Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Safeguards for the Prevention of Accidents in the Manufacture of Cotton.

Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. 1906. 22 pp. and 28 plates.

The present report on the prevention of accidents in the spinning and weaving of cotton is based upon the requirements of the Factory Act of 1901, and upon the results disclosed by the statistics of accidents which have been compiled annually since the publication of a similar report in 1899. The report is made by the superintending inspector of factories for the northwestern division, which embraces over 80 per cent of the cotton industry throughout the United Kingdom.

There are set forth in the report the regulations of the Factory Act of 1901 pertaining to the fencing of dangerous machinery, to steam boilers, to self-acting machines, to cleaning machinery in motion, to fire escapes and doors, to dangerous ways, etc.; also general recommendations are added as to the safeguarding of machinery and to hoists and doors. Descriptions of the machines used in the various processes of spinning and weaving cotton are given, together with descriptions of the requisite guards that should be provided for their safe operation. Accompanying the text are 28 plates showing guards for machinery which, in almost every instance, are now in actual use in cotton manufacture.

In the northwestern division during the years 1900 to 1905 there were 13,633 cotton-machinery accidents-2,389 in 1900, 2,442 in 1901, 2,394 in 1902, 2,098 in 1903, 1,960 in 1904, and 2,350 in 1905. The machines in connection with the operation of which the greatest number of accidents occurred were carding engines (with 1,334 accidents), speed frames (with 1,588 accidents), self-acting mules (with 4,183 accidents), and looms (with 2,818 accidents).

NEW SOUTH WALES.

Tenth Annual Report of the Department of Labor and Industry, for

the year ended December 31, 1906. iv, 50 pp. This annual return, made to the minister of public instruction and labor and industry, consists of a report on the working of the Factories and Shops Act, Early Closing Acts, Shearers' Accommodation Act, etc., during the year 1906.

For purposes of inspection of factories and shops the State is divided into four districts—the Metropolitan, Newcastle, Broken Hill, and Hartley. At the close of 1906 there were on the registers of the department 3,419 factories in the four districts, employing a total of 61,321 working people (42,179 males and 19,142 females). The factories are grouped under 19 industrial classes, showing for each class number of working people employed, kind of power (steam, gas, or electricity) used, etc.

DECISIONS OF COURTS AFFECTING LABOR.

(Except in cases of special interest, the decisions here presented are restricted to those rendered by the Federal courts and the higher courts of the States and Territories. Only material portions of such decisions are reproduced, introductory and explanatory matter being given in the words of the editor. Decisions under statute law are indexed under the proper headings in the cumulative index, page 657 et seq.]

[ocr errors]

DECISIONS UNDER STATUTE LAW.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

BOYCOTTS-COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE CoyMERCE-ANTITRUST LAW-Loewe v. Lawlor, United States Supreme Court, 28 Supreme Court Reporter, page 301.---Lawlor and his associates were members of a local branch of the United Hatters of North America, which organization had undertaken to procure the unionizing of the factory of the complainants. The complaint filed is given in full in the margin of the report of the opinion; but since the essential parts are summarized or reproduced in the opinion itself, no preliminary statement thereof is necessary.

The case was brought in the United States circuit court for the district of Connecticut, in which it was held that the facts did not bring the case within the provisions of the antitrust act, and it was dismissed on demurrer to the complaint. (148 Fed. Rep., 924. See Bulletin No. 70, p. 710. See also 142 Fed. Rep., 216; 130 Fed. Rep., 633.) An injunction was secured by Loewe against the California State Federation of Labor. (139 Fed. Rep., 71. See Bulletin No. 61, p. 1067.) Appeal was taken to the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit, which certified to the Supreme Court the question as to the applicability of the act in question. Afterward, by mutual agreement, the entire case was transferred to the Supreme Court, which held that the case fell within the provisions of the antitrust act, being a combination in restraint of trade, and remanded the case for a new trial. The opinion of the court was delivered by Chief Justice Fuller, and is in the main as follows:

The question is whether upon the facts therein averred {i. e., in the complaint and admitted by the demurrer this action can be maintained under the antitrust act.

The first, second and seventh sections of that act are as follows:

1. “Every contract, combination in the forin of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage

in such conbination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

any

the State is in a much more satisfactory condition than at any time since the act came into operation. During the year 105 new huts were erected and additions and improvements made to many others that did not in all respects fulfill the requirements.

During 1906 there were 42 prosecutions for breaches of the Factories and Shops Act, resulting in 31 convictions, 8 cases being withdrawn and 3 cases being dismissed. Under the Early Closing Acts there were 265 prosecutions, resulting in 217 convictions, 29 cases being withdrawn and 19 cases being dismissed.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

Report of the Royal Commission on the Ventilation and Sanitation of

Mines. Department of Mines, 1905. 500 pp. This inquiry, made by a royal commission in 1904–5, the report of which was submitted to the governor of Western Australia on February 25, 1905, relates to the conditions of the ventilation and sanitation of the mines of Western Australia, the effects of the said conditions on the health of the persons employed in the mines, and the measures which should be taken, when necessary, to bring about improvement thereof.

There were 172 sittings of the commission, and visits were made to the principal mining centers of the State, which were easily accessible. Evidence was taken from 192 witnesses, which included mining engineers, managers, and inspectors; under managers, shiftbosses, and mining contractors; miners; metallurgists and representatives of explosives companies; officials of miners' and workers' associations, etc. The examination ranged over a wide field of varied mining experience in the endeavor to collect all possible information that would be of service to the commission. Every phase of the subject of ventilation and sanitation was practically and exhaustively considered, together with the related subjects of dust in mines and mills, gases due to explosives, fumes from the cyanide process and other dangerous fumes, health of miners, etc.

The conclusion of the report of the commission on the measures to be taken for improving the ventilation and sanitation of mines resulted in suggested legislation providing that The Mines Regulation Act, 1895, should be amended so as to include provisions for carrying into effect the recommendations made by the commission. Further, the commission expressed the opinion that the sanitary regulations suggested should apply to coal as well as to metalliferous mines, and that they should be made under The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1902, as well as under The Mines Regulation Act, 1895.

The suggested legislation relates to (1) ventilation of mines, (2) prevention of dust, (3) use of explosives, (4) connections between levels and adjoining mines, and (5) sanitary conditions.

[ocr errors][merged small]

(Except in cases of special interest, the decisions here presented are restricted to those rendered by the Federal courts and the higher courts of the States and Territories. Only material portions of such decisions are reproduced, introductory and explanatory matter being given in the words of the editor. Decisions under statute law are indexed under the proper headings in the cumulative index, page 657 et seq.]

DECISIONS UNDER STATUTE LAW.

BOYCOTTS-COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE--ANTITRUST LAW-Loewe v. Lawlor, United States Supreme Court, 28 Supreme Court Reporter, page 301.-Lawlor and his associates were members of a local branch of the United Hatters of North America, which organization had undertaken to procure the unionizing of the factory of the complainants. The complaint filed is given in full in the margin of the report of the opinion; but since the essential parts are summarized or reproduced in the opinion itself, no preliminary statement thereof is necessary.

The case was brought in the United States circuit court for the district of Connecticut, in which it was held that the facts did not bring the case within the provisions of the antitrust act, and it was dismissed on demurrer to the complaint. (148 Fed. Rep., 924. See Bulletin No. 70, p. 710. See also 142 Fed. Rep., 216; 130 Fed. Rep., 633.) An injunction was secured by Loewe against the California State Federation of Labor. (139 Fed. Rep., 71. See Bulletin No. 61, p. 1067.) Appeal was taken to the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit, which certified to the Supreme Court the question as to the applicability of the act in question. Afterward, by mutual agreement, the entire case was transferred to the Supreme Court, which held that the case fell within the provisions of the antitrust act, being a combination in restraint of trade, and remanded the case for a new trial. The opinion of the court was delivered by Chief Justice Fuller, anál is in the main as follows:

The question is whether upon the facts therein averred [i. e., in the complaint and admitted by the demurrer this action can be maintained under the antitrust act.

The first, second and seventh sections of that act are as follows:

1. “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such conbination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousanı dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

a

2. “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

7. “Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee."

In our opinion, the combination described in the declaration is a combination "in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States,” in the sense in which those words are used in the act, and the action can be maintained accordingly.

And that conclusion rests on many judgments of this court, to the effect that the act prohibits any combination whatever to secure action which essentially obstructs the free flow of commerce between the States, or restricts, in that regard, the liberty of a trader to engage in business.

The combination charged falls within the class of restraints of trade aimed at compelling third parties and strangers involuntarily not to engage in the course of trade except on conditions that the combination imposes; and there is no doubt that (to quote from the well-known work or Chief Justice Erle on Trade Unions) "at common law every person has individually, and the public also has collectively, a right to require that the course of trade should be kept free from unreasonable obstruction." But the objection here is to the jurisdiction, because, even conceding that the declaration states a case good at common law, it is contended that it does not state one within the statute. Thus, it is said, that the restraint alleged would operate to entirely destroy defendants' business and thereby include intrastate trade as well; that physical obstruction is not alleged as contemplated; and that defendants are not themselves engaged in interstate trade.

We think none of these objections are tenable, and that they are disposed of by previous decisions of this court.

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U. S. 290; United States v. Joint Traffic Association, 171 U. S. 505; and Northern Securities Company v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, hold in effect that the antitrust law has a broader application than the prohibition of restraints of trade unlawful at common law. Thus in the Trans-Missouri case it was said that, “assuming that agreements of this nature are not void at common law, and that the various cases cited by the learned courts below show it, the answer to the statement of their validity is to be found in the terms of the statute under consideration;" and in the Northern Securities case that “the act declares illegal every contract, combination or conspiracy in whatever form, of whatever nature, and whoever may be the parties to it, which directly or necessarily operates in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States.

ܙ ܕ

« ПретходнаНастави »