years ago. Then with our membership doubled I should judge the help at Peoria has also doubled. Now, I would not cut the salaries of any Grand Lodge officers or any man who is employed at Peoria; the convention is the place that I would make my cut.

The convention has too many delegates, and the question now arises as to how the number of delegates can be reduced without depriving any one of representation.

I have a plan by which I believe this can be accomplished-whereby every lodge will be represented and at the same time the membership would have equal representation, which it has not at present.

I would first divide the territory in which the Brotherhood operates into five districts with membership in these disIn tricts as nearly equal as possible. May of the same year as the international convention I would have district conventions held in each district, with a delegate from each lodge. At these conventions the delegates would make laws to govern the membership in their respective districts, subject to the approval of the international convention. Each district convention would elect a district president, who would serve as general vice-presidents and perform the duties now performed by the vice-presidents, and who would be, as now, under the orders of the International President.

I claim that our vice-presidents should be chosen in this manner. For what right have we who live on the snow-capped peaks of the Rocky Mountains or on the golden shores of the Pacific to select a man to adjust the grievances of the brothers who live in Canada, Maine or Florida? Not any more than the man working on the Northern Pacific would have of choosing a General Chairman for the Boston and Maine.

At these conventions would be elected district directors--one for each districtwho would take the place of the present Board of Directors. This of course would make the Board of Directors consist of only five members.

Never having been a member of that board, I am not in a position to say that five members are enough; in my opinion it is; but should I be wrong, then the Grand Lodge could elect enough members to make our board large enough to handle the affairs of our Brotherhood.

Out of the delegates assembled at each district convention could be elected twenty delegates to the international convention; no district convention would be allowed to be in session over six days. Now let us see what we would save.

At present 830 delegates in a convention for thirty days at a salary of $7.00 per day would be an expense of $174,300 while under my plan 830 delegates in session six days, and 100 delegates in session twenty days would be an expense of $48,860, which would be a saving over the present system of $125,440.

Our international convention would then consist of 100 of the best men in our organization. And the work of the convention would be conducted with greater deliberation and expedition.

Paying Beneficiary Claims After TwentyFive Years.

I believe that the time has arrived when we should begin to look after our old members and establish a system whereby we could pay off our members after a continuous membership of twentyfive years. In 1906 we changed the name of our organization to show the world that we protect both sides of the engine.

In looking over the report of the General Secretary and Treasurer for the quarter ending December 31, 1912, I ând that there were more claims paid to members who were less than one year in the order than was paid for members who had stayed with us for twenty-five years.

We pay for the loss of one eye. The loss of one eye prevents a man from working on a railroad, but old age prevents a man from engaging in any kind of labor and should be given some consideration, for if any man needs help it is one who has rode an engine for twenty-five years. I would say, try this for ten years. By that time we will control both sides of the engine, and if it is a failure we can "cut it out."

General Auditor.

At Milwaukee and Columbus it was proposed to create the office of grand auditor. I did not give the question much study for the reason I was opposed to it.

Of late I have given this question considerable thought, and at present am in favor of creating the office of general auditor. Not to look after the affairs of the Grand Lodge, but for the protection of the subordinate lodges, especially

the small lodges. Every one knows that the boards of trustees of subordinate lodges are often very negligent. In many cases they don't want the work and they don't do it. The trouble is our members too often vote for "good fellows" and not for brothers who will look after the affairs of the lodge with proper care. The financial secretaries are bonded, which is a waste of money if the trustees fail to do their work. There are many cases wherein a financial secretary "goes to the bad" in which it is useless to call on the bonding company because of the negligence of the trustees.

Now with a general auditor each financial secretary would be compelled to furnish a monthly report stating how much money was on hand, the amount of expenses, who and how many were carried, and a statement from his bank showing the amount on deposit to the credit of the lodge on the first of the month. If he failed to furnish this report then the general auditor could send a man to see why the report was not sent in. The money being paid to the bonding companies could thus be saved and the subordinate lodges would be better protected with a salaried man looking after their financial affairs. This department could easily be maintained with a monthly assessment of 5 cents per member, which in the case of most lodges could be paid out of the general fund of the lodge, and would save an occasional special assessment of $1.00 to replenish the treasury.

Accident Department.

I also favor the establishment of an accident department. If insurance companies can carry on an accident department why not our Brotherhood? These companies pay good salaries to their solicitors and collectors and are laying away millions of dollars yearly, so why can we not maintain an accident depart ment and furnish our members a cheaper accident insurance and still put away a little money to be given to our aged members?

Organizing Department. While I consider it the duty of every member to make himself a committee of one to solicit new members, I am strongly in favor of maintaining the organizing department. I also favor the "union shop" in our occupation. It is not the student that is hurting us; it is the back

slider, who has been allowed to become indebted to the lodge and then, rather than pay up, has left the Brotherhood. It is these men who always have a lot to say about the firemen's schedule and boast that they derive just as many benefits out of the Brotherhood as they do in it. Such men are no good, and if I had my way I would surely "put the rollers under them."

Recently the board was out here, and it was a shame to see a bunch of good Brotherhood men "cut off" and a lot of "non-airs" staying on the job. There are a lot of this kind in the country.

We also have ex-members traveling the country who steal the works, therefore I am strictly in favor of a new ritual with a stronger and more binding obligation.

My best wishes for the future success of our Brotherhood.

A. L. HALLIGAN,
Secretary Lodge 475.

The Injunction—Should We Discuss Politics.

I note that the question is being discussed in our valuable Magazine as to whether or not we should be allowed to talk politics at lodge meetings. If labor (the sleeping giant) is to be aroused we must discuss politics. I would like to submit to our brothers these few facts in regard to the injunction and how it is used against the workers before they decide that question.

The first application of injunction in labor disputes originated with a case in England in 1868. The case is known as Springhead Spinning Co. vs. Riley. In that case members of labor union were restrained from issuing placards which requested “all well wishers of the union" not to trouble or to cause any annoyance to the Springhead Spinning Co. by knocking at the door of their offices, until the dispute was settled. Vice-Chancellor Malins held that the defendant workmen were in this issuing of placards guilty of "threats and intimidations, rendering it impossible for the plaintiffs to obtain workmen, without whose assistance the property became utterly valueless for the purpose of trade." But this injunction order was only temporary and the ViceChancellor had doubts as to whether it would stand on subsequent hearing. should argument be made for making the

order permanent, for no precedent for such action existed, and he expressed the hope that if the case were taken before the full bench of Chancery that his decision would be sustained. This temporary injunction broke the strike and the motion to make the injunction permanent was never argued. In 1869, Vice-Chancellor Malins, in the case of Dixon vs. Holden, issued another temporary injunction of the same kind. This order, like that in the case of the Springhead Spinning Co. vs. Riley, was not appealed to a higher court.

Justice Malins Repudiated.

But in 1875 both of these cases were cited as furnishing precedents for an injunction case carried to the Chancery Court of Appeals, and known as the Prudential Insurance Co. vs. Knott. That highest equity tribunal deliberately and unanimously repudiated Vice-Chancellor Malins' action. Ground was taken that the court had no jurisdiction to restrain publications of a libel even if it was injurious to property. Lord Justice James said: "I think that Vice-Chancellor Malins was led to exaggerate the jurisdiction of this court in a manner for which there was no authority in any reported case, and no foundation in principle, and his (Malins) statement of the law in the case is not correct." Lord Chancellor Cain and Lord Justice Melligh concurred in the opinion of Justice James and negatived Vice-Chancellor Malins' action on the ground that it "was at variance with the settled practice and principles of the Chancery Court." It would seem that this decision was emphatic enough to guide the courts in future decisions. Yet, twenty years after Malins' decision and thirteen years subsequent to that injunction repudiation by the English Chancery Court of Appeals, a Massachusetts court in the case of Sherry vs. Perkins, took Vice-Chancellor Malins' action as a precedent for the issuance of a similar restraining order.

Think of it, that the judge, supposedly learned in the law, should render such a decision, using as a precedent the decision of Vice-Chancellor Malins that had been repudiated and negatived by a court of competent jurisdiction thirteen years before. And the tragedy of it is that every injunction in labor disputes from that date down to today has been based upon that illegal decision rendered by the Massachusetts court. In 1893 a

further step was taken by Federal Judge William Howard Taft, subsequently President, who enjoined Grand Chief Arthur of the B. of L. E. and commanded him to rescind an order which he had already given, boycotting a railroad. The injunction was issued upon the ground that the Interstate Commerce Act imposed certain public duties upon the railroad company the omission to perform which constituted a crime; that Arthur had conspired with others, by means of a boycott, to make it impossible for the railroad company to perform its obligations and, therefore, Arthur and his associates were guilty of an offense which constituted irreparable injury to the public as well as to the railroad company. Then came Federal Judge Ricks with the declaration "that if they resign from their employment before they started on a run, they are not in contempt, notwithstanding the existence of a contract, since such employes are exercising a personal right in quitting unconditionally and absolutely, which cannot be denied them." But in all respects the most celebrated injunction case was that growing out of the Pullman strike in 1894. On July 10th, Eugene V. Debs, President of the American Railway Union, was arrested on indictments for obstructing the mails and interstate commerce. He was arraigned, but despite his demand to be tried, the case was abandoned by the prosecution for want of proper evidence. President Cleveland's strike commission subsequently declared "that there is no evidence before the commission that the officers of the A. R. U. at any time participated in or advised intimidation, violence or destruction of property." if a jury would not convict when it had no evidence, another way might be found. It was found through an injunction which denies the right of trial by jury.

But

An omnibus enjoining order was issued July 17th by Federal Judges Woods and Grosscup against Debs and the officers of the A. R. U. Presumably on the ground that the A. R. U. was obstructing the mails in spite of the restraining order, although the soldiers that President Cleveland sent into Chicago were sent to the stock yards district where there were no mail cars. Debs and others were arrested for contempt of court. They were not sentenced until December. Judge Woods, without trial of the case before a jury, condemned Debs to six months imprisonment and his associates

to three months. Appeal was taken to the Supreme Court for release on habeas corpus, the ground being that any equity court had no right to issue such an injunction and thus deprive men of tria! by jury, but the higher court sustained the lower one.

Judge Seabury says that the enjoining orders issued by judges violate fundamental rights.

write, and as a majority of them are practically disfranchised by virtue of their occupation it may be unreasonable to expect them to take any interest in politics or anything else other than making a living and getting what rest they can between working intervals.

I read with much interest and appreciation the following articles in the January number: "Carnegie Would Pension

He must have a hearing before a magistrate, a grand jury must be satisfied that a crime has been committed, and that reasonable ground for believing the accused guilty exists. Upon the indictment found by the grand jury he is tried by a petit jury, and even this verdict, if improperly arrived at or contrary to the law, may be set aside upon appeal.

This protection guarantees the rights of the meanest criminal. But under the new method of injunction a judge sitting in his chambers may, with utter disregard of rights, issue orders commanding the persons named to do or not to do the things specified in the order, and may include in that order anybody and everybody whether concerned or not. And it should be understood that the issuing of such an injunction by the courts takes away the legal and constitutional rights supposed to be guaranteed to the people. All of these decisions but prove the truth of Thomas Jefferson's statements when he said that the execution of the laws is more important than the making of them. For every day brings evidence of new usurpations of power by the court in keeping with capitalist's desire, causing further deprivation of the liberty of the working class. And this condition will only be changed when the working people are sufficiently intelligent politically.

ABRAM O. MYERS,
Lodge 798.

Conditions That Can Not Endure.

I was very pleased to read my last January's Magazine. It began the present year in a way that we could be proud of. It indicates a broad-minded Editor.

I am sorry to note the "let up" in "political discussion" in our Magazine, but I suppose it is about what we must expect, as men of our calling have such little time to study and still less time to

Reeking Conditions in American Food Canneries," and "The Children of the Poor and the Dogs of the Rich." Now the conditions to which these articles so forcibly call attention are by no means new to me, although I read them with interest, as they shed more light on the subjects of which they treat, but in reading them it made my blood boil again to think about such things existing in this great republic (?) of ours where we are supposed to be all free and equal.

Why should an ex-President be pensioned after receiving his four or five hundred thousand dollars while filling the presidency, especially when as a rule they are fairly well off before going into the office? Now just figure out how long it would take a fireman to make $400,000 swinging the scoop. When should he be entitled to a pension and how much pension per annum should he get, computing from the standard that Presidents should be pensioned after four years service and that their pension should be $25,000 annually? And yet firemen receive more for their work than lots of others, for instance, see the article above referred to entitled "Child Slavery and Filth Reeking Conditions in American Food Canneries," also "The Children of the Poor and the Dogs of the Rich." Why, we must even pay some of our fellow beings for the privilege of living on the earth or else we become "tramps without visible means of support" and are put in chains on the rock pile. How many millionaires have you heard of being arrested just lately for having "no visible means of support"? Yet, if they have been at any work other than evading the law I have seen no account of it in the great dailies. Brothers, they tell me that sometimes in these great steel mills of Carnegie's, the same that Mr. Carnegie got his wealth from to pension ex-Presidents, a great pot or oven that they melt the iron in will burst and that said molten iron will run like water over the ground where the men are at work, bringing a terrible