ly injured by stones. The strikers attacked and stoned trolley cars in the suburbs, injuring a number of people who were hit by stones and flying glass. The mob even went so far as to stone the ambulance that arrived to carry away some of their own number who had been wounded by the police in suppressing the riot. June 13, a mob of two thousand men attacked the American Smelting & Refining Co., set fire to a trolley car waiting room, stoned some firemen, stopped a freight train, attacked two other trolley cars, burned down another building, owned by the trolley company and tried to set fire to a third. On the next day, June 14, a mob of two thousand tried to storm the company's plant again, but were held back by fifty deputy sheriffs. The net result of the day's rioting was three killed and seven injured. One of the dead was a man at work and another the night watchman at the Perth Amboy Tobacco Co.'s plant. Sheriff Bollschweiler was injured, being hit by stones. The others injured were all strikers. All sorts of threats to destroy property and blow up industrial works were made.

While all this was going on, the Industrial Workers of the World were insisting upon a general tie up of all factories in that section of New Jersèy.

In the Boston elevated street car strike, on June 8, cars were stoned and a crowd of one thousand held up a trolley car at Cambridge, dragged the motorman and conductor off the car and tried to overturn the car.

In Chicago, June 8, one man was killed and another, it was thought, fatally injured, in clashes between. union and non-union freight handlers. In arresting Frank Deluca, a striker charged with killing William Weisberger, the police were obliged to chop down the door of his house.

Three hundred striking operatives of the Russell Mfg. Co. clashed with police and deputies near Middletown, Conn., June 7. Women fought the police with finger nails and teeth, while showers of stones, bricks and other missiles were thrown by the men. The Industrial Workers of the

World was back of this strike. The strikers were trying to stop others from going into the mills.

In New York, June 10, in connection with the New York hotel strike, striking waiters tried to break up a banquet at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in honor of visiting German naval officers. The police kept perfect control of the mob and made many arrests. A large crowd of strikers attacked four policemen.

June 19, in Cleveland, O., patrolman Edward Parker was shot and killed in a strike riot at the East Twenty-sixth street Cleveland & Pittsburg railroad crossing. Twelve rioters were arrested, among whom the police thought was the murderer. The strike was among construction laborers on the railroad. Parker left a widow and a little daughter, three years old, who was devoted to her father.

Members of the Industrial Workers of the World, at Los Angeles, incensed at sentences imposed by Judge Willborn on Mexican socialist leaders for violation of the neutrality laws, engaged in a wild riot, June 24, around the federal building. Sixteen men and five women were arrested.

An ugly strike of 600 union miners. was started at St. Clairsville, O., June 24, over the dismissal of four men. Violence was feared.

DARROW ON TRIAL Chicago Labor Attorney Faces Bribery

Charge in Los Angeles

Sensational testimony was given in Los Angeles in June by S. L. Browne, head of the Los Angeles county detectives, who related an alleged conversation between Darrow and himself on the morning after the capture of Bert H. Franklin, Darrow's chief detective.

Darrow, the Chicago lawyer, who defended the McNamaras on the murder charge involved in the blowing up of the Los Angeles Times building, up to the time they pleaded guilty, is now on trial himself charged with an attempted bribery.

Detective Browne testified as fol

lows:

Darrow: "My God, Browne, what does all this mean?"

Browne: "Bribery."

Darrow: "Isn't there anything that can be done?"

Browne: "You will have to see the district attorney."

Darrow: "If I had known it was to happen this way, I would never have allowed it to be done."

Browne: "It is what you get from employing a man like Franklin; you ought to have had better sense."

Darrow: "He came highly recommended by United States DistrictAttorney McCormick. You do the best you can for us and I'll take care of you."

Darrow's trial is proving to be a long-drawn-out affair. Work of starting to empanel a jury in Los Angeles began weeks ago and testimony against Darrow was still being given late in June. Darrow is on trial on the specific charge of trying to bribe a McNamara juror named George N. Lockwood.

The evidence at the trial indicated that juror Lockwood co-operated with the district attorney to prevent the commission

of bribery, receiving Browne at his home, letting him hide. his detectives on the premises and affording facilities so the state could become advised of what Franklin said.

Quite early in the taking of testimony a check was introduced in evidence for $10,000. It was from the proceeds of this check, the state charges, that $4,000 was used in the Lockwood bribery case. The check was drawn by Frank Morrison, secretary of the American Federation of Labor, on the Riggs national bank of Washington, D. C., and was endorsed by Darrow and also by Olaf A. Tveitmoe, secretary of the California state building trades council, as treasurer of the council's defense fund. The check was returned to Washington through a San Francisco bank. The prosecu

tion contends that this check was sent by Darrow to Tveitmoe in San Francisco to be converted into currency for Darrow for use in jury bribing. Checks from Morrison to Darrow, aggregating $207,000 in all, were shown. The last, one for $10,000, was cancelled by Morrison, upon the confession being made public, the prosecution believes.

George Behm, Portage, Wis., uncle of Ortie McManigal, testified that Darrow had brought him to Los Angeles to get McManigal to repudiate his confession.

"Truth or no truth, you have got to get him to come across," the witness swore Darrow said.

P. J. Cooney swore that he had reported to Darrow that Bert Franklin talked too much and that Franklin had said, "They will never convict J. B. while Bain is on the jury."

Keene Fitzpatrick testified that he had accompanied Bert H. Franklin to Lockwood's home and told of an automobile trip he made with Cooney to surrounding towns to warn prospective jurors so they could avoid service.

Edward Nockels, secretary of the Central Labor council of Chicago, said. to have been the personal representative of Samuel Gompers in connection with the McNamara case, was designated as the man who had charge of F. A. Diekelman in Chicago after he had been won over to the McNamara defense, according to the testimony of Diekelman.

Diekelman also testified that Bert Hannerstrome, who "gave him money with which to go to Chicago," had taken him to the office of former Mayor Edward F. Dunne, of that city, where Dunne "had assured him that Hannerstrome was a brother-in-law of Clarence S. Darrow."

John R. Harrington, Chicago attorney, testified that Darrow, last September, showed him a roll of bills which Darrow said contained fifty thousand dollars, while discussing bribe taking. Harrington also said that on the morning of the arrest of Bert Franklin on the charge of attempting to bribe George N. Lockwood, Darrow had said to him: "My

God, if he speaks, I am ruined." The witness likewise declared that it was upon Darrow's order that Mrs. Flora Caplan was taken out of the state; F. A. Diekelman was persuaded to leave Albuquerque, N. M., for Chicago, and other witnesses subpoenaed by the prosecution in the McNamara case were induced to absent themselves.

At a recent meeting of the Central Labor Council of Los Angeles, Darrow was indorsed and the members of the council went on record as ready to support him in his present situation.

On June 24, Darrow's attorneys started a legal battle to get into the record of the trial the stenographic report of conversations between Darrow and John R. Harrington, his former chief investigator, which were transmitted by a secret telephone device. Harrington says the transcript did not turn out well.

VOTE ON STRIKE Fireman Did Not Get Restraining Order - Case to Proceed

During June, the court of common pleas, of Philadelphia, was asked to enjoin a vote on the proposition of declaring a strike on the Pennsylvania railway system, east of Pittsburgh and Erie, on the part of a federation of the Brotherhood of Railway Firemen and Enginemen, the order of Railway Conductors and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. The suit was instituted by John S. Hemphill on behalf of himself and such others of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen as might care to join. him, against the three orders above named and such of their officers as are associated in a board of federation empowered under certain conditions and circumstances to conduct a strike vote on a railway system.

Hemphill, through his counsel, Simpson, Brown & Williams, represented that the federation had not been properly formed and that its acts, harmful to his interests and those of others, would be void.

On June 6, 1912, Judge Bregy, of the court of common pleas, issued a restraining order, but on June 12 the

court refused a preliminary injunction, paving the way for the vote in which, it was expected, 25,000 employes of the Pennsylvania would take part.

The principal difference between the company and the men is said to be over an insistence on the part of the men that steam railroad men be employed on a certain percentage of all electric trains running between New York City and Newark, N. J.

Francis Shunk Brown, of counsel for Hemphill, says that the refusal of the preliminary injunction did not dismiss the suit and that the case will proceed to a final hearing.

Hemphill's petition was substantially as follows: Hemphill is an engineer in employ of the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. and a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. The Brotherhood is an unincorporated association, which admits to its membership only firemen and enginemen. William S. Carter is president, Timothy Shea assistant president, P. J. McNamara fifth vice president, A. I. Kaufman chairman of the joint protective board, and H. G. McComas secretary of the joint protective board.

On or about October, 1910, the order, together with the order of Railway Conductors, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, adopted a plan which made it possible for them or any of them to federate on any given railway systems. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers later decided not to participate in the federation.

The ground work of this plan was that when federation was desired on any system, the proposition should be submitted to the membership of the three orders on the system by the chairman of the general committees or boards of adjustment. Two-thirds of the members must vote affirmatively in order to have the federation. The firemen and enginemen voted on the proposition in November, 1911, and afterwards their officers proceeded to act with the officers of the conductors and the trainmen.

There was, at the time of beginning

the suit, before such federated board, Hemphill asserts, questions and arrangements affecting the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen respecting certain alleged grievances toward the Pennsylvania Lines East and the federated board contemplated taking a vote of the three organizations on the advisability of a strike on the Pennsylvania Lines east of Pittsburgh and Erie.

Hemphill declared that such action was improper, unwarranted and unnecessary; that the federation was improperly, illegally and unlawfully formed, void and without effect and harmful to the complainant and other members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen: that the members of that Brotherhood who voted in favor of the federation plan did not aggregate two-thirds of the total membership, 2,470 voting in favor of the federation and the total membership of the order numbering 4,885 and that if a strike vote should be permitted he and others would be irreparably injured, their positions and means of livelihood jeopardized and their benefits, sick and death, and standing in the Brotherhood jeopardized, threatened and injured unless he or they complied with the result of such vote.

The court was asked to enjoin federated action and the taking of the strike vote and finally to adjudge that the three organizations are not legally federated.

The result of the vote began to be received at Philadelphia, June 24. Forecasts from that city by union members were to the effect that a strike would be authorized unless the Pennsylvania company agree to adjust certain alleged grievances.

STRIKES ENJOINED
Anti-Boycott Association in Bulletin

Tells What Has Been Done

Discussing "Injunctions as a Remedy Against Illegal Strikes", the American Anti-Boycott Association in its May, 1912, bulletin, classes among the strikes against which an injunction may apply, those to prevent the use

of open shop material to enforce the purchase of union-made material. The bulletin says:

"A strike to benefit the working conditions of the strikers is ordinarily legal, but there are many kinds of illegal strikes against which an injunction may properly issue and be made effective if properly applied.

"Of such a character are all sympathetic strikes to prevent the use of open shop materials such as are particularly frequent in the building trades to enforce the purchase of materials made under strictly union conditions. For many years there has been grave doubt as to the best method of dealing with such strikes and many people have questioned the efficacy of the injunction as a remedy. The familiar argument in and out of court has been that it is impossible to make men work against their will, and therefore impossible to avert strikes by injunction. This argument ignores the important element that a large percentage of union men are not sufficiently interested in the object of such strikes to take part in them upon their own initiative and will gladly remain at work if the union delegates are forbidden to interfere. Our experience with the carpenters' union. during the past year has conclusively demonstrated that the injunction properly applied can successfully deal with such a situation and not only prevent strikes, but will result in the men who are out on strike returning to work.

"In the case of Albro J. Newton Co., where some seven building operations were interrupted by strikes in order to compel the builders to stop dealing with the Newton company until such time as it was unionized, the men returned to work pending negotiations between the union and the Builders' Association of Brooklyn, and an injunction issued at that time prevented any further strike or interference on the part of the union delegates.

"After the injunction was issued in the case of the Paine Lumber Co. and seven other members of our association, several strikes took place to prevent the use of the complainants' woodwork, until the matter was called

to the attention of the court by the commencement of contempt proceedings. On the hearing in this proceeding the defendants, as usual, contended that the individual union men struck on their own initiative, but the court replied that it was obliged to take notice of the fact that unions as well as corporations acted through their agents. As a result, the union

men were ordered back to work by their delegates and the proceedings were withdrawn by the complainants.

"In a case in Brooklyn, a strike was called on buildings where materials manufactured by some of the complainants in the Paine Lumber Co. case were being used. The union delegates were promptly informed that the materials were protected by an injunction, with the result that union carpenters completed the work.

"Within two weeks a strike took place on a building in Brooklyn and one on a building in Manhattan, because of the use of materials from another member of the association, for whom our attorneys had secured an injunction. As soon as the union became acquainted with the fact that the complainant was aware of the reason for the strike the men were permitted to return to work.

"In many instances of strikes against open shop materials, where injunctions were not outstanding the union carpenters have gathered about the buildings, begging their officers for permission to return to work and have stated that their only reason for refusing to work was the fear of fines or expulsion from their union.

"It would appear from these experiences that the union members regard their 'cards' as licenses to work and are not in sympathy with such policies of their leaders as result in incessant striking with the consequent loss of wages.

"While the suits and injunction herein cited have been against the carpenters' union only, they have a much wider significance, since what we have accomplished in Brooklyn, Manhattan and other places toward protecting the market for open shop woodwork affords an example of what may be done in any community for

any line of materials which are attacked in a similar manner. In many places it has been demonstrated that when the closed shop has been established in building trades it has acted to the great disadvantage of other trades and the general public. It is consequently a matter of public importance that conditions prevailing in the building trades should be taken. cognizance of by individual employers, boards of trade and local associations, in order that practices which are illegal as well as demoralizing to other trades and the public many be suppressed, and equitable conditions. for transacting business may be maintained."

AGAINST THE ACT Minority Report From Committee Severely Criticises the Federal Contempt Bill

The federal bill providing for trial by jury in contempt cases, was favorably reported by the House of Representatives committee on judiciary, and it is thought at Washington that it will be voted on by the House this session. The bill is condemned as dangerous and iniquitous by practically all of the business interests of the country as curtailing the ability of courts to uphold their own dignity and thus striking at the very roots of the efficiency of the judicial branch of government.

The bill is the third that Congressman Clayton was obliged to submit before he found one that the committee felt could be handled in legal form. It amends "an act to codify, revise and amend the laws relating to the judiciary", approved March 3, 1911. Its provisions are that anybody charged with a contempt of court of a character to also constitute a criminal offense shall be required to show cause why he should not be punished. If by the time he answers he is not purged of the contempt the court shall set a day of trial. The accused can have bail. He can demand a trial by jury. If found guilty, the accused may take the case