of fact going to the extent of his injuries or as to the existence of relationship of employer and employee at the time of the accident, must be determined in an action at law against the commission. Many cases arise in which disputes between litigants are based simply upon a difference of contention as to a matter of law. Our statutes provide for a simple method of submission of such controversies to the district courts. In the administration of the important duties imposed upon the Nevada Industrial Commission, that commission will doubtless often be required, as it interprets its duty, to reject claims in whole or in part, and both upon questions of fact and law. If a claim is finally rejected in toto, that is the end of it so far as the commission is concerned, unless a judgment is obtained against the commission in a court of competent jurisdiction, in which event the judgment will have the force of an allowed claim. Should the commission refuse to pay such final judgment, mandamus would be an appropriate remedy. It was never intended that this court, through the agency of some extraordinary writ, should be made the instrument for furnishing legal advice to boards, commissions, and officers. Petitioner has or has not a legal claim against the respondent commission. A district court is the proper forum to determine the legality of his claim, and, if a legal claim, the amount he is entitled to recover under the statute. If, after a judgment in the district court, either party is dissatisfied with such judgment, the remedy of appeal to this court is available. PART V. MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION OF LABOR DISPUTES IN NEVADA AUTHORITY FOR MEDIATION Of all work performed by the Labor Commissioner, as a result of duties imposed by law, or otherwise, the services of mediation and conciliation in labor disputes may reasonably be regarded as the most important. The duty of acting as mediator is not directly conferred by the organic act which creates the Labor Commission, but authority of conducting such work is delegated by the Governor under the provisions of Section 1929, Revised Laws, which read: Whenever a controversy concerning wages, hours of labor, or conditions of employment, shall arise between an employer and his employees, seriously interrupting or threatening to interrupt the business of the employer, the Governor shall, upon request of either party to the controversy, with all practical expedition, put himself in communication with the parties to such controversy, and shall use his best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to amicably settle the same. He may either exercise such powers of conciliation himself or appoint a commissioner for that purpose. During the past year the services of the Labor Commissioner have been utilized in the work of mediation and conciliation in all of the cases arising within the State. Cooperation and assistance has been extended in particular cases by the Governor and the federal commissioners of conciliation, but in the major portion of the cases the Labor Commissioner has acted alone under authority from the Governor. Peaceful Adjustments Desired by Capital and Labor The anxiety of the State and Federal Governments, particularly during the period of the war, for a full production from every industry, has caused many representatives of both employers and employees in their manifestations of patriotism to accept the services of a mediator and modify the time worn policies and prejudices which they have clung to for many years. In nearly every instance this broadminded action has resulted in paving the way for more friendly relations and a broader view of their respective rights. Employers have discovered that governmental activity does not necessarily mean expert assistance to the workers, but rather that it acts as a preventative for radical action and a defense against unreasonable demands; on the other hand, labor has found that the processes of mediation deprives them of no inherent rights, but enables them to conduct negotiations much further than under ordinary circumstances, and ofttimes results in a better understanding and a greater consideration by the employer for the human rights of employees. In short, both sides have something to gain. There has been an unconscious realization, or at least an unspoken realization, for many years that strikes and lockouts should be avoided, but it seems to have taken the terrors of a great war to make capital and labor see at the same time the need of a tribunal of final resort. Under |