use of an individual; that it is not within the "competency" of the government to invade the privacy of a citizen's life and to regulate his conduct in matters in which he alone is concerned, or to prohibit him any liberty, the exercise of which will not directly injure society. A recent decision of the United States Supreme Court is viewed by lawyers as having a direct bearing upon some of the vital questions involved in the Webb law, regulating inter-State commerce in liquors. The case was that of a Tennessee corporation, the Purity Extract and Tonic Company, manufacturer of a beverage called "Poinsetta," against one Lynch with whom it entered into an agreement for the sale to him on stated terms during a period of five years, of said beverage. The agreement contemplated re-sales by Lynch in Mississippi. He was given exclusive right to sell in Hinds county, for which he was to pay plaintiff $500.00. The action was to recover this amount. Lynch repudiated the agreement upon the ground that he had learned it was unlawful to sell "Poinsetta" in Mississippi. The nisi prius Court in Mississippi rendered judgment in favor of Lynch; the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The Mississippi courts construed the local statute of that State as prohibiting the sale of all malt liquors whether intoxicating or not. The case was taken to the United States Supreme Court, which, in substance, recognizes the right of the plaintiff to sell to the defendent and have its articles transported and delivered to the defendant in inter-State commerce, notwithstanding the laws of Mississippi, thereby recognizing the doctrine that transactions involving inter-State commerce are protected by the Federal Constitution.

A bank which collects a sight draft, representing the purchase price of liquor shipped in inter-State commerce into a prohibition State, does not violate the law prohibiting a carrier from acting as agent, according to an opinion handed down by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Paul, Minn. The First National Bank of Anamoose, North Dakota, had been collecting drafts for the purchase of beer and the United States District Attorney for Dakota procured an indictment against that bank, claiming that the prohibition imposed by Section 239 of the Penal Code forbids such collection. The claim was made, in defense, that the prohibition extended only to the common carriers who made the collections in connection with the transportation. The defendant was con

victed in the lower court and he appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the opinion and discharged the defendant.

A decision of more than usual interest was rendered recently by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington on the validity of the anti-treating law, adopted by the city of Tacoma. The ordinance was contested, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city. It held that under the power granted to the city to “regulate," which implies some degree of restraint and prohibition, this ordinance, which works a partial prohibition, is valid.

In affirming the Whatcom County Superior Court in the case of the State against the Bellingham Bay Brewing Company, the Superior Court of Washington has ruled that a brewery or other manufacturer of intoxicating liquor located in "dry" territory cannot sell liquor and deliver it on its premises, while in a second case the Whatcom County Superior Court is reversed, the Supreme Court holding that a brewery or other manufacturer of intoxicants located in a "dry" unit cannot sell its products and deliver them in that unit.

In a sweeping decision, Federal Judge Campbell holds that liquor can be shipped to the western part of Oklahoma and thence rebilled to the eastern part of the State, the shipment not violating the federal law. However, if the shipment is made direct to the eastern part of the State, which is known as Indian country, the men to whom it is consigned may be prosecuted under the old federal prohibition law against the introduction of liquor into old Indian Territory before that section became a part of Oklahoma.

The liquor people scored a victory in the three-mile petition case, on trial before Judge Carter of the Circuit Court, Texarkana, Ark., in their petition, which asked to have revoked the three-mile order under which Texarkana, Ark., has been "dry" the last three years. Attorneys for the prohibitionists state that an appeal will be taken to the Supreme Court.

Judge Dibell, of Duluth, Minn., has lately rendered a decision of considerable moment in the so-called Floodwood case. The Judge holds that it is against public policy for the common council to grant licenses to one of its members for the sale of intoxicating liquors.

The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that the State law making it a misdemeanor for any person to solicit orders for liquor,

is not in conflict with the inter-State commerce clause of the federal constitution, even though the person soliciting represents a concern located in another State.

The Iowa Supreme Court will, during the period of its present term, determine whether the Moon law, limiting the number of saloons in Iowa cities to one for every 1,000 persons, applies to special charter cities.

Supreme Court Justice Lehman, of New York, has decided that an agreement between a saloon man and a brewery, whereby the former contracts to sell no beer other than that provided by the brewery, is legal.

In Pennsylvania, the Luzerne County Court, through Judge Fuller, has laid down a rule that brewers must not execute agreements with liquor dealers that bind them to sell only one kind of beer, and that all such agreements must be recalled, because the Court would not countenance them.

In upholding the "wet" victory at Lebanon, Ky., the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that 25 per cent. of the voters of the district affected by an option law is necessary to a petition.

By decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, the town of Westerly, in that State, whose recent license election was in dispute, will remain "wet" for the next two years. The late contest was declared a tie and conditions preceding the election were ordered maintained.

The constitutionality of the liquor law passed by the last Oklahoma Legislature making it a felony to keep or rent a place with the intention of violating the prohibitory laws, was upheld by Judge Clark, of the District Court, when he overruled demurrers questioning constitutionality of the law.

The United States Supreme Court has just decided that liquors imported into this country become subject to State laws exercising the State police powers when they arrive, just as liquors from other States.

The Supreme Court of Minnesota has decided that the sale of intoxicating liquors being recognized as a legitimate business at common law, is not a nuisance per se. The licensing of the traffic is not invalid as being in violation of the general welfare clause of the Federal Constitution on the theory that the traffic is demoraliz

ing in its tendencies, inherently immoral and destructive of the public morals, health, safety, etc

THE PRESIDENT:-The next report is that of the Labor Committee, Mr. Schram, Chairman.

MR. SCHRAM'S REMARKS.

MR. SCHRAM:-I do not propose to read the report of the Labor Committee, Mr. President. It is in print and will be in the hands of all the members, and I hope that they will give it careful consideration at their leisure.

I desire, however, to state, in a few words, the general nature of the report and to say something about the activity of the Labor Committee during the past year. The work of the Labor Committee has had a much wider appreciation on the part of the members during the past year than it has ever had before, and, as a result, its activities have been more extended and the results of its work more striking.

The relations between the employers and the workmen are tending toward a much more satisfactory basis than ever before, and we find a greater consideration on the part of organized labor of the rights and claims of the employer than has ever been the case in the past. The Committee flatters itself that to its work, to a great extent, is due the fact that the employer is more appreciative of the aims and objects of organized labor, and that the labor organizations are more considerate of their obligations to their employers.

We have found a much better spirit and a more decided readiness to co-operate than ever before, and we believe that we are tending toward a time when the hostility between employer and workman, in our industry at least, will disappear and give way to a spirit of cheerful co-operation.

The labor adjuster, Mr. Moffett, has been called upon to travel from coast to coast and from north to south, in his task of assisting the members in framing of contracts and in the settlement of labor disputes, and his work has been fruitful of the most satisfactory

64

results. It is unfortunate that contracts mature during a very short time of the year, between the 1st of February and the 1st of May, which makes it physically impossible for one man to be in all the places where they may expire during this short period; but so far as possible he has been sent to every part of the country. His experience, his tact and the confidence of the employer and workman which he possesses have resulted in the greatest good, not only to our members but to our employees as well.

One of the most notable achievements during the past year has been the establishing of a Conciliation Board in the City of St. Louis. Labor conditions in that city have been extremely unsatisfactory in the past. There was constant friction between the employer and the workman, and as a result there was almost a continuous occurrence of shop strikes and similar disturbances in business. That, I am glad to say, is practically a thing of the past, and the result has been accomplished by the establishing of the Conciliation Board.

It may interest you to know what that is and how it is working. A Conciliation Board differs from an Arbitration Board in the fact that it consists of an equal number of representatives from the employers and the workmen. In the City of St. Louis the Board consists of six members, three representing the employers and three representing the workmen, who are elected by their respective bodies for a definite term, and all disputes, as they arise, are automatically referred to this Conciliation Board. There is an absence of the so-called umpire or odd man, and that is a matter of considerable importance. An Arbitration Board consisting of five members would have two from either side and one selected by both sides, which we think is a mistake, because it really means a decision by a man selected by a compromise, who has the entire responsibility upon his shoulders, and, who, being a compromise man, is most likely to decide the question not upon its merits, with a rigid regard for justice in the matter, but with a view of pacifying everybody; and the result is that usually it pleases nobody. A Conciliation Board being unhampered by the necessity for compromise, has a greater tendency to make a careful investigation, from all sides, of the questions submitted, and to render a decision upon a basis of justice. The members of a conciliation board-and that is apparently a feature of human nature that has not been appreciated in the past-seem to feel the responsibility