 estate or interest in the land", and the lien extended to the 
 whole of such estate and interest and no further.^'* The 
 realty subject to lien was limited to one-half acre in the case 
 of town lots and to two acres in any case.^^ The sub-con- 
 tractor, not mentioned in the laws of 1838 or 1843, now ob- 
 tained a lien against his principal, enforceable by garnish- 
 ment of the latter 's claims in the hands of the owner of the 
 real-estate improved.^^ All rights to a mechanics' lien were 
 forfeited by taking collateral security on the same contract.^"^ 
 The miners' lien of the former laws was omitted, but a new 
 lien was created for the benefit of "persons furnishing labor 
 
WAGE LEGISLATION 9 
 
 or materials for the construction of any bridge, railroad or 
 other work of internal improvement."^^ 
 
 Acts relating to the filing of claims for mechanics' liens 
 were passed in 1857^^ and in 1858 ;2^ the last mentioned law 
 further provided that any person furnishing materials to the 
 contractor should have the same lien as the contractor himself. 
 
 Thus far the mechanics' lien had benefited chiefly the 
 contractor and the material-man. In 1860 its benefits were 
 extended to all persons who should perform any work or 
 furnish any material for any building, erection, or improve- 
 ment upon land by virtue of any contract with the owner 
 thereof, his agent, trustee, contractor, or sub-contractor.^^ 
 But sub-contractors, including all who did not have contracts 
 directly with the owner, his agent or trustee,^^ were required 
 in order to avail themselves of the lien, to notify the owner 
 of their intention to perform labor or furnish material.^^ 
 Failure to do so did not, however, forfeit the lien, provided 
 a statement of the claim was filed before the payment of the 
 contractor.^* The acreage limitation of 1851 was removed, 
 and it was provided that when the owner of the improvement 
 has only a lease-hold interest in the land improved, the lien 
 should attach to the improvement notwithstanding the sub- 
 sequent forfeiture of the lease.^^ By the same act the lien 
 was made transferable, and when for labor alone it was ex- 
 empted from execution.^^ 
 
 Acts relating to the filing of claims, the service of notice, 
 and the mode and time of commencing action were passed in 
 1862, 1870, 1872, and 1874.2"^ There was also passed in 1874 
 an act to further secure the rights of sub-contractors' em- 
 ployees.^*^ In 1876 all prior laws relating the mechanics' liens 
 were repealed and a new statute enacted, ^^ since which date 
 there have been several additions but no very important al- 
 terations. In 1884 it was enacted that a sub-contractor en- 
 gaged upon a public improvement not belonging to the State 
 shall have a claim against the public corporation constructing 
 such improvement.^^ No lien can attach to any public prop- 
 
10 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 erty,^^ but payment of the principal contractor may he stayed 
 imtil the sub-contractors' claims are satisfied. ^^ The miners' 
 lien, omitted in the Code of 1851, was revived in 1890.^^ 
 Lastly, in 1894, it was provided that persons "engaged in 
 grading any land or lot" shall have a lien "upon the land 
 or lot so graded."^* 
 
 The mechanics' lien is purely statutory and is limited by 
 the acts of the legislature creating it.^^ The lien is allowed 
 only for buildings, erections, or other improvements upon 
 land;^^ the improvement must be such as to become a part 
 of the land by way of addition thereto. ^'^ Thus it has been 
 held that the plowing of land,^^ the filling in of a vacant lot,^* 
 or the construction of a sidewalk on the street in front of a 
 lot*° are not improvements within the meaning of the law. 
 On the other hand, excavations for buildings and permanent 
 wells are within the statute.'*^ 
 
 A mechanics' lien can be claimed only for materials fur- 
 nished or labor performed by virtue of a contract. But the 
 contract need not be in writing, nor even express; nor is it 
 necessary that it be proved by direct and positive testimony.*^ 
 Neither is it necessary that there should be a contract to 
 furnish any specific amount of labor or material,*^ nor that 
 all of the materials furnished should be actually used.** Again, 
 it is not essential that the agreement should be made with 
 the owner of the real-estate improved; it may be made with 
 his agent or trustee, or with one who is a contractor or sub- 
 contractor, though he have no interest in the land, or build- 
 ing or other improvement.*^ 
 
 The right to a mechanics' lien may be asserted by cor- 
 porations as well as by natural persons,*^ by non-residents,*'' 
 by minors or married women,*^ by day-laborers,*^ by all in 
 short who bring themselves within the provisions of the 
 statute. 
 
 In order to avail himself of the benefit of the lien the 
 principal contractor must file his claim with the clerk of the 
 District Court within ninety days, and the sub-contractor 
 
WAGE LEGISLATION 11 
 
 within thirty days, after the materials were furnished or the 
 services rendered; but failure to do so will not defeat the lien, 
 except against purchasers or incumbrancers in good faith, 
 without notice, whose rights accrued after the expiration of 
 the time allowed for filing claims. Where a lien is claimed 
 upon a railway, the sub-contractor has sixty days from the 
 last of the month within which the labor was done or material 
 furnished within which to file his claim therefor.^^ 
 
 Mechanics' liens have priority of all garnishments of the 
 owner for contract debts, without regard to the date of filing 
 the claims for such liens; they are preferred to all other 
 liens or incumbrances upon the improvements and the land 
 on which they are situated, made subsequently to the com- 
 mencement of the furnishing of the material or performance 
 of the labor; and finally, they attach to the buildings, erec- 
 tions, or improvements concerned in preference to any prior 
 lien, incumbrance, or mortgage upon the land. As between 
 different persons claiming mechanics' liens upon the same 
 property, priority is recognized according to the order of the 
 filing of the statements and accounts therefor.^^ 
 
 An action to enforce a mechanics' lien may be brought 
 at any time within two years from the expiration of the legal 
 period for filing claims and cannot be brought afterwards.^^ 
 
 Builders and material men belong to a class of creditors 
 whose rights accrue from time to time and who cannot well 
 avail themselves of the ordinary remedies for the collection 
 of their claims. The preference given them rests upon equit- 
 able grounds. 
 
 PBEFEEENCE OF EMPLOYEES* CLAIMS 
 
 Akin to mechanics' liens is the preference given to claims 
 for wages in the settlement of the estates of insolvent debtors. 
 Employees are generally the last to protect themselves against 
 the insolvency of their employers, so that, where no statutory 
 preference exists, the assets of the bankrupt firm are often 
 exhausted by secured creditors, leaving the employees' claims 
 
12 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 unpaid. Moreover, the claims of the latter, while individually 
 small, are very important to them; and they, if any, are en- 
 titled to preference, for they have usually helped to create 
 the assets from which the debts are to be paid.^^ 
 
 For these reasons an act was passed in 1890 which pro- 
 vides that when the property of any company, corporation, 
 firm, or person, is seized or assigned for debt, wages due em- 
 ployees for labor performed within the ninety days next pre- 
 ceding the seizure or assignment, to an amount not exceeding 
 one hundred dollars to each employee, shall be preferred 
 claims. ^^ This statute gives priority to such claims over other 
 liens, including mortgages, existing and of record at the time 
 of the seizure or assignment.^^ 
 
 TIME AND MODE OF PAYMENT 
 
 Hardly less im23ortant to the laborer than the ultimate 
 security of his wages are the manner and frequency of his 
 payment. The most common abuses in these particulars are 
 the truck system and the monthly settlement plan — evils which 
 will be most conveniently discussed in connection with the 
 mining and railway industries to which they are chiefly con- 
 fined. 
 
 EXEMPTION OF WAGES FROM ATTACHMENT 
 
 Ever since 1851 a debtor who is a resident of the State and 
 the head of a family has held the earnings of his personal 
 services and those of his family at any time within ninety 
 days next preceding the levy exempt from liability for debt.^^ 
 A non-resident of the State, or an unmarried person, not the 
 head of a family, has no exemption, except wearing apparel 
 and trunks necessary to contain the same.^"^ A bill was intro- 
 duced in the Thirtieth General Assembly (1904) to remedy the 
 injustice to non-residents by granting them the same exemp- 
 tions as to personal earnings as are allowed in their respective 
 States.^^ This bill was lost in committee,^^ and no similar 
 measure has ever become law. But in the same year (1904) 
 the wages of a non-resident, earned and payable outside the 
 

 WAGE LEGISLATION 13 
 
 State, were exempted from garnishment by a non-resident 
 creditor upon a cause of action arising outside of this State. ^^ 
 An act passed in 1890 provides a penalty of not less than ten 
 nor more than fifty dollars for sending a claim outside this 
 State to defeat an exemption allowed by law.^^ 
 
 For some years past persistent efforts have been made by 
 the Retail Merchants' Association and its predecessor, the 
 Association of Retail Grocers, to secure a modification of the 
 exemption laws, permitting the attachment of wages for the 
 family expenses of a debtor. The bills looking to this end 
 have been numerous, but it will be sufficient for our purpose 
 to sketch the provisions and legislative history of a few of 
 the best known measures. At the legislative session of 1904, 
 Mr. Robert A. Greene of East Peru, a prominent member of 
 the Retail Grocers' Association, and at present (1907) chair- 
 man of the Retail Merchants' Legislative Committee, intro- 
 duced a bill restricting the exemption of the debtor's personal 
 earnings, as against debts for family expenses, to seventy-five 
 per cent of the amount earned within ninety days immediately 
 preceding the levy.^^ This bill was favorably reported by a 
 majority of the Committee on Waj^s and Means ; but there was 
 a minority report against it, and it was eventually lost by in- 
 definite postponement.^^ Mr. E. W. Weeks of Guthrie Center 
 then introduced a bill substituting forty dollars per month for 
 the seventy-five per cent of Greene's bill.^* This measure, 
 after amendment, passed the House, but was adversely re- 
 ported in the Senate and finally died in the Sifting Commit- 
 tee.*^^ The defeat of both bills was largely due to the exertions 
 of the Legislative Committee of the Iowa Federation of Labor 
 under the leadership of President A. L, Urick. 
 
 An effort was now made by the two organizations most 
 interested to agree upon a program of legislation. Simul- 
 taneous conventions were held at Council Bluffs in May, 1905, 
 where the Retail Grocers merged themselves into the Retail 
 Merchants' Association, and where resolutions were passed 
 by both conventions demanding the repeal of all existing ex- 
 
14 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 emptions laws.®*^ Charges of bad faith were afterward made 
 on both sides. On the one hand it was alleged that the Feder- 
 ation was insincere, demanding the repeal of all exemption 
 laws in order to prevent the repeal of any. On the other hand 
 it was asserted that the Retail Merchants' bill in the next 
 legislative session was a direct violation of the agreement. ^'^ 
 This bill, fathered by Mr. Greene, limited homestead exemp- 
 tions to the value of five thousand dollars, and the exemption 
 of wages to forty dollars per month for the ninety days next 
 preceding the levy.^^ The legislative history of this bill was 
 much like that of its immediate predecessor. It passed the 
 House by fifty-two to thirty-seven, was unfavorably reported 
 by the Senate Committee on Ways and Means, and was left 
 to expire in the hands of the Sifting Committee.^^ Wage- 
 exemption bills were introduced at the last session of the legis- 
 lature (1907) by Representatives Blackmore, Greenwood, and 
 Weeks, and by Senator James J. Crossley of Winterset."^^ 
 Strong opposition developing, the House bills were withdrawn 
 by their respective authors ;'^^ and Senator Crossley 's bill was 
 indefinitely postponed.*^^ 
 
 It is probable that the Retail Merchants' Association will 
 renew its efforts at future meetings of the legislature. The 
 merchants and their friends contend that the present law per- 
 mits the dishonest laborer to escape the payment of his just 
 debts. If his wages were liable to attachment he would not, 
 as now, recklessly contract indebtedness without either the 
 means or the intention of paying. On the other hand, the 
 friends of the law assert that a wage exemption law helps 
 the laborer to maintain a cash system by making it difficult 
 to get undue credit. Were the merchant sure of his payment, 
 the wage-earner would be encouraged to run into debt, his 
 pay-check would barely suffice to meet his accounts, and he 
 would speedily sink to a condition of dependence. There can 
 be no doubt that this contention is sound in the main. Pur- 
 chasers ''on time" are invariably worsted in quantity and 
 price, and it is well known that such purchasers are less pru- 
 
WAGE LEGISLATION 15 
 
 dent than those who pay cash. The number of bad debts is 
 diminished rather than increased by a reasonable wage exemp- 
 tion. An efficient system of credit agencies is probably a bet- 
 ter protection against "dead beats" than a garnishment law. 
 There is, moreover, a broader phase of the question. It 
 has long been regarded as sound public policy to permit every 
 family to hold a homestead and the means of livelihood secure 
 against economic misfortune. But the day-laborer commonly 
 does not possess a homestead. Often he owns no tools; and 
 he very rarely has any store of provisions on hand. All his 
 property consists of a little household furniture and wearing 
 apparel. His wages are his only income, and if these could 
 be attached for past indebtedness, he would not infrequently 
 be thrown upon society for support. Even as it is, he enjoys 
 far less protection from insolvency laws than the farmer, the 
 merchant, or the professional man. It should, however, be 
 added that it is thought by many that the general exemption 
 laws of Iowa are too liberal. 
 
 ASSIGNMENT OF WAGES 
 
 The exemption of wages from attachment is not sufficient 
 to destroy the credit system, since the laborer may still obtain 
 goods by assigning his wages to his creditor. Still more fre- 
 quently are such assignments made for the purpose of bor- 
 rowing money in anticipation of future wages. Unscrupulous 
 money lenders, commonly known as "loan sharks" who prey 
 upon the necessities and improvidence of the wage-earners 
 are found in all of the larger centers of industry in Iowa. A 
 bill introduced by Representative Wright of Ft. Dodge in 
 1906, aimed at checking their operations by making the assign- 
 ment of future wages invalid. '^^ 
 
 The Judiciary Committee, to whom this bill was referred, 
 brought in a substitute "'"* which with slight amendment and 
 almost without opposition "^^ became law. The measure as 
 passed provides that no sale or assignment of wages by the 
 head of a family "shall be of any validity whatever unless 
 
16 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 the same be evidenced by a written instrument and if married 
 unless the husband and wife sign and acknowledge the same 
 joint instrument before an officer authorized to take acknowl- 
 edgments". Valid assignments have priority in the order in 
 which written notice is given to the employerJ^ 
 
 Wage assignment is not the sole or even the principal 
 device of the loan sharks. Advertisements like the following 
 appear in the evening papers, on bill boards, and in street 
 cars: 
 
 WE LOAN 
 MONEY 
 
 On Furniture, Pianos, Fixtures, 
 Horses and Vehicles. 
 
 $1.20 IS THE Weekly Payment on 
 A $50 Loan. 
 
 Every Transaction Strictly Con- 
 fidential. Reliable — Private. 
 TEI-CITY LOAN CO. 
 Old Phone No. 2425. 2191/2 Brady St. 
 
 Davenport, Iowa. 
 Open Wednesday and Saturday Nights. 
 
 The ' ' confidential ' ' nature of the transaction and the easy 
 payment plan are especially attractive to the classes to which 
 these appeals are addressed. It is like buying goods on in- 
 stallment — ^many purchases are made which the family purse 
 can ill afford. For it is to be noted that these loans are not 
 advancements of capital, as in the case of the push-cart men 
 of New York or the coster-mongers of London. Money is 
 borrowed rather for the purchase of luxuries and comforts, or 
 as the result of sickness or other misfortune, and the house- 
 hold furniture is pledged in the hope that it will speedily be 
 redeemed. 
 
 The rate of interest on these loans, including ''commis- 
 sions and charges," is inversely proportional to the amount 
 loaned. Upon small sums for short terms it may reach several 
 
WAGE LEGISLATION 17 
 
 hundred per cent. The total is seldom less than ten per cent 
 a month, that portion of the charges in excess of legal interest 
 being deducted in advance from the face of the loan. Thus 
 a note dravm for five dollars, payable in one month, actually 
 yields to the borrower but four. The security exacted in the 
 form of a wage assignment or a chattel mortgage is more 
 than ample, and the harsh manner of enforcement is the most 
 repugnant feature of the ''personal loan industry ".'^'^ 
 
 The loan sharks find their patrons chiefly among the least 
 provident and least informed members of the community. 
 Such people, because of their very ignorance and improvi- 
 dence, are rarely members of a labor union or other fraternal 
 organization. Often their credit is not good at the store; and 
 so their only recourse is the professional money lender. 
 
 It is difficult to frame any law which will correct the abuses 
 growing out of money lending without at the same time inter- 
 fering with legitimate business. Perhaps the best remedy 
 for the loan shark evil, as for so many others, is wisely directed 
 private benevolence. Such organizations as the Tri-City Jews' 
 Associated Charities of Davenport, Rock Island, and Moline, 
 or the more inclusive and widely known Provident Loan 
 Association of New York, which make loans in deserving cases 
 at low interest rates, can perhaps do more than any statutory 
 regulation to put an end to the sharp practices of private loan 
 agencies. 
 
 WAGES OF MINORS AND MARRIED WOMEN. 
 
 As far back as 1851 it was enacted that where a contract 
 for the personal services of a minor has been made with him 
 alone, payment to the minor in accordance with the contract 
 is a full satisfaction for the services. This law has never 
 been altered.'''^ 
 
 Since 1873 a wife has been permitted to receive the wages 
 of her personal labor, and maintain an action therefor in her 
 own name, and hold the same in her own right.'^ 
 
 Similar laws exist in many States. They tend to lessen 
 the economic dependence of the classes to which they apply. 
 
Ill 
 
 CONVICT LABOR LEGISLATION 
 
 The history of the prison legislation of Iowa begins with 
 "An Act for providing and regulating Prisons", adopted by 
 the Grovernor and Judges of Michigan Territory in 1819. This 
 act required the sheriff of each county to furnish any convict 
 sentenced to hard labor with tools and materials to work with 
 in the jail or jail-yard, and to sell the articles manufactured 
 or other produce of convict labor. If at the expiration of the 
 sentence it should appear that the proceeds of the labor of 
 any convict had been more than sufficient to pay for his or 
 her maintenance at the jail, and for the fine, if any, imposed 
 by the court, and for the cost of tools and materials used, then 
 the residue was to be paid to the released convict.^*^ 
 
 The law of 1819 was adopted with slight change by the 
 Legislative Council of the Territory of Michigan in 1827 ^^ 
 and, not having been repealed, was still in force when Iowa 
 became a separate Territory in 1838. 
 
 The system of confining persons convicted of grave crimes 
 in common jails with petty offenders is wrong in theory and 
 bad in practice. Accordingly, the first Legislative Assembly 
 of the Territory of Iowa passed an act providing for the erec- 
 tion of a penitentiary. 
 
 This prison was to be located at Fort Madison, and was to 
 be of sufficient capacity "to receive, secure, and employ one 
 hundred and thirty-six convicts, to be confined in separate 
 cells at night", and was to be modelled upon the Connecticut 
 State Prison at Wethersfield. Convicts at the penitentiary 
 were to be employed in the construction of the prison; but 
 after its completion they were to manufacture articles for the 
 market under the direction of the Warden.^^ 
 
CONVICT LABOR LEGISLATION 19 
 
 In 1841 the warden was empowered to hire out the convicts 
 for work in the town of Fort Madison, his authority under the 
 earlier law to manufacture and sell goods remaining unim- 
 paired.^^ In accordance with the discretion allowed him by 
 these laws, the warden employed the prisoners, sometimes in 
 blacksmithing, cooperage, and shoe making, and sometimes in 
 wood cutting, digging cellars, and other odd jobs.^* 
 
 The theory then generally accepted was that a prison 
 should pay its own way — an ideal which the small number of 
 prisoners at the Iowa penitentiary made difficult of realiza- 
 tion. Disappointed, apparently, by the financial results of the 
 earlier system of management, the legislature in 1846 formally 
 leased the penitentiary for a term of three years. The lessee 
 undertook to clothe, feed, and attend the convicts; to employ 
 overseers, guards, and physicians ; and to defray all contingent 
 expenses of the penitentiary out of his own pocket, receiving 
 in return full management and control of the penitentiary with 
 all profits arising from the labor of the convicts.^^ 
 
 This lease was not renewed. Upon its expiration the peni- 
 tentiary was again placed under the control of public officers 
 with authority to direct the manner in which the prisoners 
 should be employed.^^ In 1854 the contract system of dis- 
 posing of convict labor was inaugurated, and this system has 
 been retained until the present time. 
 
 By the agreement of 1854 the contractors, John H. Winter- 
 botham and W. D. Headley, obtained the services of all able 
 bodied men in the penitentiary, exclusive of those detailed for 
 the work of repairing, cleaning, and cooking, ' ' to be employed 
 in the manufacture of Wagons, Buggies, Harness, Saddletrees, 
 Mechanical and Agricultural Implements, or in any other me- 
 chanical trade which may be sanctioned by the Warden." 
 The men were to be fed, clothed, and disciplined at the public 
 charge; and the State was to furnish shops and store-rooms 
 within the walls of the prison and to allow the contractors 
 the free use of all tools belonging to the State within the 
 prison upon the sole condition that they should be returned 
 
20 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 in good order upon the expiration of the contract. The con- 
 tractors undertook to provide all other tools and materials 
 and to pay to the State for each convict employed thirty cents 
 per day for the first year and thirty-five cents per day for 
 the remaining nine years of the life of the contract. This 
 sum was not to be paid in cash, a four months' credit being 
 allowed so that the contractors might dispose of their product 
 before paying for their labor.^'' 
 
 Upon the expiration of the Winterbotham and Headley 
 contract in 1864 a ten year agreement was formed with Thomas 
 Hale and Company, Winterbotham being a member of the new 
 firm. This contract was very similar to the one of ten years 
 before, but the maximum number of prisoners to be employed 
 on contract labor was fixed at one hundred fifty, and the in- 
 dustries were limited to cooperage and the manufacture of 
 agricultural and household implements. The compensation to 
 be paid to the State was raised from thirty-five to forty and 
 one-third cents per day, computed on a ten hour average for 
 the year.^^ 
 
 It was thought, however, that forty cents a day was too 
 low a price for the labor of able bodied men.^^ Accordingly, 
 when Hale and Company's contract was about to expire, the 
 General Assembly passed an act, in 1874, directing the Gov- 
 ernor to appoint three Commissioners with power to let the 
 labor of three hundred convicts for five years at a minimum 
 price of sixty cents per day per man.^° Upon these terms a 
 contract was made with Brown and Company of Columbus, 
 Ohio, (subsequently known as the Iowa Farming Tool Com- 
 pany) for one hundred men to be employed in the manufacture 
 of agricultural implements ; another with Trebilcock and John- 
 son of Bloomfield, Iowa, for fifty men to be used in making 
 chairs, coffins, and school furniture; and a third with O. B. 
 Dodge of Bed Wing, Minnesota, for one hundred men for the 
 manufacture of boots and shoes and shoe pacs. Only able 
 bodied men sentenced for at least one year were included in 
 these contracts. In each case the State built, maintained, and 
 
CONVICT LABOR LEGISLATION 21 
 
 heated the shops, and furnished, free of charge, a certain 
 number of ''lumpers", to do cleaning, build fires, and run 
 errands. The remaining provisions of the contracts were very 
 similar to those of 1854 and of 1864.^^ 
 
 The hard times following the panic of 1873 began to be 
 felt in the Mississippi Valley soon after the prison contracts 
 of 1874 went into effect. Dodge and Company failed during 
 the winter of 1875-1876, and the other contractors declared 
 themselves unable to continue paying the contract price for 
 prison labor.^^ Their representations induced the G-eneral 
 Assembly to repeal the section of the law of 1874 fixing a mini- 
 mum price for convict labor and to authorize the Labor Com- 
 missioners of the penitentiary to make new contracts at their 
 discretion, subject to the approval of the Executive Council.^^ 
 
 The Commissioners used the power granted them by this 
 act to reduce the price of prison labor to forty-eight cents a 
 day for the tool company, and to forty-three cents for the 
 Fort Madison Chair Company (successors of Trebilcock and 
 Johnson). Dodge and Company were replaced by the Huis- 
 kamp firm (shoe manufacturers) of Keokuk, Iowa, who took 
 ninety men at forty-three cents per day, and four "lumpers" 
 at nothing.^'^ 
 
 The return of prosperity had little effect upon the price 
 of prison labor, which had fallen so promptly as a result of 
 the panic. The Huiskamp contract was renewed in 1878 at 
 forty-three and one-third cents,^^ the chair contract in 1880 
 at forty-three cents (forty-five after October 1, 1882)^^ and 
 the tool contract in the same year at fifty cents.^'^ Again in 
 1881 the Huiskamps were able to make an eight and one-half 
 year contract beginning in July, 1883, at forty-five cents.^^ 
 The chair contract was renewed in 1888 ^^ and again in 1894 ^^^ 
 at fifty cents for full time men and twenty-five cents for 
 "lumpers". The rate for full time men was reduced to forty 
 cents in 1896 as a result of the industrial depression from 
 which the country was then suffering and was fixed at forty- 
 five cents in 1900 after the restoration of prosperity. The 
 
22 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 existing contract will terminate, partly in October, 1909, and 
 partly in April, 1910. The farming tool company has paid 
 twenty-five cents a day for 'Mumpers" since 1894; for full 
 time men they paid fifty cents from 1894 to 1906, and fifty-five 
 cents from January 1, 1906, to December 31, 1908. From the 
 last named date they will pay sixty cents till the expiration 
 of their contract on December 31, 1913.^^^ 
 
 The Huiskamp shoe contract finally expired in 1894 and 
 was not renewed.^°^ A contract was entered into in 1899 with 
 the Iowa Button Company for fifty-seven men for five years 
 at fifty-five cents per day.^*^^ These men were to be employed 
 in the manufacture of pearl buttons from fresh-water shells — 
 an industry which had attained much importance at Musca- 
 tine and other Mississippi Eiver points. Outside manufac- 
 turers and their employees strenuously objected to prison 
 competition, and, in conjunction with the Iowa Federation of 
 Labor,^*^* secured the passage of an act by the next General 
 Assembly which abolished the button industry at the peniten- 
 tiary after the expiration of the then existing contract.^^^ 
 
 Thus, ever since 1854 the prisoners at Fort Madison have 
 been employed mainly in contract labor. The following manu- 
 factures have been carried on under this system for the periods 
 specified : farming tools, 1854 to the present day ; chairs, from 
 1875 to date; shoes, from 1878 to 1894; shoe pacs, during a 
 part of the years 1875-1876 ; cigars, for a few months in 1876 ; 
 and pearl button blanks, from 1899 to 1904. It thus appears 
 that farming tools and chairs have been and still are the great 
 prison industries of this State. During the biennial period 
 (ending June 30, 1908), of approximately 443 inmates at the 
 penitentiary, the tool company employed one hundred and 
 sixty-one at full pay, and seventeen at half pay; the chair 
 company used one hundred and forty full pay men and eight 
 '' lumpers ".^*^^ Neither contract was full, though both com- 
 panies stood ready to use their entire quota. 
 
 The "task system" was introduced by the tool company 
 many years ago. Under this plan each man is required to do 
 
CONVICT LABOR LEGISLATION 23 
 
 a minimum day's work, said to be equivalent to the average 
 amount formerly accomplished in ten hours. For whatever 
 he does over and above this task he receives pay at the same 
 rate as the average compensation paid to the State for the 
 same amount of work. The opportunity thus afforded to earn 
 a small pittance for themselves is greatly valued by the men 
 and is a strong stimulus to exertion. Competent observers 
 are of the opinion that the tool company's men work as hard 
 as do most employees in outside factories. The chair company 
 has not seen fit to adopt the task system, though it does per- 
 mit its men to make cane seats in their cells — a practice of 
 doubtful benefit to the prisoners. 
 
 The price received by the State for prison labor has varied 
 little in thirty years and is actually less now than in 1875. 
 The workshops are built, maintained, heated, lighted, and 
 furnished with water at the expense of the State. The con- 
 tractors pay only from two and one-half to six cents per hour 
 for the actual working time of able bodied men; and they 
 make payment, not in cash, but in notes without interest due 
 three months after the monthly day of settlement. It might 
 seem, therefore, that the prison contracts should be highly 
 profitable. The contractors themselves, however, deny that 
 they are making anything more than reasonable profits. The 
 chair company, indeed, declare that they would withdraw 
 from the prison altogether, even at the present rates, did they 
 not already have heavy investments there. ^°'' 
 
 Whether or not contracts more advantageous to the State 
 than those at present in force might be secured, the writer 
 does not pretend to say. It is plain, however, that prison 
 labor can never be disposed of for anything like the com- 
 pensation paid for free labor. The inmates of penitentiaries 
 are composed chiefly of persons averse by nature and habit to 
 any honest industry. The most rigorous prison discipline can 
 never overcome this basic difificulty. Even the task system, 
 with its pay for extra work, is only partially effective. Again, 
 the prisoners are mostly unskilled at the time of their entry 
 
24 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 and have to learn their work de novo while in prison. The 
 contractors have to train a constantly changing force, and 
 are always losing their most experienced and valuable oper- 
 atives through expiration of sentence, pardon, or parole. Con- 
 victs are apt to be wasteful of materials and indifferent as 
 to the quality of their work for they are not afraid of losing 
 their jobs, and they have little prospect of promotion. Fore- 
 men competent to direct prison labor are scarce and difficult 
 to obtain, since many of the best men will not work in a prison 
 at any price. Prison contracts are formed for a term of years 
 and for a fixed number of men, so that the contractor is not 
 able to vary his working force according to the needs of his 
 business. Indeed, prisons commonly fill up during slack times 
 and decrease in population when trade is brisk. The laws in 
 some States and public opinion everywhere discriminate 
 against prison products, so that the market for prison-made 
 goods is often more or less restricted. 
 
 In addition to these general disadvantages, common to 
 prison labor everywhere, there are more special ones ap- 
 plicable to Fort Madison. The town is small and remote from 
 markets. The railway switch facilities are so defective that 
 materials have to be brought in and finished products taken 
 out in wagons. The shops are old and poorly adapted to their 
 purposes. It cannot be expected, therefore, that contractors 
 will pay as much for labor at this prison as is paid at prisons 
 more advantageously situated. 
 
 The penitentiary at Fort Madison is situated in the south- 
 east corner of the State, remote from the center of popula- 
 tion. Moreover, owing to its location upon the side of a 
 steep hill, enlargement of the prison is a matter of great ex- 
 pense and difficulty. An additional penitentiary was, there- 
 fore, established by an act of the Fourteenth General Assem- 
 bly (1872)^°^ and was located at Anamosa, near extensive 
 stone quarries which furnished an excellent building material. 
 Until 1899 the prisoners at Anamosa were employed in quar- 
 rying, cutting, and dressing stone, in the work of construe- 
 
CONVICT LABOR LEGISLATION 25 
 
 tion and in other necessary work about the jDrison. In the 
 year last mentioned a contract was made with the American 
 Cooperage Company of Ajiamosa (a member of the cooperage 
 trust) for the services of from twenty-five to fifty inmates for 
 ten years at five cents per hour for the manufacture of butter 
 tubs.^'^^ A daily task having been agreed upon between the 
 contractors and the State Board of Control, the prisoners are 
 paid at a proportional price per tub for extra work. Thus, 
 while the State received $7,217.23 from the cooperage contract 
 during the biennial period ended June 30, 1908, $4,561.76 were 
 paid to the convicts themselves.^^*^ 
 
 It had been generally believed that contract labor was 
 illegal at Anamosa. The contract system had, indeed, been 
 expressly forbidden by law as early as 1876.^^^ This restric- 
 tion was apparently repealed by the act establishing the Board 
 of Control in 1898,^^^ and it was upon that assumption that 
 the Board acted in entering into the cooperage contract. Nev- 
 ertheless, the introduction of contract labor at Anamosa was 
 bitterly resented by the labor unions,^^^ and the renewal of 
 the cooperage contract was forbidden by the legislature in 
 1900.^^* In 1907 the additional penitentiary was converted 
 into a reformatory for the confinement of first offenders be- 
 tween the ages of sixteen and thirty years; and it was ex- 
 pressly provided that, except to complete existing contracts, 
 ''inmates of the reformatory shall be employed only on State 
 account, which employment shall be conducive to the teaching 
 of useful trades and callings so far as practicable, and the 
 intellectual and moral development of the inmates ".^^^ 
 
 If the purpose of the General Assembly is ultimately to 
 make of the Reformatory at Anamosa a sort of trade school, 
 that object is still far from realization. About thirty men 
 are now employed by the American Cooperage Company, 
 whose contract will expire in 1909. These men are not being 
 taught any regular trade, though doubtless they learn much 
 that would be of value to them in similar manufactories out- 
 side. Some fifty short-termers are being worked in the quar- 
 
26 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 ries, getting out stone for State buildings at Anamosa, Fort 
 Madison, and elsewhere. Apart from the disciplinary effect 
 of steady industry this work can not be said to possess great 
 educative value. About forty-five prisoners are employed in 
 cutting and dressing the stone. It is claimed that they are not 
 projjerly taught the stone cutters' trade, but it is clear that 
 they easily could be, though of course only within the limits of 
 the single grade of limestone obtained from the State quarry. 
 
 From six to twelve inmates are employed, at different 
 seasons of the year, upon the prison farm — work which is both 
 healthful and profitable, but in which only ''trusties" can 
 be employed. A printing office and bindery gives emplo>Tnent 
 to ten men who appear to be acquiring trades at the same 
 time that they are doing work interesting in itself and profit- 
 able to the State. The necessary tailoring and shoemaking 
 for the Eeformatory requires the labor of ten inmates, and 
 is of unquestionable value to the men so engaged, as well as 
 a saving to the public treasury. Still other inmates are 
 utilized in the kitchen and dining-room, and in caring for the 
 lawns, flowers and shrubbery in the prison yard.-"^-*^^ 
 
 It would appear, then, that only a minority of the present 
 population of the Eeformatory is engaged in employments 
 of great educative value. 
 
 From the foregoing account it will be seen that two sys- 
 tems of prison labor are and have long been in use in this 
 State — the contract system and the jDublic account system. 
 Each has its advocates. The writer has been credibly in- 
 formed that the American Cooperage Company expects to 
 secure a modification of the present law so as to permit of a 
 renewal of their contract at Anamosa. The Chair Company, 
 whose contract at Fort Madison is about to expire, is already 
 negotiating for an extension. On the other hand, organized 
 labor is inflexibly opposed to the contract system, and the 
 Iowa Federation of Labor will probably seek legislation from 
 the next General Assembly looking toward the final abolition 
 of that system in the Iowa prisons. 
 
CONVICT LABOR LEGISLATION 27 
 
 What, then, are the respective merits of the rival systems? 
 Should either be adopted to the exclusion of the other, or 
 should both be retained? The solution of this problem lies 
 outside the province of the present study. But some discus- 
 sion of the two systems in the light of Iowa experience may 
 serve to make clearer the nature of the problem and the 
 progress which already has been made toward its solution. 
 
 Penologists are agreed that prison inmates should be given 
 some regular employment, both for the preservation of their 
 health and as a means of reformation. It is generally recog- 
 nized, moreover, that this employment should be made, so far 
 as practicable, productive. Purposive work is always more 
 valuable as a means of training than work done merely to 
 consume time. Nor is there any good reason why men who 
 have forfeited their right to freedom should not be required 
 to contribute to their own support. Care must always be 
 taken, however, not to bring the unpaid or low paid labor of 
 the prison into unfair competition with free industry. Finally, 
 in view of the fact that the great and increasing majority of 
 prison inmates will sooner or later be set at large, their em- 
 ployment during confinement should be such as to aid them 
 in becoming useful members of society upon their release. 
 
 Prison industries, then, should be healthful and interest- 
 ing in themselves, profitable to the State without interfering 
 with outside industry, and of distinct educative value to the 
 prisoners. How far are these conditions fulfilled by the vari- 
 ous employments in the prisons of Iowa? 
 
 In the first place it is safe to say that none of the employ- 
 ments in either of our State prisons is positively unhealthful. 
 The sanitary condition of all the shops is good; dangerous 
 machinery, wherever used, is properly guarded; all offensive 
 dust is carried away by a system of blowers and pipes more 
 effective than those found in most privately conducted fac- 
 tories. On the other hand, just complaint is made of excessive 
 hours at Fort Madison. The contracts call for a ten hours' 
 average throughout the j^ear. Since it is not deemed safe 
 
28 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 to have the men out of their cells between sunset and sunrise, 
 the hours of work are reduced to eight during the shortest 
 days and extended to twelve on the longest. The existing con- 
 tract with the tool company empowers the Board of Control 
 to reduce the average working time to nine hours without 
 affecting the compensation to the State. But this power has 
 never been exercised owing to the absence of a similar pro- 
 vision in the chair contract. Probably such a provision will be 
 inserted in any future contracts made by the Board. 
 
 It is usually asserted that the contract system is the most 
 advantageous method of disposing of prison labor from a 
 pecuniary point of view. But the contract system has never 
 made the Iowa penitentiary self-sustaining, even when the 
 number of prisoners employed upon contracts was at a maxi- 
 mum. Indeed, the cost of care and support, without any allow- 
 ance for prison construction or repair, is now rather more 
 than sixty-two cents per day for each inmate, whereas the 
 maximum contract wage is but fifty-five cents.^^'^ Thus, an 
 able-bodied prisoner working three hundred and sixty-five 
 days a year would not pay for his own maintenance. 
 
 Organized labor bases its opposition to contract labor in 
 prisons principally upon the ground of competition with free 
 labor. It is to be remarked, however, that prison inmates form 
 so small a part of the whole labor force of the country that 
 their competition is not to be feared by wage earners unless 
 their labor is concentrated upon particular products having 
 a restricted market. The articles manufactured by contract 
 in the prisons of Iowa — namely, farming tools, chairs, and 
 butter tubs — all have an extended market. Free labor has 
 little to fear from prison competition in these industries, 
 unless they arc established in a large number of prisons. But 
 the competition of prison labor may be felt locally, as in the 
 case of butter tubs and pearl buttons, even when it has no 
 appreciable effect in the markets of the world. 
 
 After all the main consideration in any discussion of 
 prison employments is the efltect of such employments upon 
 
CONVICT LABOR LEGISLATION 29 
 
 the prisoners themselves. If these unfortunate men can be 
 restored to society as self-sustaining citizens, the saving to 
 the State affected thereby will in a few years greatly out- 
 weigh any possible gains from their labor while in prison. 
 The crucial test to be applied to any system of prison labor 
 is, then, does it tend to prepare its subjects for the earning 
 of a livelihood after discharge? 
 
 The writer does not believe that the contract system satis- 
 factorily meets this test. Contractors have no interest in the 
 prisoners except to get the utmost possible amount of work 
 out of them. The hours exacted are so long that the men 
 employed upon contract work have little time or energy left 
 for mental and moral improvement. They do not acquire a 
 trade, and they learn little of machinery except, perhaps, a 
 single mechanical process. Even from a disciplinary point 
 of view, contract labor is not the most efficacious. For while 
 a man imprisoned for crime may be convinced of his duty to 
 make restitution to society, he is not so easily persuaded that 
 his labor ought to be exploited for private profit. 
 
 On general social and economic grounds cheap labor is an 
 undoubted evil. Not only does such labor tend to depress 
 wages and consequently the standard of living among com- 
 peting groups, but it fosters an inferior grade of entrepreneurs 
 and inferior methods of production. Prison labor is sought 
 by private contractors solely because it may be obtained 
 cheaply. It is not for the best interests of society that such 
 a system should be maintained if a satisfactory substitute can 
 be found. 
 
 Does the public account system afford such a substitute? 
 The same tests may be applied as in the case of the contract 
 system. 
 
 It is impossible to deny, in the first place, that much of the 
 labor upon public account at Anamosa has been uneconomically 
 expended. The State quariy is buried under such a depth 
 of drift and worthless stone that it would probably not pay 
 a private owner to work the ledge. Extra guards are required 
 
30 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 at the quarry as in all outside work. Notwithstanding this 
 handicap, Warden Madden estimated, some years ago, that 
 prisoners employed in quarrying and dressing stone and in 
 the construction of the prison earned for the State, on the 
 average, seventy-six cents a day over and above the cost of 
 feeding and clothing them.^^^ The present wardens agree that 
 the prisoners engaged in the manufacture of clothing and shoes 
 for prison use are worth far more to the State than those 
 employed upon private contracts. Financially, then, the pub- 
 lic account system, as thus far developed, is by no means a 
 failure. 
 
 Does prison labor upon public account come into competi- 
 tion with free labor? Clearly, yes. The prison products dis- 
 place an equivalent amount of the products of outside indus- 
 try, whether they are used by the State or sold upon the 
 market. It is probable, however, that no well founded objec- 
 tion can be raised, upon this score, against manufactures car- 
 ried on by the State for its own use. The quantity of most 
 commodities which would be purchased by the State in any 
 case is so small as to have little influence upon prices. The 
 case might be different were the State to engage in manu- 
 facturing for the market. Several projects of this nature 
 were proposed several years ago for the prison at Anamosa,^^® 
 but were not adopted. 
 
 There is little room to doubt that the public account sys- 
 tem is more favorable to industrial training than the private 
 contract system. The State can afford, as a contractor can 
 not do, to subordinate pecuniary profit to larger social ends. 
 Public officials are more likely than are contractors' foremen 
 to take a humanitarian interest in their wards. Schools and 
 other educational features of prison life are more apt to 
 flourish when the prisoners are working only for the State 
 than when they are employed by private manufacturers. 
 
 But if it be conceded that the public account system is 
 theoretically better than the system of private contracts the 
 question still remains, is the former practicable? The ques- 
 
CONVICT LABOR LEGISLATION 31 
 
 tion is not to be answered off-hand. It is to be determined 
 whether the State can furnish suitable employment for its 
 entire prison population without too great drain upon the 
 public treasury and without undue interference with private 
 enterprise. 
 
 Hitherto prison construction has absorbed the greater part 
 of the labor employed upon public account. There is still con- 
 siderable work to be done in the way of extension and im- 
 provement both at Fort Madison and at Anamosa. There will 
 always be enough construction and repair work to employ a 
 certain number of men. But clearly construction can not con- 
 tinue to be the principal employment at either prison. 
 
 A wider field is offered by the needs of the eight thousand 
 inmates in the various charitable and correctional institutions 
 supported by the State. Manufacture for this population, 
 and possibly for the population of similar county and munici- 
 pal institutions, might conceivably absorb the entire disposable 
 labor of both the Penitentiary and Reformatory. But the 
 commodities needed for institutional use are very various in 
 kind and closely limited in quantity. To manufacture all the 
 clothing, furniture and implements used in such institutions 
 would require an enormous outlay for equipment and for fore- 
 men to direct each department of work. No doubt some of 
 these articles could profitably be manufactured at the State 
 prisons ; others probably could not be. The feasibility of any 
 given manufacture will depend largely upon the cost of the 
 necessary plant and the extent of the State's demand for the 
 product. The present Board of Control is favorable to the 
 gradual introduction of such manufactures so far as deemed 
 practicable. 
 
 The prison press at Anamosa has already been mentioned 
 in these pages. The printing for the State Board of Control 
 is now being done there, and the advisability of enlarging the 
 plant so as to do all the State printing and binding at the 
 Reformatory is under consideration. ^^^ This plan is strenu- 
 ously opposed by organized labor on the ground that it would 
 
32 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 displace union men now employed by the State Printer and 
 State Binder.^^^ Their claims are not to be dismissed too 
 cavalierly. The sudden withdrawal of the State printing from 
 the labor market would probably be severely felt locally at 
 least for a time. If, however, the permanent interests of the 
 public would be served by the gradual transfer of this work 
 to the prison, the interest of a small class should not be per- 
 mitted to stand in the way of the change. 
 
 The question of the proper disposal of prison labor is no 
 simple one. Nor can it be said that the problem has been 
 satisfactorily solved in this State. Further experimentation 
 and a more careful study of experience elsewhere are required 
 for the working out of an adequate solution. 
 
IV 
 
 MINE LABOE LEGISLATION 
 
 Of Iowa legislation in behalf of a particular group of 
 workingmen, the mine laws are much the most important and 
 voluminous. Coal mining is an extra hazardous occupation, 
 and it is an occupation, moreover, which offers peculiar oppor- 
 tunities for the exploitation of employees by employers. 
 
 Mining labor laws, accordingly, are of two kinds — those 
 which seek to protect the lives and limbs of miners, and those 
 whose purpose is to secure to miners the full control of wages. 
 
 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MINING INDUSTRY IN IOWA 
 
 Lead mining in Iowa began in the days of the Spanish 
 occupation and reached its highest development in the period 
 of early Statehood. This industry, which has long ceased to 
 be of much consequence, never played any important part in 
 legislation. Its history is romantic, but belongs rather to the 
 socio-economic than to the legislative investigator.^^^ 
 
 Very different is the case of the coal mining industry. 
 Beginning much later, it has enjoyed continued expansion and 
 has received increasing attention from the legislature for a 
 period of nearly forty years. Public attention was first di- 
 rected to the Iowa coal fields by D. D. Owens, who made a 
 geological reconnoissance of the State in 1847 under the aus- 
 pices of the Federal Land Office.^^^ Small coimtry banks were 
 opened at a very early period, supplying fuel for local use.^^* 
 By 1860 the product had become important enough to be 
 noticed in the United States Census. It was then found that 
 48,263 short tons of soft coal had been mined within the limits 
 of the State during the preceding year.^^^ Ten years later 
 the output was 283,467 tons, valued at over half a million dol- 
 
34 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 lars.^2^ Coal mining was now an established industry in Iowa. 
 Its growth is illustrated by the accompanying table. 
 
 TABLE I- 
 
 -DEVELOPMENT OF COAL MINING IN 
 
 IOWA 
 
 
 CO 
 
 ■J OQ 
 
 g 
 
 
 S 
 
 -1 
 
 o o 
 
 n 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^ J g 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 °^i 
 
 ^ >• 
 
 '4 
 
 m 
 
 9 E^ § 
 
 
 St 
 
 >< 
 
 ^ 
 
 Z 
 
 W o cu 
 
 o » 
 
 1859127 
 
 
 48,263 
 
 
 1869127 
 
 
 283,467 
 
 
 1878-9127 
 
 
 1,461,166 
 
 
 1881128 
 
 
 3,500,000 
 
 
 1882128 
 
 
 3,127,700 
 
 
 1883128 
 
 
 3,881,300 
 
 
 1884128 
 
 
 3,903,438 
 
 
 1885128 
 
 
 3,585,737 
 
 
 1886128 
 
 
 3,853,374 
 
 
 1887128 
 
 
 3,864,490 
 
 
 1888128 
 
 403 
 
 4,435,046 
 
 12,483 
 
 1889128 
 
 390 
 
 3,746,819 
 
 12,497 
 
 1890128 
 
 344 
 
 3,980,502 
 
 9,893 
 
 1891128 
 
 377 
 
 3,721,981 
 
 9,130 
 
 1892128 
 
 298 
 
 4,047,479 
 
 9,307 
 
 1893128 
 
 337 
 
 4,614,872 
 
 10,486 
 
 1894128 
 
 323 
 
 3,777,393 
 
 10,258 
 
 1895128 
 
 342 
 
 3,195,836 
 
 10,992 
 
 1896128 
 
 355 
 
 3,525,490 
 
 11,451 
 
 1897128 
 
 360 
 
 3,799,734 
 
 11,678 
 
 1898128 
 
 357 
 
 4,397,722 
 
 10,550 
 
 1899128 
 
 358 
 
 4,949,310 
 
 11,029 
 
 1900128 
 
 385 
 
 5,117,285 
 
 13,041 
 
 1901128 
 
 385 
 
 5,441,863 
 
 13,175 
 
 1902128 
 
 334 
 
 5,514,206 
 
 13,002 
 
 1903128 
 
 313 
 
 6,185,734 
 
 13,192 
 
 1904128 
 
 300 
 
 6,214,379 
 
 16,315 
 
 1905128 
 
 326 
 
 6,806,011 
 
 17,624 
 
 1906128 
 
 309 
 
 7,017,485 
 
 16,825 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 35 
 
 Iowa now ranks ninth among the States in the quantity 
 and eighth in the value of soft coal mined.^^^ The coal mines 
 give emplojTuent to about seventeen thousand men (16,825) 
 besides the large number employed in the distribution of the 
 product and in the industries to which coal mining gives rise. 
 The position of coal among the mining interests of the State 
 is strikingly shown in the subjoined table of mineral products 
 for 1906.13O 
 
 TABLE II 
 
 Coal $11,619,455 
 
 Clay 3,477,237 
 
 Stone, including lime 577,782 
 
 Gypsum 573,498 
 
 Lead and zinc 26,300 
 
 Sand-lime brick 38,255 
 
 Mineral paint and mineral water 27,540 
 
 Sand and gravel 74,380 
 
 Total $16,414,447 
 
 DEVELOPMENT OF MINING LABOR LEGISLATION 
 
 Except for a miners' lien law (in force from 1838 to 
 1851)^^^ mining labor legislation in Iowa did not begin until 
 1872. The ''Act for the Protection of the Life and Health of 
 Miners", passed in that year contained but four sections and 
 related only to the inspection of mines by county authority 
 and to liability of the mine-owners for injuries to employees.^^^ 
 Two years later (1874) was passed an "Act for the Inspec- 
 tion of Coal Mines", which was three times as long and con- 
 tained many additional provisions.^^^ This law was replaced 
 in 1880 by the much more comprehensive "Act to Eegulate 
 Mines and Mining 'V^* which was passed at the instance of 
 the Knights of Labor. 
 
 About 1882 there was organized the "Amalgamated As^so- 
 ciation of Miners of the State of Iowa", composed of the 
 mining membership of Districts Thirteen and Twenty-eight, 
 of the Knights of Labor. At the State convention, held at 
 
36 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Oskaloosa in the following year, the Association invited the 
 operators to meet their delegates in joint conference. The 
 joint convention (the first of its kind in the history of Iowa 
 coal mining) assembled at Des Moines in July and again in 
 August, 1883, and at the latter meeting appointed a legis- 
 lative committee of four miners and four operators to pre- 
 pare a mine law and present the same to the legislature.^^^ 
 The result of their deliberations was the Mines and Mining 
 Act of 1884, which is still the basis of the mine law of lowa.^^^ 
 The act of 1884 was altered and added to from time to 
 time down to 1897 when the existing mine law was consoli- 
 dated as a separate chapter of the Code (Title XII, Chapter 
 IX). About a dozen acts in amendment of or in addition to 
 the provisions of the Code have been passed since 1897. The 
 mine laws of Iowa, which began with the four brief sections 
 of the act of 1872, now form a pamphlet of respectable dimen- 
 sions. The various sections relate to the means of exit from 
 coal mines, the mode and amount of ventilation, the manner 
 of illuminating, the storage and use of explosives, the proper 
 timbering of rooms and entrances, the safe-guarding of hoist- 
 ing machinery, the qualifications of foremen and engineers, 
 the public inspection of mines, the weighing and screening of 
 coal, semi-monthly settlement and the payment of wages in 
 cash, and liens for work done in the development of mining 
 property. 
 
 MINE INSPECTION 
 COUNTY INSPECTOKS 1872-1880 
 
 The mine act of 1872 required the Board of Supervisors 
 in each county where coal or other minerals were being mined 
 to appoint a competent inspector annually, whose duty it 
 should be to inspect any mine within such county upon the 
 written application of the owner, operator, or employees 
 thereof. The Inspector's compensation was fixed at four 
 dollars per day, to be paid by the owners or operators, except 
 that where an inspection was found to have been unnecessary 
 the fees must be paid by the persons applying for the same.^^^ 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 37 
 
 By the act of 1874 it was made the duty of the County 
 Inspector to inspect all mines and collieries in his county, at 
 which ten or more miners were employed, at least twice each 
 year. He further had the right to enter and inspect any mine 
 in his district at such times as he might see fit, and in case 
 of the refusal of the owner or operator to permit inspection 
 he might obtain an order for such permission from the judge 
 of the Circuit or District Court. He must promptly examine 
 any mine upon the written request of five miners working 
 therein or the owner or operator thereof, provided the parties 
 applying should have deposited with the county clerk a suffi- 
 cient sum to defray the expenses of inspection. The Inspect- 
 or's per diem was changed from four to three dollars, to be 
 paid out of the county treasury. But where on inspection the 
 requirements of the law were found not to have been com- 
 plied with, the expense of inspection was charged to the oper- 
 ator. An inspection demanded by employees must be paid 
 for by them if found to have been unnecessary, but if the 
 mine proved defective, the expense of inspection must be 
 borne by the operator.^^^ 
 
 Under these laws Mine Inspectors were appointed in sev- 
 eral of the principal coal mining counties of the State. ^^^ 
 These men were practical miners; usually they possessed but 
 little theoretic knowledge of their profession. Their methods 
 of inspection were crude ; their powers limited. They were not 
 required to devote their entire time to the duties of their office, 
 but might manage mines of their own or act as *'pit bosses" 
 for operating companies. The number of mines in any one 
 county was, in fact, too small to justify the employment of a 
 really competent inspector who should devote his whole time 
 to the work. The system of county inspection was a make- 
 shift at best. It was wisely abandoned in the mines and mining 
 act of 1880. 
 
 STATE INSPECTORS 1880-1886 
 
 The act of 1880 provided for a State Inspector to be ap- 
 pointed by the Governor and Senate, to hold office for two 
 
38 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 years, and to receive a salary of fifteen hundred dollars per 
 annum. The Inspector must ' ' have a theoretical and practical 
 knowledge of the different systems of working and ventilating 
 coal mines, and of the nature and properties of the noxious 
 and poisonous gases of mines, and of mining engineering"; 
 he must not, while in office, act as an agent, or manager, or 
 mining engineer, or be interested in operating any mine. He 
 must examine all mines in the State as often as his duties 
 would permit; he was authorized to inspect any mine, and 
 the works and machinery belonging thereto, at all reasonable 
 times. He was provided with an office in the Capitol at Des 
 Moines and was furnished all necessary instruments at the 
 expense of the State. The Inspector was subject to removal 
 by the Grovemor for malfeasance in office or gross neglect of 
 duty, after hearing and conviction by a board consisting of 
 two practical miners, one mining engineer, and two mine 
 operators.^**^ 
 
 The foregoing provisions were retained in the law of 1884, 
 except that the Inspector's salary was raised from fifteen to 
 seventeen hundred dollars per annum, with an allowance for 
 stationery and traveling expenses, not to exceed five hundred 
 dollars in any one year.^^^ But one Mine Inspector was ever 
 appointed under these two laws — Mr. Park C. Wilson, who 
 held the office until the adoption of the district system. 
 
 DISTRICT STATE INSPECTORS 
 
 It soon became evident that a single inspector could not 
 visit each of the five hundred coal mines in Iowa often enough 
 to secure compliance with the law. Accordingly Inspector 
 Wilson recommended in 1885 that provision be made for one 
 chief Mine Inspector and two assistants.^*^ This plan, which 
 would have given unity to the work of mine inspection, was 
 not adopted by the legislature. Instead an act was passed 
 (1886) providing for three Inspectors of equal rank, to be 
 assigned to districts by the Governor. The method of ap- 
 pointment, the term, and the qualifications and duties of the, 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 39 
 
 Inspector remained the same as under the law of 1880. Their 
 salaries were twelve hundred dollars per year, with station- 
 ery and traveling expenses as before. The office in the State 
 Capitol was retained.^*^ 
 
 Hitherto the mine inspectorship had been treated as a 
 political office. The law specified certain qualifications, but 
 required no proof of their possession by the incumbent. In 
 1888 an attempt was made to put the office on a merit basis. 
 An act passed in that year created a permanent board of exam- 
 iners, constituted like the trial board already provided for and 
 appointed by the Executive Council for two years. Candi- 
 dates for the office of Mine Inspector were to be examined by 
 this board and appointments must be made from persons 
 holding certificates of competency granted by the board.^^* 
 Since 1902 all members of the board of examiners, except the 
 mining engineer, must hold certificates of competency as mine 
 foremen, and one at least must be a certificated hoisting en- 
 gineer. All must have had at least five years' practical ex- 
 perience.^*^ 
 
 The merit system has now been in force for twenty years. 
 Under it but ten different Inspectors have been appointed in 
 the three districts — an average tenure of six years. Notwith- 
 standing some charges of political favoritism, the system ap- 
 pears on the whole to have worked fairly well. It has se- 
 cured competent Inspectors, and it has given them reasonable 
 security of tenure. 
 
 The number of coal mines in Iowa does not now much ex- 
 ceed three hundred. No Inspector has more than one hun- 
 dred and fifty mines within his jurisdiction.^*^ The law re- 
 quires that each mine having an average daily output of fifty 
 tons or more shall be inspected at least once in every six 
 months,^*"^ and this requirement would seem very easy to meet. 
 In practice the larger mines are inspected much of tener. Mine 
 inspectors now receive eighteen hundred dollars per year 
 with a traveling allowance of seven hundred and fifty dol- 
 lars.i*8 
 
40 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 REPORTS OF THE STATE MINE INSPECTORS 
 
 By the act creating the office of State Mine Inspector it 
 was provided that "Said inspector .... shall annually, 
 on or before the first day of January, make a report to the 
 governor of his proceedings, and the condition and operations 
 of the mines in this State, enumerating all accidents in or about 
 the same, and giving all such information as he may think 
 useful and proper, and making such suggestions as he may 
 deem important as to further legislation on the subject of 
 mining. "^^^ The law was changed in 1882 so as to require a 
 report on or before the fifteenth day of August next pre- 
 ceding each regular session of the General Assembly.^^^ 
 Twelve reports were issued under this requirement for bien- 
 nial periods ending June thirtieth in odd numbered years. A 
 change to even numbered years was made in 1906.^^^ 
 
 The Mine Inspectors' Report makes a paper-bound pam- 
 phlet of about one hundred pages, of which fifteen hundred 
 copies are issued. ^^^ The report gives a summary of the num- 
 ber of mines, number of miners and other employees, produc- 
 tion of coal, and the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents. 
 Then follows a very detailed report for each district, by coun- 
 ties, with recommendations of the several Inspectors and dis- 
 cussions of current mining topics. 
 
 MINE MAPS 
 
 Since 1880 it has been the duty of every mine operator to 
 keep in his office, subject to inspection, a map of each mine 
 worked by him, and to have the same corrected to date an- 
 nually on or before the first day of September. In case the 
 operator fails to provide such maps the Inspector may have 
 one made at the expense of the operator.^^^ Since 1897 a 
 correct map of every abandoned mine must be deposited by 
 the owner thereof in the Inspector's office, ^^* Similar pro- 
 visions are found in the laws of most coal mining states. Re- 
 liable maps are necessary to the proper discharge of the 
 mine Inspector's duties. His work would be further facili- 
 
MINE LABOE LEGISLATION 41 
 
 tated if recent maps of all mines within his territory were 
 filed in his office. 
 
 liAWS PROTECTING THE HEAX.TH AND SAFETY OF MINERS 
 MINE EXITS 
 
 A coal seam of any depth is commonly reached by a shaft 
 or slope which serves at once as the hoisting way for coal 
 and as the means of ingress and egress for the men working 
 in the mine. Such an opening is liable to be closed at any 
 time by the caving in of the sides. Access to it may be cut 
 off by falls of roof in the entrances. It may be made unavail- 
 able by an accident to the hoisting machinery, or by a fire at 
 the top works. Hence a second mode of escape is of the ut- 
 most importance to the safety of the underground workmen. 
 All of the general mining laws of Iowa have contained pro- 
 visions upon this subject. 
 
 The act of 1872 empowered the County Mine Inspector to 
 *' determine the number and capacity of additional entrances 
 or shafts .... necessary .... to afford ingress 
 and egress to such mines in case of explosions, or the falling- 
 in of the entrance or shaft to such mines. "^^^ In the law of 
 1874 the provisions were the same except that they restricted 
 the Inspector's powers to mines employing more than ten 
 persons. ^^^ 
 
 By the act of 1880 the owner or agent of any coal mine 
 operated by shaft or slope was forbidden to employ or per- 
 mit more than fifteen persons at one time to work therein un- 
 less there were to every seam of coal two outlets separated 
 by at least fifty feet of natural strata. The State Mine In- 
 spector might require two outlets in smaller mines, subject, 
 however, to an appeal to the Circuit Court.^^'^ 
 
 The law of 1884 was much more detailed. Mines there- 
 after opened, if worked by shaft, must have two outlets sep- 
 arated by not less than one hundred feet of natural strata ; 
 if worked by slope or drift and employing more than five 
 men, the openings must be at least fifty feet apart. The rea- 
 
42 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 son for this distinction is that a hoisting shaft commonly is 
 and a slope or drift commonly is not covered with buildings 
 the heat from which in case of fire would render useless an 
 escape shaft only fifty feet away.^^^ Mines opened under the 
 law of 1880 with an escape shaft less than one hundred feet 
 from the hoisting shaft must be provided with an underground 
 traveling-way from the top of the escape to a distance of one 
 hundred feet from the hoisting shaft. Where the upcast of 
 a ventilating furnace is used as an escape shaft, it must be 
 divided by a solid partition composed of incombustible mate- 
 rial for a distance of fifteen feet from the bottom and carried 
 to the surface so as to exclude heated air and smoke from 
 the man way. Every escape shaft must be fitted with safe 
 and convenient stairs at an angle of not more than sixty de- 
 grees descent and with landings at easy and convenient dis- 
 tances. Air shafts used as escapes where fans are employed 
 for ventilation must be provided with suitable means for hoist- 
 ing the underground workmen. Traveling ways leading to 
 escape shafts in all coal mines must be kept free from water 
 and falls of roof. No combustible material may be allowed 
 between any escape shaft and hoisting shaft except such as 
 is absolutely necessary for the operation of the mine. Fi- 
 nally, where two or more mines are connected underground, 
 the owners may make joint provision for the use of each 
 other's hoisting shafts or slopes as escape shafts.^^^ 
 
 In 1888 it was enacted that no escapement shaft shall be 
 sunk within a less distance than three hundred feet from the 
 main shaft without the consent of the District Inspector of 
 Mines, and that no such shaft shall be located until the In- 
 spector shall determine the proper distance for the same. No 
 buildings, except the house necessary to cover the fan, may 
 be put nearer the escape shaft than one hundred feet. But 
 where the escape way is lost or destroyed by the drawing of 
 pillars preparatory to the abandonment of a mine, the mine 
 may nevertheless continue to be operated by not more than 
 twenty men until all of the pillars are drawn.^^^ 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 43 
 
 By the mine law of 1880 new mines, if less than two hun- 
 dred feet deep, were allowed one year to provide a second 
 outlet and two years if they exceeded that depth. But not 
 more than twenty men might be employed at one time until 
 the law was fully complied with.^^^ The time allowed for 
 constructing outlets in mines over two hundred feet in depth 
 was extended to three years in 1890;^^^ in 1897 it was reduced 
 to one year for all mines, and it was further provided that 
 no mine should he operated after the expiration of this pe- 
 riod until brought into conformity with the law.^®^ 
 
 SIGNALING 
 
 The requirement of "suitable means" for signaling be- 
 tween the top and the bottom of the hoisting shaft or slope 
 was first made in the mine law of 1874.^^* By the law of 1880 
 the owner or agent of any coal mine operated by shaft or 
 slope is required, in all cases where the human voice cannot 
 be distinctly heard, to provide a metal speaking tube or other 
 means whereby a conversation may be carried on between the 
 bottom and top of the shaft.^^^ This provision is still es- 
 sentially the same.^^^ In practice, however, signaling is done 
 by a code of bells, and a man is usually stationed at the bot- 
 tom of the shaft to ''bell off" the cages. 
 
 SAFE GUARDS ON HOISTING MACHINERY 
 
 Legislation upon this subject began with the mine law of 
 1874 which required the operator to "provide safe means of 
 hoisting and lowering persons at the mines, with sufficient 
 cover overhead on every box or carriage used for hoisting 
 purposes ".^^'^ Under the provisions of this act. County Mine 
 Inspectors endeavored with indifferent success to have hoist- 
 ing cages hooded and brakes placed on hoisting drums, and to 
 see that hoisting cables were securely fastened.^^^ 
 
 The County Inspectors had been hampered in their efforts 
 to secure safety devices by the vagueness of the law. The 
 mines and mining aet of 1880 was more specific. It required 
 
 Of THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF 
 
44 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 overhead covers on all hoisting cages, an approved safety gate 
 at the top of every shaft, an adequate brake on every hoisting 
 drum, an approved safety spring at the top of every slope, 
 and a trail on every car used on a slope (to stop the car in 
 case of accident) — all of said appliances to be subject to the 
 approval of the (State) Inspector. It limited the number of 
 persons who might be carried on the same cage at one trip 
 to ten (or a less number at the discretion of the Inspector), 
 and it forbade the dangerous practice of riding on loaded 
 cages or cars in shafts or slopes. ^^® 
 
 The act of 1884 added to the foregoing requirements an 
 approved safety catch on all carriages used for hoisting or 
 lowering persons. The requirement of a trail on every car 
 was changed by the same act to one on every train of cars 
 used on a slope. ^'^'^ Finally, the conductor in charge of a train 
 was excepted from the prohibition against riding out of a 
 mine on a loaded car.^^^ This last mentioned provision was 
 made necessary by the practice of the mines. Cars are com- 
 monly hauled up a slope in trains, or '^trips'', of eight or 
 ten, and a conductor is invariably sent with each trip. Even 
 under the preceding statute, the Supreme Court had held that 
 the prohibition did not apply to a conductor whose duty re- 
 quired him to ride upon a train.^'^^ 
 
 There has been no legislation in Iowa respecting hoisting 
 ways or appliances since 1884. Our statutes are silent on 
 many points now specifically provided for in other States. 
 There is no requirement that the hoisting cable shall be of 
 metal, or that it shall be long enough to leave a part always 
 upon the drum, or that the drum shall be provided with a 
 flange, or the hoisting engine with a depth indicator, or the 
 cage with hand holds, or that there shall be a passageway 
 at the bottom of the shaft so that men may cross from one 
 side to the other without stepping upon the cage. Such safe- 
 guards are voluntarily provided in many mines. The present 
 law appears to be pretty fully complied with. But the loss of 
 life and limb in the hoisting shafts has not ceased.^"^^ 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 45 
 
 HOISTING ENGINEERS 
 
 The mine law of 1880 provided that "No owner or agent 
 of any coal mine .... shall knowingly place in charge 
 of any [hoisting] engine .... any but experienced, 
 competent and sober engineers; and no engineer in charge 
 of any such engine shall allow any person, except such as 
 may be deputed for that purpose by the owner or agent, to 
 interfere with it, or any part of the machinery ".^'^* Li the 
 Code of 1897 all engines used in or about the operation of 
 mines were brought within the requirements of the law,^"^^ In 
 1900 every hoisting engineer was required to have a cer- 
 tificate of competency, to be issued by the State Board of Ex- 
 aminers upon examination or proof of continuous and suc- 
 cessful experience for the four years next preceding the ap- 
 ph cation for a certificate.^'^^ 
 
 This law appears to have given general satisfaction. A 
 careless or incompetent engineer imperils the life of every 
 man working at the mine. Certification is probably the best 
 means thus far tried to insure competency. 
 
 MINE TIMBERING 
 
 Custom makes the miner responsible for the care of his 
 own working place, including the setting of props to secure 
 the roof. This custom was recognized in the mine law of 
 1880 by making it a misdemeanor for any miner "to neglect 
 or refuse to securely prop or support the roof and entries un- 
 der his control". At the same time it was made the duty of 
 the mine operator to keep a sufficient supply of timber to be 
 used as props and to send down such props when called for.^"'' 
 It was formerly the practice for the miners to receive their 
 props at the foot of the shaft, but in 1897 the operators were 
 required to deliver them to the place where needed. ^"^^ There 
 is no statute governing the timbering of main entrances and 
 haulage ways, but it is the operator's duty under the com- 
 mon law to use reasonable care to maintain them in a safe 
 condition.^'^^ 
 
46 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 MINE VENTILATION 
 
 The first ''Act for the Protection of the Life and Health 
 of Miners'* (1872) empowered the County Mine Inspector, 
 ''when he shall be satisfied of the prevalence of choke-damps 
 (carbonic acid gas) or fire-damps (light carbureted hydrogen 
 gas)", in any mine, to "determine the number and capacity 
 of additional entrances or shafts, or other means necessary 
 for the proper ventilation" of the mine.^^° In these respects 
 the law of 1874 was the same as that of 1872.^^^ 
 
 The means of ventilation in use in Iowa coal mines in 1872 
 were extremely crude. Many small local banks, operated 
 chiefly in the winter season, depended wholly on natural ven- 
 tilation. Others had only an old stove placed at the bottom 
 of the ventilating shaft to create a draught. Sometimes the 
 stove was replaced by a pot containing a handful of fire. Only 
 the larger mines had regular furnaces. Pans were almost 
 unknown. The methods of distributing air were as inefficient 
 as the supply was inadequate. It is not surprising to be told 
 that men often worked where there was no hint of an air cur- 
 rent and where a lamp could not be kept burning.^^^ 
 
 The County Inspectors did something to improve these 
 conditions. But their powers were too limited and the law 
 too vague to permit them to accomplish much. The act of 
 1880 was not much more specific. It simply required the State 
 Mine Inspector ' ' to see that all coal mines are well and prop- 
 erly ventilated and that such quantities of air are supplied 
 to the miners at their several places of working .... 
 as is requisite for their health and safety. "^^^ This pro- 
 vision was found very difficult of enforcement. When the 
 Inspector decided that the ventilation in any mine was de- 
 ficient, the operator could usually induce some of his em- 
 ployees to swear to the contrary, whereupon the court would 
 refuse to grant the injunction prayed for by the Inspector. 
 The first State Inspector accordingly asked, as the result of 
 two years' experience, that the volume of air to be supplied 
 in mines be specified by law.^^* 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 47 
 
 In accordance with this recommendation, the mines and 
 mining act of 1884 ordered that there shall be supplied in 
 every coal mine not less than one hundred cubic feet of air 
 per minute for each person and five hundred cubic feet for 
 each horse or mule employed in such mine.^*^ This amount 
 has never been changed. It appears to be ample for non- 
 gaseous mines, such as those in Iowa. 
 
 All mines within the provisions of the mine law (mines 
 operated by slope or drift and employing not more than five 
 persons are excepted) must be provided with artificial means 
 for producing ventilation, such as exhaust or forcing fans, 
 furnaces, or exhaust steam, or other contrivances of such 
 capacity and power as to produce and maintain an abundant 
 supply of air for all the requirements of the persons employed 
 in the mine.^^^ Of the several modes of ventilation enumerated 
 in the law, the furnace was long the most popular. A fur- 
 nace is easy to install, and for a small mine gives fairly 
 good results. But as the underground workings become more 
 extensive it is likely to prove unsatisfactory, particularly in 
 the summer months.^^'^ Its use in this State is now prin- 
 cipally confined to mines operated by slope or drift where 
 steam power is not employed. 
 
 Ventilating fans were introduced in Iowa in the early 
 eighties — only twenty-four were in operation in 1883.^^^ Ex- 
 perience soon demonstrated the superiority of the new de- 
 vice for shallow mines like those of Iowa. A fan costs rather 
 more to install than a furnace, but it is less expensive to 
 operate where steam power is available. Fans are, conse- 
 quently, in use at practically all the more important mines 
 of the State. 
 
 Natural ventilation, finally, is still relied on at some small 
 country banks, operated chiefly in the winter months, when 
 the difference in temperature between the mine air and the 
 external atmosphere is greatest. 
 
 Table III illustrates the methods of ventilation employed 
 in the coal mines of Iowa in 1906.^^® 
 
48 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 TABLE III 
 
 MARKET OF MINE 
 METHOD OF VENTILATION SHIPPING x^^.t BOTH 
 
 liOCAli 
 
 Fan 117 30 147 
 
 Furnace 38 89 127 
 
 Natural 1 17 18 
 
 Steam jet 9 5 14 
 
 Grate 5 5 
 
 Stove 2 2 
 
 Fire in Bucket 1 1 
 
 Total number of Mines 165 149 314 
 
 Tlie proper distribution of air in the mine is quite as 
 important as the total volume supplied, and so the mining 
 laws in many States contain elaborate provisions designed 
 to secure this object. Those of Iowa are less specific. The 
 law of 1884 requires that the air "shall be ... . cir-« 
 culated throughout the mine in such manner as to dilute, 
 render harmless, and expel the noxious and poisonous gases 
 from each and every working place in the mine." Such a 
 mandate sounds well, but it provides no definite test of ade- 
 quate ventilation. For years after this provision had been 
 placed upon the statute books, men were required to work 
 a hundred feet or more ahead of the air current and the In- 
 spector's power to prevent such a practice remained a mat- 
 ter of doubt. To remedy this condition it was enacted in 
 1898 that unless by written permission of the Inspector, the 
 air current shall never be at a greater distance than sixty 
 feet from the working face, except in making cross cuts in 
 entries for an air course, when the distance shall not exceed 
 seventy feet.^^^ 
 
 The Iowa law is still silent respecting " splits ",^^^ " stop- 
 pings ",^^^ doors, the location of stables on airways, and other 
 points covered by the statutes in several of the great coal- 
 mining States. It is weak also in not specifying where the 
 volume of air supplied to the mine shall be measured. The 
 practice of some Inspectors is to measure the current at the 
 foot of the downcast. Plainly an ample current at this point 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 49 
 
 does not insure a plentiful supply of pure air at the working 
 face. There may be serious leakage through doors and stop- 
 pings. Parts of the air course may be choked with debris. 
 Ventilation may be good in one portion of the mine and de- 
 ficient in another. In some mines allowance is made for loss 
 by maintaining a volume at the downcast in excess of legal 
 requirements. But measurement of the current at the work- 
 ing face and at the upcast would appear necessary to make 
 sure of adequate circulation in all cases. 
 
 The ventilation in a majority of the coal mines of Iowa 
 is now fairly satisfactory. The double entry system of min- 
 ing — so much more favorable than single entry to the main- 
 tenance of an air current — has long been in general use. In 
 recent years the practice of dividing the air current into 
 separate ''splits" for different portions of a large mine has 
 become common. Many overcasts have been constructed to 
 carry the air across haulage ways, obviating an important 
 source of leakage. Thus the grounds of serious complaint 
 on the score of ventilation, in most of the larger mines at 
 least, have been reduced to two — defective stoppings and in- 
 attention to keeping the air courses clear of obstructions. 
 The conditions in the small mines are not so satisfactory.^^^ 
 
 ILI.UMINANTS IN COAL MINES 
 
 Owing to the complete absence of explosive gases, safety- 
 lamps are nowhere required in Iowa mines. Legislation upon 
 this subject has related only to the quality of illuminants used. 
 The common miner's lamp is a smoky affair at best, but its 
 bad qualities are vastly increased by the use of inferior grades 
 of oil. Some years ago a mixture of cotton seed oil and 
 kerosene was put upon the market in place of the lard oil 
 formerly used. The adulterated product was less expensive 
 to the miner and more profitable to the company store than 
 pure oil. Hence its use rapidly increased. But it was soon 
 found that the fumes of kerosene are highly offensive and 
 unwholesome in the close air of a coal pit.^^* Accordingly the 
 
50 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 State Mine Inspectors recommended and the legislature passed 
 an act (1896) prohibiting the use of anything but pure ani- 
 mal or vegetable oil, or electric lights (paraflSne was added 
 in 1897)^^^ for illumination in coal mines. The Mine In- 
 spectors were required to take samples of all suspected oils 
 and to have the same tested in accordance with regulations 
 prescribed by the State Board of Health.^^s In 1898 this 
 last provision was repealed and it was made the duty of each 
 Inspector of Petroleum Products, appointed by the State 
 Board of Health, to test ''all oil offered for sale, sold or used 
 for illuminating purposes in coal mines," and to brand each 
 barrel or other container of such oil, over his own official 
 signature, and the date of inspection, with the words, ''Ap- 
 proved," or "Rejected for illuminating coal mines. "^^'^ This 
 law seems to have worked well ; and complaints of adulterated 
 and inferior oils have now practically ceased, 
 
 SHOT FIRING 
 
 The greater part of the coal mined in Iowa is obtained by 
 blasting, or "shooting," as it is termed in the parlance of 
 the mines. It was formerly the custom for each miner to 
 drill the holes, put in the charges, and fire the shots in his 
 own room, with little or no supervision. Many of the miners 
 in their anxiety to secure as much coal in as short a time 
 as possible neglected the most ordinary precautions. Holes 
 were negligently placed; shots were habitually overcharged; 
 and slack and coal dust were commonly used for tamping. 
 The result of these methods was a series of disastrous ex- 
 plosions, culminating in the Lost Creek catastrophe of Jan- 
 uary 24, 1902. — ^the most fatal in the history of Iowa coal 
 mining.^^^ 
 
 The fearful loss of life in these explosions at last aroused 
 public opinion to the need of doing something to prevent 
 their recurrence. After the Lost Creek disaster a commis- 
 sion was appointed consisting of two miners, two operators, 
 and one mine Inspector, to inquire into the causes of mine 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 51 
 
 explosions in Iowa and the means of preventing them. The 
 commission organized February 17, 1902, and finished its 
 labors before the adjournment of the legislature.^^^ 
 
 It recommended four additions to the mine law: That 
 shot examiners, to be certificated by the District Inspector, 
 be appointed in all mines where coal is blasted from the solid ; 
 that the operator be required to sprinkle all entries so as to 
 rid the air of dust; that the use of anything but sand, soil 
 or clay for tamping shots be prohibited ; and that it be made 
 unlawful to recharge any shot that had once blown the tamp- 
 ing. A minority report asked for the further enactment that 
 all shots be fired by men employed for that purpose, and 
 that no employees except the shot firers be allowed in the 
 mine at firing time. Of the commission's recommendations, 
 the legislature saw fit to adopt only the first. The shot ex- 
 aminers law of 1902 is as follows: 
 
 ^'In all mines, where the coal is blasted from the solid, 
 competent persons shall be employed to examine all shots, 
 before they are charged. Said examiners to have the power 
 to prohibit the charging and firing of any shot which, in their 
 judgment, is unsafe. Before entering upon the discharge of 
 their duties said examiners shall give proof of their compe- 
 tency to the State Mine Inspector of the district in which 
 the mine, where they are employed, is located, and said in- 
 spector shall certify to the operator of each mine the persons 
 who have given proof of their competency to act in the capac- 
 ity of shot examiners. The State Mine Inspector to have 
 the power to ... . revoke the permission granted, 
 should it appear that a shot examiner is negligent, or care- 
 less in the performance of his work."-^*^ 
 
 Inspection alone is sufficient to prevent many of the care- 
 less practices formerly common. But with all precautions, 
 blasting with common black powder remains a dangerous 
 operation. Accordingly the United Mine Workers have made 
 persistent efforts to secure the enactment of a shot firing law 
 similar to that recommended in the minority report of the 
 
52 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Goal Mine Explosions Commission, which would at least limit 
 the loss of life in case of disaster. Bills for such a law have 
 been introduced at several sessions of the legislature but have 
 always been defeated either in committee or upon the floor.^^^ 
 Two objections were urged against the proposed law: That 
 it would increase the expenses of the operator; and that the 
 system of firing once a day would diminish the output of 
 coal per man. Though baffled in the legislature, the mine 
 workers have partly gained their object through joint agree- 
 ment with the Iowa Coal Operators' Association.^^^ In most 
 of the mines of this State shot firers are now emj3loyed at 
 the expense of the miners, and shots are fired only at the 
 close of the working day when all of the men, except the shot 
 firers, are out of the mine. As a rule the same men act both 
 as shot examiners and as shot firers and the expense is 
 shared equally between the miners and operators. Electrical 
 firing devices, operated from the surface, are used in some 
 of the largest mines in the State. 
 
 In practice it has not been found that once-a-day firing re- 
 duces the output, except in under-developed mines, where 
 the men work two in a room. Any loss which may be occa- 
 sioned in this way is more than offset by the improvement 
 in ventilation which the new system has brought about. When 
 mid-day firing was in vogue the air current at many of the 
 mines was insufficient to clear the rooms and entrances of 
 powder smoke until late in the afternoon. Men who were 
 forced to inhale these fumes, containing as they do a high 
 percentage of carbon monoxide and other poisonous gases, 
 often suffered from chronic headache, nausea, and loss of ap- 
 petite, sometimes ending in serious illness. With the adop- 
 tion of once-a-day firing this cause of complaint has dis- 
 appeared.^^^ 
 
 The Commission's recommendation as to tamping material 
 has likewise been adopted in the joint agreement of miners 
 and operators, and the operator is required to furnish the 
 "sand, soil or clay" at convenient places. 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 53 
 
 Still another recommendation of the Commission, ignored 
 by the legislature but included in the joint agreement, is to 
 the effect that the miner shall keep his working place, and 
 the operator the entries, as free from dust as practicable, and 
 that the entries shall be sprinkled as often as necessary to 
 keep them in damp condition. The operations of mining 
 give rise to clouds of finely-divided coal-dust which is highly 
 inflammable and, under favorable conditions, even explosive.^'^'^ 
 Dust has been a large factor in all the serious mine explo- 
 sions in Iowa. It is generally believed that watering the 
 working face and haulage ways, by clearing the air of dust 
 particles, tends to lessen the probability of such explosions. 
 
 CONVEYANCE AND STORAGE OF EXPLOSIVES 
 
 Until a few years ago the miners usually received their 
 individual kegs of powder at the top of the shaft and them- 
 selves conveyed it to their respective working places. About 
 1901 a majority of the mine operators, at the miners' request, 
 undertook to deliver the powder where needed at their own 
 expense. To facilitate delivery underground storage rooms 
 were established, where was kept one or two days' supply 
 for the entire mine. The powder was hauled from the foot 
 of the shaft to the storage room in large quantities, often a 
 thousand pounds or more in a single car.^^^ 
 
 The State Mine Inspectors early directed the attention of 
 the legislature to the dangers of the above described prac- 
 tices, but no action was taken for several years. Finally in 
 1907, the United Mine Workers secured the enactment of a 
 law to regulate the transportation and storage of explosives 
 in coal mines. This law requires that the transportation and 
 delivery of all explosives in coal mines shall be done by the 
 operator or by men employed by him for that purpose, and 
 it forbids the conveyance by electricaP^^ process, of powder 
 or other explosives into any coal mine where twenty or more 
 persons are employed until after the miners and other em- 
 ployees have completed their work and have left the mine. 
 
54 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 No explosive can be stored in any coal mine. But each miner 
 may have in his own possession two twenty-five pound kegs 
 of powder, and other explosives sufficient for one day's use.^^'^ 
 This statute was the result of a compromise. The bill, as 
 it was introduced and as it passed the Senate, prohibited the 
 conveyance of explosives in coal mines during working hours 
 by any process whatever. The House substitute simply for- 
 bade such conveyance by electrical or mechanical process. The 
 words ''or mechanical" were struck out by a Senate amend- 
 ment to the House substitute.^*^^ 
 
 MINE FOREMEN 
 
 The mine foreman, or "pit boss" as he is more familiarly 
 called, occupies a position of grave responsibility. The Su- 
 perintendent may be and sometimes is without practical ex- 
 perience or knowledge of mining operations. In any case, 
 his attention is largely absorbed in business transactions, 
 while the details of mine management are left to the foreman. 
 Upon the skill, judgment, and fidelity of the latter largely 
 depend both the profitableness and the safety of the mine. 
 
 Laws to prevent the employment of incomjoetent mine 
 foremen have been enacted in many States. Such a law was 
 recommended by the Iowa Mine Inspectors as far back as 
 1891,209 but it was not until 1900 that the United Mine 
 Workers secured its enactment. The act then passed makes 
 it unlawful for any person to discharge any of the duties of 
 mine foreman, at any coal mine whose daily output exceeds 
 twenty-five tons, unless he holds a certificate of competency 
 issued by the Board of Examiners for State Mine Inspec- 
 tors. Certificates can be granted only upon successful pas- 
 sage of an oral or written examination or upon proof of 
 continuous employment as mine foreman for the four years 
 immediately preceding the examination.^^*^ This law has given 
 general satisfaction. It has led to the employment of a su- 
 perior type of mine foremen, and it has encouraged ambitious 
 miners to add theoretic knowledge to their practical expe- 
 rience.^^^ 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 55 
 
 FIRST AID TO INJURED 
 
 The existing joint agreement of Iowa miners and operators 
 requires the operator to ''keep sufficient blankets, oils, band- 
 ages, etc., and suitable conveyance or stretchers readily avail- 
 able at each mine to properly care for and convey injured 
 persons to their homes after an accident." A similar re- 
 quirement would be a very desirable addition to the present 
 mine law. 
 
 WASH ROOMS 
 
 Another desirable provision for the health and comfort 
 of miners is a wash room at the mouth of the mine. Coal 
 mining is an excessively dirty occupation. "A man works 
 eight hours, and spends another hour cleaning up." Most 
 Iowa mines have no toilet arrangements whatever; the men 
 go to their homes just as they come from the pit. The av- 
 erage miner's cabin is itself nearly destitute of conveniences: 
 even water often is difficult to get. Under such circumstances 
 cleanliness in the little home becomes almost impossible. A 
 place where the men might wash and change their clothing 
 could be provided at every mine at no great expense and 
 would do much to alleviate one of the most disagreeable fea- 
 tures of coal raining. 
 
 PROHIBITION OF DANGEROUS ACTS 
 
 The mine act of 1874 made it a misdemeanor for any miner, 
 workman or other person knowingly to injure or destroy any 
 water-gauge, barometer, air-course, or brattice, or obstruct 
 or throw open any air- ways, or carry lighted lamps or matches 
 into places that are worked by the light of safety-lamps, or 
 disturb any part of the hoisting machinery, or open a door 
 in the mine and neglect or refuse to have it closed again, or 
 to enter a mine against caution, or disobey any order given 
 in pursuance of the law, or do any willful act whereby the 
 lives and health of persons working in the mine or the se- 
 curity of the mine, or the machinery thereof, would be en- 
 dangered.^^^ 
 
56 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 The mines and mining act of 1880 omitted the provisions 
 relating to safety lamps, to water-gauges and barometer, and 
 to entering a mine against caution. Of these regulations 
 the first is unnecessary in Iowa mines and the second is prob- 
 ably covered by the prohibition against disturbing any part 
 of the machinery, contained in the act of 1880. The same 
 act made it a misdemeanor for an employee to disobey an 
 order of the superintendent relating to the security of the 
 part of the mine under the charge or control of such em- 
 ployee.^^^ No material change has been made in the list of 
 prohibited acts since 1880.^^* 
 
 ENFOECEMENT OF SAFETY KEQUIREMENTS 
 inspector's POWER OF ENFORCEMENT 
 
 The County Mine Inspectors appointed under the law of 
 1872 were without power to enforce compliance with any 
 recommendations they might make to mine operators. This 
 power was conferred by the law of 1874 which authorized the 
 Inspector to proceed by injunction against any operator who 
 should neglect or refuse to comply with the provisions of the 
 mine act for thirty days after written notice of defects should 
 have been given by the Inspector. The court might, if suffi- 
 cient cause appeared after hearing both parties to the petition, 
 prohibit the further working of the mine in question until the 
 same should have been made safe, and the provisions of the 
 law complied with.^^^ 
 
 The mines and mining act of 1880 shortened the required 
 notice to twenty days and empowered any court of competent 
 jurisdiction, in session or vacation, on application of the State 
 Inspector to enjoin the operator from working an unsafe 
 mine with more than ten miners at once until made to con- 
 form with the law. This remedy was cumulative and did not 
 take the place of or affect any of the proceedings authorized 
 by law for the matter complained of.^^^. In 1888 it was for- 
 bidden to operate a mine closed by such injunction ''with 
 more persons at once than are necessary to make the im- 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 57 
 
 provements needed ".^^"^ The proviso, "save as may be re- 
 quired to prevent waste", was added in the Code of 1897. As 
 thus amended the injunction provision of 1880 is still in 
 force.^^*^ 
 
 Enforcement of the mine law by injunction was not found 
 altogether satisfactory in practice. Courts are proverbially 
 slow; and unwholesome or dangerous conditions were some- 
 times allowed to continue for months before a restraining 
 order was issued and enforced.^^® To provide a speedier 
 remedy it was enacted in 1888 that "whenever the Inspector 
 shall find men working without sufficient air or under any 
 unsafe conditions he shall first give the Operator or his agent 
 a reasonable Notice to rectify the same and upon a refusal or 
 neglect to do so the Inspector may himself order them our, 
 until said Portion of said Mine shall be put in proper condi- 
 tion ".^^° With some verbal changes, the law is still the 
 same.^^^ 
 
 PENALTIES FOR VIOIiATION OF THE MINE LAW 
 
 Besides penalties for infraction of particular sections, 
 the mine act of 1884 declares that "Any person willfully neg- 
 lecting or refusing to comply with the provisions of this act 
 when notified by the mine inspector to comply with such pro- 
 visions, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon 
 conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 
 five hundred dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail not 
 exceeding six months, except when different penalties are 
 herein provided. "^^^ By the Code of 1897 the maximum jail 
 sentence is reduced to sixty days, the possible fine remaining 
 as before. This penalty attaches to any violation of the mine 
 law by a mine owner or operator, irrespective of notice by 
 the InsjDector.-^^ The mine acts passed since the compilation 
 of the Code carry various penalties for their infraction. 
 
 lilABHilTY FOR DAMAGES 
 
 The first Iowa mine law, that of 1872, made the mine 
 operator liable in full damages for any injury resulting from 
 
58 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 his refusal or neglect to provide such means as the County 
 Inspector should in writing notify the operator to be necessary 
 to protect the life or health of his employees.^^^ By the law 
 of 1874 liability attached to the operator for any injury result- 
 ing from neglect or violation of any of the provisions of the 
 mine law.^^^ This provision was omitted in the mine law of 
 1880, but was re-enacted by that of 1884.226 The Code of 1897 
 declares that in case an injury happens to those engaged in 
 work because of failure on the part of the mine owner to 
 provide any of the appliances required by law for the safety 
 of the employees, the same shall be held culpable negligence.^^f 
 Even in the absence of this express declaration, the violation 
 of a statutory provision would be negligence per se, and an 
 innocent person injured thereby would be entitled to civil rem- 
 edy by way of damages. ^^^ 
 
 EXCEPTION OF SMAI.L MINES 
 
 The special treatment of small mines was begun by the 
 law of 1874 which did not require, though it permitted, the 
 County Inspector to examine mines in which not more than 
 ten persons were employed.^^^ Coal mines employing not 
 more than fifteen persons at one time were excepted from all 
 the requirements of the mine law of 1880, but upon the appli- 
 cation of the proprietors of, or miners in, any such mine it 
 became the State Inspector's duty to make an inspection and 
 direct and enforce any regulations in accordance with the pro- 
 visions of the mine law that he might deem necessary for the 
 safety of the miners.^"^ This exception was repealed by the 
 General Assembly in the mine law of 1884. But some of the 
 most important sections of that law apply only to mines oper- 
 ated by shaft or slope, while drift or slope mines where not 
 more than five persons are employed, are expressly excepted 
 from the provision relating to escape shafts.^^^ So, too, mines 
 which have a daily output of less than twenty-five tons are not 
 required to employ certificated foremen or hoisting engin- 
 eers.232 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 59 
 
 REPORT OF ACCIDENTS AT MINES 
 
 The law of 1874 required the operator of any mine, when- 
 ever an explosion or other accident causing loss of life or 
 serious bodily injury occurred at his mine, to at once notify 
 the County Inspector; and it was made the Inspector's duty 
 to proceed to the scene of the accident and investigate the 
 cause thereof, and take such measures as he might deem neces- 
 sary for the safety of the men employed in the mine. Notice 
 of fatal accidents must likewise be given to the County 
 Coroner.^^^ 
 
 In the mines and mining act of 1880 the provision relating 
 to serious accidents was dropped and the operator was merely 
 required to report loss of life to the State Inspector and 
 Coroner. Another section of the act required the Inspector, 
 in his annual (now biennial) report to the Grovernor, to enu- 
 merate all accidents occurring in or about the mines of the 
 State.^^* This discrepancy was remedied by the mine law of 
 1884 which provides that "the owner or agent of all coal mines 
 shall report to the Inspector all accidents to miners, in and 
 around the mines, giving cause of the same; such report to 
 be made in writing, and within ten days from the time any 
 such accidents occur ".^^^ The law now requires this report 
 to be made " forthwith ".^^^^ 
 
 Since 1880 it has been the duty of the County Coroner to 
 hold an inquest upon the body of every person killed in or 
 about any mine and to inquire carefully into the cause of 
 death, and to return a copy of the verdict and all testimony 
 taken at the inquest to the Mine Inspector. No person hav- 
 ing an interest in, or engaged in the management of, or em- 
 ployed in, the mine where a fatal accident occurs is qualified 
 to serve on the jury impaneled on the inquest.^^'^ 
 
 In accordance with the foregoing provisions from twenty 
 to fifty inquests are held each year. The jury is usually com- 
 posed of non-experts, and is excessively timid about fixing 
 responsibility for loss of life. Their verdict commonly throws 
 little light upon the conditions which caused the fatality, but 
 
60 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA j 
 
 records instead the edifying opinion that ' ' the said occurrence 
 was purely accidental ".^^^ j 
 
 TABLE IV — ACCIDENTS TO THE COAL MINES OF IOWA, 1888-1906 ^^® 
 
 ■a 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 a m 
 
 NUMBER KILLED PER 
 THOUSAND EM- 
 PLOYED 
 
 NUMBER ACCIDENTS 
 PER THOUSAND 
 EMPLOYED 
 
 NUMBER MEN KILL- 
 ED PER MILLION 
 TONS COAL MINED 
 
 NUMBER FATAL AND 
 SERIOUS ACCIDENTS 
 PER MILLION TONS 
 COAL MINED 
 
 1888 
 
 28 
 
 118 
 
 2.2 
 
 9.45 
 
 6.3 
 
 26.60 
 
 1889 
 
 32 
 
 105 
 
 2.6 
 
 8.48 
 
 • 8.5 
 
 28.27 
 
 1890 
 
 15 
 
 98 
 
 1.5 
 
 10.1 
 
 3.77 
 
 25.12 
 
 1891 
 
 21 
 
 87 
 
 2.3 
 
 8.3 
 
 5.64 
 
 23.4 
 
 1892 
 
 22 
 
 69 
 
 2.36 
 
 7.4 
 
 5.5 
 
 17.25 
 
 1893 
 
 32 
 
 84 
 
 3 
 
 8.0 
 
 6.94 
 
 18.22 
 
 1894 
 
 19 
 
 47 
 
 1.9 
 
 4.6 
 
 5.0 
 
 12.43 
 
 1895 
 
 20 
 
 62 
 
 1.8 
 
 5.6 
 
 6.25 
 
 19.3 
 
 1896 
 
 22 
 
 71 
 
 2 
 
 6.2 
 
 6.23 
 
 20.1 
 
 1897 
 
 21 
 
 75 
 
 1.8 
 
 6.4 
 
 5.52 
 
 19.74 
 
 1898 
 
 26 
 
 67 
 
 2.5 
 
 6.4 
 
 5.9 
 
 15.20 
 
 1899 
 
 20 
 
 46 
 
 1.8 
 
 4.2 
 
 4 
 
 9.3 
 
 1900 
 
 29 
 
 73 
 
 2.2 
 
 5.6 
 
 5.8 
 
 14.6 
 
 1901 
 
 27 
 
 78 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 12.5 
 
 1902 
 
 55 
 
 134 
 
 4.2 
 
 10.3 
 
 10 
 
 24.36 
 
 1903 
 
 21 
 
 79 
 
 1.6 
 
 6 
 
 3.39 
 
 11.13 
 
 1904 
 
 31 
 
 115 
 
 1.9 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 18.55 
 
 1905 
 
 24 
 
 124 
 
 1.4 
 
 7 
 
 3.53 
 
 18.23 
 
 1906 
 
 37 
 
 153 
 
 2.2 
 
 9.1 
 
 5.3 
 
 21.85 
 
 Av. 1888-1906 
 
 26.42 88.68 
 
 2.15 
 
 7.23 
 
 5.34 
 
 17.92 
 
 Av. 1888-1893 
 
 25 
 
 93.5 
 
 2.38 
 
 8.90 
 
 6.12 
 
 22.86 
 
 Av. 1894-1897 
 
 20.5 
 
 63.75 
 
 1.85 
 
 5.74 
 
 5.75 
 
 17.89 
 
 Av. 1898-1906 
 
 30 
 
 96.5 
 
 2.16 
 
 6.96 
 
 4.86 
 
 15.69 
 
 Table IV shows the fatal and serious accidents reported 
 by the State Mine Inspectors from 1888 to 1906. It will be 
 observed that the number of fatalities and injuries per thou- 
 sand was greatest in the period 1888 to 1893, that it fell off 
 in the years 1894 to 1897, and again rose in the third period 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 
 
 61 
 
 from 1898 to 1906. The period 1894 to 1897 was one of cur- 
 tailed coal production due to financial depression. The lesser 
 number of accidents during these years is doubtless to be 
 attributed to the circumstance that the mines were idle a large 
 share of the time. Since 1898 there has been a steady and 
 rapid increase in the production of coal. Not only have more 
 men been employed but they have worked more days in the 
 year. Hence it is but natural that more accidents should 
 have occurred. The number of men killed and injured per 
 million tons of coal mined affords a truer index of safety, 
 and this number shows a gratifying diminution for each suc- 
 cessive period. But for the Lost Creek disaster of 1902, which 
 makes that year quite exceptional, the showing for the third 
 period would be much improved. And there is no reason to 
 doubt that, if statistics were available for the earlier years 
 of the coal mining industry in the State, they would show an 
 even heavier proportional loss of life and limb than the period 
 1888 to 1893. 
 
 TABLE V 
 
 COMPAEATrra LOSS OF LIFE IN COAL MINES 
 
 240 
 
 1-9 
 < 
 O 
 O 
 
 Iowa 
 
 1 
 1898'^1906 
 
 United St&tes 
 
 1898-1906 
 
 Great Britain 
 
 1894-1906 
 
 Beljnum 
 
 1898-1906 
 
 France 
 
 1901-1905 
 
 s s >^ 
 
 |§s 
 
 2.2 
 3.22 
 1.35 
 1.02 
 .91 
 
 ^ S 
 
 1^ o Q 
 t3 g « 
 
 « J !3 
 
 5.33 
 5.92 
 4.64 
 6.19 
 4.59 
 
 From the table of comparative loss of life, it appears that 
 the fatality in the coal mines of Iowa is somewhat lower than 
 the average for the United States, though the rate per thou- 
 sand is far higher than in most European countries. The 
 favorable showing as compared with the rest of the Union 
 is probably due to the non-gaseous character of Iowa mines 
 
62 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 and also to the high level of intelligence among the miners 
 of this State. The lower mortality in European mines is 
 attributed to rigorous public supervision and to the smaller 
 daily output per man.^^^ 
 
 TABLE VI — CAUSES OF COAL MINE ACCIDENTS IN IOWA, 1888-1906^*2 
 
 5 
 
 5 !? 
 
 1 ^ I § g 
 
 O H K iJ 03 
 
 2 "^ " :3 £ 
 
 Falls of roof and coal. 285 56.77 967 57.39 
 
 Powder explosions, pre- 
 mature and defective 
 
 shots. 64 12.74 209 12.4 
 
 Mine cars. 40 7.96 230 13.65 
 
 Cage, shaft or hoisting 
 
 apparatus. 47 9.56 97 5.75 
 
 Dust explosions. 37 7.57 72 4.27 
 
 Miscellaneous causes. 29 3.79 110 6.56 
 
 All causes. 502 100 1685 100 
 
 As is shown by Table VI almost three-fifths of the cas- 
 ualties in the coal mines of Iowa are due to falls of roof and 
 coal. Moreover, the number of accidents from this cause 
 does not appear to be diminishing. In the year 1906 it ap- 
 pears that 64.9 per cent of all coal mine fatalities in the State 
 were caused by falls of roof and coal, as compared with 56.7 
 per cent for the entire period 1888 to 1906. The number of 
 deaths from this cause for each thousand men employed aver- 
 aged 1.24 for the entire period; for 1906 it was 1.43. This 
 rate is very little less than the average for the United States 
 (1.7 in 1906) ; but it is three times as great as in France or 
 Belgium. 
 
 Powder explosions were responsible for more than one- 
 eighth of all deaths and injuries in Iowa mines during the 
 period under review. There is good ground to hope, how- 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 63 
 
 ever, that the number of accidents from this cause will be 
 much reduced by the system of shot firing now in vogue. 
 
 Gas and dust explosions, which caused eleven per cent of 
 all coal mine fatalities in the United States during the year 
 1906, were responsible for less than eight per cent of those 
 in Iowa for the nineteen years, 1888-1906. Of the thirty-seven 
 deaths from this cause, twenty occurred in the single catas- 
 trophe of Lost Creek. 
 
 More than one-sixth of the fatalities and a still greater 
 proportion of non-fatal injuries in the coal mines of this State 
 are due to accidents at the hoisting shaft and in the handling 
 of mine ears. It is not too much to say that most of these 
 accidents might be prevented by more stringent laws, more 
 aggressive enforcement of safeguards by the State Inspect- 
 ors, and better discipline at the mines. 
 
 laws to pbetent the exploitation of minees 
 miners' lien 
 
 From 1838 to 1850 any person employed to work on min- 
 eral ground had a lien for the value of his labor against any 
 mineral found on the lot where he was employed.^*^ This 
 law was intended to and did apply principally to lead mines. 
 Coal miners did not receive like protection until 1890 when it 
 was enacted that ' ' Every laborer or miner who shall perform 
 labor in opening and developing any coal mine, including sink- 
 ing shafts, constructing slopes, or drifts, mining coal and the 
 like, shall have a lien upon all the property of the person, firm 
 or corporation, owning, constructing or operating such mine, 
 used in the construction or operation thereof, including real 
 estate, buildings, engines, cars, mules, scales and all other 
 personal property, for the value of such labor .... upon 
 the same terms with the same rights and to be secured and 
 enforced as mechanics' liens are secured and enforced".^** 
 
 SCALE LAWS 
 
 Coal mining is usually paid for by weight. Inasmuch as 
 the operator furnishes the scales, employs the weigh-master. 
 
64 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 and keeps the accounts, he has an opportunity, if he is un- 
 checked, to systematically defraud his employees of a part of 
 their wages. The weigh-master has a similar chance to favor 
 one miner at the expense of another. Even without inten- 
 tional wrong the scales may be allowed to get out of order 
 or may be incorrect. Such abuses did prevail, sometimes to a 
 serious extent, in the earlier history of coal mining in lowa.^*^ 
 Three preventives have been applied by statute; the check-- 
 weighman, the sworn weigh-master, and the public inspection 
 of mine scales. 
 
 The right of miners to apjooint a check-weighman who is 
 paid by themselves, and who has power to examine all scales 
 and apparatus used for weighing coal and to see each miner's 
 coal weighed and recorded was first secured by the mines and 
 mining act of 1880.^'**^ Check-weighmen are now regularly 
 employed at all shipping mines. An act "Providing for the 
 Weighing of Coal at Mines", passed in 1888, retains the 
 earlier provision for check-weighmeu, and further requires 
 the weigh-master to be duly sworn "to keep the scales cor- 
 rectly balanced, to accurately weigh, and to record a correct 
 account of the amount weighed of each miner's car of coal". 
 The check weigh-man must likewise make and subscribe on 
 oath, "that he is duly qualified and will faithfully discharge 
 the duties of check-weighman". The oaths of both weigh- 
 master and check-weighman must be conspicuously posted 
 at the place of weighing.^*"^ 
 
 The same act provides that the operator of each coal mine, 
 at which the miners are paid by weight, shall provide "suit- 
 able scales of standard make for the weighing of all coal 
 mined". A separate act of the same year pro^ddes that it 
 shall be the duty of the Mine Inspectors "to examine, test and 
 adjust as often as occasion demands all scales, beams and 
 other apparatus used in weighing coal at the mines ' '.^'^^ The 
 Inspectors usually test scales only when they are requested 
 to do so ; and about one-third of the scales tested are found 
 defective. 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 65 
 
 THE SCREEN LAW 
 
 Soft coal before being loaded for shipment is commonly 
 passed over a screen or series of screens by which it is divided 
 into several grades according to size, as lump, nut, pea, and 
 slack. These grades are all marketable, but the miners usu- 
 ally receive pay only for the lump coal. Since the miners 
 have to blast and load all the coal irrespective of size, they 
 insist that they should be paid for all of it "mine run" — that 
 is, just as it comes from the mine. On the other hand, the 
 operators contend that if the miners' coal were weighed be- 
 fore being screened, the men would be careless about breaking 
 up the large lumps and would load an abnormal percentage 
 of waste and slack. They also assert that the ''screenings" 
 are allowed for in computing the rate for lump coal and the 
 scale would have to be reduced if the mine run basis of pay- 
 ment were adopted. Such is the screen question which has 
 been the source of endless controversy in Iowa and has given 
 rise to some of the most prolonged and expensive strikes in 
 the history of the State.^^s 
 
 The only attempt to deal with the screen question by stat- 
 utory regulation is contained in an act of 1888 which provides 
 ''That all coal mined in this State under contract for payment 
 by the ton or other quantity shall be weighed before being 
 screened unless otherwise agreed upon in writing,^^^ and the 
 full weight thereof shall be credited to the miner of such coal ; 
 and eighty pounds of coal as mined shall constitute a bushel, 
 and two thousand pounds of coal as mined shall constitute a 
 ton. Provided that nothing in this act shall be so construed 
 as to compel payment for sulphur rock slate black jack or 
 other impurities including slack^^^ and dirt which may be 
 loaded with or amongst such coal". When damages are sus- 
 tained by reason of failure to weigh and credit any coal mined 
 to the proper person, they may be recovered at any time with- 
 in two years, and the fact that the miner has knowledge of the 
 violation of the law at the time does not constitute a bar to 
 recovery.2^2 
 
66 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 The saving clause, unless otherwise agreed upon, was in- 
 serted by the Senate Committee on Mines and Mining.^^^ The 
 amendment was intended to and did render the law inoper- 
 ative. The abstract right to enter into agreements for mine 
 run payment already belonged to the miners; the law secured 
 them nothing more. Had they been able to enforce their de- 
 mands by contract they would have needed no law. 
 
 The effect of the Senate amendment was fully appreciated 
 in both branches of the General Assembly. Nevertheless, it 
 was finally accepted by a majority of the advocates of the 
 original House bill. The miners' representatives had in fact 
 agreed to make concessions upon this bill in order to secure 
 favorable action upon others then pending. Moreover, it was 
 hoped by friends of the measure that a screen law being once 
 placed upon the statute books, the obnoxious proviso might 
 be removed at a later session.^^* This hope has not been 
 realized, for the law stands to-day as it was enacted in 1888.^^^ 
 Nor have the mine workers ever been able to secure a mine 
 run basis from the operators. 
 
 Except for the abortive mine run law, there is no legal 
 regulation of coal screening in this State. Both the size of 
 screen and the opening between the bars have furnished fre- 
 quent occasions of dispute. Formerly no uniform practice 
 prevailed. The screens at some of the mines were compared 
 to cattle guards on the railways ; everything, it was said, went 
 through them except the largest lump coal.^^^ Variations 
 still exist in the ditferent districts of the State, but the size 
 and character of the screens are now regulated by the joint 
 agxeement of miners and operators. 
 
 THE TRUCK LAW 
 
 Most coal mines are located at a distance from centers of 
 population, so that camps must be formed in their vicinity 
 for the accommodation of employees. Moreover, since, in 
 Iowa at least, a mine is worked out in a few years' time, 
 a camp is a rather temporary affair. Under such circum- 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 67 
 
 stances independeut capital is loathe to invest and the con- 
 struction of a camp is left wholly to the mining corporation. 
 The mine operator buys or leases an extensive tract of ground 
 and erects offices, dwellings, and other needful buildings, in- 
 cluding a general store. The store very frequently is con- 
 ducted under a different firm name, but almost always is 
 controlled by the operating company itself; and it handles 
 everything (except alcoholic drinks) used by miners and their 
 families. 
 
 The maintenance of "company houses" and a "company 
 store" may be a necessity, as is claimed; it certainly is good 
 business policy for the operator. A considerable share of the 
 wages-bill is deducted for house-rent ; the greater part of the 
 rest comes back through the store, with a handsome profit on 
 the turn. It is the chance of increasing these profits that 
 tempts the operator to abuse his power. Through his control 
 of the adjacent land he may effectually exclude competition; 
 and through fear of discharge he may coerce his employees 
 to trade at the company store, charging them exorbitant prices 
 for everything they buy. 
 
 There seems to be no doubt that in the eighties this form 
 of oppression attained serious proportions. Employees were 
 required to live in company houses and trade at the company 
 store. If they declined, their services were dispensed with. 
 Miners were even compelled to purchase a certain quantity of 
 powder, oil, and other supplies on which the profits were un- 
 usually high, whether they needed them or not. At some of 
 the mines wages were paid in scrip or "store checks" redeem- 
 able only in merchandise. ^^"^ 
 
 After the failure of earlier attempts,^^^ the Knights of 
 Labor and the Amalgamated Association of Miners finally 
 secured the enactment of a truck law in 1888 — the same year 
 that the scale and screen laws were placed upon the statute 
 books. This act subjects to heavy penalties any person, firm, 
 company, or corporation, owning or operating a coal mine 
 where ten or more persons are employed which shall sell, give, 
 
68 fflSTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 deliver, or in any manner issue, directly or indirectly, in pay- 
 ment for wages due for labor, or as advances on the wages 
 of labor not due, any script, check, draft, order or evidence 
 of indebtedness, payable or redeemable otherwise than at their 
 face value in money. To compel, or seek to compel or coerce 
 an employee of any person, firm, company, or corporation to 
 purchase goods or supplies from any particular person, firm, 
 company, or corporation, was made a misdemeanor punish- 
 able by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprison- 
 ment not exceeding sixty days.^^^ 
 
 The truck act, like the screen law passed at the same ses- 
 sion of the legislature, was the result of compromise. In 
 explaining his vote the author of the House bill said that ' ' It 
 was hoped by the friends of this measure that a law could 
 be passed protecting the interests of the wage workers of the 
 State, regardless of the labor in which they are engaged, but 
 such seems to be impossible at this time; but as this will 
 apply to more than 12,000 laborers in Iowa, and is a step in 
 the right direction, and as I believe, will lead in the near 
 future to the adoption of a law similar to the one proposed 
 in the original bill, I vote aye".^^° The expectation of early 
 amendment, as in the case of the screen law, was not fulfilled. 
 Both acts remain unaltered at the present day.^^^ 
 
 The truck law of 1888 and the growth of a powerful labor 
 union (the United Mine Workers) have done away with the 
 worst abuses of former times. Payment in script has long 
 sinc^ been abandoned. Coercion of employees is nowhere 
 openly attempted. Prices for most staple articles at the com- 
 pany stores are not now higher than credit prices elsewhere.^^^ 
 
 Even at the present day, however, truck has not wholly 
 disappeared from the mining industry in Iowa. A miner who 
 does not spend a part of his wages at the company store, or 
 who persists in renting non-company houses, still is likely to 
 be discriminated against by the operator. And the operator 
 has many ways of making his displeasure felt without resort- 
 ing to open coercion. Thus the coal companies are still able 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 69 
 
 to make two profits — one from the public and one from their 
 employees. 
 
 The housing system, especially, is too often made a means 
 of extortion. At many of the camps, to be sure, the men are 
 encouraged to own their homes. In the larger mining towns 
 one may see rows of comfortable miners' houses, many of 
 them mortgage-free. But such thrift is rather the exception 
 than the rule among coal miners. The immense majority are 
 tenants, and most of them live in company houses. Grenerally, 
 indeed, there are no other dwellings to be had within practic- 
 able distance of the mines. The company houses are flimsy, 
 comfortless structures, frankly ugly, unprovided with con- 
 veniences of any sort, and built in sections, so that they can 
 be loaded on flat cars for shipment from one camp to another. 
 Such a house, costing but a few hundred dollars to erect and 
 occupying a small plot of cheap land, rents at the rate of 
 one dollar per month for each room. 
 
 SEMI-M0NTHI;Y PAYMENT 
 
 The truck law of 1888 as it passed the House contained 
 a section which required that every person, firm, or corpora- 
 tion engaged in mining coal should pay all wage workers twice 
 in each month.^^^ This provision was struck out, however, by 
 the Senate.264 
 
 It was the practice of mine operators at that time to pay 
 their employees' wages about the fifteenth or twentieth day 
 of the month following that in which they were earned. Some 
 twenty days' wages were thus withheld from all the men while 
 a new employee might have to work six or eight weeks before 
 drawing his first pay. The miners were compelled by this 
 system to rely on credit at the company store for the neces- 
 sities of life between paydays, paying the higher prices which 
 credit always involves. The demand for weekly or fort- 
 nightly payment was, therefore, a demand for a measure of 
 economic independence. With the cash in his pocket the miner 
 could buy where he pleased.^^^ 
 
70 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 All demands for legislation governing the frequency of 
 payment were successfully opjDosed by the mine owning inter- 
 ests until 1894. The principal section of the act then passed 
 reads as follows: 
 
 ''That any person, firm or corporation operating any coal 
 mine in Iowa in which more than two men are employed shall, 
 upon demmid pay their employees in lawful money of the 
 United States, the first and third Saturdays of each month 
 the full amount of wages earned by them and remaining un- 
 paid for the term of two weeks next jDreceding the week in 
 which payments are made, and in no case shall any person, 
 firm or corporation operating coal mines in this State with- 
 hold from their employees more than the amount of three 
 weeks' earnings at any one time."^^'^ 
 
 An employee whose wages are wrongfully withheld for five 
 days after demand therefor in writing may recover the full 
 amount due him at the time of making his demand, with a 
 penalty of one dollar for each succeeding day, not however 
 exceeding double the amount of wages due, and a reasonable 
 attorney's fee. 
 
 In 1900 it was enacted that mine employees ' wages earned 
 during the first fifteen days of each month shall be paid not 
 later than the first Saturday after the twentieth of the same 
 month, and those earned after the fifteenth of each month, 
 not later than the first Saturday after the fifth of the succeed- 
 ing month.^^^ 
 
 The law of 1894 was denounced as class legislation, as 
 violating the freedom of contract, and as clearly unconstitu- 
 tional.^^^. In regard to the first contention, a bi-weekly, or 
 preferably a weekly, payment law is desirable for all classes 
 of manual labor. But the evil of deferred payment was more 
 flagrant in the coal mining industry than in any other in the 
 State. A reform may well begin where the abuse is worst. 
 
 The plea for freedom of contract is here, as in all labor 
 disputes, purely specious. It is ever made, not by persons 
 concerned for the welfare of the working classes, but by the 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 71 
 
 defenders of private interests. Laborers do not particularly 
 value the right not to receive their wages in money, the right 
 to be discharged at will, the right to assume extraordinary 
 risks without compensation, and similar rights so loudly de- 
 fended by lawyers and so solemnly asserted by courts. Be- 
 tween economic unequals liberty of contract means only liberty 
 of the strong to oppress the weak. A large part of labor 
 legislation — child labor laws, factory laws, truck laws, wage 
 assignment laws — restricts the theoretic freedom of individ- 
 ual contract ; but in so doing it promotes real liberty of action. 
 The writer has not been able to find any case in which the 
 constitutionality of the bi-weekly wage law was called in ques- 
 tion. But the law has stood unchallenged for fourteen years, 
 and judgments awarded in accordance with its terms have 
 been affirmed by the Supreme Court.^^*^ 
 
 GYPSUM MINES^'^^ 
 
 Although the existence of the Fort Dodge gypsum beds 
 has been known for more than half a century^'^^ and although 
 plaster mills were erected in that vicinity as early as 1872,^'^^ 
 the working of the deposits on a large scale is of recent devel- 
 opment. So late as 1889 the product of crude gypsum in 
 Iowa amounted to but twenty-one thousand short tons.^"^* In 
 1906 the output was two hundred and eighty-six thousand tons 
 and the gypsum products of the State were valued at nearly 
 six hundred thousand dollars.-'^^ 
 
 The Fort Dodge gypsum deposits occur in beds of ten to 
 twenty-five feet in thickness directly underlying the glacial 
 drift, which here ranges in depth from one to one hundred 
 feet.^'^^ In the earlier days of the plaster industry in this 
 region, the gypsum was obtained by first stripping oif the 
 drift at points where this deposit was thinnest and then quar- 
 rying the rock like ordinary building stone.^*^"^ In 1895 the 
 first plaster mill was built on the open prairie, where, owing 
 to the great thickness of the drift, a vertical shaft was sunk 
 to reach the gypsum.^'^^ The new method proved so success- 
 
72 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 fill that it was quickly adopted by other establishments, and 
 the quarries were soon superseded by mines. 
 
 The greater part of the gypsum output in the Fort Dodge 
 district is now mined by means of shafts or slopes. The mines 
 are worked by a combination of the room and pillar with the 
 retreating system^''^ and the rock is obtained by blasting in 
 much the same manner as solid shooting coal.^^*^ Gypsum 
 mining thus presents many of the same problems as coal min- 
 ing in the Iowa field. These problems so far as they affect 
 the health and safety of operatives are: ventilation, security 
 of entrances and working places, safe-guards at the hoisting 
 shaft, and provision for escape when for any reason the hoist- 
 ing shaft becomes unavailable. 
 
 In regard to the amount of ventilation needed, the gypsum 
 mines are free from gob fires and from the possibility of 
 dust explosions. On the other hand, the practice of blasting 
 throughout the working day, which has been for some time 
 discontinued in the coal mines of this State, is still in vogue 
 at the gypsum workings. The latter, consequently, are seldom 
 free from powder smoke or the still more poisonous fumes of 
 high explosives. ^^^ Other sources of contamination, such as 
 pit lamps and the respiration and excreta of men and animals, 
 are of course present in gypsum mines as in all underground 
 workings. It may be remarked in passing that all the Fort 
 Dodge mines are ventilated by fans and that the methods of 
 distributing the air current are the same as in the coal mines 
 of the State. 
 
 The entries in the Fort Dodge mines are quite high, com- 
 monly as much as nine or ten feet. The danger to drivers 
 from overhead obstructions is, accordingly, much less than 
 in most coal mines of the Iowa field. The roof, too, barring 
 fissures, is generally good, though accidents from falling rock 
 are by no means uncommon. Considerable trouble is occa- 
 sioned by percolating water, owing to numerous vertical 
 fissures in the gypsum beds. On the whole, however, there 
 seems to be little ground of complaint as to the safety of 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 73 
 
 rooms and entries at the gypsum mines, so far as this depends 
 upon the mine operators. 
 
 The methods of raising and lowering men and materials 
 at the gypsum mines do not differ in any important respect 
 from those in use at coal mines, except that the former mines 
 are much shallower. The necessity of safe-guarding the hoist- 
 ing apparatus is the same in both cases. A second outlet is, if 
 anything, even more necessary at a gypsum mine, because of 
 the extensive plaster mills, composed of inflammable ma- 
 terials, which are erected in close proximity to the main shaft. 
 
 Inasmuch as the Iowa mine law is so framed as to apply 
 only to coal mines, the gypsum industry was allowed to grow 
 up without State supervision. As the mining operations be- 
 came more extensive and the number of underground em- 
 ployees mounted into hundreds, some of the characteristic 
 evils of an unregulated mining industry made their appear- 
 ance. 
 
 Accordingly, when a few years ago a gypsum workers' 
 union was organized in this State an earnest effort was made 
 to have the provisions of the mine law and the jurisdiction 
 of the State Mine Inspector extended over the gypsum mines. 
 A bill for this purpose was presented to the General Assem- 
 bly of 1904,2^2 and, backed by the State Federation of Labor, 
 passed the Senate without opposition.^^^ But in the House 
 the mine operators, with the aid of Representative Wright 
 of Webster County (the home of gypsum mining) succeeded 
 in defeating the bill.^^'^ Later in the same session a concur- 
 rent resolution was passed, providing for an investigation by 
 the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the 
 Mine Inspector of the Third District, and a report to the 
 Governor upon the conditions found.^^^ Three inspections of 
 the gypsum mines were made under the authority of this reso- 
 lution ; the first in September, 1904, and the last in June, 1905. 
 At their first visit the Inspectors found some of the mines 
 deficient in ventilation and others without escape shafts. At 
 the largest mine in the district the escape shaft was provided 
 
74 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 only with ladders, instead of a suitable stairway. These de- 
 fects were largely remedied before the last inspection. It is 
 said, also, that considerable improvement had been made in 
 anticipation of the investigation.^^^ At all events, the final 
 report was highly favorable to the gypsum operators.^^"^ 
 There was no further attempt to secure legislation until 1907. 
 By that time the g}T)sum workers had abandoned their organ- 
 ization and the bill died in committee for want of adequate 
 support.^^^ 
 
 Two objections are urged against the proposed inclusion 
 of gypsum mines under the mine law: that State provision 
 of this industry is unnecessary ; and that it would be imprac- 
 ticable in any case to apply the same regulations to gypsum 
 as to coal mining. 
 
 As to the second of these contentions, it is hard to see 
 wherein the extension of the mine law to their industry would 
 work a hardship upon the gypsum operators. The statutory 
 provisions relating to ventilation, to safe-guards at the hoist- 
 ing shaft and on hoisting apparatus, to escape shafts and 
 escape ways, to the care of rooms and entrances, to the trans- 
 portation and storage of exi3losives would appear equally ap- 
 plicable to all mines worked on the same general principles, 
 whether their product is coal, or shale, or gypsum. Compe- 
 tent foremen and engineers are as necessary in the one kind 
 of mine as in the other, though there may be merit in the 
 suggestion that the gypsum industry should be represented on 
 the examining board and that a special examination should 
 be set for those seeking certificates as foremen of gypsum 
 mines. The screen law would, of course, have no application 
 to gypsum or shale mines, and the truck and wage laws are 
 not at present needed. But these laws affect only the trans- 
 gressor: they could do no harm in any case. The scale law 
 might be beneficial at those works where the miners are paid 
 by the ton. 
 
 The plea of non-necessity is not very convincing. It may 
 be true that the gypsum mines are at the present time in a 
 
MINE LABOR LEGISLATION 75 
 
 fairly safe and sanitary condition. But the purpose of inspec- 
 tion laws is preventive rather than corrective. Already there 
 are numerous complaints of defective brattices and stoppings, 
 of choked airways, and of sluggish circulation. There is little 
 reason to doubt that regular inspection would improve these 
 conditions and prevent the growth of more serious evils. 
 
 The gypsum mines are few in number and near together. 
 Their inspection would, therefore, be a comparatively easy 
 task, and would entail very little expense to the State. Under 
 all the circumstances it seems anomalous to require at least 
 semi-annual inspection of every coal mine having a daily out- 
 put of fifty tons or more and to leave without any supervision 
 these almost equally dangerous mines which range in individ- 
 ual capacity from one hundred to five hundred tons per day. 
 
RAILWAY LABOR LEGISLATION 
 
 The chief interest in Iowa railway labor legislation attaches 
 to efforts to lessen the fearful loss of life and limb attendant 
 upon the operation of railroads. Though railway building in 
 Iowa began in the fifties no record of accidents was kept until 
 1878, when the State Board of Railroad Commissioners was 
 established.^^^ During the twenty-nine years beginning with 
 that year and ending June 30, 1906, the railway companies 
 reported 1,928 employees killed and 15,918 injured within the 
 limits of the State.^^^ Unfortunately the Commissioners ' sta- 
 tistical reports since 1892 do not admit of analysis,^^^ but for 
 the earlier half of the period the principal causes of death and 
 injury were as shown in the following table: 
 
 TABLE I — ACCIDENTS TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES IN IOWA, 1878-1893^^^ 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O ^ 
 
 QQ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ b* _ 
 
 
 g 
 
 1 
 
 ^ - 
 
 < 
 
 CEN 
 IDEN 
 YEES 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 p 
 
 D 
 
 9 o 
 
 CP 
 
 ij 
 
 1-3 
 
 02 
 
 05 O ^q 
 
 o 
 
 ►H 
 
 !5 
 
 < 
 
 H <) Sh 
 
 ■< 
 
 M 
 
 
 o 
 
 fc 
 
 Coupling and uncoupling cars 213 
 
 2144 
 
 2357 
 
 34.2 
 
 Falling from trains 
 
 306 
 
 614 
 
 920 
 
 13.3 
 
 Getting on and off trains 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 niotion293 
 
 62 
 
 365 
 
 427 
 
 6.2 
 
 Collisions 
 
 94 
 
 290 
 
 384 
 
 5.5 
 
 Derailments 
 
 63 
 
 231 
 
 294 
 
 4.3 
 
 Overhead obstructions 
 
 26 
 
 73 
 
 99 
 
 1.4 
 
 Being caught in frogs^^* 
 
 41 
 
 32 
 
 73 
 
 1.0 
 
 Other train accidents^^^ 
 
 44 
 
 124 
 
 168 
 
 2.4 
 
 Operation of trains 
 
 849 
 
 3873 
 
 4722 
 
 68.5 
 
 Other causes 
 
 178 
 
 1989 
 
 2167 
 
 31.5 
 
 All causes 
 
 1027 
 
 5862 
 
 6889 
 
 100.0 
 

 RAILWAY LABOR LEGISLATION 77 
 
 The above table is not absolutely trustworthy, since the 
 returns upon which it is based are confused, scattered, and 
 sometimes conflicting. Taking the figures at their face value, 
 however, they show that 68.5 per cent of all accidents to em- 
 ployees (849 deaths and 3,873 injuries) during these fifteen 
 years occurred in the operation of trains. It is evident from 
 this statement that the loss of life and limb fell most heavily 
 upon train crews, who would naturally be the principal suf- 
 ferers from train accidents. This inference is abundantly 
 supported by the record for 1890, 1891 and 1892, the only 
 years for which complete data are available. Analysis of the 
 returns for these years gives the following results: 
 
 Average number of all railway employees in Iowa 27,377 
 
 Average number of railway trainmen ^96 jq Iowa 5,896 
 
 Number of all railway employees killed in Iowa 235 
 
 Number of railway trainmen killed in Iowa 134 
 
 Number of all raihvay employees injured in Iowa 1,767 
 
 Number of railway trainmen injured in Iowa 930 
 
 During these three years then, 21.5 per cent of the railway 
 employees in Iowa suffered 57 per cent of the deaths and 52.6 
 per cent of the injuries sustained by railway employees in 
 the State. Of trainmen, one in every one hundred thirty-two 
 was killed, and one in seventy-seven injured. 
 
 Nothing could more clearly demonstrate than do the unfeel- 
 ing figures just recited that legislation for the protection of 
 railway employees should be primarily directed toward secur- 
 ing greater safety in the operation of trains. Iowa laws 
 looking to this end are those requiring automatic couplers and 
 train brakes, regulating the height of overhead obstructions, 
 limiting the hours of continuous employment for certain 
 classes of railway operatives, and providing for the investi- 
 gation and report of accidents on railways. 
 
 AUTOMATIC COUPLERS 
 
 More than one-third of the accidents to railway employees 
 during the period 1878-1892 (showing a total of 213 deaths 
 
78 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 and 2,144 injuries) were received in coupling and uncoupling 
 cars. These casualties nearly all occurred in the freight serv- 
 ice. They were largely due to the use of link and pin couplers 
 which required men to go between the ends of cars in order to 
 couple or uncouple them. Mangled hands formed the chief 
 item in the list of injuries from tliis cause. A brakeman 
 could seldom work for any length of time without losing one or 
 more fingers. The railway officials insisted that a majority 
 of coupling accidents were due to carelessness on the part of 
 the men injured; but, as a matter of fact, it required a rare 
 union of skill, vigilance, and good fortune to escape death 
 or maiming in handling link and pin couplers. 
 
 With the old type of coupler in use more than thirteen 
 thousand persons were killed or injured in the United States 
 during the seven years 1878-1884 from coupling cars alone.^^"^ 
 This fearful toll of human life and limb early directed invent- 
 ive genius to the problem of a safety coupler. Some thirty- 
 five hundred coupling devices were patented before 1885, and 
 twelve of this number were approved by the National Master 
 Car Builder's Association after an extended series of experi- 
 ments at Buffalo in September, 1884.^^^ It was necessary, 
 however, for some standard type of coupler to be selected for 
 adoption, since cars belonging to all the leading roads became 
 scattered over each other's lines in the course of traffic. After 
 several years of discussion and experiment the Janey-coupler 
 was finally agreed upon by the Master Car Builder's Asso- 
 ciation in 1887, and their choice was ratified by the principal 
 railway s.^^^ 
 
 But the action of master car builders and railway officials 
 did not end the matter; there still remained the task of per- 
 suading directors to incur the heavy initial expenditure neces- 
 sary to provide the new equipment. The directors, more con- 
 cerned about the size of dividends than the saving of human 
 life, procrastinated. So the killing and maiming of men went 
 on undiminished for years after a perfectly practical remedy 
 was known to exist. It was the pressure of public authority. 
 
RAILWAY LABOR LEGISLATION 79 
 
 and not the voluntary action of railway companies, which 
 finally brought about the adoption of safety couplers.^^*^ 
 
 Legislation requiring automatic couplers to be placed upon 
 all new or repaired cars was enacted by Massachusetts as early 
 as 1884. Her example was speedily followed by New York, 
 Michigan, and other States. Similar legislation was repeat- 
 edly recommended by Railway Commissioner Coffin of the 
 Iowa Board,^^^ and bills for this purpose were introduced at 
 successive sessions of the General Assembly of lowa,^^^ but 
 none became law until 1890. 
 
 The automatic-coupler and power-brake law of 1890 was 
 drawn by Mr. L. S. Coffin of Fort Dodge, who for years as a 
 member of the Iowa Board of Railroad Commissioners had 
 been agitating for the adoption of safety apioliances on rail- 
 ways. The bill was warmly supported by the Knights of 
 Labor and by railway trainmen; it was accepted as inevitable 
 by some of the leading railroads of the State and though op- 
 posed by others passed with but seven dissenting votes in the 
 House and without dissent in the Senate.^^^ It is worthy of 
 note that the Iowa law became one of the models for the act 
 of Congress three years afterward, and that Mr. Coffin was 
 very active in securing the passage of the latter. 
 
 The Iowa statute makes it unlawful *'to put in use in this 
 State any new cars or any cars that have been sent in to the 
 shop or shops for general repairs, or whose draft rigging has 
 to be repaired with a new draw-bar or bars, that are not 
 equipped with safety or automatic couplers, such as will not 
 necessitate the going between the ends of the cars to couple 
 or uncouple them, but operated from the side of the car". 
 From and after the first day of January, 1895, all cars used 
 in the transportation of freight or passengers upon any rail- 
 road in Iowa must be so equipped. A fine of not less than 
 five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars is pre- 
 scribed for each violation ; but the law does not apply to cars 
 belonging to railroads other than those of Iowa and employed 
 in interstate commerce.^^* 
 
80 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 The average life of an old-style draw-bar was estimated 
 at three and one-half years.^*^^ It was expected, therefore, that 
 automatic couplers would have completely replaced the link 
 and pin before the expiration of the time limit fixed by the 
 law. This expectation was not realized, for the legislature, in 
 1892, postponed until January 1, 1898, the date when all cars 
 must be equipped with automatic couplers, and authorized 
 the State Board of Kailroad Commissioners to grant further 
 extensions up to the first day of January, 1900. After that 
 date railroad companies must refuse to accept from connect- 
 ing lines cars to be used within the limits of Iowa unless fully 
 equipped as required by law.^^° 
 
 The accompanying table (Table II below) shows the extent 
 of compliance with the law relating to automatic couplers, and 
 suggests the effect of these appliances in saving life and 
 limb.^^^ The process of equipping freight cars with automatic 
 couplers began about 1889 and was practically completed by 
 1900. There are, then, three periods in Iowa railway history 
 as regards the type of couplers used: (1) the link and pin 
 era, before 1890; (2) the transition period from 1890 to 1900; 
 and (3) the period of the all but universal use of automatic 
 couplers beginning with 1901. During the twelve years of the 
 first period ending with 1889, one hundred seventy-two men 
 were killed and above fifteen hundred injured in coupling and 
 uncoupling cars, a yearly average of fourteen deaths and one 
 hundred twenty-six injuries. In the six years 1901-1906, when 
 almost ninety-nine per cent of all cars were equipped with 
 automatic couplers, the annual number of casualties in cou- 
 pling and uncoupling was less than half as great, though there 
 were nearly twice as many employees and more than three 
 times as many cars as in the earlier period. Coupling acci- 
 dents which caused more than one-third of all casualties to 
 railroad men before 1890, have produced but one-nineteenth 
 of the total since 1901. A comparison of the earlier and later 
 years of the transition period (1890-1900) exliibits the same 
 tendency, the number and proportion of coupling accidents 
 
RAILWAY LABOR LEGISLATION 81 
 
 diminishing as the percentage of automatic couplers increases. 
 
 TABLE II ACCIDENTS IN COUPLING AND UNCOUPLING CAES, 1878- 
 
 1906 ^«« 
 
 i» 
 
 1^ 
 
 NUMBER OF CARS 
 EQUIPPED A7ITH AU- 
 TOMATIC COUPLERS 
 
 PER CENT OF CARS 
 EQUIPPED WITH AU- 
 TOMATIC COUPLERS 
 
 NUMBER KILLED COU- 
 PLING AND UNCOU- 
 PLING CARS 
 
 NUMBER INJURED 
 COUPLING AND UN- 
 COUPLING CARS 
 
 PER CENT OF ALL AC- 
 CIDENTS TO RAIL- 
 WAY EMPLOYEES 
 DUE TO COUPLING & 
 UNCOUPLING CARS 
 
 1878 
 
 29,057 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 70 
 
 43.5 
 
 1879 
 
 31,584 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 55 
 
 45.1 
 
 1880 
 
 54,451 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 87 
 
 56.2 
 
 1881 
 
 67,510 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 64 
 
 38.8 
 
 1882 
 
 85,206 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 182 
 
 34:5 
 
 1883 
 
 98,106 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 98 
 
 33.8 
 
 1884 
 
 103,337 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 109 
 
 28.2 
 
 1885 
 
 102,835 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 174 
 
 23.6 
 
 1886 
 
 106,178 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 126 
 
 34.3 
 
 1887 
 
 91,097 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 134 
 
 34.6 
 
 1888 
 
 113,975 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 240 
 
 45.8 
 
 1889 
 
 120,757 
 
 4,210 
 
 3.48 
 
 13 
 
 164 
 
 28.7 
 
 1890 
 
 127,464 
 
 9,194 
 
 7.23 
 
 14 
 
 203 
 
 33.3 
 
 1891 
 
 130,103 
 
 18,178 
 
 13.98 
 
 13 
 
 242 
 
 37.3 
 
 1892 
 
 149,731 
 
 34,315 
 
 22.92 
 
 14 
 
 196 
 
 31.4 
 
 1893 
 
 142,730 
 
 49,871 
 
 34.95 
 
 10 
 
 196 
 
 27.2 
 
 1894 
 
 127,171 
 
 46,558 
 
 36 .66 
 
 7 
 
 91 
 
 23.61 
 
 1895 
 
 158,721 
 
 58,862 
 
 37.02 
 
 5 
 
 80 
 
 22.54 
 
 1896 
 
 182,529 
 
 70,718 
 
 38 .74 
 
 6 
 
 97 
 
 23.02 
 
 1897 
 
 171,909 
 
 101,851 
 
 59.25 
 
 7 
 
 80 
 
 26.28 
 
 1898 
 
 176,035 
 
 142,638 
 
 81.04 
 
 4 
 
 75 
 
 22.89 
 
 1899 
 
 190,730 
 
 180,505 
 
 94.65 
 
 12 
 
 72 
 
 20.49 
 
 1900 
 
 200,814 
 
 188,656 
 
 93 .95 
 
 8 
 
 59 
 
 12.92 
 
 1901 
 
 211,883 
 
 250,464 
 
 99.32 
 
 6 
 
 52 
 
 8.27 
 
 1902 
 
 237,289 
 
 236,276 
 
 99.4 
 
 4 
 
 49 
 
 5.78 
 
 1903 
 
 267,127 
 
 264,587 
 
 99.09 
 
 11 
 
 83 
 
 8.54 
 
 1904 
 
 284,748 
 
 280,559 
 
 98 .54 
 
 10 
 
 75 
 
 6.49 
 
 1905 
 
 288,133 
 
 282,717 
 
 98.18 
 
 5 
 
 45 
 
 3.45 
 
 1906 
 
 297,925 
 
 294,344 
 
 98.47 
 
 5 
 
 57 
 
 3.76 
 

 313 
 
 3253 
 
 20. 
 
 .41 
 
 14.3 
 
 125 :6 
 
 34.3 
 
 51.27 
 
 9.1 
 
 126 
 
 26.6 
 
 98.86 
 
 6.8 
 
 60 
 
 5.4 
 
 82 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Aggregate, 1878-1906 
 
 TEAKLY AVERAGE 
 
 1878-1889 83,674 351 
 
 YEARLY AVERAGE 
 
 1890-1900 159,812 81,940 
 
 YEARLY AVERAGE 
 
 1901-1906 264,517 261,491 
 
 An incidental effect of the adoption of automatic couplers 
 has been a marked reduction in the number of accidents from 
 being caught in frogs. During the eleven years ending with 
 1888, forty-one men were killed and thirty-two injured in this 
 manner; in the six years, 1901-1906, there were seven deaths 
 and thirteen injuries from the same cause.^^^ The annual 
 number of accidents from being caught in frogs was 6.6 in 
 the earlier period, and 3.3 in the later. The difference is 
 principally due to the fact that men are no longer compelled 
 as formerly to step between the rails in coupling and uncou- 
 pling cars. In part, perhaps it may be explained by the par- 
 tial blocking of frogs upon some railways. 
 
 POWER BRAKES 
 
 In records of accidents to railway employees the item 
 *' falling from trains and engines in motion" occupies a place 
 only second to that of "coupling and uncoupling cars". In 
 fatality, indeed, "falling from trains" distances all rivals, 
 having occasioned twenty -nine per cent of all deaths suffered 
 by railway employees in Iowa since 1878. As shown by Table 
 II there were upon the railroads of this State 554 deaths and 
 1,731 injuries from this single cause during the period 1878- 
 1906. A very large number of these casualties were directly 
 traceable to the hand-brake in the use of which brakemen 
 were compelled to pass from one end to the other of a long 
 freight train over the uneven, slippery decks of lurching cars 
 in all sorts of weather and at all hours of the day and night. 
 It would tax the resources of a trained acrobat to maintain 
 his footing under such circumstances. But the brakeman was 
 not required merely to keep on his legs: he must promptly 
 
RAILWAY LABOR LEGISLATION 83 
 
 set or release the brakes, meantime keeping a sharp lookout 
 for overhead bridges. Little wonder that, with the link and 
 pin coupler and hand-brake, his occupation should be spoken 
 of as equaling in peril that of a soldier in time of war.^^^ 
 
 The hand-brake was not only a source of peril to brake- 
 men; it was inadequate to the control of heavy freight trains. 
 Derailments occurred through inability properly to reduce 
 speed in passing switches. A long freight train sometimes 
 parted on a heavy grade and the wild cars left the track or 
 collided with a following train. These evils were early recog- 
 nized, and the remedy sought in "power brakes" operated 
 from the engine-cab. The use of air-brakes on passenger cars 
 began in the seventies,^^- and many experiments in their appli- 
 cation to freight trains were made during the course of the 
 following decade.^^^ But, as in the case of automatic couplers, 
 railways were slow to adopt the new brake even when its 
 practicability had been clearly demonstrated. 
 
 As early as 1885, Commissioner Coffin had said that "there 
 is really no more necessity for continuing the present prac- 
 tice of using hand-brakes on top of freight cars, than there is 
 for putting men on the tops of passenger trains. The fact 
 that trains of cars are run with almost perfect safety to 
 trainmen, because of the use of air and other automatic brakes, 
 and this other fact that with the use of the common hand- 
 brake there is every year a fearful loss of life as well as of 
 property, and a great amount of suffering — these facts, we 
 repeat, are sufficient to warrant legislation that will require 
 railway companies to adopt such appliances as will prevent 
 this loss of life and property. "^^* 
 
 Without such legislation only three per cent of the cars in 
 use as late as 1889 were equipped with train brakes.^^^ The 
 continuing waste of human life and the apparent indifference 
 of railway corporations at last forced the legislature to 
 intervene. 
 
 The Coffin Act of 1890^^^ provided, that after January 1, 
 1892,^^'^ every locomotive used in Iowa must be equipped with 
 
84 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 a ''driver brake" and that after January 1, 1893,^^"^ every 
 train must contain a sufficient number of cars equipped with 
 some kind of automatic or power brake to enable the loco- 
 motive engineer to control the train without requiring the use 
 of the hand-brake. 
 
 The Iowa law of 1890, and still more the Federal law of 
 1893,^^^ greatly accelerated the equipment of freight cars with 
 train brakes, as may be seen from the accompanying table 
 (Table III). But the number of casualties due to falling from 
 trains has not correspondingly diminished. From 1878 to 
 1889, when almost no freight trains were equipped with air 
 brakes, the annual deaths from this cause averaged 19.8, and 
 the injuries, 34.7; from 1901 to 1906, when more than four- 
 fifths of all cars were so equipped, the yearly averages were 
 17.6 and 117.8, respectively. We have, then, a slight falling 
 off in the absolute number of deaths and a great increase in 
 the absolute number of injuries per year. Relatively, the 
 showing is somewhat more favorable. The number of railway 
 employees in the State averaged 22,240 for the period 1878- 
 1889, and 40,267 from 1901 to 1906. Thus the annual rate of 
 fatality per thousand employees was .89 for the earlier period 
 and only .44 for the later. On the other hand, the annual 
 number of injuries per thousand was 2.9 for the years 1901- 
 1906, as against 1.5 for the earlier period. ^^^ 
 
 TABLE III — ACCIDENTS DUE TO FAIxLING FKOM TRAINS, 1878-1906 
 
 J O H ►J ' CQ C! 
 
 ►a w w J d W !z; 
 
 &!=" JO go feo2<jW 
 
 O (y ee JK t^« OE-'Kfe^ 
 
 ZO «Sr« r^gm ^ ^ 2^ 
 
 ao. KzM pjztB atd'^ 
 
 Ow WS^ wSg; gg k^ 
 
 >^ Ah "^ Z ^; CK 
 
 1878 14 11 14.6 
 
 1879 10 12 14 
 
 1880 11 8 10 
 
 1881 20 10 13.4 
 
 1882 1.8 31 57 14.8 
 
RAILWAY LABOR LEGISLATION 85 
 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887 
 1888 
 1889 
 1890 
 1891 
 1892 
 1893 
 1894 
 1895 
 1896 
 1897 
 1898 
 1899 
 1900 
 1901 
 1902 
 1903 
 1904 
 1905 
 1906 
 Aggregate 1878-1906 
 
 Yearly Ave. 1878-1889 1.7 19.8 34.7 13.3 
 
 Yearly Ave. 1890-1900 41.5 19 55.3 14.5 
 
 Yearly Ave. 1901-1906 82.4 17.6 117.8 9.7 
 
 OVERHEAD OBSTRUCTIONS 
 
 During the twenty-nine years ending June 30, 1906, there 
 were reported two hundred and four accidents to trainmen 
 in the State of Iowa from *' overhead obstructions" — that is, 
 bridges, viaducts, and wires too low to be cleared by a man 
 standing on the top of a car. The height of overhead bridges 
 and viaducts is regulated by statute m several States ;^2^ 
 but in Iowa it is left to the discretion of railway officials. 
 
 1.8 
 
 33 
 
 42 
 
 22.8 
 
 1.8 
 
 10 
 
 57 
 
 13.7 
 
 2 
 
 16 
 
 34 
 
 6.3 
 
 2 
 
 25 
 
 38 
 
 16 
 
 2.8 
 
 23 
 
 39 
 
 15 
 
 1.7 
 
 32 
 
 52 
 
 14.8 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 56 
 
 12.6 
 
 8 
 
 17 
 
 53 
 
 10.7 
 
 11 
 
 23 
 
 82 
 
 15 
 
 19.4 
 
 28 
 
 63 
 
 13.6 
 
 27.4 
 
 22 
 
 68 
 
 11.8 
 
 29.7 
 
 17 
 
 32 
 
 11.7 
 
 33.3 
 
 20 
 
 37 
 
 15.1 
 
 47 
 
 19 
 
 35 
 
 12 
 
 52.7 
 
 14 
 
 65 
 
 23.8 
 
 59.8 
 
 18 
 
 50 
 
 19.7 
 
 67 
 
 12 
 
 64 
 
 18.5 
 
 67 
 
 20 
 
 59 
 
 15.2 
 
 75 
 
 21 
 
 100 
 
 17.1 
 
 77.5 
 
 6 
 
 98 
 
 11.3 
 
 81.3 
 
 27 
 
 87 
 
 10.3 
 
 83.2 
 
 20 
 
 147 
 
 11 
 
 85.4 
 
 11 
 
 102 
 
 7.8 
 
 89.9 
 
 21 
 
 173 
 
 11.6 
 
 
 554 
 
 1731 
 
 12.8 
 
86 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 ''Guards" or ''warnings", are, however, usually placed at 
 some distance on each side of dangerously low bridges; and 
 these afford a certain protection to brakemen. 
 
 The great extension of telephone and electric railway lines 
 added a new peril to the brakeman's already hazardous call- 
 ing — namely, the overhead wire. Rural telephone companies, 
 especially, like to string their wires as low as possible, even 
 across a railroad right of way, in order to save the extra 
 cost of long poles/''^^ The extent of this practice led, in 1907, 
 to the passage of an act giving the State Board of Railroad 
 Commissioners general supervision over all wires crossing 
 railroad tracks within the State. The Commissioners are re- 
 quired to prescribe rules and regulations for the stringing of 
 such wires, to examine those already strung, and to fix a 
 minimum height, not less than twenty-two feet above the top 
 of the rails, at which wires may lawfully be placed above 
 railway tracks.^^^ 
 
 In July following the enactment of this law the Railroad 
 Commissioners adopted very full regulations in accordance 
 with its terms. A member of the Board is authority for the 
 statement that complaints on this score have now practically 
 ceased. 
 
 HOURS OF SERVICE IN THE OPERATION OF TRAINS 
 
 Many a railway disaster is directly attributable to the 
 unreasonable hours often exacted from trainmen. Some ideas 
 of the extent to which this evil recently prevailed may be 
 gathered from the subjoined table of hours of service by rail- 
 way trainmen in Iowa, in 1905. 
 
 TABLE IV HOURS OF SERVICE OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN IN IOWA, 
 
 1905 ^^^ 
 
 Number reporting 42 
 
 Roads represented 9 
 
 m 
 
 (6 
 
 
 . i 
 
 
 Z 
 
 % 
 
 g 
 
 H 
 M 
 
 o 
 
 « 
 
 Sz 
 
 < 
 
 "z 
 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 (^ 
 
 P^ 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 i2 
 
 23 
 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
RAILWAY LABOR LEGISLATION 87 
 
 Average number of hours 
 
 per trip 10.56 10.73 11.33 11.51 
 
 Greatest number of hours 
 
 on continuous duty 57 36 40 36 
 
 According to this table the average run for all classes of 
 trainmen exceeded ten hours, while a train crew was occasion- 
 ally kept continually on duty for lengths of time ranging from 
 twenty to fifty-seven hours. Overtime work, indeed, was 
 chronic on certain roads, particularly in the local freight 
 service. It was not merely that unavoidable delays some- 
 times occurred, but it was that the capacity of locomotives, 
 cars, and roadbed was habitually overtaxed and that too few 
 men were employed in proportion to the traffic handled. Not 
 only were train crews kept too long upon the road at one 
 time, but they were liable to be called out again after a few 
 hours' rest from a long and exhausting trip.^^* It needs no 
 argument to show that no locomotive engineer or train con- 
 ductor can properly perform his exacting and responsible 
 duties with safety either to his co-employees or to the travel- 
 ing public without adequate intervals for rest and sleep. 
 
 The evil of excessive hours for railway trainmen is as old 
 as the history of railroading. The attempt to correct it by 
 legislation is much more recent. The Iowa law dates from the 
 year 1907. It forbids any railway company, its officers, or 
 agents to require or permit any employee engaged in or con- 
 nected with the operation of trains, to remain on duty more 
 than sixteen consecutive hours, or to perform any further 
 service after sixteen hours' consecutive duty without having 
 had at least ten hours for rest, or to be on duty more than six- 
 teen hours in any twenty-four. But these provisions do not 
 apply to employees of sleeping-car companies or to trainmen 
 engaged in the protection of life and property in cases of acci- 
 dent; nor do they prevent train crews from talring a passen- 
 ger train or a freight train loaded exclusivel'if^^ with live stock 
 or perishable freight to the nearest division terminus. Nor, 
 finally do the prohibitions apply to the time necessary for 
 
88 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 the trainmen to reach a resting place when delayed by some 
 unavoidable cause. It is made the duty of the State Board of 
 Eailroad Commissioners to prosecute violators of the law, 
 and to investigate all complaints of violation withholding, 
 when so requested, the name of the complainant. In making 
 investigations the Board has power to administer oaths, inter- 
 rogate witnesses, take testimony, and require the production 
 of books and papers.^^® 
 
 The exception of sleeping-car employees and the clause 
 permitting a train crew to take passenger trains or freight 
 trains loaded exclusively with live stock or perishable freight 
 to the division terminus were inserted by the House Com- 
 mittee on Labor.^^"^ The second of these provisions was in- 
 tended to prevent the stranding of passengers, live stock, or 
 perishable freight at out-of-the-way places. An attempt made 
 on the floor of the House to strike the word *' exclusively " 
 from the committee report was defeated ; such a change would 
 have opened the way for many of the old abuses. 
 
 INVESTIGATION OF KAILWAY ACCIDENTS 
 
 The law establishing the State Board of R-ailroad Com- 
 missioners (1878) required the Board, if they should deem it 
 necessary, to investigate any railway accident resulting in 
 personal injury or loss of life and to promptly report to the 
 Governor the extent of the personal injury or loss of life, and 
 whether the same was due to the mismanagement or neglect 
 of the corporation upon whose line the accident occurred. 
 But nothing in the Commissioners' report might be used as 
 evidence or referred to in any case in any court.^^^ This pro- 
 vision was omitted in the Code of 1897, but was re-enacted in 
 1907.^^"^ The Board has made use of its power chiefly in the 
 case of collisions and derailments. The investigation of such 
 "accidents" by a public authority and the resulting fixation 
 of responsibility strongly tends to lessen the frequency of 
 their occurrence. Nor has the Board hesitated to attach 
 blame for inadequate equipment or negligent management 
 where such blame was due. 
 
RAILWAY LABOR LEGISLATION 89 
 
 REPORT OF ACCIDENTS TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES 
 
 Ever since its establishment the Iowa Board has compiled 
 each year a list of accidents to persons upon the railways of 
 the State. Authority to do so is found in a section of the 
 law of 1878 establishing the Board, which requires an annual 
 report to the Governor, ''containing such facts, statements 
 and explanations as will disclose the working of the system 
 of railroad transportation in this state" (Sec. IV). Another 
 section of the same law makes it the duty of the president 
 or managing officer of each railroad corporation doing busi- 
 ness in Iowa, annually to "make to the said commissioners 
 such returns, in the form which they may prescribe, as will 
 afford the information required for their said official report" 
 (Sec. V). 
 
 The Commissioners' annual reports show in tabular form 
 the number of casualties to passengers, employees, and 
 "others", respectively; also, ivithout distinguishing these 
 classes, the number of deaths and injuries due to coupling 
 cars, falling from trains, getting on or off trains in motion, 
 derailments, collisions, and other leading causes. For only 
 four years (1889-1892) are the casualties to employees com- 
 piled. For the earlier years of the Board's existence this in- 
 formation was given in the detailed returns, but this practice 
 was discontinued with the report of 1892, since which date 
 analysis of the Commissioners' tables of accidents is impos- 
 sible. A really analytical table should be easy to construct 
 from the returns in the hands of the Board ; and such a table 
 would be immensely more valuable for any purpose of study 
 or comparison than the present unscientific compilation. 
 
90 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 TABLE V — ACCIDENTS TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES IN IOWA, 1878-1906^^^ 
 
 
 m 
 
 w 
 
 H 
 
 (A 
 
 go 
 
 S P to 
 D ° ?^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 
 T P to 
 
 ti w w 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 S 
 
 S 
 
 ^ 2 « 
 
 " a s' 
 
 
 H 
 
 w 
 
 H A 
 
 M M » 
 
 lUMBER 
 FOR EAC 
 AND EM] 
 
 <! 
 
 i 
 
 
 93^ 
 
 UMBER 
 EACH T 
 EMPLOY 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 \z, 
 
 z 
 
 Z 
 
 Ai 
 
 1878 
 
 13,518 
 
 40331 
 
 137 
 
 2.91 
 
 11.48 
 
 1879 
 
 15,341 
 
 42 
 
 111332 
 
 2.74 
 
 7.25 
 
 1880 
 
 18,985 
 
 45333 
 
 140 
 
 2.37 
 
 7.37 
 
 1881 
 
 21,974 
 
 68334 
 
 148334 
 
 2.09 
 
 6.73 
 
 1882 
 
 17,273 
 
 89 
 
 502 
 
 5.14 
 
 29.17 
 
 1883 
 
 27,112 
 
 82 
 
 255 
 
 3.04 
 
 9.44 
 
 1884 
 
 26,731 
 
 72 
 
 343 
 
 2.7 
 
 12.85 
 
 1885 
 
 25,666 
 
 72 
 
 720 
 
 2.80 
 
 28.02 
 
 1886 
 
 25,761 
 
 61 
 
 336 
 
 2.36 
 
 13.02 
 
 1887 
 
 29,088 
 
 59 
 
 354 
 
 2.04 
 
 12.21 
 
 1888 
 
 20,794 
 
 101 
 
 564 
 
 4.85 
 
 27.11 
 
 1889 
 
 24,642 
 
 61335 
 
 485335 
 
 2.48 
 
 19.62 
 
 1890 
 
 24,351 
 
 73 
 
 579 
 
 3.04 
 
 24.12 
 
 1891 
 
 27,589 
 
 82 
 
 601 
 
 2.97 
 
 21.77 
 
 1892 
 
 30,192 
 
 80 
 
 587336 
 
 2.66 
 
 19.56 
 
 1893 
 
 31,127 
 
 81 
 
 682 
 
 2.61 
 
 22 
 
 1894 
 
 29,308 
 
 48 
 
 367 
 
 1.64 
 
 12.6 
 
 1895 
 
 24,107 
 
 47 
 
 330 
 
 1.96 
 
 13.75 
 
 1896 
 
 28,165 
 
 36 
 
 411 
 
 1.29 
 
 14.68 
 
 1897 
 
 26,690 
 
 40 
 
 291 
 
 1.50 
 
 10.82 
 
 1898 
 
 30,009 
 
 44 
 
 301 
 
 1.46 
 
 10.03 
 
 1899 
 
 32,385 
 
 62 
 
 348 
 
 1.91 
 
 10.74 
 
 1900 
 
 37,696 
 
 70 
 
 449 
 
 1.86 
 
 12.17 
 
 1901 
 
 37,836 
 
 65 
 
 636 
 
 1.72 
 
 16.82 
 
 1902 
 
 40,636 
 
 64 
 
 853 
 
 1.57 
 
 21.09 
 
 1903 
 
 42,484 
 
 100 
 
 1001 
 
 2.35 
 
 23.52 
 
 1904 
 
 38,508 
 
 90 
 
 1419 
 
 2.34 
 
 36.85 
 
 1905 
 
 39,586 
 
 74 
 
 1376 
 
 1.87 
 
 34.75 
 
 1906 
 
 42,554 
 
 80 
 
 1592 
 
 1.88 
 
 37.45 
 
 Total, 
 
 1878-1906 
 
 1928 
 
 15918 
 
 
 
BAILWAY LABOR LEGISLATION 91 
 
 YEARLY AVERAGE 
 
 1878-1906 28,624 
 
 66.5 
 
 549 
 
 2.33 
 
 19.2 
 
 YEARLY AVERAGE 
 
 1878-1889 22,240 
 
 66 
 
 341 
 
 3 
 
 15.5 
 
 YEARLY AVERAGE 
 
 1890-1900 29,238 
 
 60 
 
 449 
 
 2 
 
 15.5 
 
 YEARLY AVERAGE 
 
 1901-1906 40,267 
 
 79 
 
 1149 
 
 1.97 
 
 28.6 
 
 Table V exhibits the number of accidents to railway em- 
 ployees in Iowa, and also the number of deaths and injuries 
 per thousand employees for each year from 1878 to 1906 
 inclusive. The summaries show the annual average for the 
 same periods as those of tables II and III. The division into 
 three periods is determined, as will be remembered, by the 
 fact that the safety appliance law was passed in 1890 and 
 became fully operative only in 1900. In view of this law it 
 is noteworthy that while the number of deaths yearly from 
 coupling cars is much less and that from falling from trains 
 likewise somewhat less for the period 1901-1906 than for either 
 of the earlier periods, yet the average number of deaths from 
 aU causes is actually greatest for the later years. The annual 
 fatality per thousand employees from all causes is two-thirds 
 as great for the years 1901-1906 as for the years 1878-1889; 
 that from falling from trains is but one-half and from cou- 
 pling cars but one-fourth as large. A comparison of the col- 
 umns of injuries in the three tables gives somewhat analogous 
 results. It would appear from these facts that the safety ap- 
 pliance law has been successful in diminishing the number of 
 accidents from specific causes, but that it has not had the 
 effect which had been expected upon the whole number of 
 railway casualties. 
 
 If the Eailroad Commissioners' reports are to be trusted 
 the number of non-fatal injuries to railway employees is in- 
 creasing both absolutely and relatively. A part of this in- 
 crease may be due to the greater completeness of the returns 
 in recent years. Whether all of it can be so explained is 
 uncertain. 
 
92 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 The protection of railway employees is a function naturally 
 devolving upon the Federal government, since railways are 
 almost without exception engaged in interstate commerce. 
 Accordingly, since the national railway safety appliance act 
 became operative, the State laws relating to the same subject 
 have been important chiefly as supplementing the Federal 
 statutes. Considered in this light the Iowa law would seem 
 to require amendment so as to cover grab-irons, sill steps, 
 frog-blocks, and other appliances for the protection of train- 
 men. 
 
 VESTIBULES ON STREET CARS 
 
 In the early days of the trolley car the operator was com- 
 pelled to stand on an open platform exposed to every extreme 
 of weather and thereby not only endangered his own health, 
 but incapacitated himself at times for the efficient perform- 
 ance of his duty. Laws were accordingly passed in many 
 States requiring enclosed vestibules on street cars during the 
 winter months, and were upheld both as necessary for the 
 l^rotection of street railway employees and as conducing to 
 the public safety.^^'^ 
 
 The first Iowa law upon this subject was enacted in 1897, 
 and required all street cars, except trailers, to be provided 
 "with vestibules inclosing the front platform on at least 
 three^^^ sides", from November first of each year to April 
 first following.^^^ The obvious intent of the statute was to 
 secure the inclosure of the vestibule upon the three outer or 
 exposed sides. But certain street railway companies, with 
 characteristic ingenuity, cut off the vestibule from the body 
 of the car, leaving one side of the former open.^**^ Such eva- 
 sion of the law was made impossible by an act passed in 1907, 
 which changed "three" to "all" sides.^*^ 
 
 The vestibule law, as amended, secures a fair protection 
 against cold. But there is no requirement that the rear plat- 
 form of street cars shall be enclosed, or that vestibules shall 
 be heated during the winter months, or that any shelter what- 
 ever shall be provided for the operator from April to Novem- 
 
RAILWAY LABOR LEGISLATION 93 
 
 ber. Nor are there wanting street railway companies who 
 will not go beyond the strict letter of the law in providing for 
 the health and comfort of their employees. 
 
 Even more objectionable than the open platform is the side 
 running board extensively used on summer cars. Cars thus 
 equipped have no center aisle ; consequently the conductor, in 
 collecting fares, has to pass from one end to the other of 
 a moving car upon a narrow foot board, at considerable risk 
 of life and limb. 
 
 A bill aimed at the evils just recited was introduced in the 
 last General Assembly (1907) but was adversely reported in 
 both Houses and never came to a vote.^*^ Lack of organiza- 
 tion on the part of the street railway employees in certain 
 cities was a large factor in defeating the bill, which had also 
 the active opposition of the street railways themselves.^*^ 
 The Iowa Federation of Labor at its last annual convention 
 (1908) again adopted resolutions demanding such legisla- 
 tion.^** 
 
 MECHANICS^ LIENS ON RAILWAYS 
 
 As early as 1851 the benefits of the mechanics' lien laws 
 were extended ''to persons furnishing labor or materials for 
 the construction of any bridge, railroad, or other work of 
 internal improvement in the same manner as though such 
 work were a building ".^*^ This provision, with many changes 
 of form, has ever since been retained upon our statute books,^*^ 
 
 Under the law of 1851 the lien upon works of internal 
 imjDrovement attached to "the whole work and its appurte- 
 nances together with all the real or personal property con- 
 nected therewith"."*'' This very broad scope was limited in 
 1860 to "the building, erection, or improvement, and the land 
 on which the same is situated ".^*^ In 1872 the lien was bind- 
 ing ' ' upon the erection, excavation, embankment, bridge, road- 
 bed, or right-of-way, and upon all land upon which the same 
 may be situated ".^*^ Railway rolling-stock had been held not 
 to be included within the property subject to mechanics' lien 
 under the law of 1860 ;^^^ presumably it fell without the terms 
 
94 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 of that of 1872 as welL But in 1876 rolling-stock was ex- 
 pressly made subject to the lien upon railways ;3^^ and ''other 
 equipment" was added in 1897.^^2 tj^^ j-^^^ attaches to the 
 entire road for work done or material furnished on any part 
 of it.353 
 
VI 
 FACTORY LAWS 
 
 Prior to the year 1900 there does not appear to have been 
 any careful investigation of the sanitary conditions and the 
 safeguards for life and limb in Iowa factories. Between June 
 of that year and the following February, Commissioner of 
 Labor Wennerstrum inspected three hundred and twenty-eight 
 establishments employing five or more persons each.^^* Of 
 this number ninety-eight contained unguarded machinery en- 
 dangering the lives of operatives ; seventeen had open elevator 
 wells ; one hundred and thirty-five were without proper water- 
 closet ac<iommodations ; one hundred and thirteen were poorly 
 or indifferently ventilated; and a few were otherwise unsan- 
 itary. Ninety establishments — 27.4 per cent of those inves- 
 tigated — ^were in a satisfactory condition, ten being models 
 of their kind.^^^ The places inspected were believed to be rep- 
 resentative. If so, nearly three-fourths — certainly more than 
 two-thirds — of the 4,828 factories in lowa^^^ fell below a 
 reasonable standard of safety and comfort. Conditions were 
 worst in the smaller plants and in those which had outgrown 
 their original accommodations.^^''' 
 
 Conditions such as those found in Iowa in 1900 often occur 
 in an era of rapid industrial expansion. Provision for the 
 welfare of employees may pay in the long run, but it requires 
 considerable outlay and does not at once show in increased 
 profits. Hence, employers are slow to make such provision 
 unless forced to do so by legal authority. 
 
 To correct some of the evils revealed in Commissioner 
 Wennerstrum 's report, Senator Maytag introduced a bill in 
 the Twenty-ninth General Assembly (1902) "to provide for 
 the safety and comfort of laborers and other persons assem- 
 
96 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 bled in factories and buildings ".^^^ This bill encountered 
 little opposition and passed both Houses without serious 
 amendment.'^^ Its leading features are discussed below. 
 
 PROTECTION OF LIFE AND LIMB 
 GUARDS ON DANGEROUS MACHINERY 
 
 The act of 1902 makes it the "duty of the owner or other 
 person having charge of any manufacturing or other estab- 
 lishment where machinery is used, to furnish .... belt 
 shifters or other safe mechanical contrivances for the pur- 
 pose of throwing belts on and off pulleys, and, Whenever pos- 
 sible, machinery therein shall be provided with loose pulleys; 
 all saws, planers, cogs, gearing, belting, shafting, set screws 
 and machinery of every description therein shall be properly 
 guarded ".^^^ 
 
 Between July, 1902, when the law went into operation, 
 and October, 1906, the Commissioner of Labor issued 1,593 
 orders for the better safeguarding of machinery. Of these, 
 461 were for removing or covering set screws, and 120 were 
 for safety devices on elevators.^*^^ 
 
 Before the passage of the factor}' law the safeguarding of 
 freight and passenger elevators in factories and stores was 
 very much neglected. Many of the lifts in use were of anti- 
 quated construction and were wholly innocent of automatic 
 gates, safety clutches, and self-closing hatches. The elevator 
 wells were often uncovered, or even unenclosed, and the doors 
 leading to them habitually left open.^^^ Elevators are not 
 expressly within the statute, but are rightly held to be within 
 the provision respecting ''machinery of every description". 
 The Commissioner's recommendations concerning them have 
 generally been complied with, though there is still plenty of 
 room for improvement. 
 
 Safeguards on all dangerous machinery are frequently re- 
 moved by operatives, for whose protection they were pro- 
 vided but who find them inconvenient in their work. Some- 
 times guards are taken off while the machinery is being 
 
FACTORY LAWS 97 
 
 cleaned, and are not replaced when work is resumed. The 
 Commissioner of Labor has twice asked for legislation to 
 stop this practice,^^^ and a bill looking to that end was intro- 
 duced in the Thirty-second General Assembly, but after re- 
 peated references and amendments was allowed to die in the 
 Senate Sifting Committee.^^^ 
 
 Ever since 1866 there has been a provision upon the stat- 
 ute books of Iowa for the proper enclosing of tumbling rods 
 upon horse-power threshing machines.^^^ Such a law long ago 
 outlived its usefulness, whereas needed legislation respecting 
 steam threshers, corn-shredders, and saw mills has never been 
 provided. 
 
 Owing to imperfect reports it is impossible to state what 
 has been the effect of compulsory safeguards for dangerous 
 machinery in reducing the number of injuries to operatives. 
 But a considerable reduction has undoubtedly been effected, 
 and larger results will follow the complete enforcement of 
 the law.26° 
 
 BOn.ER INSPECTION 
 
 An act passed in 1874 and still in force makes it ''the 
 duty of any person owning or operating steam boilers .... 
 to provide such boilers with steam-gauge, safety-valve, and 
 water-gauge and keep the same in good order ' ' and prescribes 
 a penalty of not less than fifty nor more than five hundred 
 dollars for each violation.^^^ Another act, dating from 1882, 
 empowers cities and towns to provide for the inspection of 
 steam boiiers.-^^^ 
 
 Neither of these laws seems ever to have been enforced. 
 Cities have made no effective use of their power of inspection 
 and boiler owners have been allowed to do as they please in 
 the matter of safeguards. Large manufacturers generally 
 insure their boilers, in which case the underwriter provides 
 efi&cient inspection. But there are hundreds of uninsured 
 steam boilers in the State, the owners of which often neglect 
 the most ordinary precautions for sa^fety. Not only rusted 
 flues and leaky crowns, but incompetent firemen and engineers 
 
98 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 contribute to the annual list of explosions. Worst of all are 
 the traction engines used for small saw mills and threshing 
 machines.^*^^ 
 
 A defective or improperly managed steam boiler is so 
 dangerous to life that the need for compulsory inspection of 
 boilers and for State certification of stationary engineers and 
 firemen is obvious. It should be possible to frame a law in 
 the interest of public safety that would not work substantial 
 injustice to boiler owners. Hitherto, however, all attempts 
 at legislation have failed largely because the various inter- 
 ests affected have been unable to reconcile their differences. 
 Four boiler inspection bills were introduced at the last ses- 
 sion of the General Assembly (1907).^'^^ None of them ever 
 got beyond committee.^'^^ The boiler maker's brotherhood 
 had asked for a separate department, supported by the State 
 Treasury — a demand not likely to be listened to by a "reform- 
 ing" legislature. On the other hand, a bill making the boiler 
 inspectors subordinate to the State Bureau of Labor Sta- 
 tistics was not warmly supported by the brotherhood most 
 interested. The manufacturers' association objected to State 
 inspection of insured boilers, while the thresher-men and saw- 
 mill owners were opposed to any legislation. ^^^ 
 
 FIRE ESCAPES 
 
 Prior to 1882 there was no legal requirement of means of 
 egress from any building in case of fire. In that year incor- 
 porated cities and towns were empowered "to require and 
 regulate the construction of fire escapes ".^'^^ Six years later 
 the same authority was given to the boards of public works in 
 cities having a population of thirty thousand or more.^^* 
 
 These powers, at least as respects factories, the local au- 
 thorities did not see fit to exercise. Of two hundred and 
 ninety factories, two or more stories in height, visited by the 
 Commissioner of Labor in 1900, but twenty were equipped 
 with any sort of fire escape, and some of those provided were 
 "very primitive". In a large number of factories the doors 
 opened in, so as to prevent speedy exit in case of a fire; and 
 
FACTORY LAWS 99 
 
 in some there were locked gates in the stairways rendering 
 escape almost impossible. Workmen jumping from the third 
 or fourth stories would in many cases have encountered a net- 
 work of wires in the street or alley below.^'^^ 
 
 The first serious effort of the legislature to deal with the 
 question of fire escapes was made in 1902. The act of that 
 year requires the owner, proprietor, or lessee of every manu- 
 factory, warehouse, store, or office building, three or more 
 stories in height, if not more than twenty persons are em- 
 ployed therein, to provide the same with at least one ladder 
 of steel or wrought-iron construction attached to the outer 
 wall of the building and provided with platforms of similar 
 material at each story, for each five thousand square feet or 
 fractional part thereof covered by the building. If more than 
 twenty persons are employed, there must be two fire escape 
 ladders, or one fire escape stairway; if the number of em- 
 ployees exceeds forty, there must be two such stairways, or 
 such number as the chief of the fire department, or the mayor 
 of the city shall from time to time determine. ^'^^ 
 
 The enforcement of the act of 1902 was again entrusted to 
 the local authorities, and they for the most part continued 
 their old policy of inaction. The Commissioner of Labor was 
 authorized by a separate act of the same G-eneral Assembly 
 to notify the owner or persons in charge of any factory or 
 building of any neglect to comply with the law in respect to 
 fire escapes,^'^'^ but he was powerless to enforce compliance.^'^^ 
 In some instances the Commissioner secured the co-operation 
 of the local fire chief in giving effect to the law; in other 
 eases such co-operation was flatly refused.^"^^ 
 
 Some of the defects of the fire escape law of 1902 were 
 remedied at the next session of the legislature (1904). By 
 the act then passed the Commissioner of Labor was giv^en 
 equal authority with the fire chief, mayor, or chairman of the 
 County Board of Supervisors to adopt uniform specifications 
 for fire escapes and to require buildings three or more stories 
 in height to be equipped in accordance with such specifica- 
 
100 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 tions. Failure to comply with such request within sixty days 
 after receipt of written notice is punishable by fine of not less 
 than fifty, nor more than one hundred dollars, and there is a 
 further penalty of twenty-five dollars for each additional week 
 of delay. Fire escapes are subject to the inspection and ap- 
 proval or rejection in writing of the Commissioner as well 
 as of the other persons above named. ^^^ 
 
 The power thus granted to the Commissioner of Labor has 
 been effectively used where local authorities were negligent, 
 so that compliance with the law is now quite general. It is 
 evident, however, that a ladder fire escape, such as is now 
 pennitted for all establishments not having more than forty 
 employees, can never be satisfactory where women and girls 
 are employed. Many factories still have doors opening in, 
 and there is no law to prevent this. No fire escape whatever 
 is required for two story buildings, though few men and no 
 woman can jump from a second story window without grave 
 risk. Comparison of Iowa's fire escape law with such a stat- 
 ute as that of New York shows the great need for improve- 
 ment in this State. 
 
 REPORT OF ACCIDENTS 
 
 The act establishing the Bureau of Labor Statistics made 
 it the duty of the Commissioner *'to compile and publish 
 . . . . the number and character of accidents ".^^^ The 
 law is still the same."^- But, except for partial reports of 
 railway accidents, the provision remained practically inop- 
 erative for eighteen years. 
 
 The first attempt to gather statistics of accidents in fac- 
 tories, shops, and outside work in Iowa, was made by the 
 present Commissioner of Labor, Mr. E. D. Brigham. The 
 results of his efforts are exhibited in the following table: 
 
FACTORY LAWS 101 
 
 ACCIDENTS KEPORTED TO THE IOWA COMMISSIONER OF LABOR 
 
 NUMBER OP ACCIDENTS 
 
 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 -«! 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 >< 
 
 XBl 
 
 
 b* 
 
 
 ►J 
 
 M 
 
 
 ?! 
 
 
 M 
 
 H 
 
 '3. 
 
 ^ 
 
 >j 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 o 
 
 •z, 
 
 < 
 1 
 
 2; 
 o 
 
 33 
 
 41 
 
 750 
 
 791 
 
 23.94 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 191 
 
 207 
 
 13.75 
 
 12 
 
 11 
 
 1662 
 
 1673 
 
 139.41 
 
 Dec. 1, 1900, to Oct. 1, 1903, 
 Oct. 1, 1903, to Jan. 1, 1905, 
 Jan. 1, 1905, to Jan. 1, 1906, 
 
 The extreme fluctuations in the monthly average of acci- 
 dents shown by this table sufficiently prove the inadequacy of 
 the reports. The very great increase for the year 1905 in- 
 dicates only that far more complete returns were secured for 
 that year. It is clear, however, that trustworthy results can 
 never be given by the present method of annual or biennial 
 reports on statistical blanks. Accordingly, the Commissioner 
 of the State Bureau of Labor Statistics has repeatedly asked 
 that employers be required to report all fatal or disabling acci- 
 dents at their respective places of employment, immediately 
 after their occurrence."^^" Bills for such a law were introduced 
 in both the Thirty-first and Thirty-second General Assemblies, 
 but failed to pass.^^* 
 
 A trustworthy record of industrial casualties would be 
 extremely valuable as a guide for further legislation to lessen 
 the hazard of employment. Moreover, the requirement of 
 a prompt report of accidents, with the possibility of an official 
 investigation to follow, would of itself make employers much 
 more careful in safeguarding human life. 
 
 PROTECTION OF HEALTH IN FACTORIES AND STORES 
 SEATS FOR PEMAIiE EMPLOYEES 
 
 To be compelled to stand continuously for ten or twelve 
 hours day after day is a menace to the health of any young 
 woman or girl. Accordingly, most States in the Union re- 
 quire employers to furnish seats for their female employees.^^^ 
 
102 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 The Iowa law was enacted in 1892. Its principal section pro- 
 vides: "That it shall be the duty of all employers of females 
 in any mercantile or manufacturing business or occupation to 
 provide and maintain suitable seats, when practicable, for the 
 use of such female employees, at or beside the counter or work- 
 bench where employed, and to permit the use of such seats by 
 such employees to such an extent as the work engaged in may 
 reasonably admit of."^^^ 
 
 A fine not to exceed ten dollars was imposed for each offense, 
 and the county attorney was required to prosecute all viola- 
 tions upon the filing of information by any citizen. Compli- 
 ance with this law was largely voluntary for the first ten 
 years of its existence. Citizens rarely filed informations, and 
 county attorneys were not inclined to begin prosecutions on 
 their own initiative. Many employers did provide seats as 
 required, and a few were forced to do so by humane societies 
 or other benevolent organizations. Since 1902 the Commis- 
 sioner of Labor has had authority to enforce the law.^^'^ In- 
 spection of factories and stores within the past five years (1902 
 to 1907) has greatly diminished the number of violations. 
 Even now, however, compliance with the law is not all that 
 could be desired. In a good many, if not most, department 
 stores the "suitable seats" provided are comfortless bracket 
 stools attached to the counter. In some stores even these are 
 wanting ; and in still others, girls are not allowed to sit down 
 at all during working hours. A large number of factory girls 
 sit at their work, but where the nature of their employment 
 does not admit of this they often have no resting places but 
 packing boxes and window ledges. ^^^ 
 
 Vigorous action on the part of the Labor Commissioner and 
 his deputies has brought about a marked improvement in ex- 
 isting conditions, as compared with those of a few years ago. 
 Nevertheless the subject of water-closet accommodations con- 
 tinues to be a troublesome .one. An earth closet or privy 
 satisfies the requirements of the law, and more than one-third 
 of the establishments inspected in the biennial period (1903- 
 
FACTORY LAWS 103 
 
 1905) had no other. It is clear that such closets can never be 
 sanitary when used by any considerable number of persons. 
 Privies, moreover, are usually detached out-buildings — an es- 
 pecially undesirable feature where these places must be used 
 by women. 
 
 DISPOSAL OF DUST 
 
 The Factory Act of 1902 requires that emery wheels or 
 emery belts of every description and tumbling barrels used for 
 polishing castings shall be provided with blowers and pipes 
 to carry away all particles of dust directly to the outside of 
 the building or to some receptacle. From this requirement 
 are excepted grinding machines upon which water is used at 
 the point of grinding contact and small emery wheels used 
 temporarily for tool grinding. The Conunissioner of Labor 
 is authorized to further exempt shops employing not more 
 than one man at such work.^^^ 
 
 The work of grinding, buflfing, and polishing minerals gives 
 rise to a very injurious dust which can be almost wholly obvi- 
 ated by proper ventilating hoods. Such hoods are hardly less 
 necessary for many kinds of wood working machines, though 
 these are not included within the terms of the statute. Some 
 manufacturers voluntarily provide blowers and pipes for all 
 dust-producing work, but many others will never make such 
 provision unless forced to do so. 
 
 HEAT, LIGHT, AND VENTILATION 
 
 The Labor Commissioner reported in 1901 that the means 
 for heating in the wood working establishments and iron 
 foundries were usually very inadequate. In dozens of shops 
 where iron work was being carried on there was no provision 
 whatever for heating, the men depending wholly upon the heat 
 from furnaces and forges. In some large box factories and 
 planing mills, where there was not even a stove, the workmen 
 suffered severely from the cold.^^^ These conditions still 
 largely prevail, no effort having ever been made to correct 
 them bv law. 
 
104 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 The subject of proper light and ventilation for factories 
 has never received in Iowa the attention it deserves. Some of 
 the newest establishments have high, airy work rooms, with 
 white-washed walls, large windows, and excellent artificial 
 ventilation. But most of the older factories have low ceilings, 
 small windows, and dark, sometimes damp, interiors. Natural 
 ventilation through cracks or other accidental openings is 
 commonly the only means of suppljdng fresh air to operatives. 
 Conditions are probably worst in iron works. In these estab- 
 lishments furnaces, forges, and anvils produce a combination 
 of smoke and fumes, injurious alike to eyes and lungs. The 
 cupolas and hoods necessary to carry off the fumes are expen- 
 sive and, not being required by law, are seldom furnished by 
 the manufacturer. The writer has visited more than one 
 large foundry where the smoke was so thick that it was diffi- 
 cult to see across the work room on a winter day. 
 
 BAKESHOPS 
 
 There were in Iowa in 1905 three hundred and sixty-five 
 bakeries, with more than one thousand wage earners and an 
 annual product worth more than three million six hundred 
 thousand dollars.^^^ Most of these establishments are in good 
 sanitary condition, many of the larger ones, especially, being 
 models of their kind. But there are a few extremely bad ex- 
 ceptions. Underground bakeshops, dark and unwholesome, 
 are found in certain cities. Sleeping apartments in some of 
 the small shops are not separate from the bread room. Flour 
 is not always kept in vermin proof receptacles. Water closets 
 with no outside ventilation are sometimes built into the bake 
 rooms, and at least one case was investigated by the factory 
 inspector where the drain was out of order and sewage run- 
 ning over the floor within a few feet of the mixing board.^^'* 
 
 It is to correct just such conditions as these that bakeshop 
 laws have been enacted in many of the older Commonwealths. 
 An excellent bill, modeled on the legislation of other States, 
 was introduced at the session of the G-eneral Assembly in 
 1907, but was killed by the House Committee on Public 
 

 PER 
 
 CENT INCREASE 
 
 
 
 1895 
 
 1900 
 
 1900 
 
 1905 
 
 1905 
 
 1905 
 
 194 
 
 365 
 
 
 88.1 
 
 1,301,902 
 
 1,581,911 
 
 215.2 
 
 21.5 
 
 846 
 
 1,061 
 
 45.5 
 
 25.4 
 
 2,673,788 
 
 3,610,967 
 
 143.8 
 
 34.6 
 
 FACTORY LAWS 105 
 
 Health.^^^ The question is one which is certain to come up 
 again at future meetings of the legislature. State regulations 
 and inspection should be welcomed by the master bakers, most 
 of whom are already endeavoring to maintain wholesome con- 
 ditions and who should not be subjected to the unfair com- 
 petition of those who do not. 
 
 The baking industry is growing very rapidly in Iowa, as 
 shown in the following table r^^*^ 
 
 1895 
 Number of establishments 
 
 Capital invested 501,570 
 
 Number of Wage-earners 729 
 
 Value of Product 1,480,848 
 
 Notwithstanding the great development of the past ten 
 years the bakers even now serve but a small proportion of the 
 families living in cities and towns. Nothing would more con- 
 duce to the future growth of the business of bread making 
 than public confidence in the wholesomeness of bakery 
 products. 
 
 FACTORY INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FACTORY LAWS 
 FACTORY INSPECTION 
 
 An act passed in 1896 empowered the Commissioner of the 
 Bureau of Labor Statistics, "upon the complaint of two or 
 more persons, or upon his failure to otherwise obtain infor- 
 mation .... to enter any factory or mill, workshop, 
 mine, store, business house, public or private work .... 
 where five or more wage earners are employed. "^^^ Little use 
 was made of this power until the accession in 1900 of Com- 
 missioner Wennerstrum, who secured an opinion from the 
 Attorney General to the effect that he was authorized to make 
 personal inspection whenever he might deem the information 
 obtained by correspondence unsatisfactory.^^^ In accordance 
 with this opinion the work of factory inspection was begun in 
 1900. Its progress to date is exhibited in the accompanying 
 
106 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 table, showing the number of establishments inspected by 
 biennial periods. ^^^ 
 
 DATE OF INSPECTION NUMBER INSPECTED 
 
 1900 328 
 
 1901-1902 318 
 
 1903-1904 869 
 
 1905 1,029 
 
 1906-1907 1,080 
 
 Inasmuch as there are in Iowa about four thousand eight 
 hundred factories employing five or more persons, it is evi- 
 dent that the work of inspection is still very incompletely 
 performed. An increasing proportion of the Commissioner's 
 time is necessarily taken up with office duties, and before 1904 
 he had but a single deputy .^^^ In the last mentioned year he 
 was allowed, besides his deputy, a factory inspector and a 
 clerk.^^^ Two men now devote their entire time to field work. 
 With these additions the Bureau's force is still manifestly 
 too small. Two men can not adequately cover so large a ter- 
 ritory as Iowa. 
 
 PROVISIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT 
 
 Section four of the factory act of 1902 provides that ''It 
 shall be the duty of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor 
 of the State, and the mayor, and chief of police of every city 
 or town, to enforce the provisions of the foregoing sections. 
 Any person, whether acting for himself or for another or for 
 a co-partnership, joint stock company or corporation, having 
 charge or management of any manufacturing establishment, 
 workshop or hotel, who shall fail to comply with the provi- 
 sions of the said sections within ninety days after being noti- 
 mine, store, business house, public or private work .... 
 shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars 
 
 or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding thirty 
 days. "402 
 
 Another act passed the same year provides that "If the 
 commissioner of labor shall learn of any violation of, or neg- 
 lect to comply with the law in respect to fire escapes, or the 
 
FACTOEY LAWS 107 
 
 safety of employes, or for the preservation of health, he shall 
 give written notice to the owner or person in charge of such 
 factory or building, of such offense or neglect, and if the same 
 is not remedied within sixty days after service of such notice, 
 such officer shall give the county attorney of the county in 
 which such factory or building is situated, written notice of 
 the facts, whereupon that officer shall immediately institute 
 the proper proceedings against the person guilty of such 
 offense or neglect. ' '*^^ 
 
 THE LABOR COMMISSIONER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
 The accompanying table gives a classified summary of 2,604 
 recommendations to employers issued by the State Bureau 
 of Labor in pursuance of the foregoing acts within the period 
 1901-1905:^0* 
 
 THE COMMISSIONER OP LABOR 's RECOMMENDATIONS TO EMPLOYERS 
 
 1901-1902 1903-1904 1905 AGGREGATE 
 
 g g g g 
 
 ^ U % % 
 
 CLASS OF RECOMMENDATION g § i § 
 
 Doors, change to swing outward. . 3 3 3 3 
 
 Dust collectors, provide 41 20 68 68 19 19 128 107 
 
 Elevators, provide safeguards for 21 13 61 61 38 38 120 112 
 
 Fire escapes, erect 200 45 6 6 9 9 215 60 
 
 Fire protection, repair roof 11 11 
 
 Floors, repair and clean 3 2 7 7 7 7 17 16 
 
 Guards, place on dangerous ma- 
 chinery 55 33 569 564 341 341 965 938 
 
 Heat and ventilation, provide. ..11 11 
 
 Insulating mats for switchboards 5 5 5 5 10 10 
 
 Locks, remove to permit egress ..11 11 
 Loose pulleys and belt shifters, 
 
 provide 25 24 12 12 37 36 
 
 Machinery, stop operation of, by 
 
 children 7 1 9 9 3 3 11 13 
 
 Machinery, stop for cleaning 11 11 
 
 Set screws, protect or remove... 329 329 132 132 461 461 
 
 Sewers, provide connections for. 11 1 166 8 8 
 
 Stairways, provide additional ... 221133 
 
 Stairways, equip with hand rails. 5 1 22 22 35 35 62 58 
 
 Unsanitary appliances, abolish . . 3 3 114 4 
 
 Water closets, provide additional 1 1 27 26 26 26 54 63 
 Water closets, provide separate 
 
 for females 120 49 95 93 40 40 255 182 
 
 Water closets, clean, repair, ven- 
 tilate, screen 45 23 32 32 28 28 105 83 
 

 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 
 39 
 
 39 
 
 39 
 
 39 
 
 1255 
 
 837 
 
 837 
 
 2604 
 
 2284 
 
 108 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Place red light in hall leading to 
 
 fire escape 
 
 Discharge children under 14.... 
 
 Post list of children under 16.. 503 192 1264 
 
 The table shows how the work of inspection has increased 
 in scope and efficiency year by year. The effect of the act of 
 1904, enlarging the support of the Bureau, is shown both in 
 the greater number of recommendations made and in the far 
 higher percentage of compliance secured since that date. 
 Prosecution is very rarely resorted to. Employers generally 
 manifest a willingness to comply with the law upon the first 
 notification, and even where they do not a second visit by the 
 inspector seldom fails to bring about the desired result. In- 
 formations are filed only in the most obstinate cases, and even 
 then the proceedings are dropped or the fines remitted upon 
 compliance with the law.'**^^ 
 
 Notwithstanding the excellent work already done by the 
 Bureau of Labor Statistics in enforcing the factory laws there 
 are still many violations, particularly in the smaller estab- 
 lishments. Complete enforcement of these laws can only be 
 brought about by frequent and thorough inspection of all the 
 establishments to which they apply. And this frequent and 
 comprehensive inspection is precisely what the Bureau with 
 the limited force at its disposal can not give. 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 Factory legislation in Iowa is very recent, most of the exist- 
 ing laws having been enacted within six years (1902 to 1908). 
 The progress made during that period is very gratifj'ing. 
 Employers are now required to equip their buildings, if over 
 two stories in height, with fire escapes, to safeguard all dan- 
 gerous machinery, to provide loose pulleys or mechanical belt- 
 shifters, to equip grinding and polishing machines with dust 
 collectors, to provide suitable water closets separate for the 
 two sexes, to furnish seats for female employees. All manu- 
 factories, stores, and public or private works where five or 
 more persons are employed are subject to State inspection, 
 and the inspector has ample authority to enforce the laws. 
 
FACTORY LAWS 109 
 
 With all this progress Iowa's factory legislation is still 
 very inadequate as compared with that of the more advanced 
 States. There is no law requiring that steam boilers shall be 
 inspected, or that competent engineers and firemen shall be 
 employed, or that doors shall open outward, or that elevators 
 shall be equipped with automatic gates, and safety catches, 
 or that dust collectors shall be provided in factories. There 
 is no provision for the inspection or proper sanitation of bake 
 shops; no requirement that accidents shall be promptly re- 
 ported; no limitations upon the hours of labor for women; 
 no regulations of the heating, lighting, and ventilation of fac- 
 tories ; and no prohibition of overcrowding. These and other 
 defects in the laws must be remedied and ampler provisions 
 for inspection must be made before the health, safety, and com- 
 fort of indoor employees can be effectually secured in the 
 State of Iowa. 
 
VII 
 
 CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION^^s 
 
 ITS NEED AND JUSTIFICATION 
 
 The right and duty of society to insist upon the proper 
 rearing of all children is now generally recognized. Apart 
 from humanitarian sentiment the state has a paramount in- 
 terest in the development of its future citizenship, and this is 
 held to justify the maintenance of costly institutions to sup- 
 plement the voluntary efforts of parents. But unfortunately 
 not all parents are awake to their parental duties or able to 
 discharge their parental obligations. The small addition to 
 the family income which can be made by a young child is too 
 often allowed to outweigh that child's opportunity to attain 
 a normal development. Wherever the law does not interfere, 
 children of tender age are found working for wages. 
 
 The wrong done to the child is twofold: it is prevented 
 from attending school; and it is directly injured by work 
 unsuited to its age. Premature employment — particularly in 
 factories, mines, and stores — stunts the bodily growth, dwarfs 
 the mind by undue confinement of interests, and depraves 
 the morals by improper associations. The victim ages before 
 his time, and very likely breaks down and becomes a public 
 charge just when his earning power should be at its maximum. 
 
 Economically, child labor is an unmixed evil. It hinders 
 the progress of improvement as cheap labor always does. It 
 is expensive to the employer because of want of judgment 
 and the inattention and wastefulness of young children. It 
 depresses the wages of adults, reducing instead of increasing 
 the family income in the end. It helps to lower the standard 
 of living for the next generation. Accordingly, all enlightened 
 governments have thought it necessary to enact legislation 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 111 
 
 enforcing a minimum school attendance and restricting the 
 employment of children in occupations deemed especially in- 
 jurious. 
 
 TARDINESS OP CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Iowa has been slower to move in the matter of such legis- 
 lation than many of the other States, for the need of it has 
 been felt less keenly. Iowa is still essentially an agricultural 
 State, 40.7 per cent of the persons engaged in gainful occu- 
 pations within her borders being employed upon the farm.*^''' 
 The cities of the State are small, only one-fifth of her en- 
 tire population living in towns of eight thousand inhabitants 
 or above.*^^ Few recent immigrants of foreign birth come 
 to Iowa, and these chiefly from northern and western 
 Europe.*^^ The people are noted for their intelligence and 
 well-being, and have been proud of their high percentage of 
 literacy, maintained without compulsory education. Hence 
 little was done in the way of enacting child labor or school 
 attendance laws before the opening of the twentieth century. 
 
 REGULATION OF CHILD LABOR IN MINES 
 
 The little legislation that had been enacted had reference 
 only to the employment of children in mines — of all occupa- 
 tions admittedly the most harmful to the child. There are 
 no breakers in Iowa, but very young boys were formerly em- 
 ployed as trappers and oilers, or were even taken into rooms 
 to assist in digging and loading. 
 
 The first regulatory act was passed in 1874 and provided 
 that "No young person under ten years of age, or female 
 of any age, shall be permitted to enter any mine to work 
 therein; proof of age to be made by certificate or other- 
 wise."*^° The age limit was raised to twelve years in 1880.^^^ 
 But the first report of the State Mine Inspector, only three 
 years later, declared that this law was being continually vio- 
 lated. The Inspector urged that parents "should be required 
 to furnish an affidavit in regard to the ages of their boys" 
 and that "no person between the ages of twelve and sixteen 
 
112 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 years should be permitted to work in any mine unless he can 
 read and write. "'^^^ The "Act to Kegulate Mines and Min- 
 ing," passed at the next session of the legislature (1884), 
 embodied a part only of these recommendations. Section 
 thirteen, relating to child labor, reads: 
 
 No boys under twelve years of age shall be permitted to work 
 in any mine; and parents or guardians of boys shall be required to 
 furnish an affidavit as to the ages of their boys when there is any 
 doubt in regard to their age, and in all cases of minors applying for 
 work the agent or owner of the mines shall see that the provisions 
 of this section is [are] not violated.'*^^ 
 
 This law remained on the statute books without substan- 
 tial change down to 19C6, when the age limit for employment 
 in mines was raised to fourteen years. *^"* The United Mine 
 Workers have always made a vigorous effort to keep children 
 out of the mines. In many places no boy under sixteen is 
 employed under ground; in others, only a few trappers and 
 oilers are below that age. Sometimes, however, a young boy 
 is allowed to work beside his father or other relative during 
 school vacation. In a few instances the Mine Inspector has 
 had to order out boys under the legal age.*^^ 
 
 EARLY ATTEMPTS TO SECURE A CHILD LABOR LAW 
 
 The Knights of Labor and others interested in the wel- 
 fare of working children were not satisfied with the law of 
 1884. The question of child labor was in the eighties just 
 beginning to attract national attention. Laws to restrict the 
 employment of children were enacted or amended within this 
 decade by Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, 
 New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and 
 perhaps a few other States. It was felt that Iowa should not 
 be behind the other Commonwealths in the protection of 
 children. 
 
 Among the earliest champions of child labor legislation 
 in this State was Senator W. W. Dodge of Burlington, a 
 member of one of the most distinguished families in the his- 
 tory of Iowa. Senator Dodge's first child labor bill, pro- 
 
CHILD LABOE LEGISLATION 113 
 
 liibiting tlie employment of children under fifteen years of 
 age in mines, factories, and work-shops, was presented at 
 the legislative session of 1886.*^® It was killed in the Senate 
 Sifting Committee.'*^'' Two years later Mr. Dodge secured 
 the passage of a Senate resolution directing the Commis- 
 sioner of Labor Statistics to investigate '* child labor in the 
 mines, factories and work-shops of Iowa, the extent to which 
 it is employed, the eifect thereof, if any, upon the physical 
 and mental condition of the children, the kind of labor in 
 which they are employed .... and .... re- 
 port such information with any recommendations relating 
 thereto he may deem proper in his next biennial report 
 without additional expense to the State, "^^^ 
 
 The provision against incurring expense operated to de- 
 feat in large measure the purpose of the investigation. Nev- 
 ertheless, Commissioner Hutchins managed to gather con- 
 siderable information by correspondence. Eighty-five cities 
 and towns reported 1,765 children at work. The employments 
 of these children were: Water carrying, errands, off bear- 
 ing, putting glass in sashes, cleaning glass points, feeding 
 machines, turning wood, making laths and shingles, polishing 
 furniture, cloth covering, bobbin winding, packing traps, rub- 
 bing and cleaning, cording and twisting, cutting and sewing 
 linings, running drills, machine painting, cutting screw 
 threads, labeling, box making, and packing shingles.*^® 
 
 The report of the Commissioner of Labor produced little 
 impression upon the legislature. Senator Dodge's bill, with 
 the age limit changed from fifteen to fourteen years, was 
 again introduced at the session of 1890, and again killed in 
 committee.*-*^ A substitute resolution calling for a further 
 investigation likewise failed to pass.*^^ Another bill by Dodge 
 to punish the exhibition of children under fourteen for hire 
 was indefinitely postponed by the same General Assembly 
 (1890) ^^- Mr. Dodge retired from the Senate in 1892, and 
 the subject of child labor was not again taken up by the legis- 
 lature for ten years. 
 
114 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 GROWTH or CHILD LABOR IN IOWA 
 
 Iowa has undergone great industrial and social changes 
 in the more than thirty years since the enactment of her first 
 child labor law. The proportion of her working people en- 
 gaged in non-agricultural pursuits rose from thirty-nine per 
 cent in 1870 to fifty-nine per cent in 1905.*^^ The value of 
 her manufactures increased almost fourfold during the same 
 period, and the number of employees in manufacturing estab- 
 lishments grew from 25,032 to 49,482.^24 j^ igjQ there was 
 no city of twenty-five thousand inhabitants in the State; in 
 1905 there were seven such cities, with an aggregate popula- 
 tion of nearly two hundred and eighty thousand.*^^ Iowa is 
 ceasing to be an exclusively rural community and is taking 
 on the complexity of an advanced society. 
 
 These changes, particularly the growth of urban condi- 
 tions, have brought with them many new problems, among 
 which those of child labor and school attendance early became 
 prominent. The census of 1900 showed that 29,410 persons 
 under sixteen years of age were engaged in gainful occupa- 
 tions in Iowa — being thirty-seven in every thousand persons 
 so engaged, and one-tenth of the whole number of persons 
 between the ages of ten and sixteen years in the State.*^^ 
 But of these youthful wage-earners, 19,520 were engaged in 
 agricultural pursuits and 5,771 in domestic and personal 
 service — neither of which employments has ever been sup- 
 posed to require special restrictive legislation. This leaves 
 in objectionable occupations 4,119 children, of whom 735 were 
 under fourteen, and 171 were under twelve.*^^ The number 
 working in factories, stores, offices, and mines is not sep- 
 arately reported in the Census and cannot be accurately ascer- 
 tained. Employers' returns to the State Bureau of Labor 
 Statistics in 1898 showed 623 children at work in manufac- 
 turing and mercantile establishments. By 1902 the number 
 so reported had risen to 2,630, an increase of 323.16 per cent 
 in four years.*^^ The Bureau's returns were very incom- 
 plete, since only establishments employing five or more per- 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 115 
 
 sons were required to report, and since employers were averse 
 to giving information on this subject. The Commissioner of 
 Labor was convinced from personal observation that the num- 
 ber actually employed was more than double that reported.*^^ 
 Nevertheless, the figures do show a rate of increase that 
 threatened to make child labor a serious menace in the near 
 future. 
 
 In reference to this menace Commissioner Wennerstrum 
 says in his official report of 1901 (p. 21) that "Many of these 
 children were employed at tasks that involved hard and la- 
 borious work. They were employed for the same number of 
 hours as mature men, and were given no privileges or special 
 exemptions from work. I took special pains to observe the 
 physical condition of the children that I found working in 
 the factories, and they impressed me by their wan and over- 
 worked appearance. In many cases they were in a run-down 
 condition, and seriously weakened. In almost every instance 
 the employers of these children, when I first approached them 
 with my inquiries, indicated very markedly their own sense 
 of wrong done the children by such early employment in the 
 fact that they were under the impression that they were vio- 
 lating a state law .... I found in a number of cases 
 that the children had never attended school, that some had 
 attended but a short time and had but little knowledge of 
 books or ability to use books." 
 
 Two years later Commissioner Brigham reported that 
 "Children were found in some establishments who were only 
 ten years old and many who were but twelve, the appearance 
 of such children was pathetic in the extreme, surrounded as 
 many were by the dirt and grime of their employment, and 
 to realize that such conditions existed in fair Iowa with no 
 legal authority to prevent it made the work of factory in- 
 spection difficult and appealing." "^^ 
 
 The conditions as regards child labor were by no means 
 as bad in Iowa as in the Cotton Belt or in such northern 
 States as Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Yet in the ratio 
 
116 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 of adults to children in manufacturing and mechanical pur- 
 suits, Iowa in 1900 ranked thirty-fourth among the Common- 
 wealths of the Union. ^^''^ The facts were surely sufficient to 
 indicate the desirableness of restrictive legislation, 
 
 FACTORY ACT OF 1902 
 
 The first forward step was in the direction of protecting 
 the lives and limbs of working children. Statistics of indus- 
 trial accidents always show a disproportionate number of 
 injuries to workers under sixteen years of age, and this for 
 the very reason that the prudence and forethought by which 
 such injuries may be largely avoided are qualities very rare 
 in a young child. '^^^ That Iowa is no exception to the rule is 
 indicated by the all too frequent occurrence in the factory in- 
 spection reports of items like the following: ''One boy fifteen 
 years old had hair caught in belt and killed in button fac- 
 tory";*^^ ''Bell boy crushed to death below moving elevator 
 weight s";*^^ "young girl aged fourteen had hair caught in 
 cream separator which was running rapidly and had scalp 
 torn off."^^^ Details such as these illustrate the inhumanity 
 of permitting young children to operate high-speed machinery. 
 
 The factory act of 1902 was intended to put a stop to 
 
 this practice. It provides that "No person under sixteen 
 
 years of age, and no female under eighteen years of age shall 
 
 be permitted or directed to clean machinery while in motion. 
 
 Children under sixteen years of age shall not be permitted 
 
 to operate or assist in operating dangerous machinery, of any 
 kind. '"^36 
 
 This act did not fully accomplish the object for which it 
 was designed. Elevator boys apparently were not included 
 in its provisions ;^^'^ while, in spite of the prohibition, chil- 
 dren were still allowed to operate actually dangerous ma- 
 chinery in button factories, cereal mills, laundries, glove fac- 
 tories, and elsewhere. So long as children are permitted to 
 work at all in such places it will be very difficult to prevent 
 their employment about dangerous machinery. Some em- 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 117 
 
 ployers entered into criminal conspiracy to violate the law, 
 as is shown by the following waiver of liability: 
 
 COPT OF RELEASE FORM FOR CHILD EMPLOYMENT*^^ 
 
 I state that I am years 
 
 old ; that I am fully competent to do the work I now apply for with 
 said company; that I have before worked for myself at different 
 occupations when dangerous machinery was used, that I am able to 
 comprehend the dangers of such work, as now applied for, and if 
 given employment by the above named company I will assume all 
 dangers and risks of personal injury connected with such employ- 
 ment, and do hereby waive the dangers incident to the manner in 
 which such machinery is constructed, guarded or operated. 
 
 Applicant. 
 
 Dated , 19.... 
 
 Advocates of the freedom of contract may find in the above 
 instrument an excellent illustration of the working of their 
 favorite theory. 
 
 COMPULSORY EDUCATION 
 
 As far back as 1841 the first Superintendent of Public 
 Instruction recommended a compulsory education law.*^® This 
 recommendation was many times renewed by his successors 
 in office, as well as by teachers' associations and prominent 
 educators.^*^ It was not, however, until 1902 that a beginning 
 of such legislation was made. The act of that year required 
 any person having control of any child of the age of seven 
 to fourteen years, inclusive, in proper physical and mental 
 condition to attend school, to cause such child to attend some 
 public, private, or parochial school for at least twelve con- 
 secutive school weeks in each year. A fine of not less than 
 three nor more than twenty dollars was prescribed for each 
 violation. The board of directors of each school corpora- 
 tion was authorized, but not required, to establish truant 
 schools and to appoint truant officers.**^ 
 
 The law of 1902 was not found to work satisfactorily. 
 The act did not specify when the required attendance should 
 
118 
 
 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 commence, and this made it easy of evasion. Comparatively 
 few corporations appointed truant officers, and in the absence 
 of such officers the law was very often ignored. 
 
 Some of these defects were remedied in 1904. The amend- 
 ment of that year changed the attendance requirement to 
 sixteen consecutive weeks in each school year, commencing 
 with the first week of school after the first day of Septem- 
 ber, unless the directors should determine upon a different 
 date not later than the first Monday in December. At the 
 same time the appointment of truant officers was made manda- 
 tory in school corporations having a population of twenty 
 thousand or more.**^ 
 
 To ascertain the effectiveness of this law, a series of ques- 
 tions was submitted by the Department of Public Instruc- 
 tion, to the several city and county superintendents of the 
 State. From replies received it was estimated that 3,008 
 children had been brought into school through the compul- 
 sory law during the period 1902-1906, and that 1,934 were 
 brought in within the last school year covered by that re- 
 port.*"*^ The number of children of the ages of seven to 
 fourteen, reported by school secretaries as not attending 
 school, for the period required by law, during these same 
 years is shown in the following table:*** 
 
 
 §^ 
 
 -%<^ 
 
 1 O-i 
 
 
 ^g 
 
 g 8| 
 
 ^ g 
 
 m 
 
 §- 
 
 -IS 
 
 §g- 
 
 •^ 
 
 pa Q M 
 
 z CO CO 
 S 2 S f^ 
 
 E 5 w 
 ^ 2 S 
 
 W Z g 1 
 
 o 
 
 iJ J OS 
 
 S « Q W 
 
 O H 3 1 
 
 2 
 
 O ^ < 
 
 S ^ ^; << 
 
 H w ■ 
 
 » 
 
 a w « 
 
 "WWW 
 
 « t; IS 1 
 
 o 
 
 S O tH 
 
 W >i t( J 
 
 fH < u \ 
 
 on 
 
 p 
 
 u 
 
 PU 
 
 1902-1903 
 
 387,989 
 
 8,876 
 
 2:3 
 
 1903-1904 
 
 387,378 
 
 6,060 
 
 1:6 
 
 1904-1905 
 
 385,147 
 
 7,142 
 
 1:8 
 
 1905-1906 
 
 377,842 
 
 5,445 
 
 1:4 
 
 1906-1907 
 
 366,972 
 
 6,820 
 
 1:8 
 
 The reports of non-attendance are based upon the unveri- 
 fied statements of parents at the annual school census.**^ 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 119 
 
 They are, accordingly, quite inaccurate, but much more likely 
 to err on the side of deficiency than excess. For this reason 
 no special significance can be attached to the fluctuations from 
 one year to another; the number of omissions is always more 
 than sufficient to permit considerable variations in the re- 
 turns without any change in actual non-attendance. Taking 
 the figures at their face value, they certainly do not indicate 
 any marked improvement in the enforcement of the compul- 
 sory attendance law since it was first enacted in 1902. There 
 are no data for comparison with conditions before that year. 
 It seems clear that the compulsory attendance law is now fairly 
 well enforced in most of the larger cities of the State — 
 those having twenty thousand or more inhabitants.^^^ In 
 these cities the appointment of truant oflficers is obligatory. 
 Moreover, the school systems are generally well organized 
 and the school oflScers are apt to be men of intelligence and 
 public spirit. The annual school census is taken with greater 
 care than is usual in the smaller places, and the truant of- 
 ficer is expected to see to it that every child on the secre- 
 taries' books, within the age limits of the compulsory law, 
 attends some regular school. The humane societies, the juve- 
 nile courts, and other social agencies (which are either wholly 
 wanting or less efficient in the smaller centers of population) 
 do much toward the enforcement of the school law in the larger 
 cities. 
 
 In several of the most important cities of the State, the 
 school authorities interpret the requirement of consecutive 
 attendance strictly. Children who miss a single day without 
 satisfactory excuse are reported to the truant officer, and 
 pressure is exerted to keep children in school after the ex- 
 piration of the required sixteen weeks. These efforts are 
 generally successful. In most cases a visit of the truant of- 
 ficer to the parents is sufficient to secure compliance with 
 the law. "The wise officer, using tact and common sense 
 can usually deal with the parent without resorting to the 
 courts. "^^"^ Thus, while more than three thousand children 
 
120 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 were brought into school by the compulsory law during the 
 first four years of its operation, there were, during the same 
 period, but 151 prosecutions and 122 convictions in the en- 
 tire State for violation of its provisions.^^^ All but two of 
 these cases arose in graded schools.**^ 
 
 So far as is known no school board in Iowa has availed 
 itself of the permission to establish truant schools. But a 
 much more valuable institution is provided for by an act of 
 the Thirty-second General Assembly (1907) which requires 
 every county having a population of more than fifty thousand 
 to maintain a detention home for dependent, neglected, and 
 delinquent children.^^^ In these homes habitual truants will 
 not merely be separated from their school fellows, upon whom 
 they may exert an undesirable influence, but they will be taken 
 away from the unfortunate home environment which is so 
 largely responsible for truancy as it is for juvenile crime. 
 The act immediately affects the four largest cities in the 
 State and is expected to be productive of much benefit. 
 
 In many towns of five thousand people and upwards truant 
 officers have never been appointed. In such towns non-at- 
 tendance is of frequent occurrence, and is without adequate 
 remedy. There being no one whose business it is to enforce 
 the law, children who ought to be in school are allowed to 
 loaf upon the streets, or to congregate in alleys and on vacant 
 lots. In rural communities there is less idleness, but the con- 
 ditions as regards school attendance are even worse. Very 
 few school townships, and hardly any independent districts, 
 have truant officers.^^^ It is, to be sure, the duty of the 
 school director or the president of the board to prosecute 
 violators of the law, and this duty becomes mandatory upon 
 receipt of written notice from a resident of the district,*^^ 
 or from the county superintendent.*^^ But few persons care 
 to incur the hostility of their neighbors by giving notice of 
 violations and most county superintendents have been too 
 timid to use their authority. Thousands of parents in all 
 parts of the State are unwilling to send their children to 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 121 
 
 school, and in many communities there is no public sentiment 
 in favor of compelling them to do so. 
 
 For the reasons just stated the compulsory attendance law 
 has remained a dead letter in large sections of the State.*^* 
 To make it generally effective the appointment of truant of- 
 ficers ought to be made obligatory in every school township 
 and in every city independent district. Prosecutions ought 
 to be far more numerous than they are, particularly in the 
 country. No argument appeals to negligent and avaricious 
 parents like an occasional fine and imprisonment. The pub- 
 lic schools can never secure their object of universal educa- 
 tion until the compulsory attendance law is generally enforced. 
 
 THE CHILD LABOB AGITATIOIT 1900-1906 
 
 The two laws secured in 1902 (namely, the factory act 
 and the compulsory education act) were each a step in miti- 
 gation of the evils of unregulated child labor. But they did 
 not eradicate those evils. The school law applied only to 
 twelve (now sixteen) weeks in the year, while the factory 
 law did not prevent the employment of young children in of- 
 fices and stores, or in those departments of factory work 
 where dangerous machinery is not used. Said Commissioner 
 of Labor Brigham in 1903 : "If not forced by a truant officer 
 to go to school twelve weeks, the child remains continuously 
 employed, as no penalty attaches to the employer. 
 At the present rate of increase Iowa will have in 1910 at 
 least four thousand children in factories; and those enu- 
 merated at the preceding census will probably by that time 
 have become paupers and invalids, surely illiterates, to say 
 nothing of the per cent that will be crippled and maimed. "^^^ 
 
 The need of a child labor law was brought to public no- 
 tice by Commissioner of Labor C. F. Wennerstrum in 1901 
 as a result of his work in factory inspection. The Commis- 
 sioner described the deplorable conditions he had found, cited 
 the legislation of other States, and recommended the passage 
 of a law prohibiting the employment of children under four- 
 teen years of age in factories and mines.*^^ 
 
122 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 At the next session of the legislature (1902) Senator G. W. 
 Lister introduced a bill which forbade the employment of 
 children under fourteen j^ears old in mines, factories, work- 
 shops, or places of public entertainment, except that a child 
 over twelve years of age might work anywhere but in coal 
 mines if the president of a school board should certify that 
 the labor of such child was necessary for the support of an 
 aged or infirm parent, or of a brother or sister.*^'^ This bill 
 was supported by the State Federation of Labor f^^ it passed 
 the Senate after amendment in committee and upon the floor, 
 but never reached a vote in the House.*^^ 
 
 Thus the attempt to secure a child labor law had again 
 failed. But the question of abolishing child labor in Iowa 
 had at last been brought before the public. From this mo- 
 ment agitation of the subject was never allowed to cease until 
 a fairly good law had been placed upon the statute books. 
 The Iowa Branch of the American Federation of Labor led 
 the way in this propaganda.'*^^ The Federation of Women's 
 Clubs took up the movement in 1903, appointing a Child Labor 
 Committee composed of Mrs. W. H. Baily of Des Moines, 
 Mrs. Horace E. Deemer, of Red Oak, and Mrs. Maria Purdy 
 Peck, of Davenport.'^^^ Other organizations, such as the 
 Women's Christian Temperance Union, the King's Daughters, 
 and the State Teachers' Association lent their moral support 
 to the cause. Mr. E. D. Brigham, who in 1902 had succeeded 
 Mr. W^ennerstrum as Commissioner of Labor, presented a 
 severe arraignment of existing conditions in his first biennial 
 report.*^^ 
 
 Thus when the Thirtieth General Assembly convened in 
 January, 1904. there was already considerable public opin- 
 ion favorable to child labor legislation. Commissioner Brig- 
 ham had asked for **a law to restrict the employment of chil- 
 dren for gain during the terms that schools are open and 
 until an eighth grade certificate is furnished by city or county 
 superintendent of schools. "*^^ The Governor's message re- 
 ferred to the need of legislative action, without proposing any 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 123 
 
 specific measure.*^* But legislative interest chiefly centered 
 about a bill drafted by Mr. W. H. Baily, of Des Moines, un- 
 der the auspices of the Federation of Women's Clubs. 
 
 Mr. Baily, after conferring with Miss Florence Kelly of 
 the National Consumers' League and comparing the laws of 
 Massachusetts, New York, Ohio and Illinois, had drawn a bill 
 which was approved by Justice Horace E. Deemer of the 
 Supreme Court and by the Commissioner of Labor.^^^ Its 
 full text is as follows :*^^ 
 
 A Bn.L 
 
 FOB AN ACT TO REGULATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF CHU^D LABOR AND TO 
 PROVIDE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT THEREOF. (ADDITIONAL TO CHAP- 
 TER 8, TITLE XXI OF THE CODE.) 
 
 Be it Enacted hy the General Assembly of the State of Iowa: 
 
 Section 1, No child under fourteen years of age, and no child 
 under sixteen years of age who is less than sixty inches in height 
 and eighty pounds in weight, shall be employed in any mine, quarry, 
 manufacturing establishment, factory, mill, workshop or mercantile 
 establishment. 
 
 No such child shall be employed in work performed for wages 
 or other compensation to whomsoever payable, during the hours when 
 the public schools of the school corporation in which he resides are in 
 session. 
 
 No such child shall be employed in any work, performed with or 
 without wages or other compensation, during the hours when the 
 public schools of the school corporation in which he resides are in 
 session unless he has within the last twelve months attended a pub- 
 lic or parochial school for the period provided by law. 
 
 Sec. 2. No child under sixteen years of age shall be employed in 
 any work which by reason of the nature of the work or the place of 
 performance is dangerous to life or limb or in which its health may 
 be injured or its morals may be depraved, or in any place where 
 intoxicating liquors are sold or given away. 
 
 No female child under sixteen years of age shall be employed in 
 any capacity where such employment compels her to remain standing 
 constantly. 
 
 No child under sixteen years of age shall be employed at any work 
 in any mine, quarry, manufacturing establishment, factory, mill, 
 
124 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 workshop or mercantile establishment, before the hour of six o'clock 
 in the morning or after the hour of seven o'clock in the evening, nor 
 shall such child be employed at any work more than ten hours in any 
 one day or more than fifty-five hours in any one week. 
 
 Evidence that any building or place is erected or maintained or 
 business is conducted contrary to or in violation of any law of the 
 state or of any ordinance of any city or town or regulation of a 
 board of health or of any notice given by the Commissioner of the 
 Bureau of Labor Statistics pursuant to section twenty-four hundred 
 and seventy-two of the code shall be prima facie evidence that such 
 building or place or business is dangerous within the meaning of this 
 act. The taking by an employer of any waiver or release from 
 liability for damages for future personal injuries shall be prima facie 
 evidence that the business or employment is dangerous within the 
 meaning of this act. 
 
 The presence of a child under sixteen years of age in any mine, 
 manufacturing establishment, factory, miU or workshop shall be pnma 
 facie evidence of his employment therein. 
 
 Sec. 3. No child under sixteen years of age shall be employed 
 in any mine, quarry, manufacturing establishment, factory, mill, 
 workshop or mercantile establishment unless the person, firm, or cor- 
 poration employing him procures and keeps on file, and accessible to 
 any officer or person authorized to inspect the same or such place 
 of business, an age and schooling certificate as hereinafter pre- 
 scribed, and keeps two complete lists of all such children employed 
 therein, one on file, and one conspicuously posted near the main 
 entrance of the building in which such children are employed and 
 sends a copy of said list to the Commissioner of the Bureau of 
 Labor Statistics and to the Superintendent of Schools of the school 
 corporation in which such business is carried on, or where there 
 is no superintendent, to the secretary of the school corporation, the 
 names of all minors employed therein who cannot read at sight and 
 write legibly simple sentences in the English language. A failure 
 to produce to any officer or person authorized to inspect the same, any 
 age and schooling certificate, or list required to be kept, or to keep 
 or post any certificate or list required to be kept or posted, shall be 
 prima facie evidence of the illegal employment of any person whose 
 age and schooling certificate is not produced or whose name is not so 
 listed. 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 125 
 
 Sec. 4. An age and schooling certificate shall be approved only 
 by the superintendent of schools of the school corporation in which 
 the child resides or by a person authorized by him in writing, or 
 where there is no superintendent of schools, by the secretary of the 
 school corporation or other person authorized by the school board. 
 No such officer or person shall have authority to approve such cer- 
 tificate for any child therein or about to enter his own employment 
 or the employment of any person, firm or corporation of which he 
 is a member, officer, or employe, or in whose business he is interested. 
 The officer or person approving such certificate shall have authority 
 to administer the oath provided for therein or in any investigation 
 or examination necessary to the approval thereof. 
 
 Whenever complaint in writing and under oath is made to the 
 judge of a court of record, by any officer or person authorized to in- 
 spect such certificate or the place or business where the holder thereof 
 is employed, that any such certificate has been improperly approved, 
 or by any such child or his parent, guardian, or custodian that the 
 approval of such certificate has been improperly refused, said judge 
 may investigate such complaint in a summary manner and shall 
 approve or refuse to approve or revoke said certificate according to 
 the provisions of this act and shall file said complaint and other pa- 
 pers with a statement of his action thereon in the proper office. 
 
 The board of directors of each school corporation shall establish 
 and maintain proper records where all such certificates and all docu- 
 ments connected therewith shall be filed and preserved and shall pro- 
 vide the necessary clerical service for carrying out the provisions of 
 this act. 
 
 No fee shall be charged for approving any such certificate or 
 for administering any oath or rendering any service therein. 
 
 Sec. 5. An age and schooling certificate shall not be approved 
 unless satisfactory evidence is furnished by the last school census, 
 the certificate of birth or baptism of such child, the register of the 
 birth of such child with the clerk of the district court or other public 
 office or officer, or by the records of public or parochial schools, that 
 the child is of the age stated in the certificate. In cases where it is 
 made to appear by satisfactory evidence that the above proof is 
 not obtainable the age of the child may be proved by affidavit of the 
 parent or guardian of such child or other person having personal 
 knowledge of the fact. 
 
126 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Sec. 6. The age and schooling certificate of a child under six- 
 teen years of age shall not be approved and signed until he presents 
 to the person or officer authorized to approve and sign the same, a 
 school attendance certificate as hereinafter prescribed, duly filled out 
 and signed. A duplicate of such age and schooling certificate shall 
 be filled out and kept on file by the school authorities and a like 
 duplicate shall be filed with the Commissioner of the Bureau of La- 
 bor Statistics. Any explanatory matter may be printed with such 
 certificate in the discretion of the school board or the superintendent 
 of schools. The school attendance and the age and schooling cer- 
 tificate shall be separately printed and shall be filled out, signed, held 
 and surrendered as indicated in the following forms: 
 
 SCHOOL ATTENDANCE CERTIFICATE 
 
 (For minor who can read and write) 
 
 (name of school) , (city or 
 
 town) , Iowa, date , 19 ... . 
 
 This certifies that (name of minor) 
 
 of the th grade, can read at sight and write legible simple 
 
 sentences in the English language. 
 
 This also certifies that according to the records of this school and 
 
 in my belief, the said (name of minor) 
 
 was born at (name of city or town) in 
 
 county, state of , on the 
 
 (date) and is now years 
 
 and months old. 
 
 (name of parent or guardian) , 
 
 (residence) . 
 
 ( Signature) Teacher. 
 
 CORRECT. (Signature) Principal. 
 
 SCHOOL ATTENDANCE CERTIFICATE 
 
 (For minor who can not read or write) 
 (name of school) , (city or 
 
 town), Iowa, (date) ,19 
 
 This certifies that (name of minor) 
 
 is registered in and regularly attends the (name 
 
 of school ) . 
 
 This also certifies that according to the records of this school and 
 
 in my belief, the said (name of minor) 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 127 
 
 was born at (name of city or town) in 
 
 county, state of , on the 
 
 (date ) and is now years 
 
 months old. 
 
 (name of parent or guardian) , 
 
 (residence). 
 
 (Signature) Teacher. 
 
 CORRECT. (Signature) Principal. 
 
 AGE AND SCHOOLING CERTIFICATE 
 
 (city or town), Iowa, (date) , 19. . . 
 
 This certifies that I am the (father, mother, 
 
 guardian or custodian) of (name of 
 
 minor) and that (he or she) was bom at 
 
 (name of city or town), in county, state of , 
 
 on the (date of birth) and is now 
 
 years months old. 
 
 (Signature of father, mother, guardian or custodian) 
 
 (name of city or town) 
 
 Iowa, (date) , 19 
 
 There personally appeared before me the above named 
 
 (name of person signing) and being sworn tes- 
 tified that the foregoing certificate by (him or her) 
 
 signed is true to the best of (his or her) knowledge 
 
 or belief. I hereby approve the foregoing certificate of 
 
 (name of minor) , height feet 
 
 inches, weight pounds 
 
 ounces, complection (fair or dark), hair 
 
 (color) having no sufficient reason to doubt that (he 
 
 or she) is of the age therein certified. I hereby certify that 
 
 (he or she) (can or cannot) read at sight and 
 
 (can or cannot) write legibly simple sentences in the English lan- 
 guage. 
 
 (In case the child cannot read at sight and write legibly simple 
 sentences in the English language, insert here the following: 
 
 I further certify that (he or she) is regularly attend- 
 ing the (name of school). This certificate shall 
 
 continue in force only so long as the regular attendance of said child 
 at said school is certified weekly by a teacher thereof. ) 
 
128 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 This certificate belongs to (name of 
 
 minor) and is to be surrendered to (him or her) whenever 
 
 (he or she) leaves the service of the person, firm or cor- 
 poration holding the same as employer, but if not claimed by said 
 child within thirty days from such time it shall be returned to the 
 superintendent of schools or the secretary of the school corporation. 
 
 (Signature and official title of person authorized to approve 
 and sign.) 
 
 Sec. 7. No person shall employ any minor over fourteen years 
 of age, and no parent, guardian or custodian shall permit to be em- 
 ployed any such minor under control who cannot read at sight and 
 write legibly simple sentences in the English language while a public 
 or parochial evening school or other free evening school is maintained 
 in the school corporation in which such minor resides or is employed, 
 or in an adjoining school corporation reasonably accessible to his 
 place of residence, unless such minor is a regular attendant at such 
 evening school or at a day school. Upon presentation by such minor 
 of a certificate signed by a regular practicing physician, and satis- 
 factory to the officer or person authorized to approve an age and 
 schooling certificate, showing that the physical condition of such mi- 
 nor would render such attendance in addition to his daily labor 
 prejudicial to his health, said officer or person authorized to approve 
 an age or schooling certificate shall issue a permit authorizing the 
 employment of such minor for such period as such officer or person 
 shall determine. Said person or officer authorized to approve age and 
 schooling certificates, or teachers acting under his authority, may ex- 
 cuse any absence from such evening school arising from justifiable 
 cause. 
 
 Sec. 8. Every employer of minors in any mine, quarry, manufac- 
 turing establishment, factory, mill, workshop, or mercantile estab- 
 lishment shall post in a conspicuous place in every room where such 
 minors are employed, a printed notice stating the number of hours 
 required of them on each day of the week, the hours of commencing 
 and stopping work, and the hours when the time or times allowed 
 for dinner or other meals begin and end. There shall be allowed 
 at least thirty minutes for meal time at dinner. The time allowed 
 for meals shall not be included as a part of the work hours of the 
 day. The printed form of such notice shall be furnished by the 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 129 
 
 Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The employinent 
 of any such minor for a longer time in any day than that so stated 
 in such notice shall be deemed a violation of the provisions of this 
 act. 
 
 Sec. 9. Truant officers, sheriffs, constables, mayors, town or city 
 marshals, and other peace officers within the districts or territory for 
 which they are elected or appointed, state mine inspectors, inspectors 
 of factories and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
 and his deputies and assistants may visit any mine, quarry, manu- 
 facturing establishment, factory, mill, workshop, mercantile establish- 
 ment or other place where labor is employed and ascertain whether 
 any minors are employed therein contrary to the provisions of this 
 act, and whether the provisions of this act in respect to posted lists 
 and notices, age and schooling certificates, reports and other matters 
 are complied with. Such officers may require that the age and school- 
 ing certificates and the lists provided for in this act shall be pro- 
 duced for their inspection. Such officers shall report any cases of 
 illegal employment to the Secretary of the School Corporation in 
 which the minor resides and in which he is employed; and such of- 
 ficers shall report any eases of illegal employment or any violation 
 of or failure to comply with any of the provisions of this act to the 
 county attorney and sheriff of the county, to the city solicitor of the 
 city and marshal of the city or town and to the Commissioner of the 
 Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
 
 Sec. 10. Any parent, guardian or other person who, having un- 
 der his control any minor, causes or permits said minor to work or 
 be employed in violation of the provisions of this act shall be guilty 
 of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not more than 
 twenty-five dollars ($25.00) or be imprisoned for not more than ten 
 days. 
 
 Any person failing to produce to any officer or person authorized 
 to inspect the same, any age and schooling certificates or lists re- 
 quired by this act, and any employer or other person retaining any 
 such age and schooling certificate in violation of the provisions of 
 this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall 
 be fined not more than twenty-five dollars or be imprisoned not more 
 than ten days. 
 
 Any person authorized to sign any certificate provided for in this 
 act who certifies to any materially false statement shall be guilty of 
 
130 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not more than 
 one hundred dollars ($100.00) or be imprisoned not more than thirty 
 days. Every person, firm or corporation, agent or manager, superin- 
 tendent or foreman of any person, firm or corporation, whether for 
 himself or for any person, firm or corporation or by himself 
 or through sub-agents or foreman, superintendent or man- 
 ager, who shall violate or fail to comply with any of the provisions 
 of this act, or shall refuse admittance to any officer or person author- 
 ized to visit or inspect any premises or place of business under the 
 provisions of this act, or shall otherwise obstruct such officers in 
 the performance of their duties as prescribed by this act, shall be 
 guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less 
 than five dollars ($5.00) or more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) 
 or be imprisoned not less than two days or more than thirty days. 
 
 Sec. 11. It shall be the duty of the Commissioner of the Bureau 
 of Labor Statistics to carry out and enforce the provisions of this 
 act, and it shall be the duty of every sheriff or city or town marshal, 
 when informed by any officer authorized to inspect places where la- 
 bor is employed, that any of the provisions of this act have been 
 violated, to file or cause to be filed information or informations 
 against the person or persons guilty of such offense and to notify 
 the city solicitor or county attorney thereof, and it shall be the duty 
 of every city solicitor and county attorney so notified of the filing 
 of an information, to attend and prosecute the same. Any county 
 attorney, sheriff, city solicitor or a city or town marshal who shall 
 fail or refuse to perform any duties prescribed by this section shall 
 be guilty of a misdemeanor. 
 
 Sec. 12. All acts and parts of acts in conflict with the provisions 
 of this act are hereby repealed. 
 
 This elaborate bill was introduced in the Senate on Jan- 
 uary 30 by C. C. Dowell of Polk County, was favorably re- 
 ported by the Judiciary Committee, was amended by except- 
 ing mercantile establishments from the provisions of section 
 one and by striking out section seven relative to the employ- 
 ment of illiterate children, and was finally passed on February 
 18 by a vote of thirty-nine to eight.*^''^ 
 
 In the House the bill encountered a more determined op- 
 position. A majority of the Representatives were from 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 131 
 
 country districts or small towns, and while anxious to pro- 
 mote the best interests of the State they were unacquainted 
 with the conditions in the larger cities that made a child 
 labor law necessary. Many of the members honestly believed 
 that the proposed law "would throw boys on the streets to 
 spend the time in idleness, who would be much better off 
 and make better citizens if employed." Some thought the 
 bill too inclusive; and much was made of the prohibition of 
 work during school hours in section one, which was held to 
 affect boys on the farm. Special interests, notably the can- 
 ning establishments and the button factories, protested that 
 "their business would be ruined" if they were not permitted 
 to employ children under fourteen. Many objections were 
 raised to the twofold certificate plan as needlessly cumbrous. 
 The sole-support-of-a-widowed-mother argument was used 
 with considerable effect.'*®^ 
 
 These arguments, aided by legislative inertia and the nat- 
 ural conservatism of rural members, sufficed to defeat the bill. 
 The Child Labor Committee of the Federated Women's Clubs 
 and the Legislative Committee of the State Federation of La- 
 bor, under the leadership of President A. L. Urick, used every 
 exertion in support of their favorite measure.*^^ Petitions 
 poured in from the local unions and clubs, and from benevo- 
 lent societies throughout the State the Representatives were 
 flooded with literature showing the evils of child labor.*^^ 
 Yet in spite of all efforts, and notwithstanding the support 
 of many of the leaders of the House, the final vote stood 
 fifty-five nays to thirty-five yeas.*'^^ 
 
 Inasmuch as the objections raised to the child labor bill of 
 1904 were again put forward in 1906 and are likely to be 
 urged in the future against proposed extensions of the pres- 
 ent law, it may be well to devote some space to a discussion 
 of them. 
 
 First. It is argued that work is better for the child than 
 idleness, that regular employment for wages possesses distinct 
 disciplinary and educational value. 
 
132 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 This argument assumes that if children are not allowed 
 to work in factories and stores, they will be thrown upon 
 the street. It appears to be forgotten that the public schools 
 are open nine months in the year and that school attendance 
 has a higher educational value for young children than any 
 form of gainful employment. 
 
 The responsibilities of life come quite early enough at 
 sixteen. The prolongation of the period of infancy makes 
 for a higher type of manhood and womanhood. Play itself 
 is an important means of development. It is the natural per- 
 quisite of the young — human as well as animal. 
 
 To keep children off the street becomes a serious problem 
 in the larger cities. But public playgrounds and out-of-doors 
 vacation schools are far better solutions of this problem than 
 putting the little ones into factories. 
 
 Second. Self-made men often deny that labor injures the 
 child, citing their own experience in confirmation. ''I had 
 to work when I was a boy," declared more than one member 
 of the legislature, "and I don't believe it hurt me any." But 
 the work which these men did as boys was usually not done 
 in coal mines, department stores, or large factories. The 
 object of the law is not to forbid all employments, but those 
 only which threaten the health or morals, or interfere with 
 the education of the child. And there can be no doubt, not- 
 withstanding some individual exceptions, that hard and con- 
 tinuous labor, particularly when performed indoors, is physi- 
 ologically injurious to children below the age of sixteen 
 years.^^2 That the moral influences of factory labor are not 
 good is just as little open to question. 
 
 Third. Country legislators object to the prohibition of 
 employment during school hours, on the ground that farmers 
 need the help of their boys in the plowing and corn-husking 
 seasons. 
 
 This argument, like the others, will not bear analysis. It 
 is affirmed that the labor of boys under fourteen is not in- 
 dispensable to the prosperity of any large number of Iowa 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 133 
 
 fanners. No ob.iection can be offered to a moderate amount 
 of home work during vacation and on Saturdays, or to morn- 
 ing and evening chores, so long as these do not interfere 
 with the child's progress at school. But there can seldom be 
 any justification for keeping a fourteen-year old boy out of 
 school to help with the work on the farm. The completion of 
 a common school course is worth far more to the child, even 
 in an economic view, than the value to his parents of any 
 services he may render at home. 
 
 Fourth. In reply to the contention of the canners, but- 
 ton-makers, and other special interests that a child labor law 
 would drive these industries out of Iowa, it is sufficient to 
 cite the experience of other States. Legislation quite as 
 stringent as that proposed in Mr. Baily's bill has not checked 
 the growth of vegetable canning and preserving in Illinois 
 or New York.*'^^ Nor has such legislation prevented the lat- 
 ter State from outstripping Iowa in the business of button 
 finishing — the only department of button-making in which child 
 labor is an important factor. In 1900 our own State excelled 
 every other State in the production both of buttons and of 
 buttons blanks from fresh-water shells; in 1905 New York 
 had forged ahead in the number and value of finished but- 
 tons, though Iowa still maintained a great lead in blank-cut- 
 ting which is done almost entirely by men.*"^^ Such facts 
 would seem to show that these businesses can be profitably 
 carried on without the employment of children under fourteen. 
 
 Child labor is in fact unprofitable, as the writer has been 
 repeatedly assured by the employers themselves. ''We don't 
 want the babies," said the largest button manufacturer in 
 Iowa, ''they don't watch their business and they spoil too 
 many buttons." The manager of an up-to-date department 
 store estimated the first cost of the automatic carrier system 
 there used at fifteen hundred dollars, and the annual main- 
 tenance charge, including interest, at two hundred dollars. 
 It does the work of six children at one hundred and fifty dol- 
 lars per year each, besides saving floor space, avoiding con- 
 
 10 
 
134 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 fusion in the aisles, and quickening the delivery of goods to 
 the customer — a very important consideration. "Where chil- 
 dren are used," declared this manager, "the salesman often 
 has to call 'bundle' or 'cash' two or three times before he 
 can get attention." The floorwalker in another store re- 
 marked that "it takes one man with a club to keep the kids 
 in their places." About twenty children are employed in 
 this store. 
 
 The above are typical statements. They indicate strongly 
 that the fear of permanently hindering industrial development 
 by restraining the exploitation of childhood is without foun- 
 dation in fact. 
 
 Fifth. It is often urged by the defenders of child labor 
 that many families and many widowed mothers especially 
 are wholly dependent upon the earnings of young children 
 for the means of subsistence. The poor-widow argument, as 
 it is called, has done duty for more than a century whenever 
 it has been proposed to place any restriction upon the em- 
 ployment of children, but it is not well supported by the facts. 
 The United States Census Bureau recently made a detailed 
 study of 23,657 wage-earners between the ages of ten and 
 fifteen.*^^ These children belonged to 20,402 families, com- 
 prising 44,618 older bread winners. In only 3,958 cases, or 
 16.7 per cent of the entire number investigated, was a child 
 worker living with a widowed, divorced, or deserted mother; 
 and but 188 families, or less than one per cent, had no bread 
 winner past fourteen. These 188 families had 632 dependents, 
 an average of 3.36 each — clearly too many to subsist on the 
 earnings of one or two young children. Since such families 
 must receive outside assistance in any case, it seems better 
 for society to support them outright than to sacrifice the fu- 
 ture of children in no way responsible for the misfortune of 
 their parents. As for the 17,956 child bread winners — ^more 
 than three-fourths of the whole number included in the re- 
 port — who were li\'ing with father and mother and generally 
 with older brothers and sisters, some other cause than destitu- 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 135 
 
 tion must be sought for their employment. Sometimes this 
 cause is found in family extravagance or mismanagement. 
 Again it is short-sighted thrift or pure avarice. Very often 
 children desire to work on their own account in order to have 
 pocket money or to escape from school. All too frequently 
 it is idleness and dissipation on the part of the father which 
 forces the mother to put her children to work.*'^® 
 
 The opponents of child labor were not disheartened by 
 their defeat in 1904. So far from giving up the contest, they 
 at once set about securing a more effective organization. Dr. 
 Samuel McCune Lindsay, Secretary of the National Child 
 Labor Committee, twice visited Iowa during the ensuing year, 
 and upon his initiative the Iowa Child Labor Committee, com- 
 prising many of the most prominent men and women of the 
 State, was formed early in 1905. Somewhat later an Execu- 
 tive Committee was chosen by ballot. The membership of 
 this sub-committee, upon which devolved the active duties of 
 legislative management, was as follows : Professor Isaac A. 
 Loos of The State University of Iowa, Chairman; Mrs. A. B. 
 Cummins ; Commissioner of Labor E. D. Brigham ; Mr. A. L. 
 Urick, President of the State Federation of Labor; Mrs. T. J. 
 Fletcher of Marshalltown ; Mrs. J. C. Hallam of Sioux City, 
 and President A. B. Storms of the Iowa State College.*^'^ 
 The purpose of the organization, as stated by Professor Loos, 
 was to assist in "creating a clear and well-defined public opin- 
 ion in favor of the timeliness of a properly framed law on 
 this subject before those evils associated with unregulated 
 child labor fasten themselves in the life of our Common- 
 wealth. "^^^ 
 
 A campaign of education was carried on through the sum- 
 mer and fall. The State Federation of Labor had begun to 
 issue a series of child labor leaflets in the preceding Septem- 
 ber. Six numbers in all were published and a total of thirty- 
 five thousand copies distributed.*'^^ Club women, labor unions, 
 and humanitarian organizations took up the agitation. Mem- 
 bers of the legislature were made to feel that there was a 
 
136 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 genuine public demand for a law regulating the employment 
 of children. 
 
 In the Thirty-first General Assembly (1906) the subject 
 of child labor received early and large attention. The rep- 
 resentatives of the Iowa Child Labor Committee spared no 
 effort to secure the passage of a law, while the special in- 
 terests opposed to such legislation were also well represented. 
 Mr. Baily's bill, redrawn to meet some of the objections 
 raised at the preceding session, was simultaneously re-intro- 
 duced in both Houses on January 20, 1906, and again passed 
 through a long and varied legislative experience.*^^ 
 
 Mr. William S. Hart of Waukon, who had charge of the 
 House bill, presented a substitute measure which was ac- 
 ceptable to the advocates of the proposed legislation, and which 
 became the basis of the present law.^^^ The Hart substitute 
 was favorably reported on February 15 by the Judiciary 
 Committee, and after receiving several amendments on the 
 floor of the House passed that body by a vote of sixty-four 
 to twenty-four on February 20.*^^ 
 
 In the Senate, the Judiciary Committee kept the House 
 bill for three weeks and then brought in a substitute on March 
 10, which with slight change was adopted three days later 
 by a vote of forty-six to four.^^^ The House refusing to con- 
 cur in the Senate substitute, a conference committee was ap- 
 pointed consisting of Representatives Hart, Clary, Carsten- 
 sen, and Cummings, and Senators Dowell, Courtright, Whip- 
 ple, and Jackson — all friends of the proposed legislation. The 
 report of this committee was adopted in both Houses on April 
 2 and became a law upon the approval of the Grovernor.*^* 
 
 To recount in detail all the alterations made by the various 
 substitutes, amendments, and reports, would be tedious and 
 unprofitable. But for the sake of comparison the full texts 
 of the Hart substitute and of the law as passed are given 
 below. (Portions of the substitute bill omitted in the law are 
 bracketed, provisions of the law not found in the Hart sub- 
 stitute are italicized.) 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 137 
 
 Section 1. No person under fourteen years of age [, and no 
 person under sixteen years of age, who is less than sixty inches in 
 height and eighty pounds in weight,] shall be employed with or with- 
 out wages or compensation [,] in any mine, [quarry,] manufacturing 
 establishment, factory, mill, shop, laundry, slaughter house or pack- 
 ing house, [or bowling alley,] or in any store or mercantile establish- 
 ment [,] where [eight or more] more than eight persons are 
 employed, or in the operation of any freight or passenger elevator. 
 
 Sec. 2. No person under [eighteen] sixteen years of age shall 
 be employed at any work or occupation [,] hy which, by reason of its 
 nature or the place of employment, [is dangerous to life or limb, or 
 in which] the health of such person may be injured, or his morals 
 depraved, [ ;] or at any work in ivhich the handling or use of gun 
 powder, dynamite or other like explosive is required, and no female 
 under sixteen years of age shall be employed in any capacity where 
 the duties of such employment compel [Is] her to remain constantly 
 standing. 
 
 Sec. 3. No person under sixteen years of age shall be em- 
 ployed at any of the places or in any of the occupations recited in 
 section 1 hereof before the hour of six o 'clock in the morning or after 
 the hour of nine o'clock in the evening, and if such person is employed 
 exceeding five hours of each day, a noon intermission of not less than 
 thirty minutes shall be given between the hours of eleven and one 
 o'clock, and such person shall not be employed more than ten hours 
 in any one day, exclusive of the noon intermission, hut the pro- 
 visions of this section shall not apply to persons employed in husking 
 sheds or other places connected with canning factories where vege- 
 tables or grain are prepared for canning and in which no machinery 
 is operated. 
 
 [Sec. 4. No person under sixteen years of age, who cannot write 
 legibly and read ordinary sentences in the English language, shall be 
 employed at any of the places or in any of the employments recited 
 in section 1 hereof when school is in session in the district where such 
 work is performed unless there shall be filed in the office or other 
 place of business of such employer in the place of such employment, 
 a certificate either by the secretary of a school board, or the superin- 
 tendent, principal, or other person in charge of a school, that such 
 person has attended school not less than twelve weeks between the 
 time of such employment and the first day of the next preceding 
 September.] 
 
138 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Sec. [5] 4. Every person, firm or corporation having in its em- 
 ploy, at any of the places or in any of the occupations recited in sec- 
 tion 1 of this act, any persons under [eighteen] sixteen years of age, 
 shall cause to be posted at some conspicuous location at the place of 
 [said] such employment, and where same shall he accessible to in- 
 spection at all times during business hours, a list of the names of 
 such persons, giving after each name, the date of the birth of such 
 person [, nature of employment of such person,] and the date when 
 employed [, time of commencement of work and time of quitting 
 work each day, time allowed for noon intermission and hour of com- 
 mencement thereof, height and weight of such person at time of em- 
 ployment; and shall at the time of employment of any such person, 
 transmit a statement containing all of the above information upon a 
 blank furnished by commissioner of bureau of Labor Statistics, by 
 mail, to said commissioner at his office at Des Moines]. 
 
 Sec. [6.] 5. Any parent, guardian or other person, who having 
 under his control any person under sixteen years of age causes or 
 permits said person to work or be employed in violation of the pro- 
 visions of this act, or any person making, certifying to, or causing 
 to be made or certified to, any statement, certificate or other paper 
 for the purpose of procuring the employment of any person in viola- 
 tion of the provisions of this act, or who makes, files, executes or de- 
 livers any such statement, certificate or other paper containing any 
 false statement for the purpose of procuring the employment of any 
 person in violation of this act, or for the purpose of concealing the 
 violation of this act in such employment, and every person, firm or 
 corporation, or the agent, manager, superintendent, or officer of any 
 person, firm or corporation, whether for himself or such person, firm 
 or corporation, either by himself or acting through any agent, fore- 
 man, superintendent or manager, who knowingly employs any per- 
 son or permits any person to be employed in violation of the pro- 
 visions of this act, or who shall refuse to allow any authorized officer 
 or person to inspect any place of business under the provisions of 
 this act, if demand is made therefor at any time during business 
 hours [,] or who shall willfully obstruct such officer or person while 
 making such inspection, [or who shall falsely certify to any of the 
 facts with reference to the persons employed by such person, firm 
 or corporation as required by this act,] or who shall fail to keep 
 posted the lists containing the names of persons employed under 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 139 
 
 [eighteen] sixteen years of age and other information as required by 
 this act, or who shall knowingly insert any false statement in such 
 list, for who fails to furnish the information with reference to such 
 employment to the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
 as required by this act,] or who violates any other provision of this 
 act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon being found 
 guilty thereof, shall be fined not to exceed one hundred dollars or be 
 imprisoned in the county jail not to exceed thirty days. 
 
 Sec. [7.] 6. It shall be the duty of the commissioner of the 
 Bureau of Labor Statistics to enforce the provisions of this act, and 
 such commissioner and his deputies, factory inspectors, assistants and 
 and other persons authorized by him in writing, state mine inspectors, 
 and county attorneys, mayors, chiefs of police and police officers, 
 acting under their written directions, city and town marshals, sheriffs 
 and their deputies within the territories where they exercise their 
 official functions, and any person having authority therefor in writ> 
 ing from the judge of a court of record within the territory over 
 which such judge has jurisdiction, shall have authority to visit any 
 of the places enumerated in section 1 of this act, and make an inspec- 
 tion thereof to ascertain if any of the provisions of this act are vio- 
 lated or any person unlaAvfully employed thereat, and such persons 
 shall not be interfered with or prevented from asking questions of 
 any person found at the place being inspected by them with reference 
 to the provisions of this act. 
 
 It shall be the duty of the county attorney to investigate all com- 
 plaints made to him of the violation of this act, and to attend and 
 prosecute at the trial of all cases for its violation upon any informa- 
 tion that may be filed within his county. 
 
 Sec. [8] 7. All acts and parts of acts in conflict with the pro- 
 visions of this act are hereby repealed.^^^ 
 
 Some of the differences between the bill and the law are 
 so signiiacant as to deserve discussion. 
 
 The omission of bowling alleys from the list of prohibited 
 places of employment has nothing apparently to commend it 
 but the wishes of interested parties. This omission was made 
 by the House, upon the motion of Flenniken of Clayton Coun- 
 ty.*^® The House also altered section two by omitting the 
 prohibition of employment in places dangerous to life or limb, 
 
140 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 changed eig-hteen to sixteen years in sections two, five, and 
 six of the bill as reported, and struck out all of section four — 
 the last on motion of the author of the bill.*^'^ Mr. Hart's 
 motive in thus emasculating his own measure appears to have 
 been to conciliate opposition. The elided section would have 
 encouraged school attendance by illiterates between the ages 
 of fourteen and sixteen, but it would have been difficult of en- 
 forcement, and was not really very important. The object 
 sought could be better secured by an extension of the com- 
 pulsory education law. 
 
 Quite different was the case of stone quarries. These es- 
 tablishments are in Iowa usually worked near the surface, 
 so that except as regards dust they are not especially un- 
 wholesome. On the other hand, the use of high explosives 
 in rock blasting makes this employment particularly dan- 
 gerous for young boys. Quarrymen were, however, very anx- 
 ious to have their business exempted from the operation of 
 the child labor law. While the bill was pending before the 
 House, Representative Bealer of Linn County moved to strike 
 ''quarry" from section 1. This amendment was lost,*^^ but 
 the desired omission was secured in the Senate substitute 
 for the House bill.*^^ The conference committee then in- 
 serted the prohibition of the employment of persons under 
 sixteen at any work requiring the use of explosives. This 
 prohibition does not exclude children under sixteen from quar- 
 ries or mines, but only prevents their employment in blasting 
 operations.*^^ 
 
 The canning industry asked and received tender treat- 
 ment at the hands of the legislature. This industry is of 
 recent introduction in Iowa and has had a phenomenal 
 growth. The value of canned vegetables, principally corn 
 and tomatoes, more than doubled in the five-year period 1900- 
 1905, while the State advanced from ninth to fiLfth place in 
 this branch of industry. Canned corn alone formed more 
 than nine-tenths of the total, and in this one item Iowa was, 
 in 1905, first among the States of the Union.*^^ New estab- 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 141 
 
 lishments were being opened each year, many of them in 
 places where no manufacture had before existed. It was 
 feared that the prohibition of child labor might check the 
 growth of the industry. Many children, some of them not 
 over ten years old, were employed in these establishments, 
 mostly in the husking sheds and packing rooms.*^^ It was 
 claimed on behalf of the canners that the children were not 
 required to operate dangerous machinery or to work in un- 
 sanitary rooms, that many of them were accompanied by their 
 mothers, and that, since most of the factories were in opera- 
 tion only fifty or sixty days during the months of August and 
 September,*''^ employment therein did not interfere with 
 school attendance.^®^ The advocates of the child labor law 
 replied that the working day of the canneries is excessively 
 long — in many cases twelve or fourteen hours — that packing 
 rooms are not particularly wholesome, and that children un- 
 der fourteen years of age are required to start to school in 
 September. 
 
 The result of this discussion was a compromise. An 
 amendment offered by Senator Bruce of Atlantic (a center 
 of the canning industry) '^that the provisions of this act shall 
 not apply to children employed in the work of canning fac- 
 tories between the first days of July and December of each 
 year" was rejected by the Senate.*^^ Later the conference 
 committee was prevailed upon to except ''husking sheds or 
 other places where vegetables or grain are prepared for 
 canning and in which no machinery is operated" from the 
 provisions of section three, limiting the hours of work for 
 children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years in 
 certain rooms before six o 'clock in the morning or after eight 
 o'clock in the evening and for more than ten hours per day. 
 Since most of these establishments are not operated at night 
 the only practical effect of the excepting clause is to permit 
 the exaction of twelve hours labor from persons under six- 
 teen — a doubtful benefit to the canneries and an unquestion- 
 able injury to the children. 
 
142 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE CHILD LABOR LAW 
 
 The Child Labor Act went into operation July 4, 1906, 
 and the Bureau of Labor Statistics at once took steps to 
 secure its enforcement. Several thousand copies of the law 
 were distributed to employers, and the officers of the Bureau 
 in their tours of the State directed the discharge of the chil- 
 dren within the prohibited age whom they found at work and 
 the posting of lists of employees under sixteen. These recom- 
 mendations were generally complied with, most employers 
 manifesting willingness to conform to the law. No prosecu- 
 tions were undertaken during the first year, it being the policy 
 of the Bureau to secure observation of the law so far as 
 possible without litigation.*^^ This policy is still pursued, 
 but persistent violators are now being prosecuted. Fifty-six 
 informations were filed between the months of January and 
 October, 1907, mostly in the larger centers of industry. Up 
 to the last mentioned date there had been fifty-two convictions, 
 with four cases still pending, the defendants usually pleading 
 guilty. The fines were very light, generally one dollar for a 
 parent and five or ten for an employer.*^'^ Yet the prosecu- 
 tions had a most wholesome effect. Employers, especially, 
 disliking the publicity involved, became more careful about 
 employing children of doubtful age. 
 
 Thus far the enforcement of the law has devolved upon 
 the State Bureau of Labor, aided in some instances by the 
 labor unions. Local police authorities, as was to be expected, 
 have taken no action, though truant officers where they have 
 been appointed are effective in keeping children out of fac- 
 tories and stores during the months to which the compulsory 
 school law applies. Judges of the district court are author- 
 ized to appoint local inspector s,*^^ but so far as is known 
 none have ever been appointed. 
 
 The writer has personally investigated the working of 
 the child labor law in a number of centers of industry, and 
 has sent letters of inquiry to labor leaders and others inter- 
 ested in all parts of the State. From these investigations and 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 143 
 
 inquiries it appears that the law is now fairly well enforced — 
 ''as well as any similar law on our statute books. "^^^ But 
 there are still numerous violations in the department stores, 
 packing houses, button factories, box factories, broom works, 
 non-union cigar shops, and in canning establishments from 
 July to October. The canneries, supported in most places by 
 local public opinion, openly violate the law. Mothers bring 
 their children of all ages to the husking sheds, and any one 
 who can strip husks from an ear of corn is allowed to 
 work. In union establishments of all kinds, on the other 
 hand, not only is the law strictly enforced but its require- 
 ments are commonly exceeded. The law is most thoroughly 
 enforced in the mining industry, which is the best organized 
 trade in the State, It is doubtful whether boys under four- 
 teen years old could be found in any coal mine in Iowa. Very 
 few are allowed to work in the mines who are below the age 
 of sixteen. 
 
 DEFECTS OP THE PRESENT LAW 
 
 First. The State Bureau of Labor has been greatly 
 hampered in its efforts to enforce the law by the difficulty of 
 securing proof of violation. No evidence of the child's age 
 is now required beyond the unsupported statement of the 
 parent. Parents are often insistent on putting their children 
 to work, and employers, even when well disposed toward the 
 law, are easily deceived. The writer's observations, as well 
 as extensive inquiries, lead him to believe that falsification is 
 common.^^^ To hunt out every suspected case and test the 
 parents' statement by comparison with the public records is, 
 with the limited field force of the Bureau, altogether out of 
 the question. Age certificates ought to be issued by public 
 authority and only upon positive proof of age, as by pro- 
 duction of the certificate or register of birth or baptism, the 
 school census, or other official record. Such a provision based 
 upon the experience of other States, formed a part of the 
 original Baily bill,^°^ but was omitted in Mr. Hart's substi- 
 tute because of the opposition it had before excited. The 
 
144 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Commissioner of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics has 
 asked that the present law be amended so as to place upon 
 the employer and the parent the burden of proving the age 
 of a suspected child.^*^^ ^i^q}^ an amendment would add much 
 to the efficiency of the law. 
 
 Second. The present law is not inclusive enough. The 
 reasons for forbidding children to work in factories and stores 
 are equally applicable to their employment in offices, hotels, 
 and public restaurants, and in the express, delivery, and mes- 
 senger service. The hours exacted in all these employments 
 are often unreasonably long. Some of them necessarily in- 
 volve exposure to the inclemencies of the weather; and the 
 driving of a team on city streets, where that is allowed, may 
 fairly be described as dangerous for a boy under fourteen. 
 But the peril to the morals of children is much greater in all 
 these occupations than the danger to their health. The av- 
 erage business office or hotel lobby is certainly no fit place 
 for a young child. Even worse are the influences of the street 
 to which messenger and delivery boys are constantly exposed. 
 Worst of all, the messengers of the Western Union and Postal 
 Telegrai:)h companies are frequently sent to the red light 
 districts where they make the acquaintance of prostitutes and 
 are petted by them and given presents of fruit and candy.^*^^ 
 
 Third. The moral objections to child labor apply with 
 even greater force to bowling-alleys, theatres, circuses, and 
 other places of public amusement. The law does, to be sure, 
 forbid the employment of persons under sixteen in any place 
 where their health may be injured or their morals depraved. 
 But this provision is too vague to be of much practical value. 
 At all events, children under fourteen are still employed as 
 pin boys, ballet singers, and acrobatic performers — all of 
 which occupations directly tend to "deprave the morals" if 
 not to "injure the health" of the child. There ought to be 
 a specific enumeration of objectionable employments. 
 
 Fourth. There is likewise need for some regulation of 
 the street trades. Scores of newsboys, bootblacks, and street 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 145 
 
 venders in our large towns are under the age of twelve years, 
 and not a few are under ten.^"* Sometimes a much younger 
 child is employed as a decoy by an older brother. Taking his 
 stand a little way down the street, where his partner shall 
 not be visible, the tot accosts the passer-by with '^Please, 
 mister, buy a paper." The pathetic appeal of the tiny voice 
 seldom fails of the desired effect. 
 
 Both the health and morals of very young children are 
 menaced by permitting them to engage in street-vending. 
 From September to June those who are under fourteen are 
 mostly employed out of school hours. Beginning work at four 
 in the afternoon, they frequently do not reach home until nine 
 'clock or even later — long past dark in the winter season. If 
 they handle morning papers as well they must be out before 
 daylight. Think of an eleven year old child spending thirty 
 hours a week in school and perhaps thirty or forty hours 
 mornings, evenings, and Saturdays selling papers.^^^ Add to 
 this the cold fingers and wet feet often unavoidable in our 
 climate, not to mention the danger from passing vehicles, and 
 it will be seen that the trade of a newsboy is not exactly con- 
 ducive to longevity. The moral injury comes from premature 
 contact with vice in its most glittering forms, from improper 
 association with older children, and from the contraction of 
 habits easily formed but difficult to eradicate. ''Sleep-outs" 
 or semi-vagrants, ''gangs", juvenile offenders of every class, 
 are largely recruited from the street trades.^^^ 
 
 On behalf of unregulated street vending we meet the same 
 old arguments with which we are already familiar — the neces- 
 sities of business, the needs of the parents, the valuable train- 
 ing acquired by the child. In reply to the first of these argu- 
 ments, it may be said that it has never been shown that news- 
 papers cannot be cheaply and effectually distributed without 
 being sold by young children. The plea from family necessity 
 will not bear examination. A very large proportion of the 
 juvenile street-venders come from comfortable homes — homes 
 where the father's income is ample for the support of the 
 
146 HISTORY OP LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 family. The earnings of children under fourteen are far more 
 often spent as pocket money than contributed to the family 
 exchequer.^^"^ Finally, the license and the irregularity of the 
 street do not constitute a valuable preparation for life. The 
 newsboy does, indeed, acquire a worldly wisdom far beyond 
 his years. But most of this knowledge he would be better off 
 without, and the premature forcing of his intelligence too 
 often results in premature exhaustion. It is the familiar story 
 of precocity. As to industrial training, few of the street 
 trades are suitable for a permanent occupation. Neither the 
 newsboy nor the bootblack has many opportunities to form 
 valuable business connections. To be sure, certain individuals 
 have laid the foundations of a successful career while in these 
 very callings; but while such instances are widely adver- 
 tised, little is said of the far larger number of street children 
 who have gone to the reform school or the penitentiary.^'^^ 
 
 Fifth. Fourteen years is too low an age limit for most of 
 the employments fairly within the scope of restrictive legisla- 
 tion. The child at fourteen is neither physiologically nor 
 morally fitted to be a bread winner. His body is too imma- 
 ture, his character too plastic, to be safely subjected to the 
 rude buffeting of the world. The period of education ought 
 to extend to sixteen at the lowest, leaving to adults the busi- 
 ness of earning a livelihood. 
 
 If any one doubts the necessity of further restricting child 
 labor in Iowa, let him take his stand some morning shortly 
 before seven o'clock at the corner of Fifth and Mulberry 
 streets in the city of Muscatine. Here for half an hour the 
 streams of factory hands converge from four sides and are 
 swallowed up in the neighboring button mills. Among them 
 come scores of grammar school children, carrying their dinner 
 pails, but without the satchel and shining morning face. For 
 many of these children have been three or four years in the 
 button factories and their pale faces, slouching gait, and under- 
 developed bodies, tell all too sadly the story of deterioration. 
 That we allow these boys and girls, everyone of whom ought 
 
CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION 147 
 
 to be in school, to toil ten mortal hours in the dust-and-germ- 
 laden air of a finishing or grinding room, feeding tireless ma- 
 chines, shortening their lives and impairing the vitality of a 
 future generation, is a reproach to our Commonwealth. 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 Iowa already has in the system of juvenile courts, the char- 
 itable and correctional institutions, and the compulsory edu- 
 cation and child labor laws a respectable body of legislation 
 for the benefit of neglected, dependent, and delinquent chil- 
 dren. Certainly the State is in a better situation as re- 
 gards child problems than any of the more populous Com- 
 monwealths. But the people of Iowa have no reason to feel 
 satisfied with present conditions. There is still very much 
 for them to do in the way of enforcing school attendance, 
 stopping the numerous gaps in the present child labor law, 
 raising the age limit for forbidden employments, and extend- 
 ing protection to children now legally engaged in occupations 
 no less objectionable. The friends of childhood — and they 
 are the friends of society — ^should regard existing legislation 
 as only a beginning. They should never cease their efforts 
 until they have placed Iowa on a plane with the most ad- 
 vanced States in her public provision for the welfare of her 
 children. 
 
VIII 
 THE LAW OF EMPLOYEES' LIABILITY 
 
 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 No general employer's liability law has ever been enacted 
 in Iowa. Here the rules of the Common Law prevail, except 
 in so far as these have been modified in certain respects by 
 statute. Accordingly, an attempt will be made in this chapter 
 to state the leading principles of the Common Law of em- 
 ployer's liability as gathered from court decisions and to show 
 how far these doctrines have been affected by legislation. 
 
 The first employers' liability case to reach the Supreme 
 Court of Iowa was that of Sullivan vs. The Mssissippi and 
 Missouri Eiver Railroad Company (11 Iowa, 421), which came 
 up for determination in 1860. The earliest cases of like char- 
 acter in England and America had only been decided about 
 a score of years before.^^^ But such cases had multiplied 
 very rapidly with the growth of the modem industrial system, 
 so that a great body of decisions had come into existence be- 
 fore 1860, and the broad doctrines of the law of employer's 
 liability were already well established. Those doctrines were 
 adopted as a matter of course by the Iowa court, and the sub- 
 sequent development of the law in this State has very naturally 
 been largely influenced by its course elsewhere. It is well 
 known, however, that there is great diversity of views upon 
 this branch of the law among the various Anglo-American 
 jurisdictions. Iowa has her own line of decisions, as well as 
 her own liability statutes, and some rules are recognized by 
 her courts which have not found general acceptance. More- 
 over, while the literature dealing with employers' liability is 
 very voluminous, the law of any one State has seldom, if ever, 
 been systematically worked out. For these reasons the sub- 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 149 
 
 ject is here treated more in detail than would otherwise be 
 necessary or allowable in a work of this character. No at- 
 tempt has been made, however, to collate all the decisions, and 
 only such cases are cited as appear to be most apt for the 
 purposes of illustration. 
 
 The right of a servant to recover from his master for 
 injuries received in the course of his employment rests upon 
 the principle of negligence ; the master owes certain duties to 
 his employees, and for any breach of these he is answerable in 
 civil damages. It will be well, therefore, to preface the dis- 
 cussion of the law of employers' liability with a brief sum- 
 mary of the law of negligence, of which the former is a par- 
 ticular application. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE IN GENEEAL 
 
 Negligence consists in doing, or omitting to do, something 
 which a person of ordinary prudence would not have done or 
 omitted under like circumstances. ^^^ It is not every reckless 
 or careless act, however, which constitutes actionable negli- 
 gence. There must be a breach of some duty, imposed by law, 
 owing to the party injured from him who was guilty of the 
 negligent act.^^^ Again, there is no ground of action unless 
 the negligent act complained of was the proximate cause of 
 the injury for which recovery is sought f^"^ that is, unless the 
 original negligent act in a natural and continuous sequence, 
 unbroken by any new cause, would have produced the injury, 
 and unless without it the injury would not have occurred.^^^ 
 Lastly, there can be no recovery for any injury to which the 
 person injured in any degree proximately contributed by his 
 own want of ordinary care.^^* The doctrine of comparative 
 negligence is not recognized in lowa,^^^ it being said that the 
 law will not undertake to determine which of two wrongdoers 
 is most at fault.^^^ But the contributory negligence of the 
 person injured will not defeat his recovery unless it is an 
 efficient and proximate cause of his injury.^^'^ Nor is the 
 contributory negligence of the injured party a bar to recovery 
 where the other party to the accident becomes aware of such 
 
 11 
 
150 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 negligence in time to enable him to avoid the injury by the 
 exercise of ordinary care^^^ (doctrine of last clear chance). 
 
 In an action to recover damages for an injury negligently 
 caused, the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show not only 
 that the injury was the proximate result of the defendant's 
 negligence, but that he was himself exercising due care at the 
 time of the injury.^^^ It is not always necessary, however, 
 to prove the absence of contributory negligence by direct and 
 positive testimony.^^^ The fact of due care may sometimes 
 be inferred from the circumstances, ^^^ or from the instinct of 
 self-preservation.^^^ Thus, in case of an injury causing death, 
 it may be presumed, until the contrary appears, that the de- 
 ceased, prompted by his natural instinct, exercised such care 
 for his safety as was required under the circumstances.^^^ 
 But the presumption arising from the instinct of self-preser- 
 vation only obtains in the absence of direct evidence as to 
 the care exercised by the person injured at the time of the 
 injury,^^* 
 
 Both the negligence of the defendant and the contributory 
 negligence of the plaintiff are ordinarily mixed questions of 
 law and fact.^^^ The issues of fact should be submitted to the 
 jury, imder proper instructions from the court, whenever there 
 is conflicting testimony^^^ or whenever reasonable men may 
 honestly differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the 
 undisputed facts in the case.^^"^ 
 
 BELATION OF MASTER AND SERVANT 
 
 The relation of master and servant, or of employer and 
 employed, arises where one person contracts with another 
 for his services, becoming directly responsible to him for his 
 compensation and obtaining authority to direct the perform- 
 ance of his work.^^^ Where no such contract exists there is, 
 of course, no employer's liability.^^^ The contract need not 
 be express, but may be implied from acceptance of the service, 
 as where a servant, with the master's knowledge, employs a 
 substitute.^^^ On the other hand, a servant who voluntarily 
 undertakes a task outside the scope of his employment, or 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 151 
 
 who goes into an unauthorized place of danger, becomes a 
 mere volunteer, or a trespasser, to whom the master owes 
 no duty of protection until his peril is discovered.^^^ But a 
 servant is within the scope of his employment in engaging 
 in work which he customarily performs with the knowledge, 
 actual or constructive, of the master or his representative, 
 though without express authorization.^^^ An independent con- 
 tractor, that is, one who undertakes to do a piece of work 
 according to his own methods, and without being subject to the 
 control of his employer, except as to the results of his work,^^^ 
 is not a servant, and the master is not liable for his negli- 
 gence.^^* 
 
 THE DUTIES OF EMPLOYEES 
 DEGREE OF CARE 
 
 The master is not an insurer of his employees,^^^ but he is 
 bound to use reasonable care for their safety while they are 
 engaged at their work.^''® An employer cannot be held to the 
 exercise of anything more than ordinary care on behalf of 
 his employees,^^'^ that is, such care as a person of average 
 prudence would exercise under the like or similar circum- 
 stances.^^^ But ordinary care is itself no fixed and unalter- 
 able standard,^^^ but is to be measured by the character of the 
 business and the risks attending its prosecution.^*^ Thus in 
 handling electricity, or in exposing men to its currents, rea- 
 sonable care is great care.^*^ So, too, it is negligence to run 
 a railway train at high speed where the road-bed has been 
 softened by recent rains, although such speed would not be 
 dangerous under normal conditions.^*^ 
 
 master's knowledge of DANGEROUS CONDITION 
 
 An employer is not bound to foresee and guard against 
 every possible contingency, but only against such as are likely 
 to occur.^*^ Unless he has knowledge, actual or constructive, 
 of the existence of a dangerous condition he is not liable for 
 an injury arising therefrom.^** But knowledge will be pre- 
 sumed whenever the dangerous condition has existed for such 
 
152 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 a length of time that the employer, in the exercise of ordi- 
 nary care, could have discovered it.^*^ 
 
 GENERAL USAGE AS A STANDARD OF CARE 
 
 The general usage of employers in the same line of busi- 
 ness, and in the same vicinity, may be shown as bearing upon 
 the question of ordinary care.^^® Common usage, however, is 
 not in Iowa conclusive proof of care and is of no avail as a 
 defense where the custom is in itself negligent.^*"^ 
 
 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AS A STANDARD OF CARE 
 
 The violation of an express statutory requirement is negli- 
 gence per 56;^*^ any injury caused by such violation is the 
 subject of an action, and it is sufficient to allege the violation 
 of the law as the basis of the right to recover and as con- 
 stituting the negligence complained of.^*^ Thus it is negli- 
 gence to operate railway cars not equipped in accordance with 
 the automatic coupler law,^^^ to leave dangerous machinery 
 unguarded in violation of the factory acts,^^^ to supply a less 
 amount of air in a coal mine than is required by law,^^^ or to 
 operate trains at an illegal rate of speed.^^^ Violation of law 
 does not, however, give an absolute right of recovery but only 
 establishes the fact of negligence.^^* 
 
 SPECIFIC DUTIES OF THE MASTER 
 
 The master's duty not to expose his employees to unneces^ 
 sary dangers requires him to provide reasonably safe instru- 
 mentalities for carrying on his business, and to see that these 
 are used in a reasonably safe manner. Under the first of 
 these heads belong the duties to furnish a safe place to work, 
 to provide safe and suitable tools and appliances, and to hire 
 competent servants. The second general category of the mas- 
 ter's duties includes his obligations to conduct his business 
 upon a safe system, to warn servants of dangers not known 
 to them, and to instruct them where necessary as to the proper 
 performance of their duties. 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 153 
 
 DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK. 
 
 It is the duty of an employer to use reasonable care to 
 provide his employees a safe place to work.^^^ The master's 
 duty is sometimes stated more broadly, as when it is said that 
 he must furnish a "safe place "^^^ or "a reasonably safe 
 place ".^^'^ But these expressions mean no more than that the 
 employer is bound to use ordinary care to provide such a 
 place, A place is "safe" within the meaning of the law when 
 it has been furnished and equipped with reasonable care. The 
 law only requires that those safeguards and precautions which 
 ordinary experience, prudence, and foresight suggest shall be 
 taken to prevent injury to the employee while he is himself 
 exercising reasonable care in the service which he undertakes 
 to perform.^^^ 
 
 The obligation of the employer to furnish a safe place to 
 work is a continuing one;^^^ it is his duty not only to make 
 the working place reasonably safe to begin with, but to exer- 
 cise ordinary care in so keeping it.^^^ Ordinary care involves 
 the duty of inspection where the place of employment is likely 
 to become unsafe by the lapse of time.^^^ But where the 
 place is rendered unsafe by the progress of the work, the 
 master is relieved from liability as to servants engaged in 
 such work.^^2 Nor does the doctrine that the master must 
 provide a safe place to work apply where the servant seeking 
 recovery is himself responsible for the creation and care of 
 the place where he works, as in the case of a coal miner's 
 *'room".^^^ 
 
 DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE MACHINERY AND APPLIANCES 
 
 It is the duty of the master to make reasonable efforts to 
 furnish his servants with suitable and safe appliances for the 
 performance of the duties assigned to them.^^* He does not 
 warrant the safety of tools and machinery any more than of 
 the place to work;^^^ nor is he bound to furnish appliances 
 such that accidents will be impossible^^^ — it is sufficient if he 
 provides those which in the exercise of due care can be used 
 with reasonable safety.^^"^ 
 
154 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 An employer is not bound to use the best appliances which 
 can be obtained, nor is he bound to adopt any new device until 
 its utility has been sufficiently tested and it has been shown 
 to be as a whole better than the appliance already in use for 
 the same purpose.^^^ Thus, it has been held that in the ab- 
 sence of statutory requirement a railway company is not 
 necessarily guilty of negligence in failing to equip its loco- 
 motive engines with automatic couplers.^^^ So, too, an em- 
 ployer is not negligent in failing to guard certain machinery 
 when it is not usual to guard similar machinery.^'^*^ But 
 where a safety appliance is in common use a jury may find 
 that the master is wanting in ordinary care in not adopting 
 it or some other appliance equally safe.^"^^ 
 
 DUTY OF INSPECTION 
 
 We have already seen that where a master furnishes his 
 servant a place to work he is bound to use reasonable care to 
 keep it in safe repair. The same rule holds of appliances fur- 
 nished for the servant's use.^"^^ As regards new machinery, 
 the employer is presumed to have notice of any defects which 
 existed at the time when it was put in use.^'^^ Moreover, he 
 is bound to know that appliances originally safe are liable to 
 get out of order while in use, and he is chargeable with knowl- 
 edge of any defects which he could have discovered by ordi- 
 nary care and watchfulness.^'^* ''It will not do to say that, 
 having furnished suitable and proper machinery and appli- 
 ances, the [railway] corporation can thereafter remain pas- 
 sive. The duty of inspection is affirmative, and must be con- 
 tinuously fulfilled, and positively performed. "^'^^ Mere fre- 
 quency of inspection is not sufficient ; there must also be proper 
 care in the performance of the duty.^'^® Inspection by a public 
 authority does not relieve the master of his own duty in dis- 
 covering and repairing defects, and the failure of an official 
 inspector to discover a defect in a particular appliance which 
 he is not shown to have inspected, is not proof of the absence 
 of such defect.^"^' 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 155 
 
 DUTY TO HIRE COMPETENT SERVANTS 
 
 The master must furnish a sufficient number of competent 
 servants for carrying on his business with reasonable safety.^"^^ 
 It is his duty to exercise care in the selection of employees,^"^^ 
 and he is chargeable with knowledge of the incompetence of a 
 servant when he should in the exercise of ordinary care have 
 known of such incompetence.^^^ The employer's knowledge of 
 the servant's incompetence may be inferred from the prior 
 conduct of the latter, but a single act of casual neglect on the 
 part of the employee does not prove him incompetent,^^-*^ nor 
 does a servant's carelessness at the time the injury com- 
 plained of was received show want of due care in employing 
 him.^^^ 
 
 DUTY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS UPON SAFE SYSTEM 
 
 The employer's duty to conduct his business upon a rea- 
 sonably safe system includes the duty of providing sufficient 
 and necessary rules for the guidance of employees.^^^ 
 
 DUTY TO WARN AND INSTRUCT 
 
 The master is required to instruct an employee in the per- 
 formance of a service attended with a danger of injury which 
 is not known to or appreciated by the employee,^^* and to warn 
 him of dangers which are, or should be, in the exercise of 
 reasonable care known to the master but which the servant 
 does not know of or does not appreciate.^^^ But the master is 
 not bound to instruct an experienced employee, nor to point 
 out dangers known to the employee,^^^ or which are so open 
 and obvious that by the exercise of ordinary care the servant 
 could discover them.^*^" 
 
 THE employer's DEFENSES 
 
 It follows from the very definition of employers' liability 
 that, unless the master is remiss in the performance of some 
 of the duties just discussed, the servant will have no ground 
 of action against him. For without breach of duty there is 
 no negligence, and without negligence there is no liability. 
 But even where an injury is proximately caused by the negli- 
 
156 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 gence of the master the latter may still be able to escape lia- 
 bility by setting up one or more of the defenses open to him. 
 These defenses as here treated are three in number: con- 
 tributory negligence, assumption of risk, and the fellow sei-v- 
 ant rule. Logically, of course, the third is not a separate 
 defense at all, but a phase of the second. For the negligence 
 of co-employees is one of the risks assumed by the servant 
 when he enters his master's employ. But the precise rela- 
 tionship of the two defenses is not very significant and is 
 seldom adverted to by the courts, while the fellow servant 
 rule is so important in itself and is subject to so many quali- 
 fications that a separate treatment is convenient if not neces- 
 sary. Logically, again, there is another defense expressed by 
 the maxim. Volenti non fit injuria. But the distinction between 
 this maxim and the doctrine of assumption of risk has not been 
 clearly drawn by the Iowa courts. Indeed, it would hardly be 
 too much to say that the maxim is not recognized in this 
 State as a separate defense in employer's liability cases. Cer- 
 tainly it calls for no separate consideration here. 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE 
 
 In strictness, contributory negligence is not a defense. 
 Its absence is a matter to be pleaded and proven to justify 
 a recovery.^^** The defendant, however, will usually seek to 
 show contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff by 
 way of rebuttal. The plea may, therefore, be treated as a 
 defense, though the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff 
 to show his freedom from contributory negligence and not 
 upon the defendant to show the fact of such negligence. 
 
 As applied to the relation of master and servant, the doc- 
 trine of contributory negligence presents two aspects. First, 
 a servant may be guilty of contributory negligence so as to 
 preclude recovery in continuing to work under conditions 
 which he knows, or ought to know, to be abnormally danger- 
 ous. Second, a servant cannot recover for an injury to which 
 his own want of due care at the time contributed as an efficient 
 cause. In Iowa, however, the conception of contributory neg- 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 157 
 
 ligence in continuing at work is merged with that of con- 
 tractual assumption of risk.^^^ It only remains, therefore, to 
 discuss the question of the servant's negligence at the time 
 of the injury. 
 
 A master is entitled, in the conduct of his business, to aci 
 upon the presumption that his employees will themselves use 
 ordinary care in the discharge of their respective duties.^^^ 
 A servant, on the other hand, cannot be held to any higher 
 degree of care than that defined as reasonable or ordinary,^^^ 
 though what conduct is reasonable will, of course, depend upon 
 the particular circumstances surrounding each case.^^^ 
 
 Contributory negligence is, of course, not predicable un- 
 less the employee was, or ought to have been aware of the 
 conditions which caused his injury,^^^ and appreciated the 
 dangers created by those conditions.^^* Knowledge of a dan- 
 gerous condition will be imputed to an employee when he 
 could have discovered the same by the use of ordinary care.^^^ 
 Whether or not he can be held to have appreciated the danger 
 thereby occasioned may depend upon the age and experience 
 of the employee,^®^ his opportunities for observation,^^'^ and 
 other circumstances existing at the time of the injury.^^^ 
 
 It has been seen that contributory negligence is not to be 
 predicated as a matter of law unless it is a necessary inference 
 from undisputed facts. Some typical cases which have been 
 held to present such a necessary inference are discussed below. 
 
 Violation of law is negligence per se/^^ and where such 
 violation by the party injured contributed to the injury com- 
 plained of, he cannot recover. But if the violation of law 
 was a mere condition, and not a proximate cause of the injury, 
 it will not defeat recovery.^*^*^ 
 
 The needless violation of a known rule of the employer 
 intended for the safety of his employees is contributory negli- 
 gence, if it is an efficient cause of the inquiry.^^^ Of course, 
 a breach of the rules will not defeat recovery where it was 
 not the proximate cause of the injury,^^^ nor where the breach 
 was justified by the circumstances.®^^ Nor can an employer 
 
158 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 escape responsibility by showing the violation of a rule which 
 is habitually disregarded with his apparent acquiescence.®^* 
 
 It is not necessarily negligent to adopt the more dangerous 
 of two available courses of action. The question is ordinarily 
 one of fact, to be determined according to the circumstances 
 of the case, the reasons for doing what was done, and the care 
 used to avoid danger.®^^ But to choose a reckless or need- 
 lessly dangerous method of accomplishing an object is negli- 
 gence as a matter of law.®^® Thus, a brakeman is not always 
 guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law, in going 
 between cars while in motion to couple or to uncouple them.®^"^ 
 Nor is a servant necessarily negligent in failing to use a safety 
 appliance provided by the employer,®^^ though it is negligent 
 to ignore such an appliance where it can reasonably be used.®^^ 
 
 Other illustrations of negligent conduct are: failure to 
 use appropriate precautions in a dangerous situation ;®^^ ex- 
 posure to dangers created by permanent conditions or struct- 
 ures which the employee is bound to know of ;®^^ going into 
 or remaining in an unauthorized and dangerous position ;®^^ 
 creating or assisting to create the conditions from which the 
 injury results ;®^^ or going into a dangerous place without 
 notifying persons from whose acts danger may reasonably be 
 anticipated.®^* The variety of possible negligent acts is, of 
 course, limitless. The concrete instances above enumerated 
 are perhaps sufficient for purposes of illustration. 
 
 The inference arising from a particular course of conduct 
 may be negatived by a variety of circumstances. Among these 
 are: the youth or inexperience of the employee ;®^^ the need 
 of performing a duty in haste ;®^® conditions of imminent peril 
 or necessity under which an act is performed :®^'^ or the en- 
 grossment of the employee's attention by the duties in which 
 he is engaged.®^^ The fact that a particular act is usual or 
 customary tends to rebut a presumption of negligence,®^^ un- 
 less the custom in itself is negligent.®^^ A servant is ordinar- 
 ily entitled, until the contrary appears, to rely upon the pre- 
 sumption that his co-employees will use reasonable care in 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 159 
 
 the performance of their several duties, and he will not be 
 guilty of negligence in omitting precautions which he might 
 have used but for such presumption.^^^ 
 
 ASSUMPTION OF RISKS 
 
 We have seen that the doctrine of contributory negligence 
 applies in all cases in which damages are sought for injuries 
 due to the negligence of another. The doctrine of the assump-* 
 tion of risk is restricted to suits of servants against their 
 masters; but within that sphere it is a far-reaching bar to 
 recovery. That doctrine is that when a servant enters the 
 employment of a master, he takes upon himself the ordinary 
 risks incident to the employment in which he is engaged, and 
 also such other risks as he may be held to know of and appre- 
 ciate.^^^ It has been asserted that the assumption of risk is 
 implied by law from the relationship of master and servant.^^^ 
 More usually, however, it is regarded as an implied term of 
 the contract of employment.^^^ 
 
 The risks assumed by servants are of two kinds: those 
 incident to the business as it is usually carried on ; and those 
 primarily due to the negligence of the master. The formei: 
 are commonly spoken of as ordinary and the latter as ex- 
 traordinary risks. Assumption by the servant of these two 
 classes of risks is placed upon somewhat different grounds, 
 and is governed by different rules of proof ; though such as- 
 sumption, when once established, is equally fatal to recovery 
 in either case. We shall first consider the assumption of ordi- 
 nary risks. 
 
 ORDINARY BISKS 
 
 When a servant enters the employment of a master he 
 takes upon himself such danger and exposure to injury as is 
 naturally incident to or connected with the service in which 
 he engages after the master has fulfilled his duty to take rea- 
 sonable care for the safety of his employees.^^^ Risks thus 
 arising are not due to the employer's negligence; hence an 
 injury resulting therefrom affords no cause of action. The 
 
160 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 assumption of these risks inheres in the contract of employ- 
 ment, or in the relation of master and servant, and need not 
 be pleaded as a defense.^^^ 
 
 Knowledge and appreciation of danger are essential ele- 
 ments in the assumption of risk.^^^ But as respects the ordi- 
 nary risks of an employment, knowledge and appreciation may 
 be presumed from the fact of undertaking the service. For 
 one who enters a certain emplojnnent impliedly represents 
 that he has the experience to perform properly the duties of 
 his position and that he knows the obvious dangers attending 
 the employment in which he engages.^^^ The age and ex- 
 perience of an employee are, however, to be considered in de- 
 termining whether he comprehended and so assumed a par- 
 ticular risk.®^^ 
 
 Since the risks ordinarily incident to an employment are 
 usually held to be assumed by the servant as a matter of law, 
 and as to them the master is relieved of all responsibility, the 
 determination of what risks are to be deemed ordinary be- 
 comes a matter of great importance. The question may be 
 approached from either of two directions: the care required 
 of the master, and the knowledge imputed to the servant. On 
 the one hand, ordinary risks are defined as those which rea- 
 sonable care on the part of the employer cannot guard 
 against.^^*^ On the other hand, the servant is said to assume 
 the risks which a reasonably prudent and careful man would 
 expect to encounter in the course of his employment.^^^ But, 
 in either view, the servant assumes only those risks which are 
 incident to the business when conducted in a reasonably pru- 
 dent and careful manner,^^^ unless he has knowledge, actual 
 or implied, that it is not so conducted.^^^ 
 
 The ordinary risks of an employment always include those 
 which are inherent in the nature of the business.^^* One who 
 engages in an extra-hazardous employment thus takes upon 
 himself the ordinary perils incident thereto.^^^ 
 
 Every person in undertaking to work agrees to labor in 
 the situation and with the tools provided, in so far as the con- 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 161 
 
 dition of these is apparent or may be ascertained by the ex- 
 ercise of ordinary diligence.^^^ All open and obvious dangers 
 are, accordingly, to be considered as risks incident to the 
 employment,^^^ whether such dangers result from the char- 
 acter of the instrumentalities used,®^* or from the conditions, 
 whether permanent ^^^ or temporary,^**^ under which the busi- 
 ness is openly conducted. 
 
 The rule governing the assumption of risk is the same in 
 works of construction and repair as in any other employment, 
 though the risks assumed may be greater because of the 
 hazardous character of such work.^^^ Thus, one employed 
 to make a dangerous place safe cannot recover for injuries 
 received by reason of the very danger which he undertakes 
 to remove, since that is a danger incident to his employment.^*^ 
 So, too, a servant assumes any risk of injury created by the 
 progress of the work in which he is engaged.^*^ If, for ex- 
 ample, he is employed to tear down an old building,^** the risk 
 of injury from the falling of the overhanging material is his 
 own. But in all of these cases the servant assumes only those 
 risks which are naturally incident to the employment, while 
 the master's duty not to expose him to any injury which may 
 reasonably be anticipated and guarded against remains unim- 
 paired.^*"^ 
 
 EXTRAORDINARY RISKS 
 
 ''A servant is prima facie not chargeable with an assump- 
 tion of extraordinary risks — risks, that is to say, which may 
 be obviated by the exercise of reasonable care on the master's 
 part."^*^ But if an extraordinary risk is actually or con- 
 structively known to and comprehended by the employee, and 
 he notwithstanding elects to remain in the service, he assumes 
 the risk and waives the right to recover for injuries caused 
 thereby.^'^^ The servant's inability to recover is placed upon 
 the ground of the maxim, Volenti non fit injuria;^^^ having 
 voluntarily incurred the danger, he cannot complain of the 
 injury.^^^ The assumption of an extraordinary risk is, then, 
 to be inferred not from the contract of employment, but from 
 
162 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 voluntarj^ continuance in the service after the risk is known 
 and appreciated.^^^ 
 
 Assumption of risks arising from negligence of the master 
 is an affirmative defense, which must be pleaded in answer and 
 sustained by a preponderance of the evidence.^^^ The ques- 
 tion whether or not a particular risk has been assumed is 
 ordinarily for the jury.^^* 
 
 A risk not ordinarily incident to the employment in which 
 he is engaged is not assumed by an employee unless he had 
 notice of its existence.^^^ Actual knowledge, however, need 
 not be shown, since every person is held to know what in the 
 exercise of ordinary care he ought to know.^^^ It is the duty 
 of an employee to use reasonable care and prudence to dis- 
 cover the open and obvious dangers around him,^^'^ and he is 
 chargeable with knowledge of any danger which it would have 
 been possible to discover by the exercise of such care as per- 
 sons of ordinary intelligence may be expected to take for their 
 own saf tey.®^® However he is not required to inspect or search 
 for obscure dangers or defects in his place of work, or in the 
 machinery or appliances which are furnished to him.*''^'' 
 
 Mere knowledge of a dangerous condition will not charge 
 an employee with assumption of risk therefrom.^^^ It must 
 further appear that he appreciated, as a reasonably pru- 
 dent man should appreciate, the danger to himself resulting 
 from the abnormal condition.^^^ 
 
 "Wliether an emj^loyee is chargeable with knowledge and 
 appreciation of a particular risk will depend upon various 
 circumstances : the employee 's age and experience f^^ his op- 
 portunities for acquaintance with his surroundings ;^^^ the 
 means of information at his command ;^^* and the obviousness 
 of the danger to which he is exposed. 
 
 A minor servant is not, as a matter of law, incapable of 
 assenting to and assuming the risk of a hazard created by 
 the negligence of his master.^^^ But the age and experience 
 of the servant are always important considerations in deter- 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 163 
 
 mining whether he knows or ought to know and appreciate 
 the peril to which he is exposed.^^^ 
 
 An employee is chargeable with knowledge and apprecia- 
 tion of all dangers which are open and obvious,^®'^ that is to 
 say, discoverable by the exercise of reasonable care.^^^ A 
 bridge above a railway track too low to be cleared by a brake- 
 man standing on the top of a box car,^^^ a projecting girder 
 in an elevator shaft,^'^^ or a coal shute in close proximity to 
 a railroad track ^'^^ presents dangers which must be patent to 
 any person of ordinary intelligence. But where the risk is not 
 apparent it is not assumed unless there are circumstances 
 showing that it should have been understood and appre- 
 ciated.^^^ 
 
 Assumption of risk relieves the master of all liability un- 
 der the common law. Recovery is thus barred for failure to 
 provide a safe place to work®"^^ or safe machinery and appli- 
 ances,^"^* to hire competent servants,^"^^ or to conduct the busi- 
 ness on a safe system.^'^*^ 
 
 The defense of assumption of risk is equally available 
 against a violation of statutory law, at least as respects stat- 
 utes not enacted i:)rimarily for the protection of employees.^^"^ 
 But under the factory acts forbidding the employment of 
 children in the operation of machinery it has been held that 
 children within the prohibited age limit are presumptively 
 incapable of appreciating the danger attendant upon such em- 
 ployment. ^^^ "Public policy", it was said, "would seem to 
 demand that the statute which undertakes to protect children 
 against the hazard to which the recklessness and inexperience 
 of childhood expose them shall not be defeated of its purpose 
 by pleading that same childish recklessness or ignorance as a 
 reason for exempting an employer from responsibility for his 
 wrong." The defense of assumption of risk is not, however, 
 abrogated by these decisions. It still remains open for the 
 employer to show affirmatively that the servant, notwithstand- 
 ing his youth, possesses sufficient knowledge and experience 
 to appreciate the risk to which he is exposed.^"^^ 
 
164 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Knowledge and appreciation of a danger created by the 
 master's negligence does not in every case charge an employee 
 with assumption of the risk, nor with contributory negligence 
 in continuing at work. But where it appears that the servant 
 knew and appreciated the danger which caused his injury, it 
 is incumbent upon him to show that he was in some manner 
 justified in exposing liimself thereto.^^^ Such justification 
 may arise from several circumstances. 
 
 In the first place, an employee does not assume a risk 
 of which he only becomes aware at the moment of his injury. 
 No one is properly chargeable with knowledge of a peril 
 unless in the exercise of reasonable care he might have become 
 aware of it sufiBciently in advance to enable him to protect 
 himself therefrom.^^'^ Moreover, it would be unreasonable to 
 require an employee to abandon his master's service the in- 
 stant he discovers a dangerous condition. He may wait a 
 reasonable time to see whether, upon complaint, the danger 
 will be removed; and during such time he is not chargeable 
 with assumption of risk.^^^ 
 
 It has been said, in at least one case, that a servant does 
 not assume the risk of any defects in the things about which 
 he is employed unless, knowing the defects, he remains in the 
 employment of his master without objection or protest against 
 their continuance.^^^ Protest is here apparently treated as 
 evidence of non-consent, and so as inconsistent with the theory 
 of voluntary assumption of risk. But so merciful a view, if 
 ever really entertained, has not been adopted. It is now set- 
 tled that complaint of a defect, without a promise of remedy, 
 will not relieve the employee of assumption of the risk if he 
 continues in the service.^^* 
 
 A different rule obtains where the employee continues at 
 work in reliance upon the master's assurance that a dangerous 
 condition will be remedied. The employee's assumption of the 
 risk arising from the condition promised to be remedied is 
 suspended, eo instante, by such a promise, and his right of 
 recovery remains intact so long as he may reasonably expect 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 165 
 
 the promise to be fulfilled.^^^ The master's promise need not 
 be express : it is sufficient if the servant has a right to believe 
 that the defect will be remedied.^^^ Nor need the promise be 
 made by the master himself, since he is bomid by the act of 
 one having authority in such matters.®^'^ 
 
 A servant may be justified by express command of the 
 master or his representative in doing an act from which dan- 
 ger may reasonably be apprehended.^^^ This rule is especially 
 applicable to employments like railroading in which due sub- 
 ordination and prompt obedience to orders are indispensable 
 to the safety of life and property. But in order to justify a 
 particular act the order must be specific,^^^ while even an ex- 
 press command will not excuse an employee in incurring an 
 unnecessary danger which is apparent to him.^^^ 
 
 A principle somewhat analogous to that just stated is, 
 that a servant is entitled to place some reliance upon the 
 assurance of his superior, who is presumably better informed 
 than himself, that an appliance is safe or that an act may, 
 be safely done.^^^ Either an express command or an assur- 
 ance of safety tends to negative both contributory negligence 
 and assumption of risk, since the one implies a want of volun- 
 tary action and the other shows excusable ignorance of the 
 danger to be incurred. 
 
 We have seen that an act which would otherwise be con- 
 tributory negligence may be excusable where the employee's 
 attention is necessarily engrossed by the performance of duty 
 so that a known danger is absent from his mind, or where 
 an emergency exists requiring prompt action. It is clear, 
 however, that circumstances such as these cannot, in a logical 
 point of view, be held to negative a contractual assumption 
 of risk. For when a risk has been assumed, the master's 
 negligence with respect thereto is waived, and this waiver 
 can not be affected by the particular situation in which the 
 employee may be placed, or the rapidity and promptness with 
 which he may be required to act at the time of the accident.^^^ 
 Such is undoubtedly the general rule as recognized in this 
 
 12 
 
166 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 and other States.^*^^ A more merciful doctrine appears to be 
 announced in Strong vs. Iowa Central Railroad Company 
 (94 Iowa, 380). In that case a brakeman adopted a danger- 
 ous but speedy mode of making a coupling in order to clear 
 the main track for a passenger train which was almost due. 
 It was held that under the circumstances he did not waive 
 his right of action. But since the brakeman 's right to re- 
 cover in this case was based in part upon the fact that he 
 acted under the orders of the engineer, the precise bearing of 
 the dictum just referred to is not easy to determine. 
 
 STATUTORY MODIFICATION OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK 
 
 The rule which makes employees remediless against even 
 the gross negligence of their employer, if only that negligence 
 is habitual and notorious, is so oppressive to workingmen 
 that organized labor has, not unnaturally, long sought to se- 
 cure its abrogation. The courts having shown little disposi- 
 tion to modify the Common Law in this respect, the labor 
 unionists appealed to the legislature. Their first success was 
 won in 1890, when the defense of assumption of risk was 
 abolished as against violations of the automatic coupler and 
 brake law enacted in that year.^'^* They had to wait half a 
 generation before they gained strength enough to carry a 
 second outwork iu the employer's fortress. A bill which 
 would have enabled emploj^ees to relieve themselves of the 
 assumption of extraordinary risks by notifying the master 
 of defects in ways, works, or machinery was introduced at 
 the legislative session of 1906;^^^ but was defeated by the 
 combined opposition of manufacturers and railways.^^^ But 
 at the next meeting of the General Assembly, the Iowa Fed- 
 eration of Labor and the State Manufacturers' Association 
 agreed upon a compromise measure which became law.^^'^ 
 The assumption of risk act of 1907 is as follows : 
 
 In all cases where the property, works, machinery or appliances 
 of an employer are defective or out of repair and the employe has 
 knowledge thereof, and has given written notice to the employer, or 
 to any person authorized to receive and accept such notice, or to any 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 167 
 
 person in the service of the employer and entrusted by him with 
 the duty of seeing that the property, works, machinery or appliances 
 are in proper condition, of the particular defect or want of repair 
 or when the employer or such other person has been notified in 
 writing of such defect or want of repair by any person whose duty 
 it is under the rules of the employer or the laws of the state to in- 
 spect such works, machinery or appliances, or any person who is 
 subject to the risk incident to such defect or want of repair; no em- 
 ploye after such notice, shall by reason of remaining in the employ- 
 ment with such knowledge, be deemed to have assumed the risk in- 
 cident to the danger arising from such defect or want of repair.^^^ 
 
 This statute has not been adjudicated, so that its precise 
 effect cannot be determined. Apparently it completely super- 
 sedes the Common Law doctrines as to the effect of protest 
 and promise to repair. The latter, as we have seen, relieved 
 only the employee to whom the promise was made — and him 
 only so long as he might reasonably expect the promise to 
 be kept. Under the act of 1907, on the contrary, a promise 
 to repair is unnecessary; a notice of a defect given to the 
 master or his representative by a single employee or by a 
 public official relieves all employees from assumption of the 
 risk of that defect. It is plain, therefore, that the statute 
 gives the employee a considerably better position than he had 
 mider the Common Law, It is no less clear, however, that it 
 does not by any means wholly relieve him from assumption 
 of risks due to the master's negligence. If the employee, 
 either from fear of discharge or for any other reason, fails 
 to give the master or his representative formal notice of de- 
 fects which come to his knowledge, his Common Law assump- 
 tion of risk remains in full force. 
 
 THE FELLOW-SERVANT DOCTRINE 
 
 It is an ancient rule of law that a master is liable for all 
 damages which third persons may sustain from the wrong- 
 ful acts of his servant done in the course of his employment. 
 To this rule there is an important exception which was estab- 
 lished in a series of decisions in England and America shortly 
 before the middle of the nineteenth century, and which has 
 
168 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 long been recognized in all Common Law jurisdictions. That 
 exception is that where different persons are employed by the 
 same principal in a common enterprise no action can be 
 brought by them against their employer on account of injuries 
 sustained by one employee through the negligence of an- 
 other.®^^ 
 
 The fellow-servant doctrine, or the doctrine of co-employ- 
 ment, was already fixed in the Common Law before the first 
 case under it came up for adjudication in Iowa. But the de- 
 termination of the precise limits within which the doctrine 
 applies has given rise to a great volume of litigation continu- 
 ing to the present day. With the growth of the corporate 
 organization of industry, by which enterprises are wholly 
 conducted through employees of various grades, the fellow- 
 servant rule has become increasingly important as a defense 
 of employers. Eigidly applied, as it is by some courts, the 
 doctrine defeats recovery for almost all injuries received in 
 the service of large employers. Fortunately, however, the 
 Supreme Court of Iowa has manifested a disposition to re- 
 strict rather than to extend the application of the rule. Sev- 
 eral qualifications of the broad doctrine are, accordingly, 
 recognized in this State, by which its injustice is somewhat 
 mitigated. 
 
 CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE OF MASTER AND FELLOW-SERVANT 
 
 Where negligence on the part of the master is the proxi- 
 mate cause of an injury to an employee, the fact that the 
 wrongful act of another employee cooperated therewith to 
 produce the injury will not relieve the master of liability. "^^^ 
 In other words, while the contributory negligence of the in- 
 jured employee is a bar to recovery, that of a fellow-servant 
 is not. This rule is but a special application of the general 
 principle that where a wrongful act concurs with some other 
 cause and both operate proximately in producing an injury, 
 the wrong-doer will be liable, whether or not the other cause is 
 one for which he is responsible."^^^ 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 169 
 
 NON-DELEGABLE DUTIES 
 
 The master can not so delegate certain duties which de- 
 volve upon him as to escape liability for their non-perform- 
 ance or mal-performance under the fellow-servant ruleJ^^ 
 Among non-delegable duties are those to furnish a safe place 
 to work,'^^^ to provide safe tools and appliances, to hire com- 
 petent servants,'^*^^ to warn servants of latent dangers/*^^ to 
 instruct them in the performance of new duties,"^*^^ and to 
 exercise proper control and supervision over the workJ^'^ An 
 employee to whom the performance of these or similar duties 
 is entrusted becomes, as to them, an agent or vice principal 
 for whose negligence the master is liableJ^^ 
 
 VICE PRESrCIPALSHIP 
 
 To the rule that a master is not answerable to one servant 
 for the negligence of another, an exception arises where the 
 servant who is guilty of the wrongful act stands to the master 
 in the relation of vice principal. This exception was referred 
 to in the first fellow-servant case in Iowa as being already 
 recognized by the courts of Ohio.'^^^ It was applied by the 
 Supreme Court of Iowa as early as 1866 '^^'^ and has long been 
 the established law of this State. 
 
 Two tests of vice principalship have been applied by the 
 Iowa courts: the authority or rank of the servant; and the 
 character of the act or service concerning which negligence 
 is charged."^^^ 
 
 RANK AS A TEST OF VICE PRINCIPAIjSHIP 
 
 The mere fact that an employee has authority to direct 
 others at their work does not make him a vice principalJ^^ 
 But a manager who has full direction of the business, or of a 
 particular department or undertaking, is a vice principal as 
 to acts within the scope of his authority."^^^ In a number of 
 cases the authority to hire and discharge men is made the 
 test of vice principalship and it is said that an employee who 
 possesses this authority is not a fellow-servant but a vice 
 principaU^* 
 
170 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 It follows from what has just been said that a mere fore- 
 man — that is, a laborer with power to superintend the labor 
 of those working with him — is a co-employee so far as his 
 own labor is concerned.'^^^ Accordingly, liability has been 
 denied when the delinquents were the following employees {^^^ 
 a foreman of ear-repairers;'^' a foreman superintending the 
 construction of a house for a contractor ;'^^ or a machinist 
 who occasionally called other employees to his assistance.'^® 
 On the other hand, recovery was allowed for the negligence of 
 the following persons in their capacity as supervisors : a sec- 
 tion foreman;'-^ a mine boss;'^^ a boss driver in a mine;'^^ 
 a railway yard foreman ;'^^ a locomotive engineer ;'2^ or a 
 brakeman temporarily in charge of switching operations.'^^ 
 
 CHARACTER OF ACT AS A TEST OP VICE PRINCIPALSHIP 
 
 There are some Iowa cases which appear to make the ques- 
 tion of vice principalship turn upon the control exercised by 
 the servant whose status is in dispute.'^^ But the test more 
 commonly applied in this State is the character of the act 
 charged as negligent. According to this test, an employee who 
 is entrusted with the performance of a personal duty of the 
 master is, as to such service, a vice principal, and his negli- 
 gence is the master's.'^' But a servant, whatever his rank or 
 grade, who undertakes the work of an ordinary employee is, 
 as to such service, a co-servant with others engaged in the 
 same work.'^^ This doctrine of dual capacity, whereby the 
 same person may be a vice principal as to some acts and a 
 co-employee as to others, may now be considered the settled 
 law of this State.'29 
 
 DEPARTMENTAL DOCTRINE 
 
 Expressions are used in certain Iowa cases which seem to 
 approve the doctrine of department of service. Thus, it has 
 been held that a bridge builder is not a co-employee of a train 
 crew upon the same railway line,'^° that a brakeman is not a 
 fellow servant of a car inspector,'^^ and that an inspector of 
 machinery is not engaged in the same service with an oper- 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 171 
 
 ative.'^^ But the real test of common employment in this 
 State appears to be whether or not the negligence of the de- 
 linquent servant was a risk contemplated by the injured serv- 
 ant in entering and remaining in his master's service. Prob- 
 ably the plaintiff's right to recover in all the cases above 
 cited might be based upon the doctrine of unanticipated risk, 
 or upon that of non-delegable duty. The Supreme Court has 
 explicitly held that the fact that two servants are engaged in 
 different branches of the common service can make no differ- 
 ence, so long as both are employed in the same general busi- 
 ness under one master.''^^ By the test of anticipated risk the 
 following employees have been held to be co-servants : a ma- 
 chinist engaged in placing shafting in a shop and an operative 
 of one of the machines ;'^^'^ a track inspector and a locomotive 
 engineer ;^^^ a sweeper and other employees in a round 
 house ;'^^® a coal-miner and road men employed in the same 
 mine;'^^'^ a railway detective and the members of a train 
 crew.*^^^ 
 
 EAILWAY LIABILITY ACT 
 
 Courts have often remarked in defense of the fellow- 
 servant doctrine that the servants of a common master are 
 able to know and guard against each other's negligence.'^^^ 
 Such a contention might have possessed some force if applied 
 to the handicraft system of industry where the employees of 
 one master were few in number and were closely associated 
 at their work. But it is wholly inapplicable to a great rail- 
 way corporation with its thousands of employees, who for the 
 most part are necessarily strangers to each other. And yet it 
 is precisely in railway employment that the fellow-servant 
 rule has been most frequently applied. The effect of its first 
 application in this State was to deny recovery to a railway 
 track inspector injured by the negligence of an engineer. 
 
 The casualties in railway service are so shockingly numer- 
 ous and recovery in so large a percentage of them is defeated 
 by the fellow-servant rule that that rule has been abrogated 
 by statute as respects railway employment in a number of 
 
172 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Common Law jurisdictions. The Iowa railway liability law 
 was first enacted in 1862, only two years after the adoption of 
 the doctrine of co-service by our Supreme Court. It was as 
 follows : 
 
 Everj"" rail-road company shall be liable for all damages sus- 
 tained by any person, including employees of the company, in con- 
 sequence of any neglect of the agents or by any mismanagement of 
 the engineers or other employees of the corporation to any person 
 sustaining such damage.'^*^ 
 
 The words ''all contracts to the contrary notwithstanding" 
 were added in 1870.'^*^ In 1872 railway companies were made 
 liable for the wilful wrongs of their agents and employees when 
 such wrongs were in any manner connected with the use and 
 operation of the railroad.*^*^. In the Code of 1&73 these three 
 acts were combined into one section which reads: 
 
 Every corporation operating a railway shall be liable for aU 
 damages sustained by any person, including employes of such cor- 
 poration, in consequence of the neglect of agents, or by any mis- 
 management of the engineers or other employes of the corporation, and 
 in consequence of the wilful wrongs, whether of commission or omis- 
 sion of such agents, engineers, or other employes, when such wrongs 
 are in any manner connected with the use and operation of any rail- 
 way, on or about which they shall be employed, and no contract 
 which restricts such liability shall be legal or binding.'^*^ 
 
 With the exception of the final clause, relating to con- 
 tracts, this law is still (1907) the same.*^** 
 
 Judicial construction of the railway liability act began in 
 1866 and has continued to the present day. It will be con- 
 venient, however, to discuss the questions which have arisen 
 in logical order as presented by the statute rather than to 
 trace the historical development of judicial interpretation. 
 
 In Iowa all the duties and liabilities imposed by law upon 
 "corporations owning or operating railways" apply to any 
 person who owns or operates a railway.'^*^ Accordingly, the 
 liability law has been held to apply to a lessee,*^*^ to a re- 
 ceiver,"^**^ and to a railway construction company which moves 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 173 
 
 trains upon the track in furtherance of its work."^*^ The stat- 
 ute does not apply to street railway companies/*^ though 
 interurban railways were brought within its provisions in 
 
 The constitutionality of the railway liability law has been 
 attacked repeatedly, but without success. As originally en- 
 acted the liability provision was a section of "An Act in 
 relation to the duties of Eail Road Companies." In the first 
 case which arose under this statute, that of McAunich vs. 
 Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company (20 Iowa 338) 
 decided in 1866, it was contended that this title did not cover 
 provisions relative to the liabilities of railroads within the 
 meaning of that section of the State Constitution which re- 
 quires that "Every act shall embrace but one subject, and 
 matters properly connected therewith; which subject shall be 
 expressed in the title. "^^^ The Court held this objection to 
 be not well taken. "Every law", it was said, "prescribing 
 duties must have the sanction of liabilities resulting from a 
 failure to perform those duties, in order to have any practical 
 beneficial effect or operation." 
 
 But the burden of the attack upon the constitutionality of 
 the law has been that it is class legislation. Thus, it has been 
 argued that the statute violates the State Constitution in that 
 it is not uniform in operation, and in that it grants privileges 
 and imposes habilities which are not extended upon the same 
 terms to all citizens of the State ;'^^^ and that it contravenes 
 the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
 States by depriving railway companies of the equal protection 
 of the law. 
 
 The objection that the statute is not uniform in operation 
 was disposed of in the McAunich case above cited. The Court 
 said: 
 
 It [the statute] applies to all railroad corporations now in exist- 
 ence, or which may hereafter exist, and is just as general and uni- 
 form as it would be if it applied to all common carriers. , . . Very 
 many laws, the constitutionahty of which are [is] not doubted, do 
 
174 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 not operate alike upon all citizens of the State. . . . These laws 
 are general and uniform, not because they operate upon every person 
 in the State, for they do not, but because every person 
 who is brought within the relations and circumstances provided for, 
 is affected by the law. They are general and uniform in their opera- 
 tion upon all persons in the like situation, and the fact of their be- 
 ing general and uniform is not affected by the number of persons 
 within the scope of their operation. 
 
 A similar line of reasoning disposes of the contention that 
 the law violates the Constitution of Iowa and the Constitution 
 of the United States by subjecting railroad corporations to 
 penalties and liabilities which other persons and corporations 
 engaged in a like business are not subjected to. For, it is 
 said, the business of operating a railway is peculiarly hazard- 
 ous, and as the statute applies to all corporations or persons 
 engaged in operating railroads it does not discriminate in 
 favor of or against anyone. It is a pure question of legis- 
 lative discretion whether like penalties and liabilities should 
 be applied to carriers by canal or stage coach, or to persons 
 and corporations using steam in manufactories."^^^ 
 
 Finally, the act, rightly construed, does not grant to rail- 
 way employees any privileges or immunities which are not 
 open upon the same terms to all persons in the same situa- 
 tion.'^^* In reaching this conclusion, however, the Court held 
 in the case of Deppe vs. Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific 
 Eailway Company (36 Iowa, 52) that the act must be so con- 
 strued as to embrace not all railway employees but only those 
 *' engaged in the hazardous business of operating railroads". 
 ''When thus limited", said the Court, "it is constitutional; 
 when extended further it becomes unconstitutional." The 
 reasoning was that if applied to all persons in the employ of 
 railroad corporations the statute would secure privileges to 
 certain persons (section hands for example) which were de- 
 nied to others in equally perilous callings. The effect of this 
 decision was materially to limit the applicability of the law of 
 1862, the terms of which had included all railway employees. 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 175 
 
 The act of 1872 and the Code of 1873 introduced a new ele- 
 ment in the proviso, ''when such wrongs of employees are in 
 any manner connected with the use and operation of any 
 railway, on or about which they shall be employed." The 
 Supreme Court has held that the words ''such wrongs" in 
 this clause refer to negligent acts as well as wilful wrongs, 
 and that recovery under the statute can only be had for in- 
 juries arising from the use and operation of railroads."^^^ 
 
 The phrase, "use and operation of a railway", is judi- 
 cially defined as referring only to the "handling of railroad 
 machinery moved upon railroad tracks "."^^^ Justice Beck, 
 speaking for the Supreme Court, remarked in a leading case : 
 "What is the use and operation of a railway? It is con- 
 structed for the sole purpose of the movement of trains. That 
 is its sole use. What is the operation of a railway? They 
 can be operated in no other way than by the movements of 
 trains. "'^^'^ But the word "trains" as here used must be 
 understood to include all railroad machinery moved upon 
 railroad tracks, as a single locomotive'^^^ or a hand car.'^^^ 
 
 The decisions are not in complete accord as to the test by 
 which the right of recovery under the statute shall be deter- 
 mined. Under the act of 1862 the test applied was, whether 
 or not the injured servant was employed for the discharge of 
 a duty which exposed him to the hazards incident to the oper- 
 ation of a railway. Under this rule, apparently, an employee 
 would have been entitled to recover for an injury which did 
 not arise from the peculiar hazards of railway operation so 
 long as his employment embraced them.'^^^ 
 
 This rule just stated was changed by the act of 1873. Since 
 that date, to entitle an employee to recover for the negligence 
 of a co-employee, it must be shown (1) that he belonged to 
 the class of employees to whom the statute affords a remedy 
 and (2) that the act which occasioned the injury was of the 
 class of acts for which a remedy is given.'^^^ 
 
 As to the class of employees within. the protection of the 
 statute, it has been said that its benefits accrue only to such 
 
176 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 employees as are employed at the time of receiving the injury 
 in the business of operating a railroadJ^^ On the other hand, 
 there are cases holding that it is sufficient if the injury was 
 caused by the operation of the railroad, irrespective of the 
 employment in which the plaintiff was engaged.'^^^ But, in 
 spite of some diversity of expression, if not actual conflict, 
 a majority of the cases hold that under the act of 1873 as 
 well as that of 1862 any employee is within the protection of 
 the statute while engaged in the performance of a duty which 
 exposes him to hazards peculiar to the operation of a rail- 
 way.'^^* Ordinarily the character of an employment and 
 whether or not thereby the employee is brought within the 
 provisions of the statute are questions of fact for a jury and 
 not of law for the court J^^ But where there is no dispute 
 in the evidence upon these propositions the court may instruct 
 the jury as to whether or not the case comes within the 
 statute.'^^^ 
 
 We have already seen that the statute affords a remedy 
 only for wrongs connected with the use and operation of a 
 railway. The following judicial statement of the effect of 
 the statute combines the two elements of the character of the 
 employment and the cause of the injury: 
 
 If, then, the injury is received by an employe whose work ex- 
 poses him to the hazards of moving trains, cars, engines, or machin- 
 ery on the track, and is caused by the negligence of a co-employe in 
 the actual movement thereof, or in any manner directly connected 
 therewith, the statute applies, and recovery may be had. Beyond 
 this, the statute affords no protection. '^^'^ 
 
 Some concrete cases in which recovery has been allowed 
 or denied will serve to further elucidate the effect of the 
 statute. 
 
 All persons engaged in the actual operation of trains are 
 within the statute as a matter of course. The essential ques- 
 tions in cases where members of train crews are plaintiffs are 
 whether the co-servant was in fact negligent, and whether 
 the injured employee was himself in fault.*^^^ But other 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 177 
 
 classes of employees have from the first been held to be within 
 the protection of the statute.*^^^ Among these are : 
 
 First. Persons employed upon a train, though having 
 nothing to do with its management. A laborer employed in 
 the working of a ditching machine operated by moving along 
 the track the train of which it formed a part, is a member of 
 the train crew.''"^^ The same rule applies to a shoveler upon 
 a gravel train,'^'^^ and to a laborer who rides upon a train and 
 alights from time to time to clear the track of snow.'^'^ 
 
 Second. Employees working upon or about a ''live" en- 
 gine. An employee engaged in coaling a ''live" engine,'^'^^ in 
 coupling tanks together, "^'^ or in operating a turn table,"^"^^ is 
 exposed to perils peculiar to the operation of a railway. 
 
 Third. Employees at work upon a car which forms a part 
 of a train, or is likely to be moved by the operation of trains. 
 A car inspector whose duty requires him to go beneath all 
 cars,''^® a car repairer injured by a moving engine when at 
 work in a railway yard,"'^'^ a car cleaner at work in a car 
 standing upon a side track which was run into by an engine,'^'^^ 
 and a mechanic injured while repairing one of the cars of a 
 train"^'^ were each held to be within the protection of the 
 statute. 
 
 Fourth. Employees exposed to the peril of passing trains 
 while in the performance of their duty are within the statute. 
 This rule has been applied to a railway detective rightfully 
 walking along the track,'^^^ to a water carrier for a bridge 
 gang,'^^^ and to section men engaged in track repairing — if but 
 injured by the negligence of employees engaged in the opera- 
 tion of the railroad. "^^^ 
 
 Fifth. Section men riding upon a hand car.*^^^ 
 
 On the other hand, employees in the following situations 
 have been held not to be engaged in the operation of a rail- 
 way so as to make the company liable for the negligence of 
 a fellow-servant in the same employment: employees in a 
 railway machine shop;'^* employees engaged in hoisting coal 
 in a railway coal house f^^ sweepers in a round house ;'^^^ men 
 
178 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 repairing a "dead" engine ;'^^'^ section hands repairing the 
 track ;^^^ or men loading a detached carJ^® 
 
 As to all cases not embraced in the statute, the Common 
 Law rule exempting the employer from liability to an em- 
 ployee for the negligence of a co-employee is still in force/*"* 
 Even as to cases within its terms the statute does not change 
 the degree of care due from a master to his servants,"^ nor 
 does it affect the defense of contributory negligence/^- 
 
 The clause in the railway liability act reading that "no 
 contract which restricts such liabilitj^ shall be legal or bind- 
 ing", has been attacked as an unconstitutional interference 
 with "freedom of contract". The Court, in overruling this 
 contention, remarked: 
 
 There is no such thing as absolute liberty of contract. Indeed, 
 all personal and property rights are subject to proper legislative 
 regulation and control. ... A very great proportion of our legis- 
 lation is a restriction on some one's liberty. Indeed, the liberty of 
 which we boast and are so justly proud is liberty under law, and not 
 absolute license. It is freedom frequently restrained by law for the 
 common good.'^^^ 
 
 An agreement entered into at the time of the employment 
 between the company and an employee that if he sustains any 
 personal injury for which he makes a claim against the com- 
 pany for damages, failure to give notice thereof in writing 
 within thirty days after injury is sustained shall be a bar to 
 action, is a contract restricting the company's liability, and is 
 therefore invalid."^^* But where a railway company maintains 
 a relief department to which both the company and its em- 
 ployees contribute, a stipulation in the certificate of member- 
 ship in such association that a suit which ripens to judgment 
 or is compromised shall bar recovery under the certificate, or 
 that the acceptance of benefits from the department shall oper- 
 ate as a release and satisfaction of all claims against the com- 
 pany, is not in violation of the laws of 1870 and 1873.'^^^ 
 
 The last decision had reference to the Burlington Volun- 
 tary Relief Department, organized in 1889. The essential 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 179 
 
 features of this organization are shown in the following ex- 
 tracts from the application blank: 
 
 APPLICATIONS 
 
 Membership in the relief fund shall be based upon an application 
 in the following form: 
 
 I, , of , in the 
 
 county of and state of , now 
 
 employed by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad company as 
 the do hereby apply for member- 
 ship in the relief fund of the relief department of said company, and 
 consent and agree to be bound by the regulations of said relief de- 
 partment, which regulations I have read or have had read to me, and 
 by any other regulations of said department hereafter adopted and 
 in force during my membership, and by any agreement now or here- 
 after made by the said company with any other corporation or cor- 
 porations now or hereafter associated with it in the administration 
 of their relief departments. 
 
 I also agree, that the said company, by its proper agents, and in 
 the manner provided in said regulations, shall apply, as a voluntary 
 contribution from any wages earned by me under said employment 
 or from benefits that may hereafter become payable to me, the sum 
 
 of $ per month, for the purpose of securing the benefits 
 
 provided in the regulations for a member of the relief fund of the 
 
 class, with additional death benefit 
 
 of the first class. 
 
 I also agree, that in consideration of the amounts paid and to be 
 paid by said company for the maintenance of said relief department, 
 and of the guarantee of said company of the payment of said bene- 
 fits, the acceptance by me of benefits for injury shall operate as a 
 release and satisfaction of all claims against said company and all 
 other companies associated therewith in the administration of their 
 relief departments, for damages arising from or growing out of said 
 injury ; and further, in the event of my death, no part of said death 
 benefit or unpaid disability benefit shall be due or payable unless 
 and until good and sufficient releases shall be delivered to the super- 
 intendent of said relief department, of all claims against said relief 
 department, as well as against said company, and all other com- 
 
180 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 panics associated therewith as aforesaid arising from or growing out 
 of my death, said releases having been duly executed by all who 
 might legally assert such claims; and further, if any suit shall be 
 brought against said company, or any other company associated 
 therewith as aforesaid, for damages arising from or growing out of 
 injury or death occurring io me, the benefits otherwise payable and 
 all obligations of said relief department and of said company created 
 by my membership in said relief fund, shall thereupon be forfeited 
 without any declaration or other act by said relief department of 
 said company. 
 
 I also agree, that this application, upon approval by the super- 
 intendent of the relief department, shall make me a member of the 
 relief fund, on and from the date specified in such approval, and 
 constitute a contract between myself and the said company, and that 
 the same shall not be avoided by any change in the character of my 
 service, or locality where rendered, while in the employment of said 
 company, nor by any change in the amounts applicable from my 
 wages to the relief fund, which I may hereafter consent to, and that 
 the agreement that the above named amounts shall be appropriated 
 from my wages shall apply also to any other amounts which I may 
 agree to pay under the provisions of said regulations, by reason of 
 changes made as aforesaid, and shall constitute an appropriation and 
 assignment in advance of such portions of my wages, to the said 
 company in trust, for the relief fund, for the purpose of maintain- 
 ing my membership therein, which assignment shall have precedence 
 over any other assignment by me of my wages, or of any claim upon 
 them on account of liabilities incurred by me. 
 
 I certify that I am correct and temperate in my habits; that so 
 far as I am aware I am now in good health, and have no injury or 
 disease, constitutional or otherwise, except as shown on the accom- 
 panying statement made by me to the medical examiner, which state- 
 ment shall constitute a part of this application. 
 
 I also agree that any untrue or fraudulent statement made by 
 me to the medical examiner, or any concealment of facts in this ap- 
 plication, or any attempt on my part to defraud or impose upon said 
 relief fund, or my resigning from, or leaving the service of the said 
 company, or my being relieved or discharged therefrom, shall for- 
 feit my membership in the said relief fund, and all benefits, rights 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 181 
 
 or equities arising therefrom, except that such termination of my 
 employment shall not (in the absence of any of the other foregoing 
 causes of forfeiture) deprive me of any benefits to the payment of 
 which I may be entitled by reason of disability beginning before and 
 existing at such termination of my employment, nor of the right to 
 continue my membership in respect of death benefits only, as pro- 
 vided in said regulations. 
 
 It was asserted by employees that membership in the Re- 
 lief Department was practically compulsory, at least for train- 
 men. The company claimed, on the contrary, that member- 
 ship was purely voluntary and that the organization was 
 wholly benevolent in purpose."^^^ Whatever the truth of these 
 respective assertions, it is abundantly clear from the contract 
 of membership above quoted that members of the organiza- 
 tion practically became their own insurers. The Relief De- 
 partment thus operated to relieve the company of its liability 
 under the common and statutory law. 
 
 The Supreme Court's decision upholding the validity of 
 the Burlington Relief contracts was a surprise. It was felt 
 that under this decision it would be possible for every railway 
 company to defeat the purpose of the liability law by making 
 membership in some similar association a condition of em- 
 ployment. Accordingly railroad employees at once began 
 demanding legislation which should expressly invalidate such 
 contracts as that used upon the Burlington system. Their 
 demands were embodied in the following amendment to the 
 railway liability law, which was presented by Representative 
 Temple at the special session of the legislature in 1897: 
 
 Nor shall any contract of insurance, relief, benefit, or indemnity 
 in case of injury or death, nor any other contract entered into prior 
 to the injury, between the person so injured and such corporation, 
 or any other person or association acting for such corporation, nor 
 shall the acceptance of any insurance, relief, benefit or indemnity by 
 the person injured after the injury, from such corporation, person 
 or association, constitute any bar or defense to any cause of action 
 brought under the provisions of this section.*^^' 
 
182 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 The Temple Amendment, as it has ever since been called, 
 was adopted by the House without opposition. In the Senate, 
 the amendment was referred to the Committee on Railways 
 before which the railway brotherhoods appeared by their 
 officers and the Burlington Eailway Company by attorney. 
 The committee finally reported a substitute which was adopted 
 by the Senate and rejected by the House, after which a Con- 
 ference Committee threw out both original and substitute.'^^^ 
 
 After the adjournment of the legislature the Temple 
 Amendment passed into politics and its principle was indorsed 
 by the Eepublican and Democratic parties in their State plat- 
 forms of that year."^^^ An act embodying that principle was 
 accordingly passed at the next session of the G-eneral Assem- 
 bly (1898) with little opposition.^*'^ The law as enacted is as 
 follows : 
 
 Nor shall any contract of insurance, relief, benefit or indemnity 
 in case of injury or death, entered into prior to the injury, between 
 the person so injured and such corporation, nor shall the acceptance 
 of any such insurance, relief, benefit, or indemnity by the person in- 
 jured, his widow, heirs, or legal representatives after the injury, 
 from such corporation, person, or association, constitute any bar or 
 defense to any cause of action brought under the provisions of this 
 section, but nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent 
 or invalidate any settlement for damages between the parties subse- 
 quent to injuries received.^'^i 
 
 The Supreme Court has held in a recent case that the effect 
 of the Temple Amendment is to invalidate the Burlington 
 Eelief contracts so far as these undertake to restrict the lia- 
 bility of the railway.^*^^ The constitutionality of the law was 
 considered at great length in this case and was upheld in 
 every point. 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 The Common Law of employers' liability has been mater- 
 ially modified in the direction of justice and humanity by the 
 Iowa statutes of railway liability and assumption of risks. 
 But that law, even as thus modified, is still very far from 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 183 
 
 according adequate protection to employees in any hazardous 
 calling. The annual reports of deaths and injuries from in- 
 dustrial accidents read like the returns of a great battle.^*^^ 
 For most of these deaths and injuries our law affords no 
 remedy. 
 
 Statistics collated by the German Imperial Insurance Ofl&ce 
 show that less than seventeen percent of industrial accidents 
 are caused solely by the negligence of the employer, that more 
 than thirty-five percent are in some measure contributed to so 
 as to defeat recovery under our law by the injured employee, 
 and that above forty percent are due to inevitable accidents 
 connected with the employment.^^* These statistics are the 
 indictment of the Common Law of employers' liability. They 
 make it clear that a rule which permits recovery only for the 
 negligence of the master, and then only for such negligence 
 as was not ''assumed" by the injured employee, throws the 
 chief burden of industrial accidents upon those least able to 
 bear it themselves or to shift it to others — ' ' on the individual 
 workman, disabled for service through the mere fact of his 
 employment at the time and place of the occurrence of an 
 inevitable accident, or on the widow and children of such work- 
 man, if the accident results fatally. "^°^ 
 
 This result is chiefly due to the doctrine of assumption of 
 risks with its corollary, the fellow-servant doctrine. The doc- 
 trine of contractual assumption of risks rests upon three pre- 
 suppositions : 
 
 First. It is said that wages are so adjusted to the hazards 
 of each employment as to afford full compensation for the 
 risks undertaken by the employee.^^^ That this is not true 
 is a matter of common knowledge. But even if it were so, 
 to make each employee his own insurer imposes upon the 
 individual engaged in an extra-hazardous employment risks 
 for which his wages can provide no adequate reserve. 
 
 Second. It is asserted that the effect of devolving the 
 risks of the service upon the employees is to make them more 
 careful for their own safety than they would otherwise be.^*^^ 
 
184 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 This theory involves nothing less than the supposition that 
 employees deliberately incur loss of life and limb in order that 
 they or their heirs may recover damages for their death or 
 injury. The statement of such a proposition is its own refu- 
 tation. 
 
 Third. It is assumed that business could not be carried 
 on if employers were compelled to bear the risks of employ- 
 ment.^*'^ The sufficient answer to this argument is that indus- 
 try is successfully prosecuted in countries such as Great 
 Britain and the German Empire where that rule is established 
 by law. 
 
 There is even less logical justification for the theory that 
 an employee voluntarily waives his master's negligence by 
 continuing at work with knowledge of such negligence. True, 
 it is said that the servant's continuance in his master's em- 
 ployment is purely voluntary — ^he has the right to quit the 
 service at any time.^^^ In other words, the employee is guar- 
 anteed the inalienable right to starve. The facts of every day 
 experience show that men will often choose even dangerous 
 employment rather than safety attended with want.^^^ 
 
 Similarly, it is now generally admitted that the fellow- 
 servant doctrine has very little foundation in reason or jus- 
 tice.^^^ Indeed, very competent authorities have said that 
 the doctrine was boldly invented by ''a small number of able 
 judges, devoted, from varying motives, to the supposed inter- 
 ests of the wealthy classes, and caring little for any others ".^^^ 
 
 If the foregoing analysis is correct — and it is believed 
 to represent the opinions of most careful students of this 
 subject — it is plain that the Common Law of employers' lia- 
 bility does not rest upon any secure logical foundations. Cer- 
 tainly it can not be said to meet the ends of social justice. 
 Three tests of this assertion may be applied : 
 
 First. Sound public policy surely requires that the vic- 
 tims of industrial accidents shall have cheap, speedy, and 
 certain relief. This the law of Iowa does not furnish. Even 
 in those cases where recovery is allowed, years of litigation 
 
THE LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 185 
 
 very commonly intervene between an injury and final judg- 
 ment therefor. And of the damages ultimately collected a 
 large (sometimes the larger) part is appropriated by attor- 
 neys. 
 
 Second. Society has a direct interest in the prevention 
 of industrial accidents. But under the existing law of em- 
 ployers' liability it is often cheaper for the wealthy employer 
 to go on killing and maiming his men than to adopt practical 
 but costly appliances for their safety. It is noteworthy that 
 the general adoption of safety appliances at coal mines, upon 
 railways, and in factories was brought about, not by the appli- 
 cation of the Conunon Law to personal injury suits, but by 
 penal statutes. 
 
 Third. It will hardly be denied that the financial burdens 
 of industrial accidents ought to be distributed over industry 
 at large. Our law, on the contrary, places the chief part of 
 these burdens upon the individual working man and his 
 family. 
 
IX 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS LABOR LEGISLATION 
 
 In this chapter it is proposed to discuss laws which can 
 not conveniently be brought under any classificatory heading. 
 
 INCORPOEATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 
 
 An act passed by the General Assembly in 1886 extended 
 the general statute governing the incorporation of associa- 
 tions not for pecuniary profit to "trades union and other 
 organizations of labor, for the regulation, by lawful means of 
 prices of labor, of hours of work, and other matters pertaining 
 to industrial pursuits. "^^^ This is believed to be the earliest 
 recognition of labor unions in the laws of this State. It has 
 not had much practical effect, owing to the reluctance of labor 
 organizations to incorporate themselves. 
 
 BLACKLISTING 
 
 Following the example of a number of the American Com- 
 monwealths, Iowa in 1888 enacted a blacklisting law which 
 makes it a misdemeanor for any person, agent, company, or 
 corporation to prevent or attempt to prevent by word or writ- 
 ing of any kind any discharged employee from obtaining em- 
 ployment with any other person, company, or corporation. But 
 a truthful statement, in writing, of the causes of discharge may 
 be furnished upon request. Penal damages may be recovered 
 for any loss of employment due to blacklisting. Moreover, 
 for blacklisting by the agents of any company, co-partnership, 
 or corporation, of any discharged employee or of any em- 
 ployee voluntarily quitting the service of such company, co- 
 partnership, or corporation treble damages are allowed.^^* 
 This statute appears never to have been construed by the 
 Supreme Court. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS LABOR LEGISLATION 187 
 
 BOYCOTTING 
 
 Boycotting is not specifically prohibited by the Iowa stat- 
 utes, and no case so far as known has ever come before the 
 Supreme Court. But a boycott is, no doubt, within the terms 
 of the general conspiracy law, dating from 1851, which makes 
 it a crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary to 
 conspire ''to injure the person, character, business, or prop- 
 erty of another; or to do any illegal act injurious to the pub- 
 lic trade. "^^^ 
 
 PROTECTION OF UNION LABELS 
 
 Laws to prevent the counterfeiting or unauthorized use of 
 labor union labels exist in most States. A bill for such a law 
 in Iowa was introduced by Senator W. W. Dodge at the legis- 
 lative session of 1892 and was passed without opposition. The 
 act makes it a misdemeanor to imitate any label, trade-mark, 
 or form of advertisement adopted by any person, association, 
 or union of workingmen or others; or knowingly to use any 
 imitation or counterfeit thereof; or to use the genuine label, 
 trade-mark, or advertisement in an unauthorized manner. 
 The manufacture, sale, use, or display of counterfeit labels, 
 trade-marks, or forms of advertisement may be enjoined and 
 the party wronged may recover damages, including the profits 
 resulting from the wrongful act and a reasonable attorney's 
 fgg 816 rpj^^g ^^|. -jj^g been construed by the Supreme Court 
 and its constitutionality upheld.^^'^ 
 
 EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES 
 
 The bringing together of the buyers and sellers of labor is 
 a function not as yet generally undertaken by the State. Yet 
 the equilibrium of the labor market concerns very nearly the 
 social welfare. Unemployment most frequently falls to the 
 lot of the least efficient members of the community — those 
 whose wages are lowest and whose reserves are smallest. 
 Moreover, these are precisely the classes who are least able 
 to travel in search of work or to avail themselves of such 
 sources of information as are open to members of skilled 
 
188 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 trades through their respective unions. Hence, unless pro- 
 vided for by public or charitable intelligence offices the un- 
 skilled laborer is left at the mercy of private employment 
 agencies. Many of these agencies are conducted honestly iu 
 the interests both of emj^loyer and employed. Perhaps a still 
 larger number take advantage of the helplessness of the classes 
 with which they principally deal to practice fraud and extor- 
 tion.^^^ The argument for public employment offices is thus 
 based on two grounds: (1) social utility and (2) public pro- 
 tection. On the one hand, it is urged that such offices will 
 benefit employers as well as laborers ; on the other, that their 
 competition will drive out the most undesirable of the private 
 agencies. 
 
 Five free public employment offices — the first in the United 
 States — were opened in Ohio in 1890.^^^ About a year later 
 Commissioner Sovereign of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Sta- 
 tistics, encouraged by the success of the Ohio experiment, 
 strongly recommended that his bureau be authorized to main- 
 tain a free emplojTnent agency in connection with its statistical 
 work. The Commissioner wrote as follows : 
 
 Nearly all kinds of labor is in a transitional state caused by the 
 rapid evolution in the mechanical methods of production and the 
 practice of many manufacturers to control the output by closing fac- 
 tories and otherwise limiting the supply, which is usually done with- 
 out notice to employes and without considering their welfare. Hun- 
 dreds of our working people are compelled by these and other causes 
 to seek employment among strangers without any knowledge of 
 whether it is obtainable or not The first duty of a govern- 
 ment is to make it easy for its citizens to do right and accord them 
 the broadest opportunity to earn a livelihood by industrial avocations. 
 Therefore the need of free public employment agencies where both 
 labor and capital may make their wants known and receive informa- 
 tion beneficial to both.^^o 
 
 This argument deeply impressed G-overnor Boies, who gave 
 a warm indorsement to the Commissioner's recommendation 
 in his first message to the legislature in January, 1892.^2i ^ 
 
MISCELLANEOUS LABOR LEGISLATION 189 
 
 bill was soon afterward introduced providing for an employ- 
 ment office in the State Bureau of Labor Statistics, to be 
 conducted wholly by correspondence. The bill was supported 
 by numerous petitions, but failed to reach a vote in either 
 branch of the legislature.^22 rp^^ years later another bill was 
 presented to the General Assembly, this time providing for 
 correspondence offices in each county as well as in the State 
 capital; it met the same fate as its predecessor.^23 "The 
 Commissioner of Labor then, in hopes of being able to show 
 by actual results the practical utility of such a measure, en- 
 deavored to enlist the assistance of the different county audit- 
 ors of the State in the establishment in a small way of such a 
 bureau as contemplated by the Chesire-Dowell Bill. A ma- 
 jority of the county auditors in the State agreed to do all in 
 their power to help in the work, and the newspapers almost 
 without exception gave the scheme generous support. But for 
 some cause it did not meet with success. The Bureau was 
 maintained for five months, and during that time, although 
 applications for situations were numerous, the Commissioner 
 was unable to secure work for a single applicant and aban- 
 doned the attempt.^2* 
 
 This want of success was attributed by Commissioner Sov- 
 ereign's successor in office to the wide-spread industrial de- 
 pression during the summer of 1894, when the experiment was 
 tried, and also to distrust of the scheme on the part of em- 
 ployers. Another reason for failure is, no doubt, to be found 
 in the method used — the correspondence or ''mail order "^^^ 
 system. This plan has nowhere met with much success, except 
 perhaps in placing farm hands. Few Iowa farmers were look- 
 ing for hands in 1894. 
 
 After the failure of 1894 the agitation for public employ- 
 ment offices in Iowa remained in abeyance for about a decade, 
 when it was revived by the Federation of Labor. By that 
 time public employment offices were in successful operation 
 in fifteen States, so that the theoretic argument in their favor 
 was abundantly supported by experience. 
 
190 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 The bill which was presented to the General Assembly in 
 1906 was very carefully drawn, and was pronounced a model 
 by Dr. J. E. Conner of the United States Bureau of Labor, 
 who was then engaged in a special investigation of employ- 
 ment bureaus. But the State Manufacturers' Association and 
 the Citizens' Industrial Alliance, professing to see in the pro- 
 posed measure a scheme to further the interests of organized 
 labor, exerted themselves against it.^^^ Their efforts were 
 successful; the bill was beaten on the floor of the House and 
 never came to a vote in the Senate.^^'^ 
 
 After the failure of all efforts to establish public employ- 
 ment oflBces, the friends of the movement turned their atten- 
 tion to the public regulation of private agencies. Two acts 
 were carried at the last session of the General Assembly 
 (1907), one of which authorized incorporated cities and towns 
 to license and regulate all keepers of intelligence or employ- 
 ment offices, bureaus, and agencies ;^^^ while the other act lim- 
 its the fee of the agency to one dollar in case of failure to se- 
 cure employment, requires a written contract, whereof one 
 copy must be delivered to the applicant for employment, for- 
 bids the division of fees between the bureau and the employer, 
 authorizes the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statis- 
 tics to examine the books, records, and papers of any employ- 
 ment agency at any time, and makes it his duty to investigate 
 all complaints against such agencies or bureaus.^^^ 
 
 Pursuant to the power granted them by the legislature 
 four of the larger cities in the State have adopted ordinances 
 regulating employment agencies, charging a license fee rang- 
 ing from ten to fifty dollars per annum, and requiring a bond 
 to be filed with the city clerk.^^*^ These cities report about a 
 dozen agencies in operation in 1908. How many exist in un- 
 regulated cities it is impossible to say. 
 
 employees' right to vote 
 
 Lq 1892 it was enacted that any person entitled to vote at 
 a general election may absent himself from any employment 
 
MISCELLANEOUS LABOR LEGISLATION 191 
 
 in which he is engaged for two hours upon the day of such 
 election, and shall not be subject on account of such absence 
 to any penalty or deduction from his usual wages. At the 
 same time it was made a misdemeanor to attempt to influence 
 the vote of an employee by offering any reward or by threat- 
 ening discharge or by otherwise intimidating him.^^^ Similar 
 laws exist in many States. 
 
 HOURS OF LABOR ON PUBLIC ROADS 
 
 There is no general law governing the hours of labor on 
 public works in this State. An act was passed in 1884 declar- 
 ing that nine hours shall constitute a day's work on the public 
 roads in payment of the poll tax.^^^ This was reduced to eight 
 hours in 1897.^33 
 
 ARBITRATION 
 
 The first report of the Commissioner of the Iowa Bureau 
 of Labor Statistics (1885) recommended the establishment of 
 a State Board of Arbitration for the settlement of industrial 
 disputes.^^* Numerous arbitration bills were introduced at 
 the next session of the General Assembly.^^^ But all measures 
 looking toward the creation of a permanent board under the 
 direction of the State Bureau of Labor Statistics were re- 
 jected by the legislature. Instead, there was enacted a pro- 
 vision for tribunals of voluntary arbitration in each county. 
 
 These tribunals were to be appointed by the District 
 Courts upon the application of not less than twenty workmen 
 and of a firm or firms employing at least twenty men. Each 
 tribunal was to continue in existence for one year from the 
 date of the license creating it, and was to consist of not less 
 than two workmen and two employers who were to choose an 
 umpire by mutual consent. The jurisdiction of the tribunal 
 was to extend to any dispute between employers and work- 
 men in any mechanical, manufacturing, or mining industry, 
 or business, who should have petitioned for the tribunal, or 
 been represented in the petition therefor, or who might sub- 
 mit their disputes in writing for decision. The umpire was to 
 
192 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 be called upon to act in case the tribunal should fail to agree 
 after full discussion in three meetings. The decision of the 
 umpire was final upon the matters submitted ; if for a specific 
 sum of money, the award must be filed with the District 
 Court, and judgment might then be entered thereon.^^^ 
 
 This law was not ''found of any practical utility. The 
 proceeding provided for was entirely voluntary, and the de- 
 termination when reached was not enf orcible. "^^"^ The stat- 
 ute was accordingly omitted by the commission which framed 
 the Code of 1897, and no other legislation has been enacted. 
 
THE IOWA BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 
 
 The Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics was the fourteenth 
 in order of establishment in the United States.^^^ The act 
 creating the Bureau was passed in 1884 at the instance of the 
 Knights of Labor,^^^ and not without opposition in both 
 branches of the legislature.^*^ The act received the Governor's 
 approval April 3, 1884.^*^ Eleven days later the first Com- 
 missioner entered upon his duties.^*^ 
 
 During the first ten years of the Bureau's existence its 
 personnel consisted only of the Commissioner, appointed by 
 the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Ex- 
 ecutive Council for the term of two years. An appropriation 
 for clerical assistance was made in 1894.^*^ The oflSce of 
 Deputy Commissioner was created two years later.^** A 
 Factory Inspector and an office clerk were added to the Bu- 
 reau's force in 1904.^*^ 
 
 The Bureau has never been very liberally supported. The 
 Commissioner's salary was fixed at fifteen hundred dollars 
 per annum in the law of 1884, and remained unchanged for 
 twenty-three years when it was raised to eighteen hundred.^*^ 
 The Deputy Commissioner received a thousand dollars from 
 1896 to 1904, twelve hundred from 1904 to 1907, and fifteen 
 hundred since the latter date. The Factory Inspector receives 
 a hundred dollars a month and the clerk sixty-five. The entire 
 expenses of the Bureau other than salaries of officers (except, 
 of course, for the printing and distribution of its reports) 
 are limited to fifteen hundred dollars a year.^*"^ Thus the 
 cost of maintaining the Bureau does not exceed seven thou- 
 sand dollars a year — much less than the expenditure for sim- 
 ilar bureaus in other States having no greater wealth and 
 population than Iowa. 
 
194 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 The law of 1884 defined the scope of the Bureau's work 
 as follows: 
 
 The duties of said commissioner shall be to collect, assort, system- 
 atize and present in biennial reports .... statistical details re- 
 lating to all departments of labor in the state, especially in its rela- 
 tions to the commercial, social, educational and sanitary conditions 
 of the laboring classes, and to the permanent prosperity of the me- 
 chanical, manufacturing and productive industries of the state, and 
 shall as fully as practicable collect such information and reliable re- 
 ports from each county in the state [ ;] the amount and condition of 
 the mechanical and manufacturing interests, the value and location 
 of the various manufacturing and coal productions of the state, also 
 sites offering natural or acquired advantages for the profitable loca- 
 tion and operation of different branches of industry; he shall by 
 correspondence with interested parties in other parts of the United 
 States impart to them such information as may tend to induce the lo- 
 cation of mechanical and producing plants within the state, together 
 with such other information as shall tend to increase the produc- 
 tions, and consequent employment of producers; and in said bien- 
 nial report he shall give a statement of the business of the bureau 
 since the last regular report, and shaU compile and publish therein 
 such information as may be considered of value to the industrial in- 
 terests of the state, the number of laborers and mechanics employed, 
 the number of apprentices in each trade, with the nativity of such 
 laborers, mechanics ['] and apprentices' wages earned, the savings 
 from the same, with age and sex of laborers employed, the number 
 and character of accidents, the sanitary condition of institutions 
 where labor is employed, the restrictions if any which are put upon 
 apprentices when indentured, the proportion of married laborers and 
 mechanics who live in rented houses, with the average annual rental 
 and the value of property owned by laborers and mechanics; and he 
 shall include in such report what progress has been made with 
 schools now in operation for the instruction of students in the me- 
 chanic arts and what systems have been found most practical, with 
 details thereof. 
 
 * ' The means of escape from, and the protection of life and 
 health in factories, the employment of children, the number 
 of hours of labor exacted from them and from women," were 
 
THE IOWA BUREAU OP LABOR STATISTICS 195 
 
 added to the subjects to be included within the Bureau's re- 
 ports in 1902.^*^ In addition to these purely statistical duties, 
 the Commissioner and his assistants were charged with the 
 work of factory inspection and the enforcement of the factory 
 act in 1902,^*^ with the enforcement of the fire escape law in 
 1904,85<^ and of the child labor act in 1906,^^^ and with the 
 supervision of private emplo^nnent agencies in 1907.^^^ The 
 Bureau has thus become much more than a mere gatherer of 
 labor statistics. Its scope would be more accurately expressed 
 by the title ''Bureau of Labor". 
 
 Three methods of collecting statistical information have 
 been employed by the Bureau: (1) correspondence, (2) inves- 
 tigation by field agents, and (3) the taking of testimony. 
 These methods will be discussed in the order mentioned. 
 
 The great weakness of the correspondence method of col- 
 lecting statistics lies in the difficulty of securing complete or 
 even representative returns. This is particularly true as re- 
 gards the wage-earning classes. ^^^ The class of laborers whose 
 names are easiest to ascertain and who are most likely to 
 respond to requests for information are labor unionists. A 
 majority of the individual reports of wage-earners, accord- 
 ingly, are derived from this source. These reports are, there- 
 fore, representative of a selected class rather than of the 
 general level of wage-workers. Even so, however, the wage- 
 earners' reports upon wages, hours of labor, and conditions 
 of work in various occupations and at different places through- 
 out the State are highly instructive. 
 
 Much of the information which the Bureau of Labor Sta- 
 tistics is required by law to collect can only be secured from 
 employers of labor. But the Bureau, during the first twelve 
 years of its existence, was wholly without authority to compel 
 anyone to make reports. Many large employers ignored the 
 schedules sent them to be filled out ; a few even denied officers 
 of the Bureau access to their books, refused them admission 
 to their plants, and sought to prevent their employees from 
 furnishing them any information.^^* To remedy this and 
 
196 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 other defects in the law of 1884, extensive amendments were 
 adopted in 1896, upon the earnest recommendation of the 
 Conamissioner,^^^ enlarging the powers and increasing the 
 support of the Bureau.^^^ 
 
 The amended law makes it the duty of every owner, op- 
 erator, or manager of every factory, mill, workshop, mine, 
 store, business house, public or private work, or any other 
 establishment where five or more wage earners are employed 
 to make to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, upon the blanks 
 furnished by the Bureau, such reports as the Bureau may 
 require for the purpose of compiling such labor statistics as 
 are contemplated by the laws. Eeports must be made within 
 sixty days after the receipt of the blanks, and the person 
 reporting must certify to the correctness of the same. Neglect 
 or refusal to make reports is a misdemeanor punishable by 
 fine or imprisonment. The names of the individuals, firms, 
 or corporations furnishing information cannot be made pub- 
 lic by the Commissioner. 
 
 There was great opposition in the legislature to the com- 
 pulsory feature of the act of 1896, and also to the authoriza- 
 tion by the same act of the inspection of factories and places 
 of employment. ^^"^ One of the Senators, in explaining his neg- 
 ative vote, called the act ^*a radical departure from the prin- 
 ciples of the republican form of government, un-American 
 and inquisitorial, unjust to manufacturers and bringing no 
 advantage whatever to the laborers, but on the contrary will 
 work to their injury, and to the mutual injury of both em- 
 ployer and employe by tending to beget and intensify antag- 
 onism between them, producing strife and distrust when mu- 
 tual interests demand concord and confidence. "^^^ The bill 
 had been once rejected in the House by a vote of thirty-two 
 to thirty-four, but was carried four days later by the decisive 
 vote of sixty-eight to thirteen.^^^ 
 
 What possible harm can be done to any legitimate industry 
 by the collection of statistics has never been explained. 
 Neither has any system yet been devised whereby such statis- 
 
THE IOWA BUREAU OP LABOR STATISTICS 197 
 
 tics can he collected without the power of compelling replies 
 to inquiries. 
 
 To render the Commissioner's inquiries as innocuous as 
 possible, a form of blank was incorporated in the act of 1896, 
 and this is still retained in the statutes,^^^ though the Com- 
 missioner is now required to collect several items of informa- 
 tion not included within this blank. Inasmuch, however, as 
 the language of the statute implies a measure of discretion, 
 the Attorney General has held that the blank form incorpor- 
 ated in the law was not intended to be rigid, but that the Com- 
 missioner may add all questions which he may deem necessary 
 to gain such information as he is required to collect.^^^ In 
 accordance with this opinion, the Commissioner adopted the 
 blank given below for the compilation of his report of 1903. 
 A somewhat different form was used for the report of 1906. 
 A comparison of the schedule for 1903 with the statutory 
 blank, which is likewise reproduced, will show that the former 
 is much more comprehensive. 
 
 GENERAL INQUIRIES, 1903^^2 
 TO ALL EMPLOYERS OF FIVE OR MORE PERSONS IN IOWA 
 
 Answer such questions only as pertain to your business and es- 
 tablishment. 
 
 1. Name of firm or corporation 
 
 2. Located at County. 3. Kind of business tran- 
 sacted 4. Number of employes during last 
 
 fiscal year No. adult males No. adult fe- 
 males No. children under sixteen years 
 
 5. Number of hours worked per day by men By women 
 
 By children 6. Total amount of wages 
 
 paid adult males during the last fiscal year $ 7. Total 
 
 amount of wages paid adult females during last fiscal year $ 
 
 8. Total amount paid children under sixteen during last fiscal year, 
 
 $ 9. Any actual increase or reduction in the rate of 
 
 wages during last fiscal year, $ ; If so, what amount or 
 
 percent of increase ? Or what amount or percent of 
 
 reduction ? How many employes were affected ? 
 
 10. Cause of increase or reduction 11. Any in- 
 
 14 
 
198 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 crease or reduction of business during last fiscal year ? 
 
 Increase ? $ Decrease ? $ 12. Number 
 
 of weeks during last fiscal year business was run on full time with 
 
 full force ? 13. Number of weeks during last fiscal 
 
 year business was run on short time with reduced force 1 
 
 14. Number of weeks during last fiscal year business was suspended? 
 
 15. How many strikes or lockouts since December 
 
 31, 1900? 
 
 MEANS OF ENTRANCE AND EXITS TO BUILDINGS 
 
 16. Number of stories in building? Brick or frame? 
 
 17. Number of stairways, inside ? 
 
 Outside ? 18, Are fire escapes provided, according 
 
 to law, enacted in 1902 ? 19. Number of elevators? 
 
 How protected ? 20. Number of hoists ? 
 
 How protected? 21. Are employes locked in dur- 
 ing working hours ? 22. Are doors hinged to swing in- 
 ward or outward ? 
 
 VENTILATION AND SANITATION. 
 
 23. How are work rooms and buildings ventilated ? 
 
 24. Are suitable water or earth closets provided ? 
 
 25. Description of closets Condition as to cleanli- 
 ness 26. Are closets for females separate and 
 
 apart from the males? Are they properly screened? 
 
 SAFEGUARDS TO MACHINERY AND ACCIDENTS 
 
 27. Are loose pulleys and belt shifters used ? 28. Are 
 
 vats, pans, saws, cogs, set screws, fly wheels and all geared machinery 
 
 properly guarded? 29. Are emery wheels, tumbling 
 
 barrels and dust producing machinery provided with suction fans or 
 
 dust blowers ? 30. If steam boilers are used, by whom 
 
 are they inspected ? How often ? 
 
 31. Are children under sixteen years of age operating or assisting 
 
 to operate dangerous machinery of any kind? 32. Are 
 
 employes allowed to clean machinery while in motion ? 
 
 33. Are cautionary instructions posted or verbally given to em- 
 ployes operating machinery? 34. Number of accidents 
 
 since December 31, 1900 Nature of accidents 
 
 Number killed Number injured 
 
THE IOWA BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 199 
 
 MANUFACTURES 
 
 35. Total capital invested, including lands, buildings, tools and 
 
 machinery, $ 36. Total cost of production for last 
 
 fiscal year, including raw materials, freights, rents, taxes, miscellane- 
 ous expenses and salaries of officials, but do not include wages, 
 
 $ 37. Total value of product for last fiscal year, 
 
 $ 
 
 STATUTORY BLANK 
 
 Name of firmi or corporation Number of 
 
 hands employed during year ending December 31, ; 
 
 males ; females ; apprentices 
 
 Total amount of wages paid during year ending December 31, ... . 
 
 $ Total amount of wages paid previous year 
 
 $ Any general increase or reduction of wages during the 
 
 past year? If so, what percent of increase or reduction? 
 
 cause of increase or reduction Any increase or de- 
 crease of business during past year. $ What means 
 
 are provided for the escape of employes in case of fire ? 
 
 What measures axe taken to prevent accidents to employes from ma- 
 chinery ? How are buildings ventilated ? 
 
 Are separate water closets and wash rooms provided for the different 
 
 sexes ? Number of weeks during past year business was 
 
 run on full time with full force, Number of weeks dur- 
 ing past year business was run on short time or with reduced force, 
 Number of weeks during past year business was sus- 
 pended Number of strikes during year ending De- 
 cember 31, ; number involved, ; alledged cause 
 
 ; result, ; how many days did strike con- 
 tinue, and what was loss of wages in consequence thereof ? 
 
 Was any property destroyed and if so its value ? 
 
 Many facts affecting the welfare of laborers can he ascer- 
 tained only by investigation on the spot. This is true as re- 
 gards sanitation and the protection of life and limb in places 
 of employment, child labor, the housing of the working classes, 
 and numerous other subjects which will readily suggest them- 
 selves to the reader. Many other items of information can be 
 
200 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 more cheaply and satisfactorily secured through field work 
 than by correspondence. ^^^ Nevertheless, no provision what- 
 ever was made for traveling expenses of officers of the Bureau 
 until the amendatory act of 1896, and the total of such ex- 
 penditures was then limited to five hundred dollars per annum. 
 We already have seen that the Bureau is now restricted to 
 fifteen hundred dollars a year for all contingent expenses. 
 With so small a fund at its disposal the Bureau has never 
 been able to undertake any extensive investigation. The facts 
 included under the heading "Factory Inspection", are ascer- 
 tained wholly by personal investigation ; other statistical mat- 
 ter in the Bureau's reports is collected chiefly by corre- 
 spondence. 
 
 The act creating the Bureau of Labor Statistics author- 
 ized the Commissioner to issue subpoenas for witnesses and 
 examine them under oath and enforce their attendance to the 
 same extent and in the same manner as a justice of the peace. 
 The amendatory act of 1896 prescribes a penalty not exceed- 
 ing fifty dollars and costs of prosecution for refusal to attend 
 or testify at the time and place named in the subpoena, excuses 
 a witness from attendance outside the county in which he re- 
 sides, and limits the expense for witnesses to one hundred 
 dollars annually. The power of taking testimony is used by 
 officers of the Bureau where necessary in conducting special 
 inquiries. 
 
 The law of 1884 requires the Commissioner of the Bureau 
 of Labor Statistics to compile a biennial report of not more 
 than six hundred printed pages octavo. Twelve such reports, 
 ranging in bulk from one hundred seven to six hundred eight 
 pages, have been issued up to the present time (1908).^®'* The 
 number of copies printed has varied from time to time, but is 
 now fixed at thirty-five hundred.^^^ The demand for the re- 
 ports has frequently exceeded the supply. 
 
 Table I below is a list of thirty-two topics treated in the 
 several reports of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, with 
 the number of pages devoted to each subject. The list is not 
 
THE IOWA BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 201 
 
 intended to be exhaustive, but only to indicate the principal 
 contents of the reports. It will be observed that while the 
 entire range of topics is considerable, many of the subjects 
 are considered in but one or two reports. Only seven of the 
 thirty-two appear in half or more of the reports. 
 
 Nine of the Commissioners' reports contain statistical and 
 textual matter based upon the individual returns of wage- 
 earners. Statistics of railway employees are likewise given in 
 nine reports ; these are in part based upon individual returns, 
 and in part taken from the reports of the Iowa Railroad Com- 
 missioners. Employers' statistical reports have been com- 
 piled only since the passage of the amendatory act of 1896. 
 The tables of classified wages in four biennial reports are 
 based upon the payrolls of employers. Thus the data for the 
 most comprehensive and valuable statistics now published by 
 the Bureau are obtained from employers. Unfortunately the 
 law requires reports to be made only by employers of five 
 or more persons. Thus the Bureau's returns are necessarily 
 incomplete, though they may be fairly representative,^^^ 
 
 The usefulness of the Bureau's statistical reports could 
 be much increased by a few additions to the schedules of in- 
 quiry and by the substitution of siunmaries for certain details. 
 No distinction is at present made between the sexes of chil- 
 dren under sixteen, or between youths of either sex and adults. 
 The employers ' reports are published by counties ; there should 
 be, in addition, a summary for the entire State by industries. 
 The reports of factory inspection give details as to conditions 
 observed and recommendations made for each establishment 
 inspected. This information would be much more accessible 
 if compressed into a well planned summary. The same re- 
 mark applies to the Bureau's statistics of accidents. Thus 
 the table of accidents in the twelfth biennial report (1906) is 
 spread over fifteen pages and gives full details for each acci- 
 dent. The student must wade through these fifteen pages and 
 make his own computations if he would arrive at any intel- 
 ligible result. An analytical table giving the age and sex of 
 
202 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 persons injured, and the causes, character and extent of in- 
 juries, would occupy two or three pages at most and would 
 be far more informing. 
 
 A number of articles in the Bureau's reports are the result 
 of special investigation by the Commissioner. Among the 
 most valuable of these are the discussions of contract convict 
 labor and of coal screens and the truck system in the report of 
 1885, the article on private employment offices in the report 
 of 1891, and the records of joint trade agreements in the 
 reports of 1903 and 1905. In some of the earlier reports topics 
 which hardly fell within the appropriate sphere of the Bu- 
 reau's work were treated at great length. Examples are the 
 seventy pages given to a discussion of prohibition in the re- 
 port of 1889, and the one hundred sixty pages devoted to 
 agricultural depression in the report of 1891. 
 
 TABLE I SUBJECTS TREATED IN THE EEPOETS OF THE IOWA BUREAU 
 
 OF LABOR STATISTICS 
 SUBJECTS NUMBER OF PAGES IN EACH REPORT 
 
 1885 1887 1889 1891 1893 1895 1897 1899 K-01 1903 1905 1906 
 
 Entire number of 
 
 pages in report... 398 416 413 279 349 195 177 107 598 608 460 272 
 
 Wage earners' indi- 
 vidual reports 52 152 129 24 160 27 24 26 22 
 
 Statistics of railroad 
 
 employees 9 26 5 9 14 34 23 16 15 
 
 Remarks and sugges- 
 tions of w a g e - 
 earners 25 23 24 12 18 14 13 
 
 Labor organizations 
 
 in Iowa 11 3 3 34 69 60 
 
 Strikes and lockouts 
 
 in Iowa 16 62 4 4 2 76 
 
 Manual training and 
 
 technical education 38 4 2 10 7 31 
 
 Employers' statistical 
 
 reports 40 46 114 68 45 
 
 Farm labor and agri- 
 cultural conditions. 7 6 22 166 12 
 
 New industries for 
 
 Iowa 10 18 66 28 30 
 
 Immigration 5 3 3 12 51 
 
 Factory inspection ... 38 50 80 37 
 
 Labor laws of Iowa.. 28 7 13 25 2 
 
 Classified wages 31 40 44 69 
 
 Child labor 13 4 2 5 
 
 Co-operation and prof- 
 it sharing 9 2 2 22 
 
THE IOWA BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 203 
 
 Employment offices. . . 23 17 
 
 Prohibition 2 4 70 6 
 
 Manufactures of Iowa 7 15 4 
 
 Joint trade agreements 113 84 
 
 School teachers 22 45 
 
 Communistic societies 13 18 
 
 Convict labor 22 2 
 
 Cost of living 10 7 
 
 Mining industry 6 10 
 
 Railway benefit asso- 
 ciation 82 
 
 Directory of Iowa em- 
 ployees 45 
 
 Pearl button industry 26 
 
 Coal screens and the 
 truck system 18 
 
 Chinese labor 18 
 
 Length of working day 
 
 in the United States 16 
 
 Canning industry .... 9 
 
 Arbitration 7 
 
 The reports of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics are 
 issued only every second year, so that, allowing for the delays 
 of the State Printer, an interval of three years may elapse 
 between the gathering of facts and their publication. Much 
 of the information in the reports has thus lost its timeliness 
 before it reaches the public. To the laboring man, especially, 
 the value of industrial statistics very largely depends upon 
 their recentness. He is far more interested in current than 
 in past wages and hours of work. For these reasons the Com- 
 missioners several times have asked for legislative authority 
 to publish a labor bulletin in which could be given timely dis- 
 cussions of industrial questions, the results of special inves- 
 tigations, and statistical and other information of current 
 interest. Such bulletins are issued by Massachusetts, New 
 York, and other States as well as by the United States Bureau 
 of Labor. But the legislature of Iowa, with short-sighted 
 economy, has steadily refused to make any provision for a 
 similar publication. 
 
 Table II below shows eighteen of the most important 
 recommendations for new legislation made by the Bureau, 
 whereof eleven have been adopted in whole or in part, while 
 seven have been rejected or ignored by the legislature. It is 
 by no means meant to imply that the Bureau's recommendation 
 
204 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 was the sole, or even the chief influence in securing such legis- 
 lation, but merely to indicate the active support given by the 
 Bureau to some of the most important labor laws enacted or 
 proposed since its establishment. Officers of the Bureau were 
 especially influential in securing the factory, fire-escape, and 
 child labor laws. 
 
 TABLE II EECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LEGISLATUKE BY THE IOWA 
 
 COMMISSION OF LABOR 
 RECOMMENDATIONS IN WHAT REPORTS MADE LAW ENACTED 
 
 Increase support of Bureau 1885, 1887, 1891, 1893, 1902, 1891, 1904, 1907 
 
 Enact screen law 1885 1888 
 
 Enact truck law 1885, 1887 1888 
 
 Abolish contract system in 
 
 prisons 1885, 1887 
 
 Establish State Board of Arbi- 
 tration 1885 1886 867 
 
 Enact bi-weekly wage law 1887 1894 
 
 Establish labor day 1889 
 
 Establish free employment bu- 
 reau ' 1891, 1893, 1905 
 
 Revise law governing the 
 
 Bureau of Labor Statistics... 1895 1896 
 
 Require guards on dangerous 
 
 machinery 1897, 1899, 1901 1902 
 
 Provide for State inspection of 
 
 steam boilers 1897, 1899, 1901, 1903, 1905 
 
 Require employers' reports with- 
 in 20 days 1899 
 
 Enact factory law 1901 1902 
 
 Enact fire escape law 1901, 1903 1902, 1904 
 
 Provide for factory inspection.. 1901, 1903 1902, 1904 
 
 Enact child labor law 1901, 1903, 1905, 1906 1906 
 
 Require report of accidents to 
 
 Bureau of Labor Statistics... 1903, 1905, 1906 
 
 Provide penalty for removing 
 
 guards from machinery 1905, 1906 
 
 Five Commissioners have been appointed since the creation 
 of the Bureau in 1884, the average term being nearly five 
 years. All of the appointees have been taken from the ranks 
 of organized labor. It follows that the officers of the Bureau 
 without exception have been in sympathy with the aims and 
 ideals of working people. Notwithstanding this fact the Bu- 
 reau has never been guilty of offensive partisanship in the 
 strife between employer and employed. 
 
 In conclusion it may be said without hesitation that the 
 Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics has justified its existence. 
 
THE IOWA BUKEAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 205 
 
 Early prejudice has largely been overcome. The Bureau now 
 enjoys the confidence and support of organized labor and 
 receives a considerable measure of cooperation from employ- 
 ers. The scope of its work has been greatly extended within 
 the past few years, and the extent and value of its statistical 
 reports have correspondingly increased. The work of the Bu- 
 reau still is needlessly hampered and its usefulness impaired 
 by lack of proper financial support. 
 
 V 
 
AN APPENDIX 
 EECENT LABOR LEGISLATION 
 
AN APPENDIX 
 
 EECENT LABOR LEGISLATION 
 
 The Thirty- third General Assembly which met in 1909, 
 since the foregoing pages were written, greatly strengthened 
 the child labor law, markedly improved the statutes affecting 
 employers ' liability, and made minor changes in various other 
 departments of labor legislation. 
 
 THE CHILD LABOR LAW 
 
 By the legislation of 1909 the period of compulsory school 
 attendance was raised to twenty-four weeks for all school dis- 
 tricts and the board of school directors in any city of the first 
 or second class (15,000 and 2,000 inhabitants, respectively) was 
 authorized to require attendance for the entire time that the 
 schools are in session.^^^ There is little doubt that the school 
 boards, in most of the larger cities at least, will make use of 
 this authority. Vigilant truant officers will thus have it in 
 their power to prevent the worst evils of child labor. 
 
 Still more important is the amendment which empowers 
 any officer charged with the enforcement of the child labor law 
 ' ' to demand of employers, proof of age of any child employed 
 in their establishment; such proof shall be an authenticated 
 birth record, and if there is no such record, then a baptismal 
 record fully attested .... and if there is no such rec- 
 ord, a school record that will establish the age of the child, 
 attested by a superintendent, principal, or teacher; where no 
 such proof is obtainable, a parent's affidavit, together with 
 affidavits made by two disinterested persons .... es- 
 tablishing date of birth may be accepted, and if no such proof 
 is furnished, such child shall forthwith be dismissed from 
 his employment. ' ' ^^^ 
 
 The absence of such a provision was one of the chief de- 
 
210 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 fects of the legislation of 1906. Evasion of a child labor law- 
 is always easy where the enforcing authority is required to 
 produce positive proof of the age of each suspected child. On 
 the other hand, when the burden of proof is put upon employ- 
 ers they are much more careful about employing children of 
 doubtful age. As the law now stands, violations will be far 
 more infrequent and detection and conviction much less diffi- 
 cult. 
 
 employees' liability law 
 
 The Assumption of Eisk Act of 1907 was repealed and the 
 following statute enacted in its stead : 
 
 In all cases where the property, works, machinery, or appliances 
 of an employer are defective or out of repair, and where it is the duty 
 of the employer from the character of the place, work, machinery or 
 appliances to furnish reasonably safe machinery, appliances or place 
 to work, the employe shall not be deemed to have assumed the risk, 
 by continuing in the prosecution of the work, growing out of any 
 defect as aforesaid, of which the employe may have had knowledge 
 when the employer had knowledge of such defect, except when in the 
 usual and ordinary course of his employment it is the duty of such 
 employe to make the repairs, or remedy the defects. Nor shall the 
 employe under such conditions be deemed to have waived the negli- 
 gence, if any, unless the danger be imminent and to such extent that 
 a reasonably prudent person would not have continued in the pros- 
 ecution of the work ; but this statute shall not be construed so as to 
 include such risks as are incident to the employment. And no 
 contract which restricts liability hereunder shall be legal or bind- 
 
 ing870 
 
 This act is evidently more favorable to the employee than 
 that of 1907. (1) It does away wdth the requirement of a 
 written notice of defects which, in many cases, might have 
 resulted in the discharge of the complaining employee. (2) 
 It removes all doubt as to the effect of a contractual waiver 
 of the employer's liability under the statute. (3) As the act 
 stands it probably would not be necessary to show that the 
 employer had actual knowledge of a given defect if, in the 
 
APPENDIX 211 
 
 exercise of reasonable care, he, or his vice-principal, would 
 have known of it. The statute has not been judicially con- 
 strued, so that its precise effects cannot be determined. It 
 clearly supersedes the Common Law rules as to protest and 
 promise to repair ; but apparently it does not wholly abrogate 
 the doctrine of the assumption of extraordinary risks. The 
 language of the act does not embrace unsafe methods of work, 
 nor does it cover defects in appliances, etc., of which the em- 
 ployer has not actual or constructive knowledge. None the 
 less the act of 1909 does away with the harshest features of 
 the Common Law doctrine. The assumption of the ordinary 
 risks of the employment is, of course, not affected by the 
 statute. 
 
 Equally important with the new Assumption of Risk Act 
 is the following amendment to the Eailway Liability Law : 
 
 That in all actions hereafter brought against any such corpora- 
 tion [corporation operating a railway] to recover damages for the 
 personal injury or death of any employe under or by virtue of the 
 provisions of this section, [Code of 1897, Section 2071, the railway 
 liability statute] the fact that the employe may have been guilty of 
 contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but the damages 
 shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of 
 negligence attributable to such employe; provided, that no such 
 employe who may be injured or killed shall be held to have been 
 guilty of contributory negligence in any case where the violation 
 by such common carrier or corporation of any statute enacted for 
 the safety of employes contributed to the injury or death of such 
 employe ; nor shall it be any defense to such action that the employe 
 who was injured or killed assumed the risks of his employment.^''^^ 
 
 It will be seen that the amendment establishes the rule of 
 comparative negligence as to cases within the statute, abolishes 
 contributory negligence altogether as a defense to suits based 
 on violations of the safety laws by the railway companies, and 
 abrogates the Common Law doctrine of assumption of risk to 
 the same extent that the earlier statute abrogates the fellow 
 servant doctrine. It is, of course, too early to speak of the 
 
212 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 amended act, since it has not yet been construed by the courts. 
 Undoubtedly, however, the amendment applies to the same 
 classes of injuries as the earlier acts — that is, to injuries 
 caused by "the use and operation of a railway", and sustained 
 by persons exposed, by reason of their employment, to the 
 peculiar hazards arising from such use and operation. Next 
 to the fellow-servant doctrine, contributory negligence and 
 assumption of risk are the principal defenses in employers' 
 liability cases. The amendment of 1909, therefore, immensely 
 enlarges the remedies afforded by the statute to railway em- 
 ployees. 
 
 MINOR LEGISLATION 
 
 As was forecasted (above p. 26) the cooperage concern 
 secured an act authorizing the State Board of Control to 
 contract for the employment of not more than fifty inmates 
 of the State Eeformatory at Anamosa in the making of butter 
 tubs, the contract to expire not later than January 1, 1915.^'^^ 
 The contract thus authorized was promptly entered into by 
 the Board of Control. In view of conclusions already reached 
 the extension of the cooperage contract can but be regarded 
 as a backward step. 
 
 An amendment to the Railway Safety Appliance Law pro- 
 vides that all locomotives used in switching or yard service, 
 except at stations where regular switch engines are not em- 
 ployed, shall be equipped in both front and rear, with head- 
 light, foot-board, and grab rail.^'^^ The switchman's calling is 
 an extra-hazardous one at best, but its perils are much in- 
 creased by the use of ordinary road locomotives in switching 
 service — a practice which was formerly common and which 
 the above law was intended to minimize. 
 
 Additional provision for the comfort of street car motor- 
 men was made by an act which requires all motor street cars, 
 except trailers, used for the transportation of passengers and 
 not already required by law to carry enclosed vestibules to be 
 equipped with transparent shields.^'^* 
 
 Lastly, a second factory inspector was added to the inade- 
 
APPENDIX 213 
 
 quate force of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.^'^^ Three men 
 now devote their entire time to the field work of the Bureau. 
 The force is still too small, but when it is called to mind that 
 factory inspection in Iowa began only ten years ago its growth 
 will appear an augury of better things to come. 
 
 The action of the Thirty-third General Assembly empha- 
 sizes a striking and grateful feature of the recent social his- 
 tory of Iowa — the growing volume and increasingly human- 
 itarian character of labor legislation. 
 
 15 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 
 
 i 
 
NOTES AND EEFERENCES 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 ^ The writer has been unable to find any printed records of the 
 Knights of Labor in Iowa. For the statements in the text he is 
 indebted to Mr. Edwin Perry, of Oskaloosa, formerly a State officer 
 of the Knights and now (1907) Secretary of District Thirteen, Unit- 
 ed Mine Workers of America. 
 
 2 A brief history of the Iowa Federation of Labor is contained 
 in the Tribune (Cedar Rapids) for June 5, 1908. The annual pro- 
 ceedings have been printed from the time of their first organization. 
 An almost complete set of the Proceedings is found in the library 
 of The State Historical Society of Iowa. 
 
 3 For an example see the history of the Temple Amendment, 
 page 181 of this volume. 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 * Territorial Laws of Michigan, Vol. II, p. 331. 
 
 5 Territorial Laws of Michigan, Vol. II, p. 727. 
 
 6 Territorial Laws of Michigan, Vol. Ill, p. 1189. 
 ■^ United States Statutes at Large, Vol. V, p. 10. 
 
 8 United States Statutes at Large, Vol. V, p. 235. 
 
 9 Laws of Iowa, 1838-1839, p. 327. 
 
 10 Laws of Iowa, 1839-1840, p. 78. 
 
 11 Revised Statutes of Iowa, 1842-1843, p. 380. 
 
 12 Code of 1851, pp. 154-159. 
 
 13 Code of 1851, Section 981. 
 1* Code of 1851, Section 982. 
 
 15 Code of 1851, Sections 988-995. 
 
218 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 16 Code of 1851, Sections 1005-1007. 
 
 17 Code of 1851, Section 1009. 
 
 18 Code of 1851, Section 1010. 
 
 19 Laws of Iowa, 1856-1857, p. 377. 
 
 20 Laws of Iowa, 1858, p. 46. 
 
 21 Revision of 1860, Section 1846. 
 
 22 Revision of 1860, Section 1871. 
 
 23 Revision of 1860, Section 1847. 
 
 24 Revision of 1860, Section 1870. 
 
 25 Revision of 1860, Section 1854. 
 
 26 Revision of 1860, Section 1872. 
 
 27ia«;s of Iowa, 1862, p. 127; 1870, p. 180; (Public), 1872, p. 
 13; (Public), 1874, p. 33. 
 
 28 Lam of Iowa (Public), 1874, p. 36. 
 
 29 Laws of Iowa, 1876, p. 84. 
 
 30 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 185. 
 
 31 Breneman vs. Harvey, 70 Iowa 479. 
 Loring vs. Small, 50 Iowa 271. 
 Whiting vs. Story County, 54 Iowa 81. 
 
 32 Code of 1897, Sections 3102-3104. 
 
 33 Laws of Iowa, 1890, p. 72. 
 
 34 Laws of Iowa, 1894, p. 31. 
 
 35 Thompson vs. Spencer, 95 Iowa 265. For the existing law see 
 the Code of 1897, pp. 1097-1115; also Traxler's A Treatise on The 
 Mechanics' Liens of the State of Iowa, Minneapolis, 1901. 
 
 36 Code of 1897, Section 3089. 
 
 3'^ Traxler's A Treatise on The Mechanics' Liens of the State of 
 Iowa, p. 44. 
 
 38 Brown vs. Wyman, 56 Iowa 452. 
 
 39 Kiene vs. Hodge, 90 Iowa 212. 
 
 40 Coenen vs. Staub, 74 Iowa 32. 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 219 
 
 *^ Hoppes vs. Bale, 105 Iowa 648. 
 
 42 Cotes & Davis vs. Shorey, 8 Iowa 416. 
 
 Neilson vs. Iowa Eastern Railway Company, 51 Iowa 184. 
 Chase vs. Garver Coal & Mining Company, 90 Iowa 25. 
 
 43 Jones vs. Swan and Company, 21 Iowa 181; Stockwell vs. 
 Carpenter, 27 Iowa 119. 
 
 ** Neilson vs. Iowa Eastern Railway Company, 51 Iowa 184. 
 
 45 Code of 1897, Section 3089 ; Mornan vs. Carroll, 35 Iowa 22. 
 
 46 Sandval vs. Ford, 55 Iowa 461. 
 
 4^ Trailer's A Treatise on The Mechanics' Liens of the State of 
 Iowa, p. 59. 
 
 48Traxler's A Treatise on The Mechanics Liens of the State of 
 Iowa, p. 58-59. 
 
 49 Mornan vs. Carroll, 35 Iowa 22. 
 
 50 Code of 1897, Section 3092. 
 
 51 Code of 1897, Section 3095. 
 
 52 Code of 1897, Section 3447, sub-division 4 ; Johnson vs. Otto, 
 105 Iowa 605. 
 
 53 According to Justice Given, in Reynolds vs. Black, 91 Iowa 1. 
 
 54 Laws of Iowa, 1890, p. 73 ; Code of 1897, Sections 4019-4020. 
 
 55 Reynolds vs. Black, 91 Iowa 1. 
 
 56 Code of 1851, Section 1901 ; Code of 1873, Section 3074 ; Code 
 of 1897, Section 4011. 
 
 57 Code of 1851, Section 1901 ; Code of 1873, Section 3075 ; Code 
 of 1897, Section 4013. 
 
 ^^ House File, No. 51, 30th General Assembly (1904). 
 
 59 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1904, p. 272. 
 
 60 Laws of Iowa, 1904, p. 117. 
 
 61 Laws of lowu, 1894, p. 97 ; Code of 1897, Section 4018. 
 
 ^"^ House File, No. 92, 30th General Assembly (1904). 
 
 63 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1904, pp. 129, 291, 
 292, 332, 333. 
 
220 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 ^^ House File, No. 317, 30th General Assembly (1904). 
 
 ^^ Journal of the House of Representatives, 1904, pp. 429, 517, 
 666, 668, 669 ; Journal of the Senate, 1904, pp. 657, 672, 717, 967. 
 
 66 Council Bluffs Nonpareil, May 8-12, 1905. 
 
 6'^ Official Directory of the Iowa Federation of Labor, 1906, p. 
 137; Statement of Burt T. Jackson of Cedar Rapids, President of 
 the Iowa State Retail Merchants' Association. 
 
 68 House File, No. 183, 31st General Assembly, 1906. 
 
 69 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1906, pp. 280, 548, 
 652 ; Journal of the Senate, 1906, pp. 630, 641, 1055-1056. 
 
 ■70 House Files, Nos. 76, 82, 132 ; Senate File, No. 86, 32nd Gen- 
 eral Assembly (1907). 
 
 "^^ Journal of the House of Representatives, 1907, p. 906. 
 
 "^^ Journal of the Senate, 1907, p. 1220. 
 
 ''^ House File, No. 175, 31st General Assembly (1906). 
 
 "^^ Journal of the House of Representatives, 1906, pp. 260, 465, 
 486, 1006 ; Journal of the Se7iate, 1906, pp. 428, 618, 887. 
 
 ■^5 Vote in the House, 66 to 2 ; in the Senate, 27 to 0. 
 
 76 Latvs of Iowa, 1906, p. 108. 
 
 '^'^ The methods employed by the loan sharks are well illustrated 
 
 by the following incident:— L M , a fireman on the 
 
 Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway, running out of Sioux 
 City, fell behind on account of the sickness and death of a child. 
 Seeing a "money to loan" advertisement in a street car he called 
 on the advertiser, and gave him a note for $35, with interest at 8% 
 for six weeks, secured by a chattel mortgage on household furniture 
 worth three or four hundred dollars. He actually received but $24, 
 $11 being deducted as cormnission and charges. By successive re- 
 newals, without any additional advance by the lender, the debt grew 
 to $108 in eight months' time. The mortgage was then foreclosed 
 and the household goods bought in for some fifty dollars by an as- 
 sociate of the loan company. An attempt was then made to attach 
 the fireman's unpaid wages, whereupon he was discharged by the 
 railway company. 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 221 
 
 The writer has been told of many similar incidents in various 
 Iowa cities. 
 
 "^^Code of 1851, Section 1490; Code of 1873, Section 2240; Code 
 of 1897, Section 3191. 
 
 79 Code of 1873, Section 2211 ; Code of 1897, Section 3162. 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 80 Territorial Laws of Michigan, Vol. I, p. 469. 
 
 8^ Territorial Laws of Michigan, Vol. II, p. 384. 
 
 82 Laws of Iowa, 1838-1839, p. 365. 
 
 83 Laws of Iowa, 1840-1841, p. 81. 
 
 8* See Report of the Warden of the Penitentiary in the Journal 
 of the Council, 1845, p. 190. 
 
 85 Laws of Iowa, 1845-1846, p. 18. 
 
 86 Laws of Iowa, 1848-1849, p. 82. 
 
 8'^ Journal of the Senate, 1854-1855, Appendix, pp. 23-25. 
 ^^ Report of the Warden of the Penitentiary, 1865, pp. 11-16. 
 ^^ Report of the Warden of the Penitentiary, 1869, pp. 18-20. 
 ^^Laws of Iowa (Private), 1874, p. 31. 
 9^ Report of the Warden of the Penitentiary, 1875, Appendix. 
 
 92 loiva Documents, 1878, Vol. II, No. 15, pp. 57-63. 
 
 93 Laws of Iowa, 1876, p. 82. 
 
 ^'^ Report of the Warden of the Penitentiary, 1877, Appendix. 
 
 95 Report of the Warden of the Penitentiary, 1879, p. 24. 
 
 96 Report of the Warden of the Penitentiary, 1881, p. 12. 
 
 9'^ Report of the Warden of the Penitentiary, 1881, p. 9. 
 
 ^^ Report of the Warden of the Penitentiary, 1883, p. 11. 
 
 ^^ Report of the Warden of the Penitentiary, 1889, p. 8. 
 
 ^00 Report of the Warden of the Penitentiary, 1895, pp. 7-8. 
 
 101 These contracts have not been published, but are on file in 
 the office of the State Board of Control at Des Moines. 
 
222 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 1*^2 Report of the Warden of the Penitentiary, 1895, pp. 7-8. 
 
 103 Beport of the Warden of the Femtentiary, 1901, p. 5. 
 
 i*** Statement of Mr. A. L. Urick, President of the Iowa Federa- 
 tion of Labor. 
 
 105 Laws of Iowa, 1900, p. 96. 
 
 106 Records in the office of the Clerk of the Penitentiary at Fort 
 Madison. 
 
 107 Correspondence in the office of the State Board of Control. 
 i08Law;5 of Iowa (Public), 1872, p. 49. 
 
 109 Contracts on file in the office of the State Board of Control. 
 
 110 Records in the office of the Clerk of the Reformatory. 
 
 111 LoAvs of Iowa, 1876, p. 32 ; Code of 1897, Section 5707. 
 
 112 Laws of Iowa, 1898, p. 62. 
 
 11^ Statement of Mr. A. L. Urick, President of the Iowa Federa- 
 tion of Labor. 
 
 11* Laws of Iowa, 1900, p. 96. 
 
 115 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 193. 
 
 11^ Records in the office of the Clerk of the Reformatory at Ana- 
 mosa. 
 
 11'^ Records in the office of the Clerk of the Penitentiary. 
 
 lis Beport of the Warden of the Penitentiary at Anamosa, 1893, 
 p. 9. 
 
 ^^^ Beport of the Warden of the Penitentiary at Anamosa, 1899, 
 p. 42. The industries proposed were binder-twine, hollow-ware, and 
 manufactures for State institutions.— See Iowa Documents, 1900, 
 Vol. VI, pp. 131-148. 
 
 120 Senate File, No. 96, and House File, No. 160, 32nd General As- 
 sembly (1907). 
 
 121 Official Directory of the Iowa Federation of Labor, 1907, p. 
 137; 1908, pp. 87, 127. 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 122 Yov the early history of the Dubuque lead mines, see House 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 223 
 
 Executive Documents, 26th Congress, 1st session, "Vol. VI (Owen's 
 Report) ; Senate Executive Documents, 30th Congress, 1st session. 
 No. 5730; H. R. Schoolcraft's Narrative Journal of Travels; also 
 History of Dubuque County, and the loiva Geological Survey, Vol. 
 VI, pp. 14-18 ; Vol. X, pp. 480-489 ; John^ Hopkins University Studies, 
 Series 2, No. VII, pp. 347-350. 
 
 123 Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. II, pp. 38, 521-522. 
 
 124 Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. II, p. 38. 
 
 125 Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. II, p. 522. 
 i26/(nt;a Geological Survey, Vol. II, p. 523. 
 
 127 Census Year. 
 
 128 Year ending June 30. From Reports of Iowa State Mine In- 
 spectors. 
 
 '^^^ Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. XVII, p. 16. 
 
 ^^^ Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. XVII, p. 13. 
 
 131 See pp. 8, 63. 
 
 ^^2 Laws of Iowa (Public), 1872, p. 53. 
 
 ^^^Laws of Iowa (Public), 1874, p. 22. 
 
 13* Laws of Iowa, 1880, p. 196. 
 
 135 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 23 ; Report of Iowa State Mine In- 
 spector, 1883, pp. 78-90; loiva State Register, July 26, August 15-16, 
 1883; personal letter to writer from Edwin Perry, now (1907) Secre- 
 tary-Treasurer of District Thirteen, United Mine Workers of America, 
 and formerly State Secretary of the Knights of Labor and member 
 of their legislative committee. Accounts should be found in the 
 Oskaloosa Messenger of July 10-12, 1883, but this paper the writer 
 has not been able to find. 
 
 136 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 23. 
 
 137 Laws of Iowa (Public), 1872, p. 53. 
 
 138 iaw;s of Iowa (Public), 1874, p. 22. 
 
 139 Polk, Mahaska, Monroe, Wapello, Appanoose, and perhaps 
 others. See Minute Boohs of the County Board of Supervisors, 
 1873-1880. 
 
224 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 140 Laws of loiva, 1880, p. 196. 
 
 141 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 23. 
 
 142 JKepor^ 0/ >Sf^af e Mine Inspector, 1885, p. 63. 
 
 143 Laws of Iowa, 1886, p. 161. 
 
 144 Laws of Iowa, 1888, p. 74. 
 
 145 Laws of Iowa, 1902, p. 62. 
 
 146 The number of mines in each district in 1906 was as follows : 
 
 District Number 1 149 
 
 District Number 2 65 
 
 District Number 3 95 
 
 Entire State 309 
 
 See Report of Iowa State Mine Inspectors, 1906, p. 6. 
 
 147 Laws of Iowa, 1902, p. 62. 
 
 148 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 129 ; Code of Iowa, Supplement of 1907; 
 Section 2483. 
 
 149 Latvs of Iowa, 1880, p. 197. 
 
 150 Laivs of Iowa, 1882, p. 169. 
 
 151 Laws of Iowa, 1906, p. 5. 
 
 152 Laws of Iowa, 1906, pp. 2-3. 
 
 153 Laws of Iowa, 1880, pp. 197-8. 
 
 154 Code of 1897, Section 2485. 
 ^^^Laws of Iowa (Public), 1872, p. 53. 
 '^^^Laws of loiva (Public), 1874, p. 22. 
 
 157 Laws of loiva, 1880, p. 198. 
 
 158 Report of Iowa State Mine Inspector, 1882-1883, p. 93. 
 
 159 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 25. 
 
 160 Laws of Iowa, 1888, p. 79. 
 
 161 Laws of Iowa, 1880, p. 198. 
 
 162 Laws of Iowa, 1890, p. 71. 
 
 163 Code of 1897, Section 2487. 
 ^^^Laws of Iowa (Public), 1874, p. 24. 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 225 
 
 165 Laws of Iowa, 1880, p. 198. 
 
 166 Code of 1897, Section 2489. 
 
 ^^'^ Laws of loiva (Public), 1874, p. 24. 
 
 168 Statement of an ex-County Mine Inspector. 
 
 169 Laws of Iowa, 1880, p. 199. 
 "0 Laivs of Iowa, 1884, p. 26. 
 171 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 27. 
 
 1"^^ Crabell vs. Wapello Coal Company, 68 Iowa 751. 
 
 i'^3 The record for the biennial period 1904-1905 is as follows : 
 
 Killed Injured 
 
 Caught by cage 3 10 
 
 Struck by material falling down shaft 2 2 
 
 Hurt by falling into shaft 1 
 
 Total number killed or injured in hoisting ways. . 6 12 
 
 17* Laws of Iowa, 1880, p. 199. 
 
 175 Code of 1897, Section 2489. 
 
 176 Laws of Iowa, 1900, p. 61. 
 
 177 Laws of Iowa, 1880, pp. 199-200 ; Laws of Iowa, 1884, pp. 27- 
 28 ; Code of 1897, Sections 2489 and 2491. 
 
 178 Code of 1897, Section 2489. 
 
 179 Corson vs. Coal Hill Coal Company, 101 Iowa 224 ; Taylor vs. 
 Star Coal Company, 110 Iowa 40 ; Cushman vs. Carbondale Fuel Com- 
 pany, 116 Iowa 618; Wahlquist vs. Maple Grove Coal & Mining 
 Company, 116 Iowa 720, There are many other cases holding to 
 same effect. 
 
 isoLawJS of Iowa (Public), 1872, p. 52. 
 
 181 Laws of Iowa (Public), 1874, p. 22. 
 
 182 Statements of former County Mine Inspectors and other vet- 
 eran Tomev^.—Eeport of Iowa State Mine Inspector, 1883, p. 49; 
 1885, pp. 30-35. 
 
 183 Laws of Iowa, 1880, p. 198. 
 
 184 Report of Iowa State Mine Inspector, 1883, pp. 93-94. 
 
 185 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 26. 
 
226 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 186 Code of 1897, Section 2488. 
 
 18^ Report of Iowa State Mine Inspectors, 1906, pp. 16-17. 
 
 188 Report of Iowa State Mine Inspectors, 1883, p. 48. 
 
 189 Compiled from details by counties in the Report of Iowa State 
 Mine Inspectors, 1906. It will be observed that the total number 
 of mines (314) differs from that (309) given on pp. 34, 215. The 
 discrepancy is between the details by counties and the summary in 
 the Inspector's 
 
 190 Laws of Iowa, 1898, p. 38. 
 
 191 Division of the main air .current at the bottom of the down- 
 east, 
 
 192 At the mouth of abandoned rooms and entries. 
 
 193 Reports of the Iowa State Mine Inspectors, 1905, p. 19 ; 1906, 
 pp. 16-17; also details by counties. 
 
 194 Report of Iowa State Mine Inspectors, 1895, pp. 42, 76. 
 
 195 Code of 1897, Section 2493. 
 
 196 Laws of Iowa, 1896, p. 94. 
 
 197 Laws of Iowa, 1898, p. 38. 
 
 '^^^ Reports of Iowa State Mine Inspectors, 1891, pp. 129-130; 
 1893, pp. 29, 60; 1895, p. 35. 
 
 199 Report of the Commission on Explosions in the Coal Mines 
 of Iowa. This Report is printed only in pamphlet form. 
 
 200 Laws of Iowa, 1902, p. 63. 
 
 ^^'^ House File, No. 36, 31st General Assembly (1906); House 
 File, No. 212, 32nd General Assembly (1907).— See House Journal, 
 1906 and 1907, passim. 
 
 202 Tjjg j)gg Moines Agreement for 1908-1909 is published in a 
 pamphlet of thirty-seven pages, 
 
 ^^^ Proceedings of Tenth Annual Convention (1907) District 
 Thirteen, United Mine Workers of America, p. 8 ; Proceedings of the 
 Eleventh Convention (1908), p. 13. 
 
 204 Beard's Mine Gases and Explosions, pp. 192-194. 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 227 
 
 ^^^ Reports of State Mine Inspectors, 1891, pp. 129-130; 1901, 
 pp. 32-33. 
 
 206 Tjjg italics are the writer's. 
 
 207 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 129. 
 
 ^^^ Senate File, No. 81, 32nd General Assembly (1907) ; Journals 
 of the Senate and House of Representatives, passim. 
 
 209 Report of Iowa State Mine Inspectors, 1891, p. 92. 
 
 210 Laws of Iowa, 1900, p. 61. 
 
 211 Report of Iowa State Mine Inspectors, 1901, pp. 52-53, 71-72. 
 
 212 La4vs of Iowa, 1874, p. 24. 
 
 213 Laws of Iowa, 1880, p. 199. 
 
 214 Code of 1897, Section 2491. 
 
 215 Latt;s of Iowa (Public), 1874, p. 23. 
 
 216 Laws of Iowa, 1880, p. 199. 
 
 217 Laws of Iowa, 1888, p. 80. 
 
 218 Code of 1897, Section 2492. 
 
 219 Report of Iowa State Mine Inspector, 1885, pp. 30-32. 
 
 220 Laws of Iowa, 1888, p. 79. 
 
 221 Code of 1897, Section 2488. 
 
 222 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 28. 
 
 223 Code of 1897, Section 2491. 
 224Law;s of Iowa (Public), 1872, p. 53. 
 ^^^Laws of Iowa (Public), 1874, p. 24. 
 
 226 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 27. 
 
 227 Code of 1897, Section 2492. 
 
 228 Mosgrove vs. Zimbleman Coal Company, 110 Iowa 169. 
 
 229 iaw's of loiva (Public), 1874, p. 23. 
 
 230 Laws of Iowa, 1880, p. 201. 
 
 231 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 25 ; Code of 1897, Section 2486. 
 
 232 Laws of Iowa, 1900, p. 61. 
 
228 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 233 Loit's of Iowa (Public), 1874, p. 24. 
 
 234 Laws of Iowa, 1880, p. 197. 
 
 235 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 24. 
 
 236 Code of 1897, Section 2482. 
 
 237 Laws of Iowa, 1880, p. 197 ; Code of 1897, Sections 2482 and 
 516. 
 
 238 Many specimen verdicts are printed in the Reports of the 
 Iowa State Mine Inspectors. 
 
 239 Years ending June 30th, Table compiled from Reports of 
 loiva State Mine Inspectors. 
 
 ^'^^ Reports of Iowa State Mine Inspectors and Bulletin No. 333 
 of the United States Geological Survey. 
 
 ^'^^ Bulletin No. 333 of the United States Geological Survey, 
 passim. 
 
 242 Compiled from detailed returns in Reports of State Mine In- 
 spectors. 
 
 243 See p. 8. 
 
 244 Laws of Iowa, 1890, p. 72. 
 
 ^'^^ Iowa State Mine Inspector's Reports, 1889, pp. 144-146. 
 
 246 Laivs of Iowa, 1880, p. 200. 
 
 247 Laws of Iowa, 1888, p. 76 ; Code of 1897, Section 2490. 
 
 248 Laws of Iowa, 1888, p. 77. 
 
 249 See, for examples, the Report of the State Mine Inspector for 
 1883, p. 76 ff. 
 
 250 Tjjg italics are the writer's. 
 
 251 "Slack" was struck from the list of impurities in 1900.— 
 Laws of Iowa, 1900, p. 61. 
 
 252 Laivs of Iowa, 1888, p. 77 ; Code of 1897, Section 2490. 
 
 253 Journal of the Senate, 1888, p. 844. 
 
 254 Journal of the House, 1888, pp. 905-906 ; Journal of the Senate, 
 1888, p. 845. 
 
 255 Code of 1897, Section 2490. 
 
NOTES AND EEFERENCES 229 
 
 ^^^ Report of the Iowa State Mine Inspector, 1883, pp. 85, 91. 
 
 257 A typical example of these checks reads as follows : 
 
 [Front] 
 This is not intended to be used as money. "Western Supply 
 Co. Pay the bearer on demand in Merchandise Five Cents. 
 Ottumwa, Iowa, March 31st, 1883. No. G 5012. 
 Whitebreast Company. 
 
 T. C. Maine, Sec'y. 
 [Back] 
 Accepted. Redeemable in Merchandise on demand. 5 cents. 
 
 D. A. Telfer, Sec. 
 See Report of the Iowa Bureau of Lator Statistics, 1885, pp. 
 168-170, 217-225 ; 1887, p. 188 ; 1889, pp. 403-404. 
 
 258 See Senate Files, Nos. 5, 17, 332, and House Files, Nos. 20, 
 176, 186, for the year 1886. 
 
 259 Laws of Iowa, 1888, p. 78. 
 
 ^^^ Journal of the House of Representatives, 1888, p. 663; cf. 
 Journal of the Senate, 1888, p. 847. 
 
 261 Code of 1897, Section 2490. 
 
 262 There is some difference of opinion upon this point. The 
 statement in the text is supported by the testimony of State Mine 
 Inspectors and officials of the United Mine "Workers. 
 
 ^^^ Journal of the House of Representatives, 1888, pp. 658-663. 
 
 264 Journal of the Senate, 1888, p. 847. 
 
 265 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1887, pp. 406- 
 408. 
 
 266 The italics are the writer's. 
 
 267 Laws of Iowa, 1894, p. 95. 
 
 268 Laws of Iowa, 1900, p. 61. 
 
 269 See Journal of the House of Representatives, 1894, p. 699. 
 
 270 Mitchell vs. Burwell, 110 Iowa 10. 
 
 271 por an account of the gypsum deposits of Iowa and their 
 development up to 1901, see Keyes's The Gypsum Deposits of Iowa 
 in the Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. Ill, pp. 257-304; and Wilder 's 
 
 16 
 
230 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 The Geology of Webster County in the Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. 
 XII, pp. 99-127, 138-167. 
 
 ^■^2 Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. Ill, p. 260. 
 
 273 Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. XII, p. 145. 
 
 2*^4 Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. Ill, p. 299. 
 
 275 Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. XVII, p. 21. 
 
 276 Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. XII, p. 140. 
 
 277 7ow;a Geological Survey, Vol. Ill (1893), p. 300. 
 
 278 Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. XII, p. 146. 
 
 279 Used to obtain the top rock. But where the overlying land is 
 unusually valuable this rock is left standing. 
 
 280 See the Report of Commissioner of Labor Brigham and State 
 Mine Inspector Sweeney in the Journal of the Senate, 1906, pp. 429- 
 433. The statements in the text relating to present conditions at the 
 gypsum mines are based on their report except as otherwise noted. 
 
 281 Statements to writer by employees in the mines. 
 
 282 Senate File, No. 193, 30th General Assembly. 
 
 283 The vote stood: yeas, 44, nays, iionQ.— Journal of the Senate, 
 1904, pp. 255-256. 
 
 ^^'^ Journal of the House of Representatives, 1904, pp. 534, 621, 
 661, 830-831, 841-842; Official Directory of the Iowa Federation of 
 Labor, 1904, p. 195. 
 
 ^^^ Journal of the Senate, 1904, pp. 1075, 1186; Journal of the 
 House of Representatives, 1904, pp. 1187, 1220. 
 
 286 Statements to writer by ex-members of the United Gypsum 
 Workers. 
 
 287 The report is printed in the Journals of the House and Senate, 
 1906. 
 
 288 House File, No. 371, 32nd General Assembly. 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 289 Laws of Iowa, 1878, p. 67. 
 
 290 See Table V, p. 90. 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 231 
 
 291 See p. 89. 
 
 292 Compiled by the writer from detailed returns of the several 
 railway companies in the annual reports of the Iowa Railroad Com- 
 missioners. 
 
 293* 'Getting on and off moving engines and cars," 1878-1888; 
 *'at stations", 1889-1892. 
 
 294 Not separately reported, 1889-1892. 
 
 295 Separately reported by Commissioners, 1889-1892 ; computed 
 by the writer for earlier years. For these years, at least, some ac- 
 cidents were probably referred to "other causes" which were in 
 fact due to the operation of trains and vice versa. 
 
 296 Includes engineers, firemen, conductors and brakemen. 
 
 297 Report of the Iowa Railroad Commissioners, 1884, p. 39. 
 
 ^^^ Report of the Iowa Railroad Commissioners, 1885, pp. 92, 93. 
 
 ^^^ Report of the Iowa Railroad Commissioners, 1887, p. 63. 
 
 ^^^ See the excellent articles in the annual Reports of the Iowa 
 Railroad Commissioners for 1884, pp. 39-41; 1885, pp. 92-93; 1886, 
 pp. 46-48; 1887, pp. 62-70; 1889, pp. 46-47. These articles are all 
 by Commissioner Coffin of Fort Dodge. 
 
 301 See above, note 300. 
 
 302 See House Files, Nos. 226, 300, 305, 388, and Senate Files, 
 Nos. 365, 396 of the 21st General Assembly (1886) ; also House Files, 
 Nos. 296, 432, 521, 22nd General Assembly (1888). 
 
 303 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1890, pp. 327-328. 
 Journal of the Senate, 1890, pp. 491-492; the Iowa State Register, 
 
 March 2, 1890; and the Annals of Iowa, Third Series, Vol. V, pp. 
 561-582. The article in the Annals is by Mr. L. S. Coffin. 
 
 304 Laws of Iowa, 1890, p. 31. 
 
 305 Report of the Iowa Railroad Commissioners, 1889, p. 47 d. 
 
 306 Laws of Iowa, 1892, p. 34. 
 
 307 Section five of the law of 1890 requires all railroad companies 
 to report annually to the State Board of Railroad Commissioners 
 the number of locomotives and cars used in Iowa, the number 
 equipped with automatic power brakes and with automatic safety 
 
232 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 couplers, and the kinds of brakes and couplers used, with the num- 
 ber of each kind. 
 
 308 The average number of employees from 1878 to 1889 was 
 22,240; from 1901 to 1906, the number was 40,267.- See Table V. 
 
 309 Report of the Iowa Railroad Commissioners, 1884, p. 39 ; 1906, 
 p. 6. The percentages were computed by the writer. For an ex- 
 planation of certain discrepancies between the table and the Com- 
 missioners' figures see notes to Table V in this volume. 
 
 310 These figures are taken from the detailed returns by railways. 
 
 311 See President Harrison's message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1889, 
 in Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. IX, p. 51. 
 During the twelve months ending June 30, 1891, casualties to train- 
 men in Iowa were reported as follows : 
 
 Killed Injured 
 
 Coupling and uncoupling cars 12 193 
 
 Falling from trains 19 56 
 
 Overhead obstructions 4 15 
 
 Other causes 10 98 
 
 Casualties to trainmen from coupling and uncoupling cars and 
 from overhead obstructions would fall exclusively, and those 
 due to falling from trains almost exclusively, upon brakemen and 
 conductors, chiefly, of course, upon the former. These casualties 
 total 35 deaths and 264 injuries. There were, besides, two brake- 
 men killed and ten brakemen or conductors injured from miscel- 
 laneous causes. Adding a fair proportion of accidents due to de- 
 railments, collisions and getting on and off trains in motion, we have 
 not less than forty fatalities and two hundred and eighty injuries 
 suffered by these two classes of employees in a single year. Now, 
 there were employed upon all the railways of the State in 1891, 
 2085 brakemen and 993 conductors, an aggregate of 3078. The an- 
 nual loss per thousand would thus be, for both classes, 13 killed and 
 90 injured. For brakemen alone these rates would be considerably 
 higher. It is notable that the Fourth Iowa Cavalry, one of the 
 famous "fighting regiments" of the Civil War, which took part in 
 sixty-two engagements and captured nearly three thousand prisoners, 
 had but 52 men killed and 160 wounded in action during four years 
 of service, an annual rate of 13 killed and 40 wounded. The average 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 233 
 
 strength of this regiment was somewhat more than one thousand. — 
 Scott's The Story of a Cavalry Regiment, pp. 575-576. 
 
 It would appear that "braking" on an Iowa railroad in 1891 
 was rather more perilous to life and limb than the cavalry service 
 during the Civil War. 
 
 312 In 1878, 488 of the 545 passenger cars and 364 of the 976 
 locomotives used in Iowa were thus eqaipped.— Report of the Iowa 
 Railroad Commissioners, 1878, pp. 96-97. 
 
 313 There was an important series of such experiments at Bur- 
 lington, Iowa, in the summer of 1886, and the spring of 1887.— i?e- 
 ports of the Iowa Railroad Commissioners, 1886, p. 49; 1887, p. 64. 
 
 314 Report of the Iowa Railroad Com/missioners, 1885, pp. 94-96. 
 For other articles by Mr, Coffin see the Reports for 1886, 1887, and 
 1889. 
 
 315 See Table III, p. 84 of this volume. 
 
 316 Laws of Iowa, 1890, p. 31. 
 
 317 Changed to 1895 by law of 1892.— Laws of Iowa, 1892, p. 35. 
 
 318 United States Statutes at Large, Vol. XXVII, p. 531. 
 
 319 The casualties to brakemen are not separately reported by the 
 Railroad Commissioners. Assuming, however, that all accidents from 
 falling from trains are suffered by brakemen (an assumption not 
 true to fact, but perhaps as near the truth in one period as another), 
 we get the following results for three year periods near the begin- 
 ning and the close, respectively, of the re-equipment process: 
 
 1890-1892 1904-1906 
 
 Average number of brakemen 2113 2724 
 
 All deaths due to falling from trains for 
 
 three years 68 52 
 
 Annual rate per thousand brakemen 10.8 6 
 
 All injuries due to falling from trains 198 422 
 
 Annual rate per thousand brakemen 31 52 
 
 Per cent of cars equipped with train brakes 13 86 
 
 This tabic again indicates a lower fatality, but a higher rate of 
 injury for the later period. 
 
 320 Connecticut, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, 
 
234 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Rhode Island, and Vermont in 1904- Tenth Special Report of United 
 States Bureau of Labor. 
 
 321 Official Directory of the Iowa State Federation of Labor, 
 1907, p. 131. 
 
 322 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 112. 
 
 323 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1906, pp. 201- 
 203. 
 
 324 See remarks of railway employees in the Reports of the Iowa 
 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1885-1906. 
 
 325 The italics are the writer 's. 
 
 326 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 106. 
 
 327 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1907, p. 416. 
 
 328 Laws of Iowa, 1878, p. 71. 
 
 329 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 113. 
 
 330 Report of the loiva Board of Railroad Commissioners, 1906, 
 pp. 6, 7. Years ending June 30. Rates per thousand were computed 
 by the writer. 
 
 331 Given as 29 in the Commissioners' Reports. But in the 
 Report of 1884, p. 39, it is stated that there were 17 persons killed 
 coupling cars in 1878. The detailed returns for the latter year show 
 14 employees killed by falling from trains, 3 caught in frogs, 2 by 
 collisions, 1 by derailment and 3 in other ways— total 40. 
 
 332 Given as 103 in the Commissioners' Reports. Figures in text 
 were taken from detailed returns. 
 
 333 Qiven as 37 in Commissioners ' Reports. Figures in text were 
 taken from detailed returns. 
 
 334 In Commissioners ' Reports, 67 and 146, respectively. 
 
 335 In Commissioner's table, 35 and 442, respectively. But the 
 returns of the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy, the St. Louis, Keo- 
 kuk and Northwestern, and the Chicago, Burlington, and Kansas 
 City railways are omitted, and those of the Rock Island are incor- 
 rectly summarized. 
 
 336 Report of the Iowa Railroad Commissioners, 1892, p. 17. 
 
 337 State vs. Haskins, 59 Northwestern Reporter, 545. 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 235 
 
 338 The italics are the writer 's. 
 
 339 Code of 1897, Section 768. 
 
 340 Circular letter of the Legislative Committee of the Amalga- 
 mated Association of Street and Electric Railway Employees, Feb. 
 9, 1907. 
 
 ^'^'^Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 29; Code Supplement of 1907, Sec- 
 tion 768. 
 
 ^^^ Senate File, No. 92, and Eouse File, No. 56, 32nd General 
 Assembly.— JoitmaZs of the House and Senate, 1907. 
 
 343 Official Directory of the Iowa State Federation of Labor, 1907, 
 p. 127. 
 
 344 Official Directory of the Iowa State Federation of Lahor, 1908, 
 p. 129. 
 
 345 Code of 1851, Section 1010. 
 
 ^^^ Revision of 1860, Section 1846; Code of 1873, Section 2130; 
 Code of 1897, Section 3089. 
 
 347 Code of 1851, Section 1010. 
 
 348 Revision of 1860, Section 1846. 
 
 349 iaw;s of Iowa (Public), 1872, p. 13. 
 
 350 Neilson et als. vs. Iowa Eastern Railway Company, 51 Iowa 184. 
 
 351 Laws of Iowa, 1876, p. 85. 
 
 352 Code of 1897, Section 3091. 
 
 353 Neilson vs. Iowa Eastern Railway Company, 51 Iowa 184. 
 Brooks vs. Burlington and Southwestern Ry. Co., 101 United States 
 442; Beach vs. Wakefield, 107 Iowa 567. 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 ^^* Report of the Iowa Bureau of Lahor Statistics, 1899-1900, 
 pp. 6-74. 
 
 355 Totals computed by the writer. 
 
 356 The Census of 1900 returned 14,819 * ' manufacturing establish- 
 ments" in Iowa, of which 4,828 were conducted under "factory 
 
236 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 conditions."— Bulletin of the United States Bureau of the Census, 
 No. 32, p. 5. 
 
 ^^"^ Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1899-1900, 
 p. 9. 
 
 ^^^ Senate File, No. 212, 29th General Assembly (1902). 
 
 35® The vote in the Senate was 36 to 0, in the House 68 to 14.— 
 See Journal of the Senate, 1902, pp. 274, 904, 1021, 1196; Journal 
 of the House, 1902, pp. 1183, 1226, 1271, 1312. 
 
 360 Laws of Iowa, 1902, p. 108. 
 
 361 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901-1902, p. 
 19 ; 1903-1904, p. 76 ; 1906, pp. 24-25. Totals computed by the writer. 
 
 362 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1899-1900, 
 pp. 16-17. 
 
 363 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1903-1904, 
 p. 5; 1906, p. 5. 
 
 364 House File, No. 228, by Mason ; Senate File, No. 210, by Hughes 
 (1907). 
 
 365 Laws of Iowa, 1866, p. 145 ; 1868, p. 52 ; Code of 1873, Section 
 4064; Code of 1897, Section 5025. 
 
 366 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1903-1904, pp. 
 11-12. 
 
 367 Laws of Iowa (Public) 1874, p. 12; Code of 1897, Section 5026. 
 
 368 Laws of Iowa, 1882, p. 87 ; Code of 1897, Section 713. 
 
 369 Reports of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1887, p. 156 ; 
 1897-1898, p. 10; 1899-1900, pp. 18-19; 1903-1904, p. 5. 
 
 370 House Files, Nos. 219 and 221, Senate Files, Nos. 193 and 250. 
 
 ^"^"^ Journal of the House, 1907, pp. 275, 288, 114; Journal of the 
 Senate, 1907, pp. 301, 474, 730, 731, 802, 1000. 
 
 372 Official Directory of the Iowa Federation of Labor, 1907, p. 
 31; Proceedings of the Iowa State Manufacturers Association, 1907, 
 p. 5; personal interviews and correspondence. 
 
 373 Laws of Iowa, 1882, p. 87. 
 
 374 Laws of Iowa, 1888, p. 4. 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 237 
 
 375 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Lalor Statistics, 1889-1900, pp. 
 15-16, 66-74. 
 
 376 Laws of loiva, 1902, pp. 108-110. 
 
 377 Laws of Iowa, 1902, pp. 61-62. 
 
 378 lawa Documents, 1904, Vol. Ill, pp. 122-123 ; Opinion of At- 
 torney General, Nov. 20, 1902. 
 
 379 The conception of public duty entertained' by many of these 
 officials is well illustrated by the following letter: 
 
 Iowa, February 23, '03. 
 
 Edward D. Brigham, Esq., 
 Des Moines, 
 Iowa. 
 
 Dear Sir:— Yours of the 20th as to notices to parties as to fire- 
 escapes at hand. No, I have not served any legal notice on any 
 parties. Several parties called upon me as to requirements and I 
 went into details with them, but none have complied, that I know of. 
 
 I am otherwise engaged and am not paid a salary to afford the 
 time nor have I the disposition to hound these people into what 
 should be their duty to themselves as landlords or employers and 
 shall take no steps that will make me a party to unending litiga- 
 tion and the ill will of the community. 
 
 I do not mean to shirk any duty in the fire department and am 
 not afraid of any part of it, but there are some things I do not 
 care to do and this is one of those things. 
 
 I have talked myself hoarse to show these people where a fire 
 escape of the right kind with a stand-pipe attachment was a good 
 thing for them but if they can't see it that relieves me. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 Chief Fire Department. 
 This letter was referred to the mayor of the city in question, 
 who took no action. His successor in office was appealed to equally 
 without effect. The city attorney advised the fire-chief that "no 
 attention be paid to the Commissioner or his requests. ' ' See Report 
 of the Iowa Bureau of Laior Statistics, 1901-1902, pp. 19-22. 
 
 380 Laws of Iowa, 1904, pp. 124-125. 
 
 381 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 135. 
 
238 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 382 Code of 1897, Section 2470. 
 
 383 Eeports of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901-1902, 
 p. 26 ; 1903-1904, pp. 78-88 ; 1906, p. 26. 
 
 ^^^ House File, No. 124, and Senate File, No. 107, 31st General 
 Assembly (1906); House File, No. 125; and Senate File, No. 211, 
 32nd General Assembly (1907). 
 
 385 Lahor Laws of the United States in the Tenth Special Report 
 of the United States Bureau of Labor. 
 
 386 Laws of Iowa, 1892, p. 72. 
 
 387 Laws of Iowa, 1902, p. 62. 
 
 388 Prom personal investigations and inquiries which were made 
 by the writer. 
 
 ^^^ Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901-1902, 
 pp. 28-43. 
 
 390 Laws of Iowa, 1902, p. 107. 
 
 391 Laws of Iowa, 1902, p. 108. 
 
 ^^^ Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1899-1900, 
 pp. 13-14. 
 
 393 Bulletin of the United States Bureau of the Census, No. 
 32, p. 6. 
 
 394 Address (unpublished) of Mr. Alfred Shepherd, Deputy Com- 
 missioner of Labor before State Convention of the Master Bakers 
 of Iowa, February, 1906. 
 
 ^^^ House File, No. 412, 32nd General Assembly (1907) ; Journal 
 of the House of Representatives, 1907, pp. 775, 845 ; Letter written by 
 Mr. Charles L. Marston, Chairman of House Committee on Public 
 Health. 
 
 ^^^ Bulletin of the United States Bureau of the Census, No. 32, 
 p. 6 ; Census of Iowa, 1905, p. 705. 
 397 Laws of Iowa, 1896, p. 90. 
 398 /oM;a Documcnts, 1902, Vol. Ill, p. 67. 
 
 399 Reports of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1899-1900, 
 p. 56; 1901-1902, p. 42; 1903-1904, p. 52; 1906, pp. 24-25. Data 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 239 
 
 for the biennial period ending October 1, 1908, are from unpublished 
 records in the Commissioner's office. 
 
 400 Laivs of Iowa, 1896, p. 89. 
 
 401 Laws of Iowa, 1904, p. 92. 
 
 402 Laws of Iowa, 1902, p. 108. 
 
 403 Laivs of Iowa, 1902, p. 62. 
 
 ^'^'^ Reports of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901-1902, 
 p. 19; 1903-1904, p. 76; 1906, pp. 24-25. 
 
 ^^^ Report of the loiva Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1903-1904, 
 p. 77. 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 406 Pqj, i\^Q subject matter of this chapter the writer is especially 
 indebted to an article upon Child Labor Legislation in Iowa, by 
 Professor Isaac A. Loos of the State University of Iowa, which ap- 
 peared in the October, 1905, number of The Iowa Journal of History 
 and Politics; also to an unpublished study of Compulsory Educor- 
 tion in Iowa, by Professor Forest C. Ensign of The State University 
 of Iowa. 
 
 407 Census of Iowa, 1905, p. Ixxxii. 
 
 408 Census of Iowa, 1905, p. Ixvii. 
 
 409 Census of Iowa, 1905, pp. Ivi, Ivii. 
 Foreign born persons less than five years in Iowa 
 
 Total 30,305 
 
 Natives of Germany 7,970 
 
 Natives of Sweden 3,734 
 
 Natives of Norway 3,528 
 
 Natives of British Isles 3,507 
 
 Natives of Denmark 3,016 
 
 Natives of Holland 1,691 
 
 Natives of all other countries 6,859 
 
 410 iaw;s of Iowa (Public), 1874, p. 24. 
 
 411 Laws of Iowa, 1880, p. 199. 
 
 412 Report of State Mine Inspector, 1882-1883, p. 94. 
 
 413 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 27 ; Code of 1897, Section 2489. 
 
240 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 414 Latvs of Iowa, 1906, p. 71. 
 
 415 Statements of Mine Inspectors, and correspondence with offi- 
 cials of United Mine Workers of America. 
 
 ^'^^ Seriate File, No. 6, 21st General Assembly (1886). 
 
 417 Journal of the Senate, 1886, pp. 50, 306, 312, 816. 
 
 ^'^^ Journal of the Senate, 1888, p. 454. The italics are the 
 writer's. 
 
 ^'^^ Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics (1887), pp. 
 203, 408-409; (1889) pp. 405-407. 
 
 ^^^ Senate File, No. 62, 23rd General Assembly (1890) ; Journal of 
 the Senate, 1890, pp. 94, 241. 
 
 421 Journal of the Senate, 1890, p. 241. 
 
 422 Senate File, No. 350 ; Journal of the Senate, 1890, pp. 318, 500. 
 
 423 Compendium of the Ninth Census of the United States, 1870, 
 p. 594; Census of loiva, 1905, p. Ixxxii. 
 
 424 Compendium of the Ninth Census of the United States, 1870, 
 p. 797; Census of loiva, 1905, p. 693. 
 
 425 Census of Iowa, 1905, p. Ixvii. 
 
 426 Twelfth Census of the United States, Occupations, pp. 154, 
 166; Population, Pt. II, pp. 38, 111. 
 
 427 Twelfth Census of the United States, Occupations, pp. 168, 
 176, 178, 180, 181, 182, 184, clxxiii. 
 
 428 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901-1902, p. 
 449. At the date of this writing (September, 1908), 1,180 children 
 between the ages of 14 and 16 years are employed in 1,080 establish- 
 ments. Statement of Deputy Commissioner of Labor. 
 
 429 Address of Honorable E. D. Brigham, in Proceedings of Iowa 
 Conference of Charities and Correction, 1903, p. 276. 
 
 ^^'^ Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901-1902, p. 
 23. 
 
 '^^'^ Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901-1902, p. 
 25. 
 
 432 Annals of the American Academy, Vol. XXVII, p. 297. 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 241 
 
 ^^^Beport of Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901-1902, p. 55. 
 
 ^^^Beport of Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1903-1904, p. 78. 
 
 *^^ Beport of Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901-1902, p. 59. 
 
 436 Laws of Iowa, 1902, p. 108. 
 
 *37 At all events several were found to have been injured within 
 the first eighteen months after the law went into operation. Beport 
 of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1903-1904, pp. 78, ff. 
 
 '*38 Beport of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901-1902, p. 
 23. 
 
 439 Journals of the Council of Iowa Territory, 1841, pp. 284-286. 
 
 ^^^lowa School Beport, 1871, pp. 59-67; 1877, pp. 43, 61; 1881, 
 p. 34; 1886-1887, pp. 41-63; 1889, pp. 97-101; 1899, pp. 52-69; 1901, 
 p. 19 ; 1903, p. Ixxxiv. 
 
 441 Laws of Iowa, 1902, pp. 78-80. 
 
 442 Laics of Iowa, 1904, p. 113. 
 
 ^^^ Iowa School Beport, 1906, p. 26. Professor Ensign's figures 
 based upon the same data are 3,710 and 1,959 respectively. The 
 source of the discrepancy does not appear. 
 
 444 Iowa School BepoH, 1902-1903, App. p. 73 ; 1905, Pt. II, pp. 7, 
 52 ; 1906, p. 77. The figures for 1906-1907 are from unpublished data 
 in the office of the State Superintendent. 
 
 445 Code Supplement of 1907, Section 2823-i. 
 
 446 The secretaries ' returns from these cities for the school year 
 1906-1907 are as follows: 
 
 l-H g to 
 lO g <1 
 
 o o B f^ 
 
 <Z ». IJ Eh 05 
 
 O ^<^^ 
 
 ;3 § §^ 
 
 Des Moines 75,623 84 
 
 Dubuque 41,941 12 
 
 Sioux City 40,952 495 
 
 Davenport 39,707 • 
 
 Cedar Rapids 28,750 
 
242 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Burlington 25,318 
 
 Council Bluffs 25,231 26 
 
 Clinton 22,755 
 
 Ottumwa 20,181 
 
 All cities over 20,000 320,458 617 
 
 Per cent of entire State 14.5 .09 
 
 There is j?ood reason to distrust the accuracy of the returns for 
 certain cities, but they are probably at least as reliable as those for 
 the State as a whole. If at all trustworthy they show that truancy 
 is a serious evil in but one city of twenty thousand inhabitants in 
 the State. It is said that the people of Sioux City are now (1908), 
 agitating: the question of enforcing school attendance. 
 
 ^*'^ Unpublished manuscript of Professor Forest C. Ensign. 
 
 4*8 7ow;a School Report, 1906, p. 27. 
 
 **^ Unpublished manuscript of Professor Ensign, answers to ques- 
 tionaire. 
 
 450 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 7. 
 
 *-^i Statement of Deputy State Superintendent Bennett. There 
 is no official report of the number of school corporations having 
 truant officers, 
 
 452 Laws of Iowa, 1902, p. 80. 
 
 453 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 152. 
 
 454 Iowa ScJiool Report, 1906, p. 26. 
 
 455 The manuscript of this unpublished address was very kindly 
 loaned to the writer by Commissioner Brigham. 
 
 ^^^ Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1899-1900, 
 pp. 20-22. 
 
 ^^"^ Senate File, No. 3, 29th General Assembly (1902). 
 
 458 Official Directory of the Iowa Federation of Labor, 1902, 
 p. 185. 
 
 459 Journal of the Senate, 1902, pp. 68, 444, 638-639 ; Journal of 
 the House of Representatives, 1902, pp. 859, 860, 917. 
 
 460 Official Directory of the Iowa Federation of Labor, 1902, p. 
 190; 1903, p. 272: 1904, pp. 211, 222; 1905, pp. 115-119. 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 243 
 
 461 Personal Letter of Mr. T. G. Fletcher of Marshalltown. 
 
 ^^^ Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901-1902, pp. 
 22-26. 
 
 ■^^s Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901-1902, p. 5. 
 
 ^^^lowa Documents, 1904, Vol. I, pp. 20-21. 
 
 465 Year Book of the Iowa Federation of Women's Clubs, 1905- 
 1906, p. 116. 
 
 466 Reprinted from House Bills, 30th General Assembly. House 
 File, No. 43, is identical with Senate File, No. 56. 
 
 467 Journal of the Senate, 1904, pp. 93, 162, 203, 215, 216, 230-234, 
 511, 518. 
 
 468 Pqj. ^}jjg summary of arguments used on the floor of the House, 
 the writer is indebted to Mr. W. S. Hart of Waukon and Mr. J. 
 C. DeMar of "Davis county. The legislative debates are not pub- 
 lished. 
 
 469 Year Book of the Iowa Federation of Women's Clubs, 1905- 
 1906, p. 116 ; Official Directory of the Iowa Federation of Labor, 1904, 
 p. 189. 
 
 470 There were 88 petitions from 48 counties. 
 
 471 Journal of the Rouse of Representatives, 1904, pp. 446-447. 
 
 472 See Annals of the American Academy, Vol. XXVII, pp. 
 
 285-288. 
 
 473 The growth of this industry in one unregulated and two reg- 
 ulated States is exhibited in the following table. The comparison 
 is limited to canned vegetables since that is the only department of 
 the canning industry important in Iowa: 
 
 PEK CENT 
 VALUE OF OF 
 
 STATE CHILDREN UNDER 16 CANNED VEGETABLES INCREASE RANK 
 
 1899 1904 1899 1904 1899 1904 
 
 Illinois ... 47 37 $1,774,913 $2,946,788 m 6 4 
 
 New York.. 219 161 $4,410,251 $6,836,451 55 2 2 
 
 Maryland. .986 1,117 $6,260,691 $9,556,611 52.6 1 1 
 
 Bulletin of the United States Bureau of the Census, No. 61, pp. 
 14-15. 
 
244 fflSTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 *'^* Bulletin of the United States Bureau of the Census, No. 85, 
 p. 22. 
 
 ^''^ Bulletin of the United States Bureau of the Census, No. 69, 
 pp. 18-41. 
 
 ^■^^ All the reasons mentioned in the text were assigned, in an- 
 swer to the writer's inquiries, by employers, labor leaders, truant 
 officers, humanitarian workers, and others familiar with the facts. 
 Drunkenness and extravagance were more frequently mentioned than 
 any of the others. 
 
 ^'^'^Loos's Child Labor Legislation in Iowa in the October, 1905, 
 number of The loiva Journal of History and Politics. 
 
 478 Proceedings of the Eighth Iowa Conference of Charities and 
 Correction, p. 70. 
 
 *'^ Official Directory of the Iowa Federation of Labor, 1905, p. 
 133 ; 1906, p. 103. 
 
 *^° House File, No. 74, by Hart ; Journal of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, 1906, p. 157; Senate File, No. 57, by Dowell, Journal of 
 the Senate, 1906, p. 102. 
 
 ^^^ Journal of the House of Representatives, 1906, pp. 395-397. 
 
 *^2 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1906, pp. 499-501. 
 
 483 Journal of the Senate, 1906, pp. 445, 448, 621-623, 658-660. 
 
 ^^'^ Journal of the House of Representatives, 1906, pp. 770-771, 
 823-929, 1117-1119, 1153, 1191, 1194, 1218, 1236; Journal of the 
 Seriate, 1906, pp. 712, 732, 835, 837, 1038, 1046, 1048, 1049, 1150, 
 1152. 
 
 "^^^ Journal of the House of Representatives, 1906, pp. 395-397; 
 Laws of loiva, 1906, pp. 71-73. 
 
 486 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1906, p. 499. 
 
 48'^ Journal of the House of Representatives, 1906, pp. 499-500. 
 
 488 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1906, p. 499. 
 
 489 Journal of the Senate, 1906, p. 622. 
 
 490 Opinion of the Attorney General, Iowa State Mine Inspector's 
 Report, 1906, p. 74. 
 
NOTES AND EEFERENCES 245 
 
 *^i Bulletin of the United States Bureau of the Census, No. 61, pp. 
 14, 15, 23, 24. 
 
 492 Report of Iowa Bureau of Laior Statistics, 1906, pp. 261-270. 
 
 493 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Lalor Statistics, 1906, p. 267. 
 
 MONTH TOTAL NUMBER OP EMPLOYEES 
 
 July 246 
 
 August 3,255 
 
 September 4,152 
 
 October 644 
 
 49* This discussion is based on correspondence and interviews 
 with members of the legislature, factory inspectors, and owners and 
 employees of canneries. 
 
 495 Journal of the Senate, 1906, pp. 657-658. 
 
 496 Report of Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1906, pp. 5, 6, 25. 
 
 497 Unpublished data in the office of the Commissioner of Labor. 
 
 498 Laws of loiva, 1906, p. 73. 
 
 499 Letter of Mr. C. C. Dowell of Des Moines, who had charge 
 of the Child Labor Bill in the Senate both in 1904 and 1906. 
 
 500 One store at Davenport visited by the writer had a posted 
 list of 23 children under sixteen, of whom thirteen were put down 
 as barely fourteen. At a broom factory in the same city the num- 
 bers were 14 and 8, respectively. Like facts were observed else- 
 where. 
 
 501 See p. 125. 
 
 502 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1906, p. 6. 
 
 503 Pqj. ^jiig statement the writer is indebted to the efficient humane 
 officer at Davenport. He has been told the same thing by well-informed 
 persons elsewhere. 
 
 504 There are no statistics of the street-trades in Iowa. The 
 writer's statements rest on personal observation and inquiry. 
 
 505 That this is no hypothetical case is shown by the following 
 conversation between the writer and a newsboy on Walnut Street, 
 Des Moines, one chilly November afternoon: — "How old are you?" 
 
 Most 'leven." "Go to school?" "Yes, sir." "When do you be- 
 
 17 
 
 < I r 
 
246 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 gin work?" " Right after school. " " How long do you work ? " "Oh, 
 sometimes eight, sometimes nine, sometimes I guess its ten. Gen- 
 eral 'bout nine." "Do you walk home then?" "No, I go on the 
 car." " 'Taint so far," he added, "but it seems like a good piece 
 after dark." This boy lived in the uptoA\Ti residence district, on 
 Grand Avenue. 
 
 506 Adams's Children in American Street Trades in the Annals 
 of the American Academy, Vol. XXV, pp. 437-458; Hall's After 
 School Hours— What? in Chanty, Vol. XI, pp. 224-228. 
 
 50"^ These statements are made on the authority of the well in- 
 formed persons in ten of the largest cities in Iowa. 
 
 508 Statement of the truant officer of Des Moines— a gentleman 
 who has had many years' experience in dealing with juvenile delin- 
 quents in that city. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 509 The cases most frequently referred to as establishing the 
 two most characteristic features of the law of employers' liability 
 (assumption of risk and its corollary the fellow-servant rule) are: 
 Priestly vs. Fowler, 4 Mees and Welsby 1 (1837); Murray vs. 
 South Carolina Railroad Company, 1 McMullan 385 (1841) ; Far- 
 well vs. Boston and Worcester Rail Road Corporation, 4 Metcalf 49 
 (1842). 
 
 510 Galloway vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 87 Iowa 458 (1893) : McCaull vs. Bruner, 91 Iowa 214 (1894) ; 
 Rusch vs. City of Davenport, 6 Iowa 443 (1858). 
 
 511 Dillon vs. Iowa Central Railway Company, 118 Iowa 645 
 (1902) ; Boston Insurance Company vs. Chicago, Rock Island and 
 Pacific Railway Company, 118 Iowa 423 (1902). 
 
 512 Handelun vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Rail- 
 way Company, 72 Iowa 709 (1887). 
 
 513 Liming vs. Illinois Central Railway Company, 81 Iowa 246 
 (1890). Proximate cause is probable cause, and the proximate con- 
 sequence of a given act or omission is one which succeeds naturally 
 in the ordinary course of things, and which, therefore, ought to have 
 been anticipated by the wrong doer. Watson vs. Dilts, 116 Iowa 
 249 (1902). But where an act is liable to produce many familiar 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 247 
 
 results which would cause injury, it is no less negligent because the 
 accident which does occur is so unusual and extraordinary that it 
 could not reasonably be expected to happen. Doyle vs. Chicago, St. 
 Paul and Kansas City Railway Company, 77 Iowa 607 (1889). 
 
 The determination of the proximate cause of an injury is often 
 a nice question, and is considered in very numerous cases. 
 
 51* Wright vs. Illinois and Mississippi Telegraph Company, 20 
 Iowa 195 (1886). The doctrine of contributory negligence is stated 
 or applied in numberless cases. 
 
 515 'Keef e vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 32 Iowa 467 (1871) : Rietveld vs. Wabash Railroad Company, 
 129 Iowa 249 (1906). 
 
 516 Jerolman vs. Chicago Great Western Railway Company, 108 
 Iowa 177 (1899). 
 
 51'^ Hatfield vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 61 Iowa 434 (1883). 
 
 518 Cooper vs. Central Railroad of Iowa, 44 Iowa, 134 (1876) ; 
 Keefe vs. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company, 92 Iowa 182 
 
 (1894). 
 
 5i9Baird vs. Morford, 29 Iowa 531 (1870). 
 
 520 HopMnson vs. Knapp and Spalding Company, 92 Iowa 328 
 (1894) ; Murphy vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pan3% 45 Iowa 661 (1877). 
 
 521 Murphy vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 45 Iowa 661 (1877). 
 
 522 Ellis vs. Republic Oil Company, 133 Iowa 11 (1906). 
 
 523 Dalton vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 104 Iowa 26 (1897). 
 
 524 Phinney vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 122 Iowa 488 
 (1904). 
 
 525 Greenleaf vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 29 Iowa 14 
 (1870). 
 
 526 Keist vs. Chicago Great Western Railway Company, 110 Iowa 
 32 (1899). 
 
248 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 527 Pierson vs. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company, 127 
 Iowa 13 (1905). 
 
 528 Callahan vs. Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Com- 
 pany, 23 Iowa 562 (1867). 
 
 529 Kellogg vs. Payne, 21 Iowa 575 (1866). 
 
 530 Aga vs. Harbaeh, 127 Iowa 144 (1905). 
 
 531 Baker vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 95 Iowa 163 (1895). 
 
 532 Butler vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company, 
 87 Iowa 206 (1893). 
 
 533 Parrott vs. Chicago Great "Western Railway Company, 127 
 Iowa 419 (1905). 
 
 534 Kelleher vs. Schmitt and Henry Manufacturing Company, 122 
 Iowa 635 (1904). 
 
 535 Lanza vs. Legrand Quarry Company, 115 Iowa 299 (1902). 
 
 536 Greenleaf vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 29 Iowa 14 
 (1870). 
 
 537 Hunt vs. Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Company, 26 
 Iowa 363 (1868) ; Brusseau vs. Lower Brick Company, 133 Iowa 245 
 (1907). 
 
 538 Gould vs. Schermer, 101 Iowa 582 (1897). 
 
 539 Murphy vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 38 Iowa 539 (1874). 
 
 540Brann vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 53 Iowa 595 (1880) ; Stockwell t;^. Chicago and Northwestern 
 Railway Company, 106 Iowa 63 (1898). 
 
 541 Scott vs. Iowa Telephone Company, 126 Iowa 524 (1905); 
 Martin vs. Des Moines Edison light Company, 131 Iowa 724 (1906). 
 
 542 Meloy vs. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company, 77 
 Iowa 744 (1889). 
 
 543 McKee vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 83 Iowa 616 (1891). 
 
 544 Brownfield vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 107 Iowa 254 (1899). 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 249 
 
 5*5 Cushman vs. Carbondale Fuel Company, 116 Iowa 618 (1902) ; 
 Blazenic vs. Iowa and AViseonsin Coal Company, 102 Iowa 706 
 (1897). 
 
 546 Hall vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 116 Northwestern 113 (1908) ; Cooper vs. Central Railroad of Iowa, 
 44 Iowa 134 (1876). 
 
 5*'^ Hamilton vs. Des Moines Valley Railroad Company, 36 Iowa 
 31 (1872) ; Austin vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway 
 Company, 93 Iowa 236 (1895). 
 
 548 Ives vs. AVeldon, 114 Iowa 476 (1901). 
 
 549 Messenger vs. Pate, 42 Iowa 443 (1876). 
 
 550 Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company vs. Voel- 
 ker, 129 Federal 522. 
 
 551 Calloway vs. Agar Packing Company, 129 Iowa 1 (1905). 
 552Mosgrove vs. Zimbleman Coal Company, 110 Iowa 169 (1899). 
 
 553 Tobey vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Rail- 
 way Company, 94 Iowa 256 (1895). 
 
 554 Dodge vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Missouri River Rail- 
 way Company, 34 Iowa 276 (1872). 
 
 555 Forbes vs. Boone Valley Railway Company, 113 Iowa 94 
 (1901); Taylor vs. Star Coal Company, 110 Iowa 40 (1899). 
 
 556 Fink vs. Des Moines Ice Company, 84 Iowa 321 (1892). 
 
 557 Mosgrove vs. Zimbleman Coal Company, 110 Iowa 169 (1899) ; 
 Kroeger vs. Marsh Bridge Company, 116 Northwestern 125 (1908). 
 
 558 See Martin vs. Des Moines Edison Light Company, 131 Iowa 
 724 (1906), where various statements of the master's duty are 
 discussed. 
 
 559Barto vs. Iowa Telephone Company, 126 Iowa 241 (1904). 
 
 560 Mosgrove vs. Zimbleman Coal Company, 110 Iowa 169 (1899). 
 
 561 Morris vs. Excelsior Coal Company, 95 Iowa 639 (1895). 
 
 562 Oleson vs. Maple Grove Coal and Mining Company, 115 Iowa 
 74 (1901). 
 
250 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 563 Taylor vs. Star Coal Company, 110 Iowa 40 (1899) ; Thayer vs. 
 Smoky Hollow Coal Company, 121 Iowa 121 (1903). 
 
 564 Newbury vs. Getchel Manufacturing Company, 100 Iowa 441 
 j(1896). Anderson vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 109 Iowa 
 524 (1899). 
 
 565 Trcka vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 100 Iowa 205 (1896). 
 
 566 Forbes vs. Boone Valley Coal and Railway Company, 113 Iowa 
 94 (1901) ; Young vs. Burlington Wire Mattress Company, 79 Iowa 
 415 (1890). 
 
 567 Trcka vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 100 Iowa 205 (1896). See also the cases cited in notes 
 565 and 566. 
 
 568 Burns vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Com- 
 pany, 69 Iowa 450 (1886). 
 
 569 Bryee vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 119 Iowa 274 (1903). 
 
 570 Young vs. Burlington AVire Mattress Company, 79 Iowa 415 
 (1890). Failure to cover knives of tenon-machine. 
 
 571 Harney vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 115 Northwestern 886 (1908). Failure to guard a rip-saw, 
 it being shown that several methods of guarding such a saw were 
 in common use. 
 
 572 Shebeck vs. National Cracker Company, 120 Iowa 414 (1903). 
 
 573 Greenleaf vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 29 Iowa 14 
 ,(1870). 
 
 574Brusseau vs. Lower Brick Company, 133 Iowa 245 (1907). 
 
 575 Brann vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 53 Iowa 595 (1880). 
 
 576 Knapp vs. Sioux City and Pacific Railway Company, 71 Iowa 
 41 (1887). 
 
 577 Brusseau vs. Lower Brick Company, 133 Iowa 245 (1907). 
 
 578 Boston Insurance Company vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pa- 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 251 
 
 cific Railway Company, 118 Iowa 423 ( 1902 ) ; Way vs. Chicago and 
 Northwestern Railway Company, 76 Iowa 393 (1888). 
 
 ^'^ Hathaway vs. Illinois Central Railway Company, 92 Iowa 337 
 (1894). 
 
 580 Scott vs. Iowa Telephone Company, 126 Iowa 524 (1905). 
 
 581 Wicklund vs. Say lor Coal Company, 119 Iowa 335 (1903). 
 
 582 Hathaway vs. Illinois Central Railway Company, 92 Iowa 337 
 (1894). 
 
 583 Cooper vs. Central Railroad of Iowa, 44 Iowa 134 (1876). 
 
 584Beardsley vs. Murray Iron Works, 129 Iowa 675 (1906). In- 
 experienced employees should have been instructed how they might 
 safely roll a heavy wheel. 
 
 585 Hendrickson vs. United States Gypsum Company, 133 Iowa 
 89 (1907). It is the duty of a mine operator to warn employees of 
 an expected explosion in blasting. 
 
 586 Hanson vs. Hammell, 107 Iowa 171 (1898). 
 
 587 McCarthy vs. Mulgrew, 107 Iowa 76 (1899). 
 
 588 Baker vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 95 Iowa 163 (1895). 
 
 589 Sedgwick vs. Illinois Central Railway Company, 76 Iowa 340 
 (1888) ; Brownfield vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway 
 Company, 107 Iowa 254 (1899). The distinction is recognized in 
 Gorman vs. Des Moines Brick Company, 99 Iowa 257 (1896). 
 
 590 Gould vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company, 
 66 Iowa 590 (1885). 
 
 591 Rose vs. Des Moines Valley Railway Company, 39 Iowa 246 
 (1874) ; Scagel vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Com- 
 pany, 83 Iowa 380 (1891). 
 
 592 The employee should exercise such care as a prudent per- 
 son might reasonably be expected to exercise in view of all the cir- 
 cumstances of the particular case, so far as they are known to him, 
 or are discoverable in the exercise of proper diligence. Baird vs. 
 Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 61 Iowa 361 
 (1883). A high degree of care is reasonable in running a train at 
 
252 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 night during or immediately after a heavy storm. Scagel vs. Chi- 
 cago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, 83 Iowa 380 (1891). 
 
 ^^^ No one can be charged with negligence in failing to avoid 
 dangers of which he knows nothing. Kearns vs. Chicago, Milwaukee 
 and St. Paul Railway Company, 66 Iowa 599 (1885). 
 
 ^^* Greenleaf vs. Dubuque and Sioux City Railroad Company, 33 
 Iowa 52 (1871). 
 
 ^^5 Stanley vs. Cedar Rapids and Marion City Railway Com- 
 pany, 119 Iowa 526 (1903). 
 
 596Sprague vs. Atlee, 81 Iowa 1 (1890). 
 
 ^^■^ Horan vs. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway 
 Company, 89 Iowa 328 (1893). A brakeman, coupling cars in the 
 night time is not bound to know that the ballast has been washed 
 from between certain ties in the road-bed. 
 
 5^8 In determining whether a brakeman was or was not negligent 
 " It is competent for the .jury to take into consideration the hazardous 
 nature of the work in which brakemen are employed; their means 
 of knowledge ; what they are reasonably required to know, in the 
 nature of their calling, of machinery; the thought and reflection de- 
 manded or expected of such persons; their just expectation that the 
 company Avill exercise due care and prudence in protecting them 
 against injury; and to give due weight to those instincts which 
 naturally lead men to avoid injury and preserve their lives."— 
 Greenleaf vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 29 Iowa 14 (1870). 
 
 ^^® See cases cited in note 548. 
 
 600 Taylor vs. Star Coal Company, 110 Iowa 40 (1899). A miner 
 injured on Sunday by fall of slate may recover notAvithstanding his 
 violation of the Sunday law, such an accident being no more likely 
 to occur on Sunday than on other days. 
 
 601 Sedgwick vs. Illinois Central Railway Company, 76 Iowa 340 
 
 (1888). 
 
 602 Reed vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 72 Iowa 166 (1887). A brakeman went between cars to 
 make a coupling, in violation of a rule of the company, but it 
 appeared that the accident would not have been avoided had he 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 253 
 
 observed the rule. It was held that he was not negligent as a matter 
 of law. 
 
 6*^^ Pierson vs. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company, 127 
 Iowa 13 (1905). It was not negligence as a matter of law, for a 
 brakeman to go between cars in motion and draw a coupling pin 
 by hand, in violation of a standing rule, when the automatic coupler 
 was out of order. 
 
 6^* Spaulding vs. Chicago, St. Paul and Kansas City Railway 
 Company, 98 Iowa 215 (1896) ; Strong vs. Iowa Central Railway 
 Company, 94 Iowa 380 (1895). 
 
 ^^^ Gibson vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 107 Iowa 596 (1899). 
 
 6<^6 Gormon vs. Des Moines Brick Company, 99 Iowa 257 (1896). 
 Employee was negligent, as a matter of law, in attempting to adjust 
 a shaft bearing while in motion when he knew it was highly danger- 
 ous to do so and when he might easily have stopped the machine. 
 
 *°'^ Reed vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 72 Iowa 166 (1887) ; Baird vs. Chicago, Rock Island and 
 Pacific Railway Company, 61 Iowa 361 (1883). 
 
 608 Horan vs. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Rail- 
 way Company, 89 Iowa 328 (1893). A brakeman discarded a stick 
 provided by the railway company to be used in making couplings. 
 It did not appear that, under the particular circumstances, the 
 coupling could have been more safely made by the use of such stick. 
 It was held that the question of contributory negligence was for 
 the jury. 
 
 609 Pierson vs. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company, 127 
 Iowa 13 (1905). 
 
 ^^^Magee vs. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company, 82 
 Iowa 249 (1891). Brakeman stepped off moving train without look- 
 ing to see in which direction it was going. 
 
 ^^^ McKee vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 83 Iowa 616 (1891). Brakeman was struck by the wing fence at a 
 cattle guard, while leaning out from the side ladder of a car to 
 investigate a broken brake beam. It was h,eld (Justice Beck dis- 
 senting) that, being chargeable with knowledge that the wing fence 
 
254 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 approached within two feet of the bottom of the car, he was negli- 
 gent in leaning out in the manner that he did. To the writer it 
 seems more consonant with justice to hold that this case comes 
 within the rule followed in Bryce vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. 
 Paul Railway Company, 103 Iowa 665 (1897). See note 618. 
 
 612 Doggett vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 34 Iowa 284 
 (1872). An emploj^ee, not engaged in the operation of the train, 
 rode upon the engine tender, and was killed by the breaking down of 
 a culvert. Had he ridden in the caboose, he would not have been 
 injured. It was held that he could not recover. 
 
 612 Beckman vs. Consolidation Coal Company, 90 Iowa 252 (1894). 
 Emploj^ee left a *' spring switch" open and was injured by a train 
 of mine cars thereby thrown on to an "empty" track. 
 
 61* Thoman vs. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company, 92 
 Iowa 196 (1894). Railway employee passed near a box car from 
 which he knew ties were being rapidly thrown, without giving any 
 warning of his approach. 
 
 615 Sprague vs. Atlee, 81 Iowa 1 (1890). A boy of thirteen, in- 
 experienced in the operation of a buzz-saw was not, as a matter of 
 law, guilty of negligence in changing the gauge in the manner in 
 which he had been taught to do it, though there may have been 
 other and safer methods of effecting the change. 
 
 616 McDermott vs. Iowa Falls and Sioux City Railway Company, 
 85 Iowa 180 (1892). Brakeman injured by slipping upon ice-covered 
 end-gate. It was held that the question of his negligence in step- 
 ping upon the end-gate would depend upon the haste required in 
 the performance of the duty in which he was then engaged. 
 
 617 Frandsen vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 36 Iowa 372 (1873). But an emergency created by an em- 
 ployee Avill not excuse his contributory negligence at the time of 
 the injury. Nelling vs. Chicago, St. Paul and Kansas City Railway 
 Company, 98 Iowa 554 (1896). 
 
 618 Bryce vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Com- 
 pany, 103 Iowa 665 (1897). A brakeman was struck by bolts pro- 
 jecting from a truss built on the side of a bridge while he was climb- 
 ing down the side ladder of a box-car in order to reach a flat-car 
 to release the brake on the latter. It was held that he was not 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 255 
 
 negligent, as a matter of law, in not looking out for a danger which 
 resulted from improper construction of the bridge, and of which 
 he had no actual knowledge. Compare McKee vs. Chicago, Rock 
 Island and Pacific Railway Company, 83 Iowa 616 (1891), where 
 an opposite conclusion was reached from a similar state of facts. 
 
 619 Stomne vs. Hanford Produce Company, 108 Iowa 137 (1899). 
 Plaintiff was injured while riding on a freight elevator. It was 
 customary for employees moving freight to ride on this elevator, 
 though it was known to be less safe than the passenger elevator. 
 It was held that the question of contributory negligence was for the 
 jury. 
 
 620 Kroy vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 32 Iowa 357 (1871). To stand on the deadwood of a moving 
 car while attempting to draw the coupling pin, is negligence as a 
 matter of law, notwithstanding the practice may be customary. 
 
 621 Nichols vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 69 Iowa 154 (1886). 
 
 622 The assumption of the ordinary risks of the employment was 
 apparently first laid down in this State in Sullivan vs. Mississippi 
 and Missouri Railroad Company, 11 Iowa 421 (1860) ; and that of 
 known extraordinary risks in Greenleaf vs. Illinois Central Rail- 
 road Company, 29 Iowa 14 (1870). Both aspects of the doctrine arc 
 quite fully discussed in the recent case of Martin vs. Des Moines 
 Edison Light Company, 131 Iowa 724 (1906). 
 
 623 Martin vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Com- 
 pany, 118 Iowa 148 (1902). 
 
 624 Sullivan vs. Mississippi and Misssouri Railroad Company, 11 
 Iowa 421 (1860). Martin vs. Des Moines Edison Light Company, 
 131 Iowa 724 (1906). 
 
 625 Martin vs. Des Moines Edison Light Company, 131 Iowa 724 
 (1906). "M^hen the employer, or those representing him, has pro- 
 vided a place which is reasonably safe in itself, and has furnished 
 reasonably safe tools and appliances and reasonably competent fel- 
 low workmen, then the risk incident to the progress of the work 
 as carried on by the employees is assumed by virtue of the em- 
 ployment, and for an injury received in the prosecution of the work 
 in such place with such appliances and in connection with such fel- 
 
256 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 low workmen the employe cannot recover from the employer." — 
 McQueeny vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, 
 120 Iowa 522 (1903). 
 
 ^26 Martin vs. Des Moines Edison Light Company, 131 Iowa 724 
 (1906). 
 
 627 Stomne vs. Hanford Produce Company, 108 Iowa 137 (1899) ; 
 Wilder vs. Great Western Cereal Company, 130 Iowa 263 (1906). 
 
 628 Mayes vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 63 Iowa 562 (1884). 
 
 629 Wilder vs. Great Western Cereal Company, 134 Iowa 451 
 (1907). 
 
 630 Martin vs. Des Moines Edison Light Company, 131 Iowa 724 
 (1906) ; McQueeny vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway 
 Company, 120 Iowa 522 (1903). 
 
 631 Kerns vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, 
 94 Iowa 121 (1895). 
 
 632 Conners vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 74 Iowa 383 (1888). 
 
 633 Mumf ord vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 128 Iowa 685 (1905). 
 
 634 All risks which are naturally or necessarily incident to the 
 service.— Sankey vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 118 Iowa 39 (1902). 
 
 635 Duree vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, 
 118 Iowa 640 (1902). 
 
 636 Wilder vs. Great Western Cereal Company, 130 Iowa, 263 
 (1906). 
 
 637 Olson vs. Hanford Produce Company, 118 Iowa 55 (1902). 
 
 638 Wilder vs. Great Western Cereal Company, 130 Iowa 263 
 (1906). 
 
 639 Patton vs. Central Iowa Railway Company, 73 Iowa 306 
 (1887). Trainmen assume the risk due to cattle straying onto an 
 
 •anfenced right-of-way. 
 
 640 The additional risks from snow and its removal from the track 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 257 
 
 by snow plows are among those necessarily attending the operation 
 of railroads. 
 
 6*1 Martin vs. Des Moines Edison Light Company, 131 Iowa 724 
 (1906). 
 
 6*2 Wahlquist vs. Maple Grove Coal and Mining Company, 116 
 Iowa 720 (1902). 
 
 6*3 Oleson vs. Maple Grove Coal and Mining Company, 115 Iowa 
 74 (1901). 
 
 6*4 Nugent vs. Cudahy Packing Company, 126 Iowa 517 (1905). 
 
 6*5 McQueeny vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Com- 
 pany, 120 loAva 522 (1903). 
 
 6*6 Oleson vs. Maple Grove Coal and Mining Company, 115 Iowa 
 74 (1901). 
 
 6*'^ Martin vs. Des Moines Edison Light Company, 131 Iowa 724 
 
 (1906). 
 
 6*8Labatt's Employer's Liability, Vol. I, p. 620. See Moran vs. 
 Harris, 63 Iowa 390 (1884) and Schminkey vs. Sinclair Company, 
 114 Northwestern 612 (1908). 
 
 649 jhqj. statements of this rule see Perigo vs. Chicago, Rock Island 
 and Pacific Railway Company, 52 Iowa 276 (1879), and Mumford 
 vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 128 Iowa 685 
 (1905). 
 
 650 Gormon vs. Des Moines Brick Company, 99 Iowa 257 (1896). 
 
 651 Cowles vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 
 102 Iowa 507 (1897). 
 
 652 Kroy vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 32 Iowa 357 (1871). 
 
 653 Mace vs. Boedker and Company, 127 Iowa 721 (1905). 
 
 65* Arenschield vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 128 Iowa 677 (1905). 
 
 655 Coates vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 62 Iowa 486 (1883). 
 
 656 Bryee vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, 
 
 103 Iowa 665 (1897). 
 
258 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 657 Olson vs. Hanford Produce Company, 118 Iowa 55 (1902). 
 
 65^ Harney vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com. 
 pany, 115 Northwestern 886 (1908). 
 
 659Shebeck vs. National Cracker Company, 120 Iowa 414 (1903). 
 
 660 Carver vs. Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company, 120 
 Iowa 346 (1903). 
 
 661 Mace vs. Boedker and Company, 127 Iowa 721 (1905) ; Mayes 
 vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 63 Iowa 562 
 
 (1884). 
 
 662 Nugent vs. Cudahy Packing Company, 126 Iowa 517 (1905). 
 A carpenter is not presumed to have knowledge of the sufficiency of 
 a brick pier to support a building. 
 
 663Crabell vs. Wapello Coal Company, 68 Iowa 751 (1886). A 
 car conductor killed on the first day of his employment in that capacity 
 is not chargeable with knowledge of dangers from the roof and walls 
 of the slope. 
 
 664 Bryce vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, 
 103 Iowa 665 (1897). A brakeman, who is usually on the top of 
 cars while crossing a bridge, is not chargeable with knowledge of the 
 distance between the bridge truss and the sides of the cars. 
 
 665 Youll vs. Sioux City and Pacific Railway Company, 66 Iowa 
 346 ( 1885 ) . A brakeman seventeen years of age held to have assumed 
 the risk of making a flying switch. 
 
 666 Shebeck vs. National Cracker Company, 120 Iowa 414 (1903). 
 An instruction M^as erroneous which did not direct the jury to con- 
 sider the age of the servant, a boy of eighteen, in determining the 
 question of assumption of risk. In Woolf vs. Nauman Company, 128 
 Iowa 261 (1905), an instruction was approved which made it incum- 
 bent upon the defendant to show that a boy of fourteen possessed 
 sufficient knowledge and experience to comprehend the dangers of 
 operating a buzz-saw. 
 
 667 Coles vs. Union Terminal Railway Company, 124 Iowa 48 
 (1904). 
 
 668 Harney vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 115 Northwestern 886 (1908). 
 
NOTES AND KEFERENCES 259 
 
 669AVells vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway- 
 Company,, 56 Iowa 520 (1881). 
 
 670 Olson vs. Hanford Produce Company, 118 Iowa 55 (1902). 
 
 6'^! Perigo vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 52 Iowa 276 a879). 
 
 ^■^2 In Harney vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 115 NorthAvestern 886 (1908), it was held that the danger 
 that a board will be caught and drawn back by the teeth of an un- 
 guarded saw is not apparent to an inexperienced operator. In Kerns 
 vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, 94 Iowa 121 
 (1895) it was held a yard employee is not bound to appreciate the 
 danger of coupling a pilot bar to a box-car. But in Sutton vs. Des 
 Moines Bakery, 112 Northwestern 836 (1907), an experienced oper- 
 ative is held to have assumed the risk that his hand may be caught 
 between the unguarded rollers of a dough mixer. 
 
 ^■^2 Money vs. Lower Vein Coal Company, 55 Iowa 671 (1881). 
 
 ^'^^ Box vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 107 Iowa 660 (1899). 
 
 6'^^ Way vs. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company, 76 Iowa 
 
 393 (1888). 
 
 ^'^^ Youll vs. Sioux City and Pacific Railway Company, 66 Iowa 
 346 (1885). Employee assumed the risk of making a flying switch. 
 
 6'^'^ Martin vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 118 Iowa 148 (1902), Habitual violation of speed ordinance. 
 
 6'''^ Bromberg vs. Evans Laundry Company, 134 Iowa 38 (1907). 
 
 679Woolf vs. Nauman Company, 128 Iowa 261 (1905). 
 
 6^^ Coates vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 62 Iowa 486 (1883). 
 
 681 Coles vs. Union Terminal Railway Company, 124 Iowa 48 
 (1904). 
 
 682 Bryce vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 128 Iowa 483 (1905). 
 
 683 Greenleaf vs. Dubuque and Sioux City Railway Company, 33 
 Iowa 52 (1871). 
 
260 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 ^^* Pieart vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 82 Iowa 148 (1891). 
 
 685 Poster vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 127 Iowa 84 (1905). 
 
 686 Stoutenburgh vs. Dow et al., 82 Iowa 179 (1891). 
 
 687 Pieart vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 82 Iowa 148 (1891). Railway company is bound by the promise of 
 a yard-master in regard to a switch engine. 
 
 688 Frandsen vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 36 Iowa 372 (1873). Section hand remained on hand car by 
 order of the foreman, though he knew that a passenger train for 
 which the section crew were to yield the track was overdue. Strong 
 vs. Iowa Central Railway Company, 94 Iowa 380 (1895). Brake- 
 man stood on the locomotive pilot to make a coupling by order of 
 the engineer. 
 
 689Gormon vs. Des Moines Brick Company, 99 Iowa 257 (1896). 
 An order to crowd a machine and not to allow it to stop was not a 
 command to attempt to adjust its bearings while in motion. 
 
 690 "Wahlquist vs. Maple Grove Coal and Mining Company, 116 
 Iowa 720 (1902). 
 
 691 Stomne vs. Hanford Produce Company, 108 Iowa 137 (1899). 
 An employee was justified in relying upon the superintendent's assur- 
 ance as to the safety of an elevator cable. 
 
 692 Perigo vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 52 Iowa 276 (1879). 
 
 693Labatt's Employer's Liability, Section 281. 
 
 694 Laws of Iowa, 1890, p. 31 ; Code of 1897, Section 2083. 
 
 ^^^ House File, No. 14, 31st General Assembly (1906). 
 
 696 Official Directory of the Iowa Federation of Labor, 1906, 
 p. 133. 
 
 697 Substitute for Senate File, No. 236, 32nd General Assembly 
 (1907) ; Official Directory of the Iowa Federation of Labor, 1907, pp. 
 126-127. 
 
 698 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 182 ; Code of Iowa, Supplement, 1907, 
 Section 4999-a 3. 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 261 
 
 6^9 Sullivan vs. Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company, 11 
 Iowa 421 (1860). 
 
 ■^00 See Huggard vs. Sugar Refining Company, 132 Iowa 734 
 (1907) and cases there cited. 
 
 701 Gould vs. Schermer, 101 Iowa 582 (1897) ; Madden vs. Saylor 
 Coal Company, 133 Iowa 699 (1907). 
 
 702 Fink vs. Des Moines lee Company, 84 Iowa 321 (1892). 
 
 703 Haworth vs. Seevers Manufacturing Company, 87 Iowa 765 
 
 (1892). 
 
 704Beresford vs. American Coal Company, 124 Iowa 34 (1904). 
 
 705 Hendrickson vs. United States Gypsum Company, 133 Iowa 89 
 (1907). 
 
 706 Schminkey vs. Sinclair Company, 114 Northwestern 612 (1908). 
 
 707 See an enumeration of non-delegable duties in Beresford vs. 
 American Coal Company, 124 Iowa 34 (1904). 
 
 708 Blazenic vs. loAva and Wisconsin Coal Company, 102 Iowa 706 
 
 (1897). 
 
 709 Sullivan vs. Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company, 11 
 Iowa 421 (1860). 
 
 710 Hoben vs. Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company, 
 20 Iowa 562 (1866). 
 
 711 Beresford vs. American Coal Company, 124 Iowa 34 (1904). 
 
 712 Peterson vs. Whitebreast Coal and Mining Company, 50 Iowa 
 673 (1879). Hathaway vs. Illinois Central Railway Company, 92 
 Iowa 337 (1894). 
 
 713 Hathaway vs. City of Des Moines, 97 Iowa 333 (1896). 
 
 714 See Baldwin vs. St. Louis, Keokuk and Northwestern Railway 
 Company, 75 Iowa 297 (1888) ; Foley vs. Chicago, Rock Island and 
 Pacific Railway Company, 64 Iowa 644 (1884). 
 
 715 Baldwin vs. St. Louis, Keokuk and Northern Railway Company, 
 68 Iowa 37 (3885). 
 
 716 The cases cited in this paragraph are collected in Labatt's Em- 
 
 18 
 
262 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 ployer's Liability, Vol. II, p. 1587. Hoben vs. Burlington and 
 Missouri River Railroad Company, 20 Iowa 562 (1866). 
 
 '''1'^ Foley vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 64 Iowa 644 (1884). 
 
 7i8Benn vs. Null, 65 Iowa 407 (1884). 
 
 ■^19 Hathaway vs. Illinois Central Railway Company, 92 Iowa 337 
 (1894). 
 
 ■^20 Hoben vs. Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company, 
 20 Iowa 562 (1866). 
 
 ■^21 Beresford vs. American Coal Company, 124 Iowa 34 (1904). 
 
 ■^22 Collingwood vs. Illinois and Iowa Fuel Company, 125 Iowa 537 
 (1904). 
 
 ''■23 Baldwin vs. St. Louis, Keokuk and Northern Railway Com- 
 pany, 68 Iowa 37 (1885). 
 
 724 Cooper vs. Central Railroad of Iowa, 44 Iowa 134 (1876). 
 
 ■^25 Struble vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 128 Iowa 158 (1905). 
 
 ■^26 Peterson vs. Whitebreast Coal and Mining Company, 50 Iowa 
 673 (1879) ; HathaAvay vs. City of Des Moines, 97 Iowa 333 (1896) ; 
 Foley vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 64 
 Iowa 644 (1884). 
 
 "^27 Beresford vs. American Coal Company, 124 Iowa 34 (1904) ; 
 McQueeny vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, 
 120 Iowa' 522 (1903) ; Vohs vs. Shorthill, 130 Iowa 538 (1906). 
 
 728 Newbury vs. Getchel and Martin Company, 100 Iowa 441 
 (1896) ; McQueeny vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway 
 Company, 120 Iowa 522 (1903) ; Collingwood vs. Illinois and Iowa 
 Fuel Company, 125 Iowa 537 (1904) ; Barnicle vs. Connor, 110 Iowa 
 238 (1900). 
 
 ■^29 Labatt in his Employer's Liability, Vol. II, p. 1588, regarded 
 the question as still unsettled in 1902. But the statement in the text 
 appears to be justified by the decisions in Beresford vs. American 
 Coal Company, 124 Iowa 34 (1904) ; Collingwood vs. Illinois and 
 Iowa Fuel Company, 125 Iowa 537 (1904) ; and Vohs vs. Shorthill, 
 130 Iowa 538 (1906). 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 263 
 
 ■^30 Donaldson vs. Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company, 18 
 Iowa 280 (1865). 
 
 ■^^i Brann vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 
 53 Iowa 595 (1880). 
 
 ^32Theleman vs. Moeller, 73 Iowa 108 (1887). 
 
 733 pyne vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company, 
 
 54 Iowa 223 (1880). 
 
 ■^34 Trcka vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 100 Iowa 205 (1896). 
 
 "^^^ Sullivan vs. Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company, 11 
 Iowa 421 (1860). 
 
 ■^36 Manning vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway, 
 Company, 64 Iowa 240 (1884). 
 
 737 Troughear vs. Lower Vein Coal Company, 62 Iowa 576 (1883). 
 
 738 pyne vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company, 
 54 Iowa 223 (1880). 
 
 '^^^ See Sullivan vs. Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company, 
 11 Iowa 421 (1860). 
 
 740 Laws of Iowa, 1862, p. 198. 
 
 ■^^i Laws of Iowa, 1870, p. 161. 
 
 "742 Laws of Iowa (Public), 1872, p. 70. 
 
 ■^43 Code of 1873, Section 1307. 
 
 ■^4* Code of 1897, Section 2071. 
 
 745 Code of 1873, Section 1278 : Code of 1897, Section 2039. 
 
 746 Bower vs. Burlington and Southwestern Railway Company, 42 
 Iowa 546 (1876). The lessor is also liable. 
 
 747 Sloan vs. Central Iowa Railway Company, 62 Iowa 728 (1883). 
 Liability attaches not to the receiver personally but to the property 
 in his hands. 
 
 748 McKnight vs. Iowa and Minnesota Railway Construction Com- 
 pany, 43 Iowa 406 (1876). Mace vs. Boedker and Company, 127 Iowa 
 721 (1905). 
 
264 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 ■^^^McLeod vs. Sioux City Traction Company, 125 Iowa 270 
 (1904). 
 
 750 Laws of Iowa, 1902, p. 49. 
 
 ■751 Cmstitution of Iowa, 1857, Art. Ill, Sec. 29. 
 
 '52 Constitution of Iowa, 1857, Art. I, Sec. 6. 
 
 ■^ssBucklew vs. Central Iowa Railway Company, 64 Iowa 603 
 (1884). 
 
 ■^s^McAunich vs. Mississippi and Missouri Railway Company, 20 
 Iowa 338 (1866). Deppe vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Rail- 
 way CoDipany, 36 Iowa 52 (1872). 
 
 755 Foley vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 64 Iowa 644 (1884). 
 
 ■^56 Larson vs. Illinois Central Railway Company, 91 Iowa 81 
 (1894) ; Connors vs. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company, 
 111 Iowa 384 (1900). 
 
 ■^57 Stroble vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, 
 70 Iowa 555 (1886). 
 
 758 Butler vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company, 
 87 Iowa 206 (1893). 
 
 759 Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company vs. Artery, 
 137 United States 507 (1890) ; Larson vs. Illinois Central Railway 
 Company, 91 Iowa 81 (1894). 
 
 760 Deppe vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 36 Iowa 52 (1872). Frandsen vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific 
 Railway Company, 36 Iowa 372 (1873). See the Court's remarks 
 in Malone vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway Com- 
 pany, 65 Iowa 417 (1884). 
 
 761 Malone vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 65 Iowa 417 (1884). 
 
 762 Malone vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 65 Iowa 417 (1884) ; Stroble vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and 
 St. Paul Railway Company, 70 Iowa 555 (1886). ''This negligence, 
 to render the corporation liable, must be of an employe, and affect 
 a co-employe, who are in some manner performing work for the pur- 
 pose of moving a train." 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 265 
 
 763 Pierce vs. Central Iowa Railway Company, 73 Iowa 140 (1887). 
 The fact that the plaintiff was not employed in the operation of the 
 road held to be not material. 
 
 764 pyne vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company, 
 54 Iowa 223 (1880) ; Handelun vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and 
 Northern Railway Company, 72 Iowa 709 (1887) ; Butler vs. Chicago, 
 Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company, 87 Iowa 206 (1893) ; 
 Canon vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, 101 
 Iowa 613 (1897) ; Akeson vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Rail- 
 way Company, 106 Iowa 54 (1898) ; Hughes vs. Iowa Central Railway 
 Company, 128 Iowa 207 (1905). 
 
 ■^65 Schroeder vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 41 Iowa 344 (1875). 
 
 766 Hughes vs. Iowa Central Railway Company, 128 Iowa 207 
 (1905). 
 
 "^^"^ Akeson vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Com- 
 pany, 106 Iowa 54 (1898). 
 
 ■^^^ See Labatt's Employer's Liability, Vol. II, p. 2114, and cases 
 cited. 
 
 ■^69 Deppe vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 36 Iowa 52 (1872). 
 
 "^"^^ Nelson vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, 
 73 Iowa 576 (1887). 
 
 ■^■^^ Handelun vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Rail- 
 way Company, 72 Iowa 709 (1887). 
 
 ■^'2 Smith vs. Humeston and Shenandoah Railway Company, 78 
 Iowa 583 (1889). 
 
 ■^^^ Akeson vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company, 
 106 Iowa 54 (1898). 
 
 ■^■^^ Butler vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company, 
 87 Iowa 206 (1893). 
 
 ■^■^5 jvTalone vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 65 Iowa 417 (1884). 
 
 "^■^^ Canon vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, 
 101 Iowa 613 (1897). 
 
266 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 ■^■^■^ Hughes vs. Iowa Central Railway Company, 128 Iowa 207 
 (1905). 
 
 '■^s Jensen vs. Omaha and St. Louis Railway Company, 115 Iowa 
 404 (1902). 
 
 ■^■^9 Pierce vs. Central Iowa Railway Company, 73 Iowa 140 (1887). 
 Plaintiff was upon a ladder leaning against the car and was injured by 
 the negligent starting of the train. 
 
 780 pyne vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company, 
 54 Iowa 223 (1880). A detective prostrated by sun-stroke and run 
 over while in a state of insensibility. 
 
 ■^^^Keatley vs. Illinois Central Railway Company, 94 Iowa 685 
 (1895). Employee injured by the negligent running of a train at 
 dangerous speed across an unfinished bridge. 
 
 "^^2 Haden vs. Sioux City and Pacific Railway Company, 92 Iowa 
 226 (1894). Section foreman stepped upon the track after the first 
 section of a train had passed and was struck by the second section, 
 the approach of which he had no reason to expect. 
 
 '^^^ Larson vs. Illinois Central Railway Company, 91 Iowa 81 
 (1894). Collision Avith another hand car. In Chicago, Milwaukee 
 and St. Paul Railway Company vs. Artery, 137 United States 507 
 (1890) it was said: '"The railway was being used and operated in 
 the movement of the hand-car, quite as much as if the latter had been 
 a train of cars drawn by a locomotive." 
 
 ■^^^ Potter vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 46 Iowa 399 (1877). 
 
 ■^^^ Luce vs. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway 
 Company, 67 Iowa 75 (1885). 
 
 '^^^ Manning vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway 
 Company, 64 Iowa 240 (1890). 
 
 '^^'^ Hathaway vs. Illinois Central Railway Company, 92 Iowa 337 
 (1894). 
 
 ■^^^ Matson vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 68 Iowa 22 (1885). Plaintiff injured by heavy stone thrown by a 
 member of the same gang. Dunn vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific 
 Railway Company, 130 Iowa 580 (1906). Plaintiff was struck by 
 
NOTES AND KEFERENCES 267 
 
 an iron bar which a member of the same gang had left upon the track 
 and which was hurled off by a passing train. 
 
 ■^^9 Smith vs. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway- 
 Company, 59 Iowa 73 (1882). 
 
 ''^^ Potter vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, 
 46 Iowa 399 (1877). 
 
 "^^^ Hunt vs. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company, 26 Iowa 
 
 363 (1868). 
 
 792 Murphy vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 45 Iowa 661 (1877). 
 
 793 Mumford vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 128 Iowa 685 (1905). 
 
 '^9* Mumford vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany, 128 Iowa 685 (1905). 
 
 ■^95 Donald vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company, 
 93 Iowa 284 (1895). 
 
 ■^^6 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1897, pp. 94- 
 196. Contains the hearings on the Temple Amendment before the 
 Senate Committee in 1897, also a statement by the assistant superin- 
 tendent of the Burlington Relief Department. The application for 
 membership appears on pp. 99-100. 
 
 '^^'^ Journal of the House of Representatives, 1897, pp. 279-280. 
 
 ■^^^ Journal of the House of Representatives, 1897, pp. 791, 792, 
 809, 818, 930, 960, 968, 969; Journal of the Senate, 1897, pp. 649, 
 792, 793, 860, 888, 1105, 1106. The Temple Amendment affected Sec- 
 tion 38 of Senate File, No. 20, 26th General Assembly, Extra Session 
 (1897). 
 
 ■^99 Iowa Official Register, 1898, pp. 135, 138. 
 
 800 The vote in the Senate was 39 to 4 ; in the House, 96 to 1. 
 Journal of the Senate, 1898, p. 342; Journal of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, 1898, p. 529. 
 
 801 Laws of loiva, 1898, p. 33 ; Supplement of 1907, Section 2071. 
 
 802 McGuire vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Com- 
 pany, 131 Iowa 340 (1906). 
 
268 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 803 One hundred and fifty-eight deaths and 3,370 injuries to em- 
 ployees from industrial accidents were reported in Iowa in the year 
 1906. How many occurred cannot be stated. 
 
 ^^'^ Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor, No. 74, p. 120. 
 
 805 Clark in Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor, No. 
 74, p. 120. 
 
 806 Martin vs. Des Moines Edison Light Company, 131 Iowa 724 
 (1906). "The risks thus arising [from dangers incident to the 
 service] the servant takes upon himself and his wages are considered 
 to be his full compensation for the danger thus incurred as well as 
 for the actual labor of his hands." 
 
 807 Sullivan vs. Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company, 11 
 Iowa 421 (1860). 
 
 808Farwell vs. Boston and Worcester Rail Road Corporation, 4 
 Metcalf 49. 
 
 809 Kroy vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company 
 32 Iowa 357 (1871). 
 
 810 gee Justice Beck's remarks in Patton vs. Central Iowa Rail- 
 way Company, 73 Iowa 306 (1887). 
 
 8iiLabatt's Employer's Liability, Section 475. 
 
 812 Shearman and Redfield's Negligence, p. vi. 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 813 Laws of Iowa, 1886, p. 89 ; Code of 1897, Section 1642. 
 
 814 Laws of Iowa, 1888, p. 80 ; Code of 1897, Sections 5027-5028. 
 
 815 Code of 1851, Section 2758 ; Code of 1897, Section 5059. 
 
 816 Jjaws of Iowa, 1892, p. 63 ; Code of 1897, Sections 5049-5051. 
 
 817 Beebe vs. Tolerton and Stetson Company, 117 Iowa 593 (Cigar- 
 markers' label). 
 
 818 For an account of some of these practices see Conner's Free 
 Public Employment Offices in the United States, in the Bulletin of the 
 United States Bureau of Labor, No. 68, p. 16. 
 
 819 Conner's Free Public Employment Offices in the United States, 
 in the Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor, No. 68, p. 3. 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 269 
 
 ^^'^ Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1891, pp. 2-3, 
 
 ^21 Shambaugh's Messages and Proclamations of the Governors 
 of Iowa, Vol. VI, p. 318. 
 
 ^^2 House File, No. 49; Senate File, No. 279, 24th General As- 
 sembly (1892). 
 
 ^^^ House File, No. 160; Senate File, No. 78, 25th General As- 
 sembly (1894). 
 
 ^24 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1895, p. 14. 
 
 ^25 The name suggested by Doctor Conner. 
 
 ^26 Conner's Free Public Employment Offices in the United States, 
 in the Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor, No. 68, pp. 
 91-113; Official Directory of the Iowa Federation of Labor, 1906, p. 
 133. 
 
 ^27 Journals of the Senate and House of Representatives, 1906. 
 House File, No. 241, and Senate File, No. 176, 31st General Assembly. 
 
 828 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 26 ; Code Supplement of 1907, Section 
 700 
 
 829 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 128 ; Code Supplement of 1907, Section 
 2477h-24771. 
 
 830 Based upon the records in the city clerks ' offices. 
 
 831 Laws of Iowa, 1892, p. 58 ; Code of 1897, Section 1123. 
 
 832 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 219. 
 
 833 Code of 1897, Section 1535. 
 
 834 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1885, p. 363. 
 
 ^^^ Senate Files, Nos. 1, 163, 183, 262, 324; House Files, Nos. 37, 
 343, 381, 444, 21st General Assembly (1886). 
 
 836 Laws of Iowa, 1886, pp. 21-25. 
 
 837 Report of the Code Commission to the Twenty -sixth General As- 
 sembly, p. 116. 
 
 838 See table in the Third Special Report of the United States 
 Commissioner of Labor, p. 5. 
 
 839 Statement to writer by Mr. Edwin Perry of Oskaloosa, former 
 State Secretary of the Knights of Labor. 
 
270 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 ^^^ The final vote was : in the Senate 26 yeas, 7 nays ; in the House, 
 59 yeas, 23 nays.— Journals of the Senate and House of Representa- 
 tives, 1884, Senate File, No. 83. 
 
 841 Laws of Iowa, 1884, p. 134. 
 
 «42 Iowa Official Register, 1907-8, p. 164. 
 
 843 Laws of loiva, 1894, p. 127. 
 
 844 Laws of Iowa, 1896, p. 89. 
 
 845 Laws of lotva, 1904, p. 92. 
 
 846 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 127. 
 
 847 Laws of loiva, 1904, p. 92 ; Code Supplement of 1907, Section 
 2477. 
 
 848 Laws of Iowa, 1902, p. 61 ; Code Supplement of 1907, Section 
 2470. 
 
 849 See p. 106. 
 
 850 See p. 99. 
 
 851 See p. 139. 
 
 852 See p. 190. 
 
 853 Of 19,500 blanks sent to working men and women in 1894, only 
 4,160 were returned properly filled out. — Report of the Iowa Bureau 
 of Labor Statistics, 1895, p. 8. 
 
 ^^'^ Report of the Iowa Bureau of Lahor Statistics, 1887, p. 196; 
 1895, p. 9. 
 
 855 Report of the Iowa Bureau of Lahor Statistics, 1895, pp. 20-22. 
 
 856 Laws of Iowa, 1896, p. 89. 
 
 857 See p. 105. 
 
 858 Journal of the Senate, 1896, p. 858. 
 
 859 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1896, pp. 913, 922, 
 955. See also the Iowa State Register, April 3 and April 17, 1896. 
 
 860 Code of 1897, Section 2474. 
 
 861 Report of the Attorney General, 1904, pp. 137-139. 
 
 ^^"^ Report of the Iowa Bureau of Lahor Statistics, 1901-1902, p. 
 386. 
 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 271 
 
 ^^^ See Report of the loxva Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1893, p. 7. 
 
 *^* The first eleven reports were printed in odd numbered years ; 
 the twelfth report was issued in 1906, and subsequent reports will 
 appear in even-numbered years. Laivs of Iowa, 1906, p. 71. 
 
 ^65 Code Supplement of 1907, Section 125. 
 
 866 The report for 1905 contains data for 882 establishments of 
 all kinds, employing 35,551 persons; the United States census of 
 manufactures the same year shows 4,785 manufacturing establish- 
 ments, employing 49,481 persons. 
 
 867 Tribunal of voluntary arbitration. See p. 191. 
 
 868 Laws of Iowa, 1909, p. 180. 
 
 869 Laws of Iowa, 1909, p. 141. 
 
 870 Laws of Iowa, 1909, p. 200. 
 
 871 Laws of Iowa, 1909, p. 117. 
 
 872 Laws of Iowa, 1909, p. 175. 
 
 873 Laws of Iowa, 1909, p. 118. 
 
 874 Laws of Iowa, 1909, p. 41. 
 
 875 Laws of Iowa, 1909, p. 140. 
 
INDEX 
 
INDEX 
 
 Accidents, report of, in mines, 59-63; 
 number of, in coal mines, 60; cause 
 of, in coal mines, 62-63; on railroads, 
 81-82, 84-85, 88-92 
 
 Anamosa, establishment of penitentiary 
 at, 24; change of penitentiary at, to 
 reformatory, 25 
 
 Apprenticeship, early laws regulating, 2 
 
 Arbitration, provisions for, in labor dis- 
 putes, 191-192. 
 
 Bailey, W. H., child labor bill drafted 
 by, 123, 143; revision of bill drafted 
 by, 136 
 
 Bailey, Mrs. W. H., member of child 
 labor committee, 122 
 
 Bakeries, sanitary conditions in, 104; 
 need of law regulating, 105; increase 
 in business of, in Iowa, 105 
 
 Bealer, E. J. C, 140 
 
 Belgium, loss of life in coal mines of, 
 61, 62 
 
 Blacklisting, law prohibiting, 186 
 
 Blackmore, Albin C, bill introduced by, 
 14 
 
 Board of Control, State, 25; powers 
 given to, 28; attitude of, toward con- 
 vict labor, 31 
 
 Board of Health, State, regulations pre- 
 scribed by, 50 
 
 Boies, Horace, employment agency fa- 
 vored by, 50 
 
 Boiler inspection, laws relative to, 97- 
 98 
 
 Bowling alleys, child labor in, 139 
 
 Box factories, violations of child labor 
 law in, 143 
 
 Boycotting, law providing punishment 
 for, 187 
 
 Brakes, accidents due to old style of, 
 82-83; law prescribing power, 83-84 
 
 Brigham, Edward D., statistics gath- 
 ered by, 100; report of, relative to 
 child labor, 115, 121, 122; member of 
 child labor committee, 135; letter to, 
 relative to fire escapes, 237; address 
 by, 240. 
 
 Broom works, violations of child labor 
 law in, 143 
 
 Brown and Company, contract lor con- 
 vict labor made by, 20 
 
 Bruce, James E., amendment offered 
 by, 141 
 
 Buffalo (New York), experiments with 
 automatic couplers at, 78 
 
 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Iowa, es- 
 tablishment of, 3, 193; personnel of, 
 193; scope of work of, 194-195; 
 methods of, in collecting statistics, 
 195-200; inquiry blank sent out by, 
 197-199; compulsory power of, 200; 
 reports of, 200-205; subjects treated 
 in reports of, 202-203; need of labor 
 bulletin published by, 203; recom- 
 mendations to legislature by, 204; 
 commissioners of, 204 ; value and fur- 
 ther needs of, 204-205 
 
 Burlington, school attendance in, 242 
 
 Burlington Voluntary Relief Depart- 
 ment, organization of, 178 ; features 
 of, 179-181; validity of contracts of, 
 upheld, 181; contracts of, invalidated 
 by statute, 182 
 
 Button Company, Iowa, contract for 
 convict labor made by, 22 
 
 Button factories, child labor in, 133; 
 violation of child labor law in, 143. 
 
 Canning factories, child labor in, 133, 
 140-141, 143; violations of child la- 
 bor law iQ, 143; growth of business 
 of, 243. 
 
276 
 
 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Car Builders Association, National 
 Master, automatic coupler approved 
 by, 78 
 
 Care, standards of, 152 
 
 Carnegie Institution of Washington, ex- 
 penses of collecting data borne by, x 
 
 Carstensen, Theodore, 136 
 
 Cedar Eapids, school attendance in, 241 
 
 Chair Company, Fort Madison, contract 
 for convict labor made by, 21; desire 
 of, for extension of contract, 26 
 
 Chesire-Dowell Bill, 189 
 
 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad, 
 relief department maintained by, 178- 
 181 
 
 Child labor, need and justification of 
 legislation relative to, 110; tardiness 
 of Iowa legislation on subject of, 
 111; regulation of, in mines, 111-112; 
 earliest champion of, in Iowa, 112; 
 early attempts to secure laws on sub- 
 ject of, 112-113; extent of, in Iowa, 
 in 1888, 113; growth of, in Iowa, 114- 
 116 ; conditions of, in Iowa com- 
 pared with other States, 115-116; 
 provisions of factory act of 1902 
 relative to, 116-117; method of evad- 
 ing law relative to, 117; effect of 
 compulsory education on, 117-121; 
 agitation of question of, 1900-1906, 
 121-141; organizations supporting 
 movement for laws regulating, 122; 
 bill for act to regulate employment 
 of, 123-130; objections to bill regu- 
 lating, 130-135; defeat of bill regu- 
 lating, 131 ; desciplinary and educa- 
 tional value of, 131-132; physiologi- 
 cal evils of, 132; relation of, to 
 farming, 132-133; relation of, to 
 canning and button industries, 133; 
 unprofitableness of, 133-134; poor- 
 widow argument for, 134; causes 
 leading to, 134-135; leaflets on sub- 
 ject of, 135; text of law relative to, 
 137-139; in bowling alleys, 139; not 
 prohibited in quarries, 140; employ- 
 ment of, in canning factories, 140; 
 
 enforcement of law relative to, 142- 
 143; defects of Iowa law relative to, 
 143-147; conclusions relative to, in 
 Iowa, 147; recent amendments to law 
 regulating, 209-210 
 
 Child Labor Committee, Iowa, forma- 
 tion of, 135; executive committee of, 
 135; efforts of, to secure law, 136 
 
 Child Labor Committee, National, 135 
 
 Cigar shops, violation of child labor 
 law in, 143 
 
 Citizens' Industrial Alliance, opposi- 
 tion of, to employment agency bill, 
 190 
 
 Claims, employees', preference of, 11-12 
 
 Clary, T. C, 136 
 
 Clinton, school attendance in, 242 
 
 Coal, weighing of, 63-64; screening of, 
 65-66 
 
 Coal mining, beginning of, in Iowa, 2; 
 dangers of, 33; development of, in 
 Iowa, 33-35 
 
 Coal Mine Explosions Commission, 52 
 
 Coal Operators' Association, Iowa, in- 
 fluence of, in legislation, 5; refer- 
 ence to, 52 
 
 CoflEun, L. S., services of, in securing 
 safety appliances on railroads, 79, 83 
 
 Commissioner of Labor, inspection of 
 factories by, 95, 98; recommendations 
 by, 96, 97, 107-108, 144; power of, 
 relative to fire escapes, 99-100; acci- 
 dents reported to, 101; work of, in 
 improving conditions in factories, 
 102-103; child labor bill approved 
 by, 123; duty of, to enforce child 
 labor law, 139; board of arbitration 
 favored by, 191; salary of, 193 
 
 Common Law, rules of, on employers' 
 liability, 148; statutory modification 
 of, 166-167; fellow-servant doctrine 
 in, 168; defects of, relative to em- 
 ployers' liability, 184-185 
 
 Connecticut, volume on labor legisla- 
 tion in, x; child labor laws in, 112 
 
INDEX 
 
 277 
 
 Cornier, J. E., employment agency bill 
 approved by, 190 
 
 Consumers' League, National, 123 
 
 Contract system in convict labor, oppo- 
 sition to, 26, 28; merits of, 28; de- 
 fects of, 28-29 
 
 Convict labor, laws relative to, 18-32 ; 
 character of, in Territory of Iowa, 
 18-19; contracts for, 19-22, 25; ar- 
 ticles manufactured by, 19-22, 25; 
 influence of hard times on contracts 
 for, 21; task system in, 22-23; price 
 received by State for, 23; profit of, 
 to contractors, 23; disadvantages of, 
 23-24; character of, at Anamosa, 25, 
 26; permanent educative value of, 
 26; systems of, in Iowa, 26; contract 
 systei 1 in, 26, 28, 29 ; conditions of, 
 in Iowa, 27-28; effect of, upon free 
 labor and outside markets, 28, 30 ; 
 effect cf, upon prisoners, 28, 29, 30; 
 public i 'Count system in, 29-32; plan 
 to have "^tate printing done by, 31- 
 32 
 
 Convicts, necessity of employment for, 
 27; points to be considered in pro- 
 viding employment for, 27 
 
 Cooperage Company, American, con- 
 tract for convict labor made by, 25; 
 desire of, for renewal of contract, 
 26; contract of, extended, 212 
 
 Cotton Belt, conditions in, as regards 
 child labor, 115 
 
 Council Bluiffs, school attendance in, 
 242 
 
 Couplers, old type of, 78 ; invention of 
 automatic, 78; law prescribing use of 
 automatic, 79; character of, used in 
 Iowa, 80; accidents due to use of, 80- 
 82 
 
 Courtright, O. B., 136 
 
 Crossley, James J., bill introduced by, 
 14 
 
 Cummings, B. F., 136 
 
 Cummins, Mrs. A. B., member of child 
 labor committee, 135 
 19 
 
 Damages, liability for, in mines, 57-58 
 
 Davenport, school attendance in, 241 
 
 Deemer, Horace E., child labor bill ap- 
 proved by, 123 
 
 Deemer, Mrs. Horace E., member of 
 child labor committee, 122 
 
 DeMar, J. C, 243 
 
 Des Moines, school attendance in, 241 
 
 Dodge, O. B., contract for convict la- 
 bor made by, 20; failure of, 21 
 
 Dodge, W. W., efforts of, to secure 
 child labor law, 112-113; bill intro- 
 duced by, for protection of union 
 label, 187 
 
 Dowell, C. C, child labor bill intro- 
 duced by, 130; reference to, 136; let- 
 ter from, 245 
 
 Downey, E. H., vii ; author 's preface 
 by, ix; position held by, x 
 
 Dubuque, history of lead mines at, 222; 
 school attendance in, 241 
 
 Economic History Series, Iowa, pur- 
 pose of, vii 
 
 Education, compulsory, recommenda- 
 tions for, 117; laws providing, 117- 
 118; workings of, 118-121, 241-242 
 
 Edwards, Alba M., book by, x 
 
 Employees, laws relative to preference 
 of claims of, 11-12; responsibility of 
 employer for, 149; relation of em- 
 ployer and, 150-151; duties of em- 
 ployer toward, 152-155; contributory 
 negligence of, 156-159; assumption of 
 risks by, 159-167, 183-184; injury to, 
 due to negligence of fellow-servant, 
 168 ; doctrine of vice principalship in 
 relation to, 169-171; railway, right 
 of, to recovery for injuries, 175-178, 
 179, 182, 184-185; railway, relief de- 
 partment for, 178-181; need of better 
 protection for, 184-185; blacklisting 
 of, prohibited, 186; right of, to vote, 
 190-191; legislation favorable to, 210 
 
 Employers, penalties for violation of 
 child labor law by, 138-139; liability 
 
278 
 
 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 of, for damages, 149; relation of 
 employees and, 150-151; duties of, 
 151-152, 155; knowledge of danger- 
 ous condition on part of, 151-152; 
 defenses of, 155-171; negligence of, 
 and fellow-servant, 168 ; non-dele- 
 gable duties of, 169; inquiry blanks 
 sent to, 197-199 
 
 Employers' liability, law of, 148-185 
 rules of Common Law covering, 148 
 doctrines of, in Iowa, 148-149 
 etandards of care used in determin- 
 ing, 152; relation of contributory 
 negligence to, 156-159; relation of 
 assumption of risks to, 159-167; re- 
 lation of fellow-servant doctrine to, 
 167-168; vice principalship in rela- 
 tion to, 169-170; departmental doc- 
 trine in, 170-171; law relative to, on 
 railways, 171; defects of law of, 184- 
 185; recent amendments to law of, 
 210-212 
 
 Employment agencies, necessity for, 
 187-188; arguments for, 188; efforts 
 to secure law on subject of, 188-190; 
 laws relative to, 190 
 
 Ensign, Forest C, article by, 239, 242 
 
 Examiners, State Board of, 45 
 
 Exemption of wages, laws relative to, 
 12-15; views on subject of, 13-15 
 
 Explosions, precautions to prevent, in 
 mines, 51-53 
 
 Explosives, conveyance and storage of, 
 53-54 
 
 Factories, poor conditions in, 95; May- 
 tag bill providing for safety and 
 comfort in, 95-96 ; protection of life 
 and limb in, 96-101; guards on dan- 
 gerous machinery in, 96-97; boiler 
 inspection in, 97-98 ; fire escapes on, 
 98-100; report of accidents in, 100- 
 101; protection of health in, 101- 
 105; disposal of dust in, 103; heat, 
 light and ventilation of, 103-104; in- 
 spection of, 105-106; enforcement of 
 law relative to, 106-107; recommen- 
 
 dations of Commissioner of Labor rel- 
 ative to, 107-108; progress of Iowa 
 legislation relative to, 108; need of 
 more adequate regulation of, 109; 
 child labor in, prohibited, 137 
 
 Factory Inspector, salary of, 193 ; pro- 
 vision for second, 212 
 
 Farming, relation of child labor to, 132- 
 133 
 
 Farming Tool Company, Iowa, contract 
 for convict labor made by, 20 
 
 Farnam, Henry W., acknowledgments 
 to, X 
 
 Federation of Labor, Iowa, formation 
 of, 3; work of, 3-4; bill defeated 
 through efforts of, 13; opposition of, 
 to button contract, 22 ; opposition of, 
 to contract system, 26; efforts of, to 
 secure legislation, 73, 93; child labor 
 laws supported by, 122, 131; leaf- 
 lets on child labor issued by, 135; 
 agitation for employment agencies re- 
 vived by, 189; history of, 217 
 
 Federation of Women's Clubs, move- 
 ment for child labor law supported 
 by, 122, 123, 131 
 
 Fellow-servant doctrine, 167-168; inap- 
 plicability of, 171 
 
 Fire escapes, provision for, in factories, 
 98-100; defects of law relative to, in 
 Iowa, 100; indifference of officers in 
 regard to, 237 
 
 Flenniken, J. C, 139 
 
 Fletcher, Mrs. T. J., member of child 
 labor committee, 135 
 
 Fort Dodge, gypsum mines near, 71-72 
 
 Fort Madison, location of penitentiary 
 at, 18; disadvantages of convict la- 
 bor at, 24 
 
 Fort Madison Chair Company, contract 
 for convict labor made by, 21 
 
 France, loss of life in coal mines of, 
 61-62 
 
 German Imperial Insurance Office, sta- 
 tistics gathered by, 183 
 
INDEX 
 
 279 
 
 Great Britain, loss of life in coal mines 
 of, 61 
 
 Greenwood, C. G., bill introduced by, 
 14 
 
 Greene, Robert A., bill introduced by, 
 13, 14 
 
 Gypsum mines, development of, in Iowa, 
 71; character of, 71-73; efforts to ex- 
 tend mine law over, 73-74; need of 
 law regulating, 74-75 
 
 Hale, Thomas, and Company, contract 
 for convict labor made by, 20 
 
 Hallam, Mrs. J. C, member of child la- 
 bor committee, 135 
 
 Hart, William S., bill introduced by, 
 136, 140, 143; reference to, 243 
 
 Headley, W. D., contract for convict 
 labor made by, 19, 20 
 
 Hoisting engineers, qualifications of, 45 
 
 Hoisting machinery, safe guards on, 43- 
 44 
 
 Hours of labor, for railway trainmen, 
 86-88; for children, 136; on public 
 roads, 191 
 
 Huiskamp Company, contract for con- 
 vict labor made by, 21, 22 
 
 Hutchins, Edward R., information on 
 child labor gathered by, 113 
 
 Illinois, child labor laws in, 123; can- 
 ning industry in, 243 
 Illuminants in coal mines, 49-50 
 Industries, character of, in Iowa, 1, 2 
 Iowa, Territorial history of, 1 ; indus- 
 trial development of, 2; growth of 
 labor legislation in, 1-6; character of 
 legislation in, 2, 3; labor organiza- 
 tions in, 3, 4 ; advantages of, in labor 
 legislation, 5 ; mistakes of, in labor 
 legislation, 5; convict labor in, 18- 
 32; development of mining in, 33- 
 35; fatality in coal mines of, 60, 61, 
 62; tardiness of child labor legisla- 
 tion in, 111; immigrants from Europe 
 in, 111; growth of child labor in, 114- 
 116; conditions in, as regards child 
 
 labor, 115-116; miscellaneous labor 
 legislation in, 186-192 
 
 Iowa, Territory of, labor legislation in, 
 1, 2; legislation in, relative to me- 
 chanics' liens, 8; convict labor legis- 
 lation in, 18-19 
 
 Iowa Branch of the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor. (See Federation of 
 Labor) 
 
 Jackson, Burt T., statement by, 220 
 
 Jackson, John C, 136 
 
 Johnson, Trebilcock and, contract for 
 
 convict labor made by, 20; successors 
 
 to, 21 
 
 Kelly, Florence, 123 
 
 King's Daughters, movement for child 
 labor law supported by, 122 
 
 Knights of Labor, organization of, in 
 Iowa, 3 ; replacement of, 3 ; refer- 
 ence to, 35, 79; efforts of, to secure 
 legislation, 67 ; efforts of, to secure 
 child labor law, 112; Bureau of La- 
 bor established at suggestion of, 193; 
 absence of records of, 217 
 
 Labor Commissioners of the peniten- 
 tiary, powers of, 21 
 
 Labor disputes, board of arbitration 
 for, 191-192 
 
 Labor legislation, method of treating, 
 ix; scarcity of materials on, ix; 
 scope of, 1 ; need of, 1 ; character of, 
 in Iowa, 1; growth of, in Iowa, 1-6; 
 difficulty in securing, 3 ; organiza- 
 tions supporting, 3; interests op- 
 posed to, 4-5; advantages of Iowa in 
 enacting, 5; mistakes of Iowa in, 5; 
 importance of study of, 6; first in- 
 stance of, in Territory of Iowa, 8; 
 miscellaneous, in Iowa, 186-192; re- 
 cent, 209-213; character of recent, 
 213 
 
 Labor organizations, incorporation of, 
 186 
 
280 
 
 HISTORY OP LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 Labor Statistics, Iowa Bureau of, 
 (See Bureau of Labor Statistics) 
 
 Laundries, child labor in, prohibited, 
 137 
 
 Lead mining, history of, in Iowa, 33, 
 222 
 
 Legislative Reference Department, need 
 of, in Iowa, 5-6 
 
 Liability (See employers' liability and 
 railway liability act) 
 
 Lindsay, Samuel McCune, work of, in 
 Iowa, 135 
 
 Lister, G. W., child labor bill introduced 
 by, 122 
 
 Loan Association of New York, Provi- 
 dent, 17 
 
 Loan company, advertisement of, 16 
 
 Loan sharks, methods of, 16-17, 220; 
 remedy for evils of, 17 
 
 Loos, Isaac A., acknowledgments to, 
 ix; chairman of child labor commit- 
 tee, 135; article by, 239 
 
 Lost Creek Mine, disaster at, 50, 61 
 
 Machinery, dangerous, guards on, 96- 
 97; prohibition of operation of, by 
 children, 116-117 
 
 Maine, T. C, 229 
 
 Maine, child labor laws in, 112 
 
 Manufacturing, development of, in 
 Iowa, 2 
 
 Manufacturers' Association, State, in- 
 fluence of, in legislation, 5; opposi- 
 tion of, to employment agency bill, 
 190 
 
 Marston, Charles L., letter from, 238 
 
 Maryland, canning industry in, 243 
 
 Massachusetts, law requiring use of au- 
 tomatic couplers in, 79; child labor 
 laws in, 112, 123; labor bulletin pub- 
 lished in, 203 
 
 Master (see employer) 
 
 Maytag, Fred L., factory bill introduced 
 by, 95 
 
 Mechanics' liens, early laws providing 
 for, 2; laws relative to, 7-11; char- 
 
 acter and operation of, 10-11; on 
 railways, 93-94 
 Merchants' Association, Retail, influ- 
 ence of, in legislation, 5; efforts of, 
 to secure modification of wage ex- 
 emption law, 13-14 
 Michigan, law requiring use of automat- 
 ic couplers in, 70 
 Michigan, Territory of, legislation in, 
 relative to mechanics' liens, 7; con- 
 vict labor legislation in, 18 
 Mills, child labor in, prohibited, 137 
 Mining, development of, in Iowa, 33-35 
 Mine exits, laws relative to, 41-43 
 Mine foremen, qualifications of, 54 
 Mine Inspectors, powers and duties of, 
 36-39; work accomplished by, 37, 38, 
 39; rejiorts of, 40; mine maps de- 
 posited with, 40; Board of Examiners 
 for, 54; powers of, to enforce safety 
 requirements, 56-57 
 Mine labor legislation, importance of, 
 
 33; development of, 35-36 
 Mine maps, law relative to, 40 
 Mine operators, duty of, to provide 
 map of mines, 40 ; duty of, relative 
 to timbering, 45 
 Mine timbering, laws relative to, 45 
 Mine Workers of America, United, or- 
 ganization of, in Iowa, 4 ; efforts of, 
 to secure legislation, 51, 53; ref- 
 erence to, 68 ; efforts of, to keep chil- 
 dren out of mines, 112 
 Miners, laws protecting health and safe- 
 ty of, 41-56; laws to prevent exploita- 
 tion of, 63-71; truck system in rela- 
 tion to, 67-69; homes of, 69; semi- 
 monthly payment of, 69-71; example 
 of scrip used in payment of, 229 
 Miners of the State of Iowa, Amal- 
 gamated Association of, organization 
 of, 35; joint convention called by, 36; 
 reference to, 67 
 Miners ' lien law, 35, 63 
 Mines, coal, laws relative to operation 
 of, 33-75; signaling in, 43; laws rel- 
 
INDEX 
 
 281 
 
 ative to hoisting machinery in, 43- 
 44; qualifications of hoisting engi- 
 neers in, 45; ventilation in, laws rel- 
 ative to, 46-47 ; methods of, 47-49 ; il- 
 luminants in, 49-50; shot firing in, 50- 
 53; conveyance and storage of ex- 
 plosives in, 53-54; first aid to injured 
 in, 55 ; need of wash rooms in connec- 
 tion with, 55; prohibition of danger- 
 ous acts in, 55-56; power of inspector 
 to enforce safety requirements in, 56- 
 57; liability for damages in, 57-58; 
 exception of small, 58; report of ac- 
 cidents in, 59-63; comparative loss of 
 life in, 61; laws relative to weighing 
 coal at, 63-64; law relative to screen- 
 ing coal at, 65-66 ; regulation of child 
 labor in, 111-112; child labor in, pro- 
 hibited, 137; child labor law enforced 
 in, 143; accidents in, 225 
 Mines, gypsum, development of, in 
 Iowa, 71; character of, 71-73; efforts 
 to extend mine law over, 73-74; need 
 of law regulating, 74-75 
 Minors, law relative to wages of, 17 
 Muscatine, child labor at, 146 
 
 Negligence, definition of, 149; doctrine 
 of, in Iowa, 149-150; contributory, of 
 employees, 156-159; concurrent, of 
 master and fellow-servant, 168; com- 
 parative, rule of, established, 211 
 New Jersey, child labor laws in, 112 
 New York, law requiring use of auto- 
 matic couplers in, 79; fire escape law 
 of, 100; child labor laws in, 112, 123; 
 labor bulletin published in, 203; can- 
 ning industry in, 243 
 
 Obstructions, overhead, on railroads, 85- 
 86 
 
 Ohio, child labor laws in, 112, 123; pub- 
 lic employment agencies in, 188 
 
 Ottumwa, school attendance in, 242 
 
 Owens, D. D., attention called to Iowa 
 coal fields by, 33 
 
 Packing houses, child labor in, prohib- 
 ited, 137; violations of child labor 
 law in, 143 
 
 Parents, penalties imposed on, for per- 
 mitting child labor, 138-139 
 
 Peck, Mrs. Maria Purdy, member of 
 child labor committee, 122 
 
 Penitentiary (Anamosa), establishment 
 of, 24; employment of prisoners at, 
 24, 25; change of, to reformatory, 25 
 
 Penitentiary (Fort Madison), estab- 
 lishment of, 18; disadvantages of 
 convict labor at, 24 
 
 Pennsylvania, child labor laws in, 112; 
 conditions in, as regards child labor, 
 115 
 
 Perry, Edwin, information furnished 
 by, 217, 269; letter from, 223 
 
 Petroleum Products, Inspector of, duty 
 
 of, 50 
 Printing, State, plan relative to, 31-32 
 Prison labor (see convict labor) 
 Public account system in convict labor, 
 merits and demerits of, 29-32 
 
 Quarries, child labor in, 140 
 
 Railway cars, automatic couplers on, 77- 
 82; accidents in coupling, 81-82; 
 power brakes on, 82-85 
 
 Railroad Commissioners, State Board of, 
 establishment of, 76; reference to, 79, 
 80; regulations of, relative to over- 
 head obstructions, 86; duty of, to en- 
 force law, 88 ; investigation of rail- 
 way accidents by, 88-92 
 
 Railway employees, accidents to, 76-78, 
 81-82, 84-85, 88-92; hours of service 
 of, 86-88 ; right of, to recovery for in- 
 juries, 175-178, 179, 182, 184-185; re- 
 lief department for, 178-181 
 
 Railway liability act, 171-182; judicial 
 interpretation of, 172-173, 175; ob- 
 jections to, 173-174; persons within 
 protection of, 176-178; plan to evade, 
 178-181; Temple amendment to, 182; 
 
282 
 
 HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 constitutionality of, 182 ; amendment 
 to, 211 
 
 Railways, coming of, to Iowa, 2 ; over- 
 head obstructions on, 85-86; me- 
 chanics' liens on, 93-94; amendment 
 to law relative to safety appliances 
 on, 212 
 
 Reformatory (Anamosa), penitentiary 
 converted into, 25 ; contract labor 
 prohibited at, 25; employment of 
 prisoners at, 25-26, 212 
 
 Rhode Island, child labor laws in, 112; 
 conditions in, as regards child labor, 
 115 
 
 Risks, assumption of, 159 ; ordinary, 
 159-161; extraordinary, 161-166; sta- 
 tutory modification of assumption of, 
 166-167; assumption of, basis of doc- 
 trine of, 183-184; assumption of, re- 
 cent acts on subject of, 211 
 
 Roads, public, hours of labor on, 191 
 
 Safety requirements, in mines, enforce- 
 ment of, 56-63 
 
 Scale laws, 63-64 
 
 Screen law, 65-66 
 
 Servants (see employees) 
 
 Shambaugh, Benj. F., editor's preface 
 by, vii; acknowledgments to, ix 
 
 Shot firing, laws relative to, 50-52; 
 methods of, 52 
 
 Signaling, law relative to, in mines, 43 
 
 Sioux City, school attendance in, 241 
 
 Slaughter houses, child labor in, pro- 
 hibited, 137 
 
 Small, A. J., acknowledgments to, x 
 
 Sovereign, James R., employment agen- 
 cy favored by, 188; successor to, 189 
 
 Stores, protection of health in, 101- 
 105; child labor in, prohibited, 137; 
 violations of child labor law in, 143 
 
 Storms, A. B., member of child labor 
 committee, 135 
 
 Street cars, laws relative to vestibules 
 on, 92-93, 212 
 
 Street-vending, need of regulation of, 
 144-146 
 
 Superintendent of Public Instruction, 
 recommendation of, 117 
 
 Task system, workings of, 22, 23 
 
 Teachers' Association, State, move- 
 ment for child labor law supported 
 by, 122 
 
 Telfer, D. A., 229 
 
 Temple Amendment, 182 
 
 Trebileock and Johnson, contract for 
 convict labor made by, 20; succes- 
 sors to, 21 
 
 Tri-City Jews' Associated Charities, 17 
 
 Truck law, 66-69 
 
 Union labels, protection of, 187 
 United States, loss of life in coal mines 
 
 of, 61 
 Uriek, A. L., bill defeated through ef- 
 forts of, 13; reference to, 131; mem- 
 ber of child labor committee, 135; 
 statement made by, 222 
 
 Ventilation, in mines, 46-49; in fac- 
 tories, 103-104 
 
 Vice principalship, doctrine of, 169; 
 tests of, 169-171 
 
 Wage legislation, need and purpose of, 
 7; various phases of, 7-17 
 
 Wages, early laws relative to exemp- 
 tion of, 2; time and mode of pay- 
 ment of, 12; laws relative to exemp- 
 tion of, from attachment, 12-15; 
 views on the subject of exemption 
 of, 13-15; assignment of, 15-17; laws 
 relative to, of minors and married 
 women, 17 
 
 Weeks, Elbert W., bill introduced by, 
 13, 14 
 
 Wennerstrum, C. F., inspection of fac- 
 tories by, 95-98, 105-106; report of, 
 relative to child labor, 115; need of 
 child labor law emphasized by, 121; 
 reference to, 122 
 
INDEX 
 
 283 
 
 Whipple, William P., 136 
 
 Wilson, Park C, Mine Inspector, 
 
 Winterbotham, John H., contract 
 
 convict labor made by, 19, 20 
 Wisconsin, child labor laws in, 112 
 Wisconsin Legislative Eeference 
 
 partment, 5 
 Women, married, lavp relative to wages 
 
 38 
 for 
 
 De- 
 
 of, 17; seats for, in factories and 
 stores, 101-103 
 
 Women 's Christian Temperance Union, 
 movement for child labor law sup- 
 ported by, 122 
 
 Wright, Robert M., bill introduced by, 
 15; bill defeated through efforts of, 
 73 
 
 y>^jsj!iX]Sr 
 
 liiitjJHfti 
 
 e 
 

 75m-7,'30 
 
214990 
 
 YD 061(5