to monopolize a street to the exclusion of everyone else from its use, or that his right extends to a use entirely foreign to the purpose for which the street was set apart, and one injurious or obnoxious to others, or that he might so use the street as to deny abutting property owners ingress to or egress from their property. Any right asserted to the use of a public highway must be understood to be limited, (a) by the extent of the use, (b) by the character of the use, (c) by the right of others to use the same highway, and possibly by other considerations.

It is immaterial that the defendants may have committed a public nuisance, for the allegations of this complaint disclose that the injury, annoyance and inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff differ in kind, as well as in degree, from those suffered by the public generally; and Section 6171, Revised Codes, provides: "A private person may maintain an action for a public nuisance, if it is especially injurious to himself, but not otherwise."—Joyce on the Law of Nuisance, Section 422. That injunction is an available remedy in a case of this character is recognized by authorities generally.

If the allegations in this complaint are true, plaintiff was entitled to relief, and in denying her a hearing, the trial court erred. The order is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. Iverson vs. Dilno, Supreme Court of Montana, 119 Pacific Reporter, page 719.

Authority is Upheld

Canadian courts evidently have no feeble notions regarding limitations of the authority of those in charge. of work, as the following shows:

The law says that, "a superintendent of works is entitled to enforce discipline amongst the men under his control and is further justified in making use of all reasonable means to have his orders obeyed." This was cited by Mr. Justice Greenshields when giving judgment in the case of I. Macpherson, who sued Charles H. Allen, of the Peter Lyall Co. for two hun

dred dollars damages caused by a blow.

It seems that when the Yorkshire Insurance building was in course of erection on St. James street, Montreal, Macpherson, who was employed as a carter by Peter Lyall, entered the building and was ordered to get out. On refusing he was struck on the right side of the temple by Allan with the iron part of a hoe.

Defendant admitted striking the blow, but stated that the language of the plaintiff was so obnoxious to both the defendant and the foreman that the blow was justified. On the above principal Mr. Justice Greenshields dismissed the case without costs. Dominion of Canada Labour Gazette.

Idaho Alien Law Void

The Idaho law forbidding the employment of alien laborers has been declared in conflict with the federal

constitution.

Xura Case, a superintendent of a private corporation engaged on the paving of streets in Boise City, Idaho, was convicted of employing an alien as a laborer in contravention of Section 1458, Revised Codes of Idaho. This section makes it unlawful for any corporation, municipal or private, doing business in the state of Idaho to give employment in any way to any alien who has failed, neglected, or refused, prior to the time of such employment, to become naturalized or to declare his intention to become a citizen of the United States. There was no question as to the facts, the employer being a corporation and the employe being a citizen of the Kingdom of Greece, who had not applied for naturalization papers in the United States. Case was convicted as the agent of the corporation and ordered. to pay a fine of $75; in default of payment a jail sentence was to be served at the rate of one day's imprisonment for every $2 of the fine. He refused to pay the fine and was committed to the county jail, whereupon he applied for a writ of habeas corpus, asking for restoration of his liberty on the ground that the statute

was unconstitutional and the action of the court unauthorized. On application to the supreme court of the state, the contention of Case was upheld, the law being declared unconstitutional, and his discharge was ordered.

Having stated the facts as above, Judge Sullivan, who delivered the opinion of the court, said:

The leading cases which hold that all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States are within the protection of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution, without regard to differences of race, color, or nationality, are Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, sheriff, 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220; Fraser vs. McConway & Torley Co. (C. C.), 82 Fed. 257; In re Tiburcio Parrott (C. C.), 1 Fed. 481.

The

In the Parrott case, the court has under consideration Section 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution of the state of California, which provided that no corporation formed under the laws of that state shall directly employ in any capacity any Chinese or Mongolians, and required the legislature to pass such laws as might be necessary to enforce that provision. legislature by an act of February 13, 1880, made it an offense for any officer, director, agent, etc., of a corporation to employ Chinese, and the court held that said Section of the Constitution and statute were in conflict with the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution and void, and the court there held that to deprive a person of the right to labor deprived him of both liberty and property, and that a person's right to liberty and property is a constitutional right, wholly independent of treaty stipulations and exists without them.

A state legislature by legislative enactment or otherwise has no authority to deprive a person of the right to labor at any legitimate business or to deny any person. within the jurisdiction of the United States the equal protection of the laws, or to prohibit a corporation that has a right to do business in the states to employ any person, whether alien or native, in the prosecution of any legitimate business.

It is suggested that a corporation is not a "person" within the meaning of that word as used in said fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, and that, as corporations are organized under the laws of a state, that state may enact such laws as it may deem best for the control of such corporations and has full authority to deprive them of the right to employ aliens. Those contentions are fully met by the decision of the supreme court of the United States in Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. vs. Ellis (165 U. S. 150, 17 Sup. Ct. 255, 41 L. Ed. 666), in which case it is held that corporations are "persons" within the provisions of said fourteenth amendment, and that a state has no more power to deny to them the equal protection of the law than it has to deny it to individual citizens.

That being the law, the state courts must conform their decisions in the interpretation of the Federal Constitution and statutes to the construction placed upon them by the federal courts, and a corporation is a "person" within the provisions of said fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Under the authority of the cases. above cited, said Section 1458, Revised Codes, is repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and void, and petitioner is entitled to be discharged, and it is so ordered.Ex parte Case, Supreme Court of Idaho, 116 Pacific Reporter, page 1037.

to produce its books for examination. The counsel for the plaintiffs maintained that the newly formed organization was a bogus union, started with a membership of 35 or 40 of the company's employes after the United Garment Workers had withdrawn its label from the defendant company. It was further stated for the plaintiffs that the organization was promoted merely to get a label and they moved. for a committal of the secretary or an order directing him to attend for re-examination and compelling him to produce the books of the union. The defendant company maintained that the case was an attempt to attack the Canadian union and that the motion was unnecessary. It was held by the court that the secretary of the organization was within his rights in refusing to produce the books at this stage of the proceedings, and the motion. was dismissed with costs. (United Garment Workers of America vs. the H. A. Britton Company.)

Boys Cannot Be Judges

Boys cannot be the judge of whether they will stop the operation of a mine and call a strike in the face of special rules promulgated by law, according to a recent decision. This decision is reported in "the June, 1912,

issue of the Labour Gazette", of the Dominion of Canada under the head, "English Cases. Coal Mines RegulaCoal Mines Regulation Act. Refusal to Work. Offense". The report reads:

Uuder the provisions of the coal mines regulation act, 1887, in every mine special rules must be made for the conduct and guidance of the persons acting in the management of such mine and of those employed in the mine, such as according to the circumstances of the mine may appear best calculated to prevent accidents and provide for safety and discipline. Any person acting in contravention of or failing to comply with any of such special rules is guilty of offense against the act and is punishable.

Among the special rules relating to a colliery, there was one at the end providing generally that all persons employed in the mine should be under

the control of the manager, under manager or deputies, and should at all times obey their lawful commands. Certain boys (known as trammers) employed in the pit for three and a half hours refused to work any longer and demanded to be brought up. The reason they gave for their conduct was that they were unable to get sufficient tubs. The under manager ordered the boys to resume their work, but they refused, and in consequence the men working at the face of the coal were obliged to stop. The colliery owners. then took proceedings against the boys for disobedience to special rules. The magistrate convicted the boys, finding as a fact that sufficient tubs had been provided for them and stated that he convicted them in the interests of discipline with regard to what was necessary to the safety of those employed in the mine. They stated a case for appeal.

It was argued on behalf of the boys that although the particular order by the under manager to do a particular act in the course of the employment might have come within the rule, what the boys had done was to go on strike and to put an end to their employment altogether; and the magistrate had convicted them for going on strike. The high court held that the boys were The rule in quesproperly convicted.

tion was added to the other rule, to make provision for some unforeseen thing that might happen in the mine and not covered by any particular rule. Here the boys put their judgment against that of the under manager. It was of the utmost importance that discipline and authority should be maintained in mines and the high court sustained the decision of the lower court and dismissed the appeal.

Moves to Chicago

The United Typothetae of America. has removed its national headquarters from Philadelphia to Chicago, where it is located in a fine suite of offices at 1650 Transportation building, corner of Dearborn and Harrison streets. J. Stearns Cushing, of Norwood, Mass., is president, and Franklin W. Heath, secretary.

The work of employers' associations, and kindred organizations, the objects of which are not necessarily antagonistic to labor unions as such, should appeal to all public spirited business men, for the so-called "labor problem" affects each tax-payer of the commonwealth. Regardless of whether they be employers of labor, banker, merchant, manufacturer, or private citizen, they are all vitally concerned in the present and future industrial development of their respective cities, the industries of which regulate, with unvarying precision, its industrial importance, and determine the welfare of its wage-earners, its business activities and its financial institutions.

Natural advantages, transportation facilities, etc., are not all the manufacturer considers when seeking a desirable location. Peaceful industrial conditions do appeal to him; they are at once conducive to harmonious relations between employer and employe, re-acting to the mutual benefit and prosperity of the entire community. Cities known to maintain employers' associations, thereby insuring industrial peace to a creditable extent, are the cities most rapidly increasing in point of population and industries.

Laboring men are influenced by prevailing social and industrial conditions, and the stronger the sentiment and organization of "closed shop" unionism in any community, the more dominant and aggressive become the agitators; the more serious the resulting disturbances. The combined moral and financial resources of the great body of business interests, causes labor union leaders to be more conservative and the rank and file to be less heed

ful of the urgings of the agitators. Each strike unsuccessfully inaugurated, tends to discourage the activities. of the aggressive troublemakers. renders infrequent the calling of strikes, and diminishes lawlessness. Union men have a right to strike or quit their employment, but they do not have a right to impose upon others arbitrary conditions, nor to attempt to enforce their dictum through coercion and violence.

As a civic duty, it devolves upon business men and manufacturers and employers of labor generally, to assist in the interests of the community, in liberally sustaining organizations that are of such benefit to them and the commonwealth. It is much simpler and vastly more important and economical for them to help avoid and forestall strikes, than to invite and combat them.

In diverted trade alone, the teamsters' strike caused a loss of $12,000.000 to the business interests of Chicago. It cost the county and city $69,000 additional for extra police precautions. The Boston strike was equally wasteful. So, practically, is every strike. To prevent such disturbances, civic welfare demands that public opinion be just and progressive. The wrong kind of sentiment jeopardizes individual liberty and American institutions. Employers' associations are not organized to destroy or abridge. a single lawful right of any man. They are creating wholesome public opinion, and the effectiveness of their work, which is accomplished in a quiet, unobstrusive way, depends solely upon the co-operation of those who profit most thereby.

Supported by wholesome public wholesome public sentiment, employers' associations are a great power for the good of the community. They simply insist upon loyalty from the employe, and consideration of the legal, property and constitutional rights of the employer and of the general public. They require fair dealing from the employer with his employes, and should discountenance failure to give full consideration to deserving workmen. Employers' associations recognize that 75 per cent of the minority of organized. workers are peaceable, law-abiding citizens, who take no active part in the affairs of the union, which unfortunately places the control of such organizations under the domination of the 25 per cent represented by the agitators. It, therefore, becomes essential to offset the specious pleas and anarchial teachings of this latter element, but organizations of employers cannot be organized in a day nor in a month. To continue to be of benefit in the promotion of industrial peace, and to stand as a menace to lawbreakers who, in overzealous enthusiasm, wantonly violate the laws of both state and nation, employers' associations must be permanently maintained, equipped for instant and efficient service, and membership therein is purely a business proposition.

Originally, labor unions-perfectly lawful within themselves-sought to educate industrious and efficient workers; to inspire wage-earners to become intelligent, law-abiding citizens, and to better their conditions legitimately, legitimately, with all of which every patriotic American citizen was in sympathy. The advent of the paid agitator has witnessed the degeneration of some labor unions into nothing more than agencies of destruction. Under the mad leadership of socialistic troublemakers, the education of competent mechanics and desirable citizens has been lost sight of in the hysterical "closed shop" demands for increased remuneration and reduction of working hours, without a proportionate increase in efficiency. and production.

The "closed shop" merely represents the "union label", the imprint of which on manufactured goods does not mean

excellency of product. The imprint of the "union label" merely signifies that manufacturers who employ it have entered into an unlawful agreement with the labor union, to which it belongs, by contracting to discriminate in the employment of labor. The union label stands for nothing more than the professional troublemaker's stamp of approval on goods manufactured under "closed shop" conditions which, perforce, abridge the right of free contract to both employer and employe, which has caused the courts-among them the New York state court of appeals to hold that the "closed shop" is against the policy of the state. Obviously neither congress nor state legislatures can usurp their police powers to the extent of regulating or limiting the number of working hours which shall govern the private enterprise on commercial work, except possibly where public health, morals or safety might require such regulation. This question the courts have settled. They have held that the lawful right to labor as many hours as he will or as he may deem proper and necessary for the support of his family, is accorded every individual. The same right of contract is guaranteed to the employer, who may agree to hire such laborer upon whatever terms and conditions they may mutually agree upon. To abridge this right-(the right of free contract)-even by legislation, the courts have held to be unconstitutional and in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, in that it interferes with and invades the rights and liberties guaranteed the individual, who cannot be deprived of life, liberty nor property without due process of law. "closed shop", therefore, proceeds to do what the legislatures of neither state or nation can do-namely, to regulate the number of hours that shall be worked in any one day, to stipulate who shall and who shall not be employed and what compensation they shall receive.

The

Unless this condition is met with determined opposition, it will unavoidably and seriously affect all forms of production, commerce and business activity, because closed shop unionism