ND so the Sherman Anti-Trust law has again been invoked. Under the interpretation given to it by the Supreme Court of the United States, the Hatters were sued by D. E. Loewe and Company, hat manufacturers of Danbury, Conn., or more properly speaking, sued at the instigation of the so-called Anti-Boycott Association. A jury and a federal court have awarded Loewe a sum of $80,000, which under that law is trebled, amounting to $240,000 and costs.

Under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Sherman law, under which this suit was brought, and under which suits of a similar character may be instituted by any employer or business man feeling aggrieved or injured by working people united for the purpose of protecting themselves or promoting their interests, the workers may find themselves defendants at any time. Not only are the funds of any labor organization subject to be mulcted and practically confiscated by any employer or combination of employers, or an association of pettifogging lawyers; not only may the small holdings of workingmen and working women be attacked and attached, but their few dollars deposited in savings institutions may be attached at the behest of either of these agencies. And still further, the voluntary organizations of labor, instituted not for profit, may be dissolved at the whim, fancy, or caprice of any administration, instigated by any capitalist combination, and the officers and members of these voluntary labor organizations may be prosecuted under the criminal provisions of that law, and sentenced to a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for one year.

That is the status of the labor organizations of the United States; that is the position in which the members of organized labor find themselves since that twist was given to the Sherman Anti-Trust law by the Supreme Court; that twist has been emphasized by the second award by a jury in the federal court in the Hatters' case. That award was rendered by the jury October 11, 1912.

The attorneys for Loewe, or rather the

Anti-Boycott Association, declared that the case just concluded was the most important one of its kind ever tried in the courts of the United States. In one sense that is true, but to our mind it is secondary and supplementary. The most important one was the original case brought upon appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, when that court decided that the voluntary associations of the working people come under the provisions of the Sherman AntiTrust law, for upon that hinged the case now concluded in the Federal Circuit Court.

Of course, the case in point will be appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and, if necessary, to the Supreme Court of the United States, and it is earnestly hoped that a reversal of the judgment of the lower court will follow. But even when success shall have attended that effort, the fundamental point will still remain an issue, and that is that:

The organizations of the workers, organized not for profit, but instituted for the protection of their bodies, their minds, their souls, should not and must not be placed in the same category with combinations, corporations and trusts, the purpose of which is to manipulate, control, and create "corners" in the products of labor.

There must be a differentiation, which the enlightened public sentiment of American citizens will at no distant day declare, between associations of workers, having humanitarian and altruistic purposes as their guiding motives and the ground work of their existence, and, on the other hand, those who deal in, corner, manipulate, and trustify the necessaries of human existence.

And until that issue is finally determined before our courts, or before the Congress of the United States, it must of necessity be not only an economic but a political issue, to be fought out every minute and every day until the final and successful outcome.

Organized labor must live. It has done so much for the toilers, it has so much to do for them, and for all the people, to preserve their liberties, to protect and promote their common welfare.

The Sherman Anti-Trust law must be amended-or ended.

(Mr. Klein, attorney for the Brotherhood and for L. U. 224, has received so many requests for a copy of the decision of Judge Dickson in refusing to issue an injunction asked for, that we reprint an editorial from the International Molders' Journal which embodies the decision and forcefully comments upon it. Ed.)

HE only law of the land that can exist in a democracy is the law enacted directly by the people or through their chosen representatives to legislative assemblies.

Whenever without sanction or authority of the law or the constitution any public official issues an order which citizens are instructed to obey under penalty of punishment, then the democratic form of government has been superseded by an unauthorized and arbitrary power, a power which by its acts announces itself as superior to the laws enacted by the people.

It is because of the intent and provisions of the injunctions issued by many of our courts at the request of employers when some industrial dispute is under way that the term "government by injunction" has been applied as indicating a most dangerous usurpation of power, which if permitted to continue would strangle any democratic form of government and supplant it by government through judicial edict.

There is a growing recognition on the part of the general public that there have been many gross abuses of the injunction granting power by a number of our courts, and among the judiciary itself there are to be found clear-seeing and fearless men who will not allow their courts to be used as a sword to separate the workmen from their legal rights during a dispute with their employers.

During a recent strike of sign painters, in Cincinnati, the employer, following the usual custom, applied for an injunction which, if granted, would have restrained the strikers from doing what they had a legal right to do and which would have

provided for their trial without a jury, if they were accused of breaches of the peace or any illegal act which under any other circumstances would have to be tried before a jury.

Judge Dickson refused to grant the injunction, and his reasons for this refusal are so fundamental and so clearly stated that the decision is reproduced from the court record in full: State of Ohio-County of Hamilton, Court of Common Pleas. No. 150614. Ph. Morton, Plaintiff,

VS.

The Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America; Sign Writers' Local Union No. 224, of Cin cinnati, Ohio, et al., Defendants. The decision of Judge Wm. L. Dickson, rendered on the 16th day of May, 1912, at Cincinnati, Hamilton County, O. Frank M. Coppock, attorney for Ph. Morton, Plaintiff.

Nicholas Klein, attorney for the Labor Unions, etc.

It is claimed that certain unions by resolution ordered certain illegal means to be taken to injure the business of the plaintiff-one Morton, a sign painterand for this reason the court is asked to issue an injunction against a union and thus by service on its officers to restrain its members from committing offenses, and thus if any member of the union violate such an order, hold him in contempt of court and punish him ther for and this court also is asked to permit the plaintiff herein to publish by posting throughout the vicinity such an order, to the end that any one violating the order may be punished for contempt of court.

hide behind any order of the union.

In the matters complained of this court has no authority to enjoin the union. It cannot in these matters punish the union. It cannot serve summons on the members of the union by proclamation. It is not proper for a court to violate the law to prevent the law being violated. The court should not permit itself to be used as a scarecrow. It is not wise for a court to make an order which it cannot carry out; indeed, it has no power so to do. No court has a right without a duty, and the duty here lies in doing complete legal justice and without fear. This court is not a police court. We know as a rule persons who commit offenses as individuals and by name. This court has power to restrain individuals who threaten to injure property rights. It has no power to restrain the commission of crimes or offenses against the state. This power is with the police department. This court will not permit the employer or the employee to terrorize the other, nor will it permit either to obtain any writ for the purpose of terrorizing any one.

In contempt proceedings the offenses and the offender should be definite and certain and the punishment or discharge certain and sure. This court will not permit any one to obtain an injunction without a hearing, nor will it permit a temporary restraining order unless notice to the other side be given or a good reason be given for its omission, and a reason of sufficient force to require an entry setting forth the reasons therefor, so that all may know the same and so that punishment for contempt may be inflicted if the court has been deceived in omitting notice.

Judge Dickson has made clear the fact that no man should be denied the right of a trial by jury when charged with some offense through the subterfuge of a charge of contempt, and that police or criminal court cases are not to be transferred to a court of equity because some employer believes this would be to his advantage during a dispute with his workmen.

The judge has in addition advanced an opinion which is of great value, when he says that parties applying for an injunetion without giving notice to the parties to be enjoined must give all of their reasons clearly and in detail, so that if it is found that they deceived the court through their statements they themselves

T IS difficult with a subject of this sort to be at once forceful and dramatic in the statement of facts, and escape the charge of sentimentality and sensationalism. Let me be rather prosaic than explosive, and charge me with with being dull rather than pyrotechnic.

Allowing that it is impossible for us to change the inheritance of the child, we must admit that environment plays the largest part in the development of the little man or woman. Every child is entitled to a mother, a father and a home. In this statement comes the assumption that the father has steady employment and a living wage. Every child is entitled to a childhood free from toil. This statement contains the subject of this paper.

When a child is born, if a little boy, he is 52 centimeters, 19 inches long, and if a little girl, two centimeters, or almost an inch, shorter. During the first ten days of life these children lose in weight and then, under proper circumstances, gain again all that they have lost. Then begins the most interesting period of their growth, which continues for six months. At this time there is generally a slight arrest of growth. It is referred to as teething. It may be abrupt and short, or slow and longer. Then begins a spurt which rarely stops before the end of the second year, and often not until the sixth year. At these periods there

is generally a more or less distinct loss in vigor and strength, and sometimes even in weight, which is followed in due time by another period of growth. Between six and sixteen boys and girls show distinct variations in the method and rapidity of their development, so that while the boys have been taller and heavier than the girls until the age of ten or twelve, at this time the girls outstrip the boys in height, weight, strength and mental vigor, to be overtaken by the boys only after the permanent rest which the girls generally take on at about the age of eighteen or nineteen. The girl's growth is then complete before she is twenty, while the boy, under proper surroundings, grows until he is twenty-three or twenty-four.

These periods of diminished weight and arrest of growth are accompanied by corresponding plateaux in mental and spiritual development. The boy in the resting stage, at ten or eleven, is unattractive, disagreeable, mischievous and obstreperous.

He begins to have trouble with his teacher just when his twin sister shows an unusual degree of application and attractiveness. He is a torment and grows worse and worse, until some morning, when he comes to school with clean hands, a clean face and parted hair, and before you know it, he is an inch taller than when you last looked at him. The wise parent and the successful teacher are able to guide the unhappy youth through these critical periods either by love or intuition.

The growth of the child is progressive and follows a certain sequence, like the building of a house, or the maturing of a plant. In the first month nutrition is established and the trunk muscles grow, and all of their connections are made through the cord to the brain. The five senses look out and take cognizance of pain and pleasure, but it is many years before the eye is trained to color, form and size, and the ear to the sweetness of melody and harmony, and only by the most varied and successive and rational exercises are the muscles of the extremities brought to perfection with all the complicated nervous connections with which they must strung through the cord to the brain and the organs of perception. Unless the foundations are well laid, unless the framework is symmetrically raised, the house can not be enclosed and roofed and decorated. Much more complicate are the buildings of the body, much more rigid are the sequences which must be followed in his exercise in order that the man may eventuate.

be

The embryo life of the boy or girl is the key to the history of animal creation. The physical, mental and moral development of the child follows in the same manner of development of the race through savagery and barbarism to civilization.

It is not part of my plan to point out the fact that the graded schools do not consider the irregular development of the mind, nor to his particular fallibility at the critical periods which so constantly pursue him. It is enough to consider how the child reacts to the drudgery and toil of the factory, the workshop, the office and the department store.

In the primitive American home, the child began to work almost as soon as he could walk. He did certain chores; he brought in the wood, shoveled away the snow, pumped the water, fed the pigs and

chickens, and a little later milked the cows, watered the horses and cleaned the stables. Each of these acts and obligations was timed to his strength and growth. Each was first admired in another, then shared, and at last undertaken and carried out. Every occupation was a new study in physics, chemistry or biology. The trees were tapped, the sap collected and boiled down into syrup in the spring. Then came the plowing, seeding and planting and the care of the crops. At last the harvesting, threshing and even further preparation for food or raiment. The flax was threshed, retted, broke, swingled, hetcheled and spun. It was often put into the loom and woven into plain or figured cloth for the raiment, the table or for dressing the beds. The sheep were sheared and the wool washed, carded and spun and then dyed and woven into cloth for the use of the family. The sheep and cattle were butchered and the tallow was tried out and made into candles, and the hides were taken to the tannery and brought back to be made into boots and shoes during the long winter evenings. In the shop sleds, wagons, tubs, boxes and pails were made, and in the front of the horse barn there was a bellows and forge, an anvil and other tools by which the horses were shod and every conceivable implement of iron and steel made and repaired. Every bit of work that the boy or girl did was educational and developmental, and none of it was toil or grind. It amount. ed to a natural and unconscious joy, in which the father and mother and older brothers and sisters were the teachers and the children the pupils.

In the twentieth century, and in this country, the toiling child is routed out of bed, eats a joyless breakfast of scant nutrition, and takes a street car, where he pays an adult fare, for the factory. He enters with a number and sits down before a machine contrived so ingeniously that any child can run it, and built so substantially that no fool can break it. There he sits all day and feeds plates of tin, wood or iron to its insatiable and relentless jaws. At the noon hour he swaggers off and eats a cold lunch among surroundings anything but conducive to his health, his physical comfort or his intellectual and moral needs. The afternoon is spent before the same insatiable machine. As the day wears away and sundown approaches, there are more errors, and here and there the revengeful machine takes his meed of blood and bone. The child goes home weary and bedraggled, physically, mentally and morally. Irresponsible, overworked and

overweary, underfed and unrecreated, he naturally seeks stimulants and dissipation. Days and weeks drag on, until in a fit of almost propulsive insanity he quits his job on trivial provocation and in spite of forfeits or fines, shortly seeks another, where the same history is repeated.

It is wonderful what skill and aptness the child acquires. He can feed a machine more deftly than any man or woman; he learned it quicker, and can outstrip his older brother or sisters at piece work, but the act is one ceaseless repetition, until the whole nervous system revolts, or until he is displaced by a younger or defter competitior. The child is kept at the machine he can feed the fastest, without regard to his need of physical development. There is no rotation, there is no consideration for the fact that this ceaseless attention of the weary eyes results in baneful astigmatism which no lens can cure, that the posture provokes or aggravates a curvature of the spine, and that the dusty atmosphere lays deep and sure the basis of respiratory infection. Only one thought rules in the factory where children are employed-it is cheap and manageable labor and a profitable product.

The factory toiling child is placed under conditions advantageous to the production of goods and regardless of the destruction of the embryo man and citizen. It is possible that factories could be sanitary, dustless and well lighted. It is possible that the machines could be so guarded that they would be harmless and so devised that they would be noiseless. It is possible that the factories could be made as educational as the household of fifty years ago, and by a rotation of occupations the child could be made useful while at the same time his body would be developed by measured and well-timed exercises, his mind be cultivated and stimulated by rational and reasonable activity, and his soul brought out and mellowed by the charm of sympathy, the stimulus of social dependence and enthusiasm and the fascination of beautiful surroundings and lofty ideals.

As it is, however, the machine maims the child. The toil stunts him. The ceaseless expenditure of energy dwarfs his mental development and ruins his physical symmetry and beauty and the irrational methods of manufacture and commerce unhinge his moral sensibilities. The result of child labor is defective manhood and womanhood. The strength of the State is its citizenship. The toiling childhood is poor preparation for patriotic manhood. Bond slavery conserved childhood and youth to realize on