on error to the higher courts and meanwhile may be admitted to bail.

If the contempt is committed in the presence of the court or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice or if the contempt be in a suit prosecuted in the name of the United States, there will be no right to a trial by jury. Contempt proceedings must be begun within a year after the act complained of.

A minority of the committee on indiciary, consisting of Representatives John A. Sterling, R. O. Moon, Edwin W. Higgins, Paul Howland, Frank M. Nye and Francis H. Dodds disagreed with the majority in its recommendation of the bill for passage, saying among other things:

"It is important that all contempts should be punished with certainty and as summarily as possible consistent with justice. This is necessary in order to maintain the authority of the court and to secure to it that respect to which it is entitled. This is especially true where the acts constituting the contempt are acts of violence or where they constitute a crime. It is this class of contempts which this bill precludes from certain and summary punishment and no others. It provides that any act of disobedience. to the law constituting contempt shall be tried by the jury if the act of disobedience also amounts to a crime, but it leaves the lesser offense of contempt not constituting crime to be punished summarily by the court. Punishment for violence in any form should be as certain and swift as is possible consistent with justice, and particularly so when that violence resists the execution of the processes and orders of the courts and the due course of justice."

Again the minority report says:

"It does violence to the experience of the centuries, that equity principles are best administered through the conscience of the chancellor. It is inconsistent, indeed it is folly, to confer upon courts of equity the judicial power to try and determine causes in equity and to then intervene between that court and the enforcement of its decrees another tribunal unknown to equity practice."

Commenting on the exception made. as to cases instituted in the name of the government, the minority report declares that:

"The exception suggests the thought that it is desired to do as little harm as possible to the proper administration of justice, but to do only such harm as the political exigencies of the situation require. We respectfully submit that this is not the true and proper basis basis on which which legislation. should be predicated."

The minority report says that its framers are of the opinion that the proposed law is in violation of the constitution and that congress cannot take from the courts those inherent powers necessary to their existence or so regulate them as to seriously impair them. Many decisions are cited. in support of this opinion.

The minority submitted a substitute bill, which eliminated the trial by jury feature, but allowed the accused to go before another judge than the one citing him for contempt and gave him the right of error proceedings and bail.

PULLMAN PIONEER Car Company Voluntarily Takes Care of Health of Its Men

That the Pullman Co. is a “soulless corporation, made up of very reasonable and humane men", is written by Dr. Alice Hamilton, of Hull house, Chicago, in a recent article. Dr. Hamilton says:

"When it was clear that statements (by one of the company's own stockholders) were borne out by the facts, the company agreed to carry out, as far as practicable, the reforms recommended. Their first step was a very wise one. It consisted in having a thorough physical examination made of all the men employed in work which exposed, them to industrial diseases, an enormous task, but it gave them a knowledge of the dangers of certain sorts of work as nothing else could.

"During this time the new Occupational Diseases Act came into force in Illinois and obliged the Pullman.

company to do away with certain of the dangers described above. The fumes in the glass department had to be confined or carried away, and provision had to be made for lunch rooms, wash rooms, and special working clothes for the men engaged in handling poisons. It would have been, however, very difficult to apply the law to the men who sand-papered the interiors of the cars; for the wording of the law is simply that adequate facilities shall be provided for carrying off all injurious dust, and there is no accepted device for doing it in work of this character. Nor does the law touch the men in the departments. which are dusty, but not poisonous. The company, however, had been impressed with the results of the medical examination and decided to go beyond the law and to include under special protective care not only the men in the poisonous, but those in the dusty departments, the sand blasters, glass cutters, metal polishers and buffers, and asbestos cutters.

"At present, this is the state of things at Pullman. The protection required by law for the workers in paint, acids, etc., is being given also to the men in the dusty trades. This means that they also are provided with respirators and are given a medical examination once a month, as well as the same lunch room and wash room facilities as the men who come under the law. The company now employs five physicians, where it had but one. Especially interesting is the change that has been made in the sand-blasting department. The last visit I made. to this department was on a bitter zero day, and I was surprised to see the men at work out of doors. seems that when they were consulted they said that they would prefer to work outside even in winter, because it was so much safer. On that day a great bonfire was burning to keep the sand-blasting machine from freezing, and the men came to the fire from time to time to thaw out. Six of them were at work. Four who could stand rather far off from the car were wearing helmets very like divers' helmets; the two who had to come closer to their work were inside

It

small portable houses, with canvas covered openings, through which their arms passed, and with a window to look through so that they could control the work and yet be protected from the dust. It seemed as if the dangers of this work had been eliminated as far as possible.

"The company is trying to solve the difficult problem of protecting the interior painters against lead poisoning by using a compound of lead that is much less poisonous than ordinary white lead. Their chemist had for some time been urging them to substitute lead sulphate for white lead, because he thought it made a better paint for the steel cars. When the company decided to take up the matter of lead poisoning they asked the chemist if lead sulphate was safer for the men than white lead, and when he assured them that it was, they decided to adopt it.

"There is a very evident feeling of solicitude for the health and safety of the men out at Pullman now, and a readiness to go to great lengths in the prevention of accidents and illness. It needed only that the conditions should be placed before the officials of the company for them to recognize the necessity for changes and to proceed to make them.

"Surely it is not rash to assume that the same thing would be true of most large companies. The evils that exist are probably of long standing and it simply has not occurred to anyone to inquire if they are still inevitable or if modern methods of protection would not do away with them."

GREATER SAFETY
Manufacturers are at Work on
Accident Problem

A campaign for industrial benefit was inaugurated by the National Association of Manufacturers at its May convention in New York. The essential feature of this movement during the convention related to the prevention of industrial accidents, which is being promoted by the committee on industrial indemnity insurance, of

which Mr. F. C. Schwedtman is chairman. This feature included an exhibit of accident prevention devices in the Colonial room of the WaldorfAstoria, and also a display of motion pictures, illustrating the prevention of industrial accidents.

The moving picture display drew together not only members of the association, but also superintendents, foremen and workmen from the New York City industrial plants. Addresses were made by President Kirby, Mr. Schwedtman, General Manager J. Philip Bird, of the National Association of Manufacturers, and General L. N. Bryant, commissioner of labor of the state of New Jersey. The pictures shown were: "Cause and Effect of Industrial Accidents", "Safety Devices in a Representative Factory Plant", "Factory Fire Drills" and "Safety at Sea. Life Boat Drill on an Ocean Liner".

"We may differ on some other subjects," said President Kirby, "but I think it is safe to say that upon this subject of accident prevention we are all of one mind. You are going to have workmen's compensation laws in every state in the union, and if the manufacturers themselves do not step into the breach and guide that legislation aright, it will go wrong. We are going to have it and it is well that we take an interest in the matter and see if we can steer it in right and legitimate and proper

channels."

"It seems," said Mr. Bird, "that the states have gone wild on the subject of compensation and they have not considered the subject of preventing the accidents which make the compensation necessary. It is the old story of locking the door after the horse is stolen and taking out insurance when your house is burned. What every man should do for the institution in which he is interested is to make an honest endeavor by the adoption of simple devices to prevent the accidents, for if the accident is prevented, there is no need of compensation and the loss and injury to the victim is avoided."

General Bryant described the opera

tion of New Jersey legislation, requiring fire drills in factories. In one of these, he said, a factory building was emptied of eight hundred operatives in two and three-quarters minutes.

At the exhibit in the Waldorf-Astoria were twelve hundred photographs sent by the Wisconsin state industrial commission, safety device models from the United States Steel Corporation, a large model of the Victoria-Louise, furnished by the Hamburg-American Steamship Co., and contributions from the Submarine Signal Co., the Norton Co. of Worcester, Mass., the Scientific American, the Turner Construction Co. of New York, and the North German Lloyd Steamship Co.

Certain of the committees of the National Association of Manufacturers are conducting the new campaign. for industrial betterment.

Carpenters in Chamber

With the joint watchword, "Do it for Dallas," employers and employes are getting together in Dallas, Tex., for the good of the city.

Three years ago, the Chamber of Commerce in Dallas effected a satisfactory settlement of difficulties then existing between the paperhangers' and painters' unions and the contracting paint and paper houses.

Since then the Chamber has aimed to make itself the court of last resort on questions of business affecting the welfare of the city and its inhabit

ants.

The Chamber has invited the labor unions to join its body. The carpenters' union has already applied for membership. President Alexander Sanger, of the Chamber, expresses the belief that many of the other unions in the city will follow the example of the carpenters.

"Laboring men," declares the secretary of the Dallas Chamber, "are entitled to many things in the way of surroundings for health and environment for pleasure, which they do not now get and which it is the absolute duty of the employing class to provide for them."

Perhaps no act ever passed by a legislative body has been subjected to more scathing criticism than that passed by the National House of Representatives, May 14, 1912, entitled, "An Act to Codify, Revise and Amend the Laws Relating to the Judiciary".

This is the bill produced by politicians in answer to the how against "government injunction", and if passed would seriously hamper and cripple the operation of the courts, especially in labor cases. Much of the text and all of the purport of the bill is given below, as are also quotations from at report by the minority of the committee on judiciary of the House which could not agree with the recommendation of the majority that the measure be passed.

The act at this writing is now awaiting consideration by the judiciary committee of the Senate. Its Senate passage is considered doubtful.

The bill provides that no injunction, with certain exceptions, shall be issued without previous notice and an opportunity to be heard on the part of the parties enjoined unless the court thinks an irreparable injury will follow any delay whatever, in which case he may grant a temporary restraining order to hold good not more than seven days. The court entry shall show the date and hour of issuance, define the injury, state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice.

No restraining order or interlocutory order of injunction shall issue. except upon the giving of security.

Every order of injunction or restraining order shall set forth the reasons for the issuance of the same, shall be specific in terms and shall

Bill

describe, not by reference to the bill of complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained. It shall be binding only upon the parties to the suit, their agents, servants, employes and attorneys, or those in active concert with them, and who shall by personal service or otherwise have received actual notice. This last provision is designed to safeguard against so-called "blanket" or "dragnet" injunctions.

Then comes the provision that separates, in effect, labor organizations from all other branches of society. It reads as follows:

"That no restraining order or injunction shall be granted by any court of the United States, or a judge or the judges thereof, in any case between an employer and employes or between employers and employes, or between employes or between persons employed and persons seeking employment, involving or growing out of a dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment unless necessary to prevent irreparable injury to property or to a property right of the party making the application, for which injury there is no adequate remedy at law, and such property or property right must be described with particularity in the application, which must. be in writing and sworn to by the applicant or by his agent or attorney.

"And no such restraining order or injunction shall prohibit any person or persons from terminating any relation of employment, or from ceasing to perform any work or labor, or from recommending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful means so to do; or from attending at or near a house or place where any person resides or works, or carries on business, or hap

pens to be for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any person to work or to abstain from working; or from ceasing to patronize or to employ any party to such dispute; or from recommending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful means so to do; or from paying or giving to or withholding from any person engaged in such dispute any strike benefits or other moneys or things of value; or from peaceably assembling at any place in a lawful manner and for lawful purposes; or from doing any act or thing which might lawfully be done in the absence of such dispute by any party thereto."

Congressmen John A. Sterling, R. 0. Moon, Edwin W. Higgins, Paul Howland, Frank M. Nve and Francis H. Dodds could not stand sponsor for the provisions of this bill, so they submitted a minority report, in which they asserted that they had heard no instances given for failure on the part of courts to properly exercise discretion in matters of injunction, calling for a bill of the kind. The minority report said in part:

"We object to the implication contained in emphasizing controversies between employers and employes, or between employes or persons employed and seeking employment, and if the majority intends by this to indicate that such rights are to have less or different protection from the same rights when involving controversies of another kind we must emphatically disagree with the principle implied, for in this country remedies are to be predicated at all times upon the character of the rights which are threatened, and not upon the class or nature of the persons involved in the controversy."

Again the minority says specifically as to the provision of the law that nobody shall be restrained from quitting employment, persuading others to do the like and so on:

"The second paragraph of section

266C contains, to our mind, the most vicious proposal of the whole bill. It enumerates certain specific acts and provides that no restraining order or injunction shall prohibit the doing of them. Most of the acts thus recited are in themselves not amenable to the injunction process under existing law and practice. No court does or would enjoin them, but to declare by law that these acts should under no circumstances be restrained, we do not hesitate to say is a proposal without precedent in the legislative history of this country. No legislature has ever proposed that any act however innocent itself should be sanctified irrespective of the motive or purpose of the actor. 'No conduct,' says Mr. Justice Holmes in Aiken vs. Wisconsin (195 U. S., 194), 'has such an absolute privilege as to justify all possible schemes of which it may be a part. The most innocent and constitutionally protected of acts or omissions may be made a step in a criminal plot, and if it is a step in a plot, neither its innocence nor the constitution is sufficient to prevent the punishment of the plot by law.'"

In the concluding paragraph, the minority report says:

the

"We agree with the majority that 'liberty and more of it is safe in the hands of the workingmen of country. We are convinced of the merit and truth of that contention. We do not, however, believe that liberty is advanced in the person of any citizen by stripping him of remedial protection through processes which have received the deliberate and mature approval of the English-speaking race during all the centuries of its history. We cannot believe that the due protection of person and property under constitutional guaranties and by remedies tested by time is an impediment to progress,' or that the destruction of the essential remedies by which person and property receive protection is a great social advance.'