on which gives the Court a
power which might enable it to deal with the question of irregularity of
industrial activity. It is new in the history of industrial regulation
in this country. It provides that the establishments covered by the act
"shall be operated with reasonable continuity and efficiency in order
that the people of this state may live in peace and security and be
supplied with the necessaries of life"; it makes it unlawful for any
establishment "wilfully to limit or cease operations for the purpose of
limiting production or transportation or to affect prices for the
purpose of avoiding any of the provisions of the act."[156] It further
provides that such industries as are affected by changes in seasons,
market conditions or other conditions inherent in the business may apply
to the Court for an order fixing rules and practices to govern its
operations.

This provision may mean a great deal or very little, according as the
Court and the higher courts interpret the idea of "reasonable
continuity." If it is taken to mean simply that the enterprises covered
by the act should not limit production in accordance with some agreement
with each other in order to increase profits, or to fight the unions, it
will have little or no importance as regards the question of security of
employment. And that is probably the interpretation that will be given
to it. It will be hardly possible to work out a plan for regularity of
operation by mandate of a court, and under penalty. Such rules and
practices as the Court may lay down will probably take cognizance of the
laws of the market which ordinarily govern business operations. To rule
otherwise would mean embarking upon a comprehensive reform of business
operations; it would necessitate the development of some other gauge of
business operation than business profits.

Only one case which has come before the Court has brought up this
question of continuity of operation. The Court investigated a complaint
that the flour mills at Topeka were reducing production. It found that
the mills were running at sixty per cent. capacity; and that the cause
of this reduced operation was a falling off in the flour market, due to
world-wide economic changes beyond the control of the industry and the
Court. The Court found this limitation of production not unreasonable.
It gave no sign of making any radical use of its powers to control the
regularity of production, nor of interfering with the