A member in receipt of strike or sick benefits shall not be entitled to the out-of-work relief while such strike or sickness continues, but shall pay his dues out of these benefits received. Any member, however, who has drawn 13 weeks' continuous sick

benefits shall, if he continues sick, be entitled to this out-of-work benefit for a period of 13 weeks thereafter, less the number of weeks out-of-work benefits he has already drawn within a year. -Carriage and Wagon Workers Journal, October, 1905.

Strike as Excuse for Delay. The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, in the case of Sterling v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain, & Southern Railway Co., 86 S. W. 655, held that a carrier is liable for injury to cattle by delay in transit where the delay is caused by interference of strikers in the movement of trains only when it fails to exercise reasonable diligence to expedite the shipment.

Injunction - Boycott. The Court of Appeals of Maryland held in the case of My Maryland Lodge No. 186 of Machinists et al. v. Adt, 100 Md. 238, that the right of an individual to carry on his business in such a manner as he sees fit will be protected by injunction restraining parties from combining to boycott such individual and from distributing cir culars threatening those of the public who deal with him with the ill-will of organized labor.

Discharge of Employee. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held in the case of Holder v. Mfg. Co., 138 N. C. 308, that an action against the defendant for procuring plaintiff's employer to discharge him, plaintiff cannot recover where his contract was only to work by the day; that the fact that defendant company and plaintiff's employer had the same officers does not make the defendant liable for acts done by its officers in the discharge of their duties towards the other company, though they act in that respect by reason of information derived in the discharge of similar duties as officers of such company.

Trade Union Coercion-Right to Work. The United States Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal from the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in the case of Berry v. Donovan.* Donovan, the business agent of the Boot and Shoe Workers Union, induced Berry's employers to dismiss him because he refused to join the union. Berry brought suit, and secured a verdict of $1,500 against Donovan in the Massachu setts courts. The decision by the United States Supreme Court establishes the liability of union officers for injury to a non-union employee where he is deprived of work because of non-membership in the union.

Master and Servant - Factory Laws. In the recent case of Chambers v. Wampanoag Mills, 75 N. E. 1093, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massa. chusetts held that the failure of a master to promul gate a system of inspection in its mills is evidence of negligence, in case of injury to a servant through want of inspection; that a servant does not assume the risk of negligence on the part of the master în the furnishing of instrumentalities for doing the

work; that whether a weaver employed to run looms, who was injured by being struck in the eye by a shuttle which flew upwards from one of the looms, assumed the risk or was guilty of contributory negligence, was held, under the evidence a question for the jury.

Conspiracy. The Supreme Court of North Caro lina held in the case of State v. Van Pelt, 136 N. C. 633, that an indictment charging that certain persons notified the prosecutor that he would not be considered in sympathy with organized labor if he employed others than union men, nor if he retained non-union men with whom he had already contracted a year in advance, and upon refusal of prosecutor to discharge the non-union men and not to agree to employ only union men, a notice was made in a newspaper that at a meeting of carpenters and joiners the attitude of the prosecutor was declared unfair toward organized labor and so listed, and that no union carpenter would work on any material from the shop of the prosecutor after a given date, does not constitute a conspiracy.

Employer's Liability - Mines

Violation of Stat

ute. The Supreme Court of Illinois held in the case of Kellyville Coal Co. v. Strine, 75 N. E. 375, that under Laws 1899, pp. 315, 317, §§ 16, 18, requiring mines to be examined and dangerous working places to be marked, so as to notify men to keep out, and further requiring mine managers to provide a sufficient supply of props and timbers to secure the roof of the mine, a miner's contributory negligence in going into a room which he knows to be dangerous is no defence to an action by him for injuries, based on the mine owner's failure to comply with the statute. That under § 33, p. 324, giving a right of action for injuries caused by any wilful violation of the provisions of the act, any conscious violation of the statute is a "willful" violation, although not accompanied by an evil intent.

Factories and Shops Acts- Weekly Half-holiday. The Supreme Court of Victoria held in the recent case of In re Hooker, 1905, V. L. R. 680, that there is no power under the Factories and Shops Acts to make a regulation prescribing and enforcing the observance of a weekly half-holiday by the keepers of shops of the classes mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to the Factories and Shops Act 1890 (No. 1091). [Fourth schedule includes chemists' shops, coffee-houses, confectioners, eating-houses, fish and oyster shops, fruit and vegetable shops, restaurants, tobacconists' shops, booksellers' and news agents' shops.] In Chief Justice Madden's decision the history of "early closing" and "weekly half-holiday" legislation is traced and discussed.

Discharge of Servant for Disobedience. In the recent case of Costet v. Jeantet et al., 95 N. Y. Supp. 638, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, held that where a contract of employment required the servant, when not traveling, to be at the employer's store and assist therein, it was not a good defence to an action for unlawful discharge that the servant disobeyed orders to attend the store at 8 o'clock in the morning, and refused to attend at that hour, or earlier than 9 o'clock. Judge Patterson in rendering his decision said in part: "Where an order is given to an employee, and he disobeys it, his employer having an undoubted right to direct the times and manner in which service shall be performed, provided there is no specific agreement with relation thereto, the right of the employer to discharge for such disobedience follows necessarily. If this were not so... the position of employer and employee would be reversed. The defendants had the right to control their own business and to give proper directions to their employees with respect to the time of their attendance. Where a servant defies the proper direction of the master, he sets to his fel. low servants an example of insubordination that may seriously affect that master's business."

Employer's Liability — Assumption of Risk. In the recent case of Manning v. Excelsior Laundry Co., 75 N. E. 254, before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, it appeared that plaintiff, a young girl, while at work on a laundry mangle, was injured by having her hand drawn between a roller and a hot cylinder as she was removing from the roller one of the pieces which had caught thereon. There was nothing to show she understood or appreciated how fast the machine was revolving. She had seen others remove pieces from the roller in a similar manner while the mangle was in operation, and had received no instruction or warning as to the danger. The Court held that she did not assume the risk of such injury as a matter of law. Justice Morton, delivering the opinion, said in part: "An employer cannot stand by, we think, and see persons in his employ doing things in the course of their employment for his benefit which may result in injury to them if they are not properly warned or instructed, and escape liability on the ground that they had not been told to do what they were doing. By allowing the things to be done without objection, he must be held to have assented to the construction thus given in effect by his employees to the scope of their duties."

Constitutional Law - Free Speech - InjunctionBoycott. In the recent case of Jordahl v. Hayda et al., 82 Pac. 1079, the California Court of Appeal, Third District, held (1) that the constitutional guaranty of free speech does not authorize mem. bers of a labor union by threats, intimidation, etc., to induce prospective patrons of a place of business to refrain from patronizing same; the proprietor being also guaranteed the right by the same instrument to acquire, possess, and protect property, and to possess and obtain safety and happiness; (2) that in an action to restrain members of a labor union from boycotting and picketing plaintiff's restaurant, findings that defendants had been guilty of acts of intimidation in threatening prospective customers of the restaurant, and had interfered with them, driven them away, or prevented

them from patronizing plaintiff, were sustained by evidence of conversations, etc., had by defendants with such customers, without evidence that defendants had exercised physical force or actual violence toward such customers, etc.; (3) that a decree enjoining defendants from stationing themselves in a doorway of plaintiff's restaurant or on the sidewalk in front thereof, and from interfering with plaintiff's business by intimidation, insults, or threats to his patrons, thereby inducing persons not to patronize plaintiff, and especially enjoining defendants from in any manner interfering with plaintiff's business by means of threats or intimi. dation of any kind or nature directed against plaintiff's patrons, and from interfering by means of threats and intimidation with any person that may be working for plaintiff or may desire to work for him, was not objectionable for indefiniteness and uncertainty as to the acts defendants were enjoined from performing.

--

Boycott Conspiracy. In the recent case of Purington et al. v. Hinchliff, 76 N. E. 47, which was appealed from the Appellate Court, First District of Illinois, to the Supreme Court of Illinois, the judgment of the lower Court was affirmed. It ap peared that an agreement was made between the Masons' and Builders' and the Brick Manufac turers' Associations of Chicago, that members of the former would buy brick only from members of the latter association, and that members of the manufacturers' association would give to members of the Masons' and Builders' Association a trade discount of one dollar a thousand brick; that on all brick sold to purchasers outside the latter associa tion, the manufacturers would pay into their treas ury one dollar a thousand and the fund thus created would be divided semi-annually between the two associations. Hinchliff was the principal competitor of the members of the Brick Manufacturers' Association in Cook County, was at one time a member of the masons' and builders' organization and had made efforts to join the manufacturers' association without success. These associations together with the Bricklayers' Union employed men to see that rules formulative to make the agreement between them effective were observed. Evidence showed that Hinchliff's business was interfered with and injured by their men. The Court held that no person or combination of persons can legally, by direct or indirect means, obstruct or interfere with another in the conduct of his lawful business, and any loss wilfully caused by such interference will give the party injured a right of action for all damages sustained; that all parties to a conspiracy to ruin the business of another because of his refusal to do some act against his will or judgment are liable for all overt acts illegally done pursuant to such conspiracy and for the subsequent loss, whether they were active participants or not; that an agreement not to use, purchase, or lay bricks made by any person who does not subscribe to the rules of a builders' association, made for the purpose of injuring the bustness of such person, is illegal, and the parties thereto are liable for acts done in pursuance thereof and to the damage of the injured person.

Injunction Proceedings for Contempt. In the recent case of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Gee et al., 140 Fed. 153,* it appeared that in

May, 1904, a lockout was ordered at the shops of the railway company at Ft. Madison, Ia., because employees were about to enter upon a strike. Violence followed; the business of the company was interfered with and its property injured. A restraining order was issued commanding defendants and all former employees to absolutely desist from interference, whether by assault, physical violence, or intimidation, or abusive language, such as would put new employees in mental fear. The United States Circuit Court, Southern District Iowa, E. D., held that defendants were guilty of contempt of court in wilfully and persistently violating an injunction restraining them from intimidating or interfering with employees of complainant. Judge McPherson in rendering his decision said in part: "Employees of any corporation can strike singly, collectively, or as a union at any time, whether they have good reason for doing so or not. . . . The company can discharge their men with or without reason at any time the company so elects. . . . Laboring men have a perfect right to organize themselves into unions, and have their offices, and meet in secret, and attempt thereby to better their conditions by shortening hours or increasing their wages. but when men are out by reason of a 'lockout' or by reason of a strike, the places once occupied by them are no longer their places. The

...

company, then, has the right to employ whomsoever it pleases, upon such terms as it may agree upon with the new men, and it has a perfect right to employ men who do not belong to the union, as well as to employ men who do belong to the union. This country recognizes no legal difference between men who belong to organizations, or lodges, or churches, and men who belong to neither. This is a free country and must be kept so, and every man, whether he belongs to any organization, church, or lodge, or does not, has the right to work for whomsoever he pleases, upon such terms as may be agreed upon, and such men must be and will be protected. A man is not a scab who engages in honest employment, seeking to live an upright life and earn a livelihood for his family, school his children, and conduct himself as a decent citizen; and such use of such epithets becomes tiresome to decent people.... Three of these defendants, at least, have been contemptuous in the very extreme ever since the restraining order was issued more than a year ago.... At the hearing last Spring the term 'picketing' was used by all the witnesses and by the accused hundreds and hundreds of times. Now it is not called 'picketing,' but the same acts of intimidation and opprobrious epithets are called ' reporting,' the pretence being that their acts could be justified by changing the name."

Repeal of Law Licensing Barbers,

Kansas.

Chapter 70 of the Session Laws of 1905 of the State of Kansas relates to the practice of the barber profession. It repeals certain sections of Chapter 70 of the Session Laws of 1903 which regulated the practice of barbers and provided for the licensing of members of the profession.

Building Trades – New York, 1906. The Bureau was favored with the following statement, on Feb. 24, 1906, in response to its commu. nication to the Secretary of the Building Trades Employers' Association of New York City:

"New agreements have been made in all the building trades except the Plumbers, Pipe Coverers and the Mosaic Workers, the agreements continuing for periods from one to three years. One of the first objects of the Association was to make the various trade agreements expire on January 1 instead of May 1, as formerly, so that wages might be settled and conditions as stable as possible before the opening up of Spring work. This object has now been accomplished and all the trade agreements expire on the first of the year.

In reference to the outlook for the coming year, the members of the Association are generally confident that labor conditions will be satisfactory and that there will be a large amount of building. The one cloud on the situation at the present time is in the iron trade, where the Housesmiths' Union has been on strike since January 1 for an increase of

wages from $4.50 to $5 a day, which demand has been refused. The places of the strikers have been very largely filled, however, and the iron work is proceeding satisfactorily without the recognition of any union, and with a general intention on the part of our iron contractors not to again enter into an agreement with any union of housesmiths or to ever again recognize a union on their work."

The Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, New York.

The Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank was an outgrowth of the Irish Industrial Emigrant Society, organized in 1841 for the purpose of aiding and protecting Irish immigrants. The society was incorporated in 1844. It maintains a free labor bureau at the Barge Office and affords the immigrant the opportunity of buying drafts payable in all parts of Ireland. The society has always maintained representatives at the immigrant stations for the protection of newly arrived Irishmen.

The savings bank was organized in 1850. Most of the trustees of the emigrant society are also trustees of the bank, so the interest of the two institutions are to a large extent identical.

Mr. Mulry, the new president, has been identified with the charitable work of the city for over twenty-five years. He is president of the Superior Council of the Society of St Vincent de Paul, a member of the Central Council of the Charity Organization Society, and first vice-president of the National Conference of Charities and Correction.

He is also a member of the governing boards of the New York Catholic Protectory, the Mission of the Immaculate Virgin, and one of the State hospi tals for the insane. - Charities and the Commons, Feb. 17, 1906.

Child Labor — National Movement.

The question of child labor was brought before the 59th Congress of the United States in the form of two resolutions, which follow, the first submitted by Mr. Augustus P. Gardner of Massachu setts, and the second by Mr. William S. McNary.

1. Resolved, That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor be, and he is hereby, requested to investigate and report on the condition of child labor under fourteen years wherever employed and to furnish to the House of Representatives a complete statement as to the various State laws regulating child labor and the effectiveness of their enforcement.

2. Resolved, That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to inquire into the conditions surrounding the employment of child labor in the United States; the ages at which children are employed in factories, workshops, and mercantile establishments; the duration of a day's labor; whether or not age and schooling certificates are filed with the employers of children, and to make an early report of his find. ings to this House, together with all statistics and data that may be available regarding the character of such employment of children and the wages paid to children.

Proposed Child Labor Law for Georgia. To be entitled an Act to regulate the employment of children in factories and manufacturing estab lishments in this State and to provide for the punishment of violations of the regulations prescribed.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Georgia, and it is hereby enacted by authority of the same, That no child under the age of twelve (12) years shall be employed at labor in or about any factory or manufacturing establishment within this State, unless a widowed mother or aged or disabled father is dependent upon the labor of such child, or in case a child is an orphan and has no other means of support.

No child under the age of ten (10) years shall be so employed under any circumstances.

Sec. 2. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That it shall be unlawful for any owner, superintendent, or other person acting in behalf of a factory or manufacturing establishment to hire or to employ any such child unless there is first provided and placed on file in the oflice of such an employer an affidavit signed by the parent or guardian or person standing in parental relation thereto, certifying to the age and date of birth of said child. Any person knowingly furnishing a false certificate of the age of such child shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

Sec. 3. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no child under fourteen years of age shall be employed or labor in any factory or manufacturing establishment within this State between the hours of seven P.M. and six A.M.

Sec. 4. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the first of September, 1907, no child under fourteen (14) years of age shall be employed at labor in any factory or manufacturing establishment in this State unless

he or she can write his or her name and simple sentences in the English language.

Sec. 5. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That any person, corporation or representative of such corporation, who violates any of the provisions of this Act or who suffers and permits any child to be employed in violation of its provisions, shall be deemed guilty of a misde.

meanor.

Sec. 6. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all Acts and parts of Acts in conflict with this Act are hereby repealed.

AMENDMENT.

Amend by inserting the word "totally" in the first section before the word "dependent," so that the first section, when amended, shall read:

"Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Georgia, and it is hereby enacted by authority of the same, that no child under the age of twelve (12) years shall be employed at labor in or about any factory or manufacturing establishment within this State, unless a widowed mother or aged or disabled father is totally dependent upon the labor of such child, or in case a child is an orphan and has no other means of support."

Proposed Child Labor Law for Maryland.* A bill relating to child labor and factory regula tions, and providing for a sliding scale up to January 1, 1908, was prepared and introduced in the House of Delegates, Maryland, by Frederick T. Dorton. On February 19, the bill was in the hands of the Judiciary Committee. It is stated that the glass house people and the cotton duck industries are opposing the bill, as well as those persons in the canning industries, it being alleged that in the canning industry children are employed as young as seven years.

The bill provides for the amendment of Section 4 of Article 100 of the Code of Public General Laws of Maryland, so as to forbid the employment under any conditions, after July 1, 1906, of any child under 12 years of age in any mill, factory, workshop, office, restaurant, hotel, apartment house, store, telephone or telegraph office, or other estab lishment or business. It also provides for the addition of nine new sections to the article.

The following are the important provisions of these additional sections: Every person or corporation employing any child between the ages of 12 and 16 years must keep on file and accessible to the proper authorities an employment permit for every such child employed and a complete list of all such children employed; and in factories, workshops, mills, or messenger service a duplicate list must be conspicuously posted. The employment permits, for employments in Baltimore, are to be issued by the Maryland Bureau of Statistics and Information; and in other localities by health officers of the counties or cities. Every permit must contain proper evidence of the age of the child; also a description of the child, giving name, height, complexion, and color of eyes and hair; together with a certificate of ability to read and write simple English and of physical fitness for the employment proposed. Any person authorized to sign an employment permit who knowingly certifies to any false statement therein shall be fined not more than $50. The certificate is to be the property of the child for whom it is made; and, if not claimed by the child upon leaving the employment designated,

must be returned to the issuer, the penalty for violation of this provision being a fine of $10. A duplicate of each employment permit must be kept on file by the issuer. Fines for violations of this Act are fixed at not less than $5 nor more than $50 for the original offence and a like sum for each day that unlawful employment continues after the employer has been notified by the proper authorities. Failure to produce to an inspector or an attendance officer of the public schools any employment permit or list shall be prima facie evidence of illegal employment of any child for whom such permit or list is not produced. The Governor of the State is authorized to appoint six inspectors to carry out the provisions of the Act. They are to work under the Chief of the Maryland Bureau of Statistics and Information whose duty it shall be to see that the provisions of this Act are enforced. On and after January 1, 1907, the minimum age for children em. ployed under this Act shall be raised to 13 years, and on January 1, 1908, to 14 years. The Act does not include farm labor. The inspectors under the Act are to receive $900 each yearly, exclusive of traveling and other necessary expenses; and a yearly appropriation of $8,000 is provided to carry out the provisions of the Act.

National Metal Trades Association –
Amalgamation.

In February, the Bureau wrote the Secretary of the National Metal Trades Association for information in regard to the amalgamation of the Local Associations with the National. The reply to our communication is summarized below.

"The amalgamation or merger of the Local Metal Trades Association with the National Metal Trades Association you refer to is the result of a belief on the part of our Administrative Council that the interest of our members could best be preserved by the amalgamation or merging of the various unaffiliated Local Metal Trades Associations with us. As soon as all Local Metal Trades Associations in existence or about to be created are merged with us, then the position of the National Metal Trades Association, as far as regards the handling of any unjust demands on any of our members by labor organizations, will be practically invulnerable. We have merged with us up to this time the Local Metal Trades Associations in the following cities: St. Louis, Mo. Boston, Mass. Cincinnati, O.

Chicago, Ill.
Buffalo, N. Y.

New York, N. Y.

These will hereafter be known as branches of the National Metal Trades Association.

In addition to the above, we are at the present time making arrangements to merge with us the Local Metal Trades Associations in the cities of Cleveland and Philadelphia.

It will no doubt interest you to know that ex. perience has demonstrated to the officials in charge of the above mentioned Branch Associations that by reason of their having merged with us they have demonstrated to their members the three following vitally interesting results:

1. An increase of their membership. 2. A decrease of their operating expense. 3. The practice of greater caution on the part of the Local Business Agent.

In conclusion I will add that I am confident that the day will come when the members of the National Metal Trades Association will be immune from

strikes by reason of the very existence of, and their membership in, the National Metal Trades

Association."

The Platform of the National Metal

Trades Association.

1. We recognize that the interests of both employer and employee should be properly protected, and that these interests must at all times rest on the fact that employer and employee are both interested in the results of the work in which they are engaged.

2. We recognize that any restriction of the enter prise of the employer or the energy of the employees, resulting in depreciation of the quality or quantity of product, is detrimental to the mutual interest of both.

3. We recognize the justice of the recommendation made by the Coal Strike Commission appointed by President Roosevelt, "That no person shall be refused employment, or in any way discriminated against, on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor organization; and that there shall be no discrimination against, or interference with, any employee who is not a member of any labor organization by members of such organization."

4. We recognize that there should be no restriction to the opportunities that may be offered to deserving boys to acquire a trade, and that employers and employees should join in their efforts to instruct such apprentices, provided they be employed under written contracts for a specific time of service.

5. We recognize that sympathetic strikes, lockouts and boycotts are relics of barbarism, because they result in no permanent benefit to either side of a contest, and inflict unjust and unfair injury on the public, who depend on our joint efforts for their comfort and welfare.

6. We recognize that as the realization of mutual benefits represented in profits and earnings from our joint labors depends largely on the employer finding a suitable market for the product, he can best determine the methods of work, the selection of employees, and the character of work to be performed by each. - Open Shop, March, 1906. Recreation for Panama Canal Employees. The committee appointed by the Isthmian Canal Commission to visit the Canal Zone and recommend ways and means for the recreation of employees engaged in the actual work of construction recommends the establishment of club-houses, athletic fields, Sunday excursions, sea bathing, and Saturday half-holidays.

The committee considered the building of club. houses at suitable points along the entire route of the greatest importance. These would be of three classes: Class A, designed for recreation of army officers, engineers, architects, and employees who are graduates of colleges or technical schools, or who have received such a measure of higher or professional education as would cause them to be of common tastes and sympathies; Class B, for skilled workmen, and Class C for unskilled laborers. Club-houses would include in their features swimming-pool and shower baths, reading and writing rooms, bowling alleys, billiard and pool room, buffet, card room, and social hall.

Club-houses for Class A and Class B should be erected at once at points along the route where there is or will be a considerable concentration of those classes of employees. Class C houses should be erected wherever the work of construction is