moral character; the universal application of the ten commandments, in industry as well as in private lifethese are principles that apply everywhere, to the business and professional man alike; to the man who plans the work and pays for it, and to the man whose hands execute the plans and receive the pay.

We are human beings before we are founders or workmen. We are all responsible to a higher than human tribunal. No one of us can at last deceive or defeat eternal justice. And we do well to remember that, after all is said and done, in the final roundup, character is the only thing that counts. That we must strengthen and not weaken! The debt of strength is to help turn weakness into strength! Our salvation as a people lies not in increased dividends or larger wages, but in a new sense of personal honor and in a quickened conscience. Not in new-fashioned machinery, but in oldfashioned virtues, lies our salvation as a people!-virtues as old as humanity, as lasting as God!

MOTHER JONES

"Down With Female Terrorism!" Cries Facetious N. Y. Call

"After being deported from Trinidad, Colo., Mother Jones has returned to the assault and has been taken prisoner by a battalion of militiamen under the command of Gen. John Chase. The General, it is said, intends to hold her 'incommunicado'. During the five odd years of The Call's existence, we have printed news items like the above, a dozen times-perhaps more. We have lost count of them. And we are good and tired of it all. Tired of protesting against the 'outrage'. Mother Jones is getting monotonous. We shall protest no more. Maybe it isn't an outrage after all. Maybe it is time that Mother Jones was put a stop to, once and for all. It's simply preposterous that one old woman of 83 should be permitted to disorganize and defy the authority of the armed forces of the United States with impunity and make

them an object of public contempt and ridicule.

"Her very existence is an insult to the uniform and a reflection upon the honor of the army. And it is useless trying to hold her 'incommunicado'. It can't be done. She manages to make herself heard, notwithstanding. That awful old woman cannot be shut up, even when she is shut up, which is paradoxical, perhaps, but true. Now it's up to Gen. John Chase to put an end to this female terror once and for all. Why not give her what the hochgeborn Herr Lieutenant Von Forstner handed to the crippled cobbler of Zabern? He got away with it all. right. Mother Jones could be put out of business with perfect impunity in the same manner and the honor of the army be maintained. army be maintained. Of course, she deserves much worse-something lingering, with boiling oil or melted lead in it--but the sword will do the trick the easiest way."

Modest Wants

A story that has running through it a vein of humor, and which an exchange attributes to The American Federationist, is to the effect that in the old days of hand composition a printer from New York, known as "Pilgrim" Haslett, wandered into a Pennsylvania town and asked the editor of a weekly paper for a job.

"Well," said the editor, “I can put you to work, but I am afraid I cannot pay you much money.”

"Make me an offer," said Haslett.

"All right, I can give you two meals a day at my house, you can sleep in the office on this lounge, and I'll take care of your laundry. Then if you need tobacco, get it across the street at the grocery; they run an account with us, and up at the brewery you can get a can of beer whenever you like. Besides, I will pay you four dollars a week."

"Gosh!" exclaimed Haslett, after repeating the offer to get it straight in his mind, "if I get all that, what do I want with the four a week?"

Haslett must have been a non-union printer.

Through the courtesy of Mr. Herman Frederick Lee, its Secretary, we have received a copy of the following Bulletin of the American Anti-Boycott Association containing a review of recent cases of interest to employers:

My Dear Sir:-For the information of our members we herewith submit a brief resume of the leading cases of the past year:

CONNORS VS. CONNOLLY.

The foremost decision of 1913, under common law principles, is the case of Connors vs. Connolly, in which the Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut unanimously held that agreements between any large group of employers and the unions in any community or industry were illegal because monopolistic in character and unduly restricting the freedom of working men to pursue their trade. The opinion of the court is the most forcible and eloquent declaration of the principles of industrial liberty that has ever been made by any court in a case of this character. It will go down to posterity as one of the leading cases on this subject and will serve as a precedent to be utilized generally by lawyers and judges in other litigation. According to this decision any strike to unionize an entire industry in any community should be held illegal.

LOEWE VS. LAWLOR ("DANBURY
HATTERS' CASE").

In the course of the year this case has been decided by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion in which the three judges unanimously hold that the case was fairly tried and the judgment of over $252,

000 should stand. Several important principles of law were thus determined and particularly that holding the members of the Hatters' Union responsible for the activities of their officers and agents in carrying out the boycott with the knowledge and approval of the members. The defendants have now taken an appeal to the United States Supreme Court from this decision of the Court of Appeals, and if the Supreme Court should sustain the judgment no further steps could be taken which would further prolong the litigation or postpone the collection of the judgment. It is hoped that in the course of this litigation the courts will hold that the unions which employ officers to further their interests will be held to the same responsibilities for these agents as the employer is held for the acts of his agents.

CARPENTERS' CASES.

There are four decisions pending in New York City against the United Brotherhood of Carpenters on account of its boycott of open-shop woodwork by calling strikes on all buildings where such woodwork is being used. In the case of Albro J. Newton Company and the case of Louis Bossert & Sons, permanent injunctions are now outstanding after lengthy trials, and appeals by the union are now pending before the Appellate Court of New York State. In the case of Irving & Casson, which was brought in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, a permanent injunction and final judgment is now outstanding, and no appeal has as yet been taken by the union.

In the case of Paine Lumber Company, Gould Manufacturing Company, and others, the judge dismissed the case on the theory that the plaintiffs did not suffer peculiar damage different from the rest of the manufacturers of the country, but came to the conclusion, which was also sustained in the Irving & Casson case, that the combination in question violated the Sherman anti-trust law, the state antitrust law, the state penal law and the common law. The complainants in this case have, therefore, taken an appeal which has just been heard, and it is hoped that a decision will be received by the first of April.

AUBURN DRAYING COMPANY.

This company is engaged in delivering, carting and hauling merchandise from the railroad station and freight depots in Auburn to the various merchants of the city, and was called upon by the union to operate under a union agreement with its teamsters. The company stated its willingness to employ union men without discrimination, but refused to force its men to join the union by discharging them if they

failed to do so. The Central Labor Union thereupon instituted a boycott. against the company, which resulted in the issuance of numerous circulars to the merchants who were patrons. The bakers' union announced that its members would not bake with flour delivered by the Auburn Draying Company.

The meat cutters issued circulars that they would not cut meat so delivered by that company. Strikes of all trades were threatened on all buildings where the building materials buildings where the building materials

were so delivered and a final announce

ment was made that no merchandise of any kind would be handled or delivered by the employes of any of the retail merchants if that same merchan

dise had been delivered to these retail merchants by the Auburn Draying Company. The Supreme Court of New York issued a preliminary injunction accompanying it with an opinion in which it declared that the defendants were violating the criminal laws of New York State, and this injunc

tion has proved a salvation to the plaintiff.

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
MESSRS. GOMPERS, MITCHELL

AND MORRISON.

Our members will recall that the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia modified the jail sentences which were imposed upon these three respondents by the District Court, and reduced Mr. Gompers' sentence to thirty days in jail, and Mr. Mitchell's and Mr. Morrison's punishment to a fine. From this modified sentence the respondents' appeal, and the committee representing the District Court filed a cross appeal on the ground that the Court of Appeals had no power to modify the sentences. It is impossible to tell, even approximately, when the United States Supreme Court will render its decision on these two appeals.

MISCELLANEOUS CASES AND LEGAL

ADVICE.

The legal department of the Association has been more active in advistheir litigation than ever before, and ing our members and supervising

your counsel has rendered active and valuable service in a number of cases besides those specifically mentioned. Never before has the importance of a special agency to deal with matters of this kind been made more manifest than during the past year. It is important that members threatened with labor troubles, whether in connection with the operation of their plants or the marketing and installation of their products, should immediately confer with the Association's legal department, where they may receive advice best calculated to guide them through the difficulty and preserve their legal remedies. This valuable service is available to you at all times on all questions of this character arising in the conduct of your business and results most satisfactory to many of our members have come from such conferences without the delay or expense of protracted litigation.

Respectfully submitted, CHARLES H. MERRITT, Chairman.

CONSPIRACY

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Southern District of New York.

CHARLES R. IRVING and ROBERT CASSON, co-partners doing business under the firm name and style of IRVING & CASSON, Plaintiffs,

against EDWARD H. NEAL, individually and as Secretary of the Joint District Council, and others,

Defendants.

Walter Gordon Merritt, for Complainant.

Charles Maitland Beattie (William) P. Maloney, of counsel) for Defend

ants.

STATEMENT OF CASE.

Ward, J.:

On April 30, 1910, this suit was brought by the complainants, citizens of Massachusetts, against the Joint District Council of New York and vicinity, of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of America, which Joint Council is a voluntary unincorporated association, and also against certain individuals who were members of the United Brotherhood, and all of whom were either officers of the Joint District Council or of the United Brotherhood. Jurisdiction depends. upon citizenship.

The bill has been dismissed against the Joint District Council, because it is a voluntary association, and not a citizen of any state, but sustained

against the other defendants connected with the Joint District Council, because they are citizens of New York, and against the two remaining individual defendants, officers of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, who, although citizens of Indiana, have voluntarily appeared, 180 F. R. 896.

The bill alleges that the United Brotherhood is an unincorporated association, having affiliated with it over 1,900 local unions, composed of carpenters and joiners, aggregating some 170,000 members in the United States; that there are seventy of these local unions within the limits of the city of Greater New York, which, with certain branches of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of America, have formed the Joint District Council of New York City and vicinity, composed of delegates from the local unions and branches aforesaid; that this Joint District Council. has power under the rules of the United Brotherhood, to adopt regulations concerning strikes and the use of any material which it declares "unfair"; that it has made rules giving the business agents authority to call strikes, and has provided a penalty of $10 against any member who works on trim-that is. woodwork "unfair" made in a non-union shop.

The bill then alleges that the complainants carry on an open shop for manufacturing fine interior woodwork or trim, in Massachusetts, and that the United Brotherhood, the Joint District Council and the other defendants have entered into a combination to destroy their business and to prevent them from selling or installing

their trim outside of Massachusetts until they operate their mill in Massachusetts as a closed or union shop; that, in pursuance of such conspiracy, the defendants have, among other things, put the complainants on "unfair" lists, distributed to builders, architects and owners, and have omitted their names from lists of "fair" shops circulated in the same manner, together with a letter saying that the employment of these shops will avoid labor troubles; have written letters to builders, architects and owners asking them not to contract with the complainants, because they are an "unfair" concern; have threatened and called strikes of various trades working upon buildings where the complainants' trim was being installed.

The defendants in their amended answer admit that the members of the United Brotherhood have bound themselves to work only on union trim, and that those represented by the Joint District Council are subject to a fine of $10 if they knowingly do so. The particular case of a sympathetic strike threatened by the defendant the defendant Blumenberg, a business agent of the Joint District Council at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in this city, resulted in the issuance of a restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting the individual defendants, both individually and officially, from interfering with the complainant's business. The case now comes up on final hearing.

OPINION.

The defendants make a preliminary objection that the bill must be dismissed because the cause has been conducted at the expense of the American Anti-Boycott Association, and by lawyers paid by it in violation of Section 280 of the penal law. Assuming that this section applies, I do not think that the complainant's cause of action. is affected in any way. If the AntiBoycott Association were the owner of the claim, relief might be denied it, Matter of Bensel, 68 Misc., 70. But the only connection the Association has with the claim is to prosecute it for the benefit of the complainants at

its own expense. Exactly the same thing is being done for the defendants by the United Brotherhood and Joint District Council. The attorneys who conduct the case on behalf of the complainants are qualified to practice at the bar of the Court, so that such cases as Kaplan vs. Berman, 37 Misc.. 502, do not apply.

I find that the allegation of the bill as to particular instances in which the purpose of the combination was carried out or sought to be carried out against the complainants are true as matter of fact.

The defendants contend that even if this be so, the bill should be dismissed as without equity against them because they have not individually published "unfair" lists or called or threatened sympathetic strikes and further because no "unfair" lists have been published or sympathetic strikes called for the past two years. They are. however, members of the United Brotherhood and of the local unions represented by the Joint District Council and are officers either of the Brotherhood or Council. Several of them did actually take part in some of the particular instances stated in the bill.

At all events, if the thing principally complained of, viz., an agreement not to work on non-union trim enforcible by fine is unlawful, they are liable for anything done to carry it out, even though they did not individually participate. The agreement is a part of the organic law of the associations of which they are members and officers and of course they cannot say that they are ignorant of it or do not participate. The admissions of their answer are to the contrary. I think this proposition consistent with the opinion of the Circuit Court of Ap peals for this circuit in Lawlor vs. Loewe, 187 F. R., 522. Loewe, 187 F. R., 522. So also, assuming that the acts complained of in the bill or some of them, have been discontinued, further commission of them may be properly enjoined if they are unlawful.

There can be no question, first, that a combination does exist between the various local unions which constitute the United Brotherhood; second, that