that it is not a contract at all, because it lacks the essential feature of damages, because it makes a man labor whether he wants to or not. He may have received news of the death of parent or near kinsman; he can not go. He may have conceived a deep disgust for his surroundings, for the companions with whom he labors, he may find horribly cruel task masters, he can not break his service; he has bound himself, is penned to this district and with this man. I call this slavery, qualified slavery, because it is not for life and because he has entered into it, as coolie may be even better than in his native land, that he may return with his wages to China and have improved his condition; that does not concern us in the least. It was often said in the days of slavery that after all the condition of the slave under a good master-and the great majority of the masters were fairly good -was better than in the wilds of Africa under his own native chief, exposed to despotism of the barbarous and savage kind. It might be so, and it might not be So. It did not concern us. The question then was, Did we want slavery in the On January 28th, Train No. 9 collided with No. 8 (the Atlantic Express) fifteen miles east of Tucson, Arizona. No. 9 was running at a speed of fifty miles per hour and No. 8 was making about twenty-five miles an hour at the time of collision. Failure of operator to deliver order caused the accident. Both engineers and one fireman and many passengers were killed and burned. This view shows the search for remains in the charred wreckage. See letter in correspondence for particulars it is said, with his own eyes open. But still it is slavery while it lasts. Professor Jenks said the whole question turned upon this, whether coolie labor is, as I maintain, a qualified form of slavery or not, and if it is, then it must be condemned as a monstrosity. The historical connection of coolie labor with slavery is clearly traceable. Immediately after slavery was abolished, the former slave owners of Cuba and Peru especially, and the West Indies, resorted to coolie laborers as substitutes. You have the connection there. It is a matter of history. And, oh! The horrors of that early coolie trade! They remind one exactly of what happened with slaves. It makes no matter at all, whether, as some say, possibly the condition of the United States? The question now is, Do we want the coolie system in the Philippines? The question as to what shall be done with the Africans in Africa, or the Chinese in China, to improve their condition, is a totally different consideration. Why is it that the proposition is made? Why coolie labor, Chinese labor in the Philippines? Why not develop the Philippine Islands with free labor, the free labor of the Filipinos? Professor Jenks himself says in his article, that one employer of labor at least, found among twelve hundred two hundred Filipinos who were perfectly competent and satisfactory. If there were two hundred, there must be many such two hundreds. Why not content ourselves with the two hundred for the present and start the great campaign of education. Schools! Schools! by Governor Odell, in his message to the Schools! Agricultural schools, industrial Legislature recommending the amending schools. The people are teachable, clever, intelligent, have taste. Why not develop them along the lines of handicraft and make them tillers of the soil? Why not be patient for fifteen or twenty years, until the schools have done their perfect work? Why not? We have gone into the Philippine Islands with high moral professions, to do an ethical work on a national scale. Duty sent us thither. We must elevate and develop a great people, but there has been all along another wish in our hearts, and I am afraid that that, as the event shows, was the primary wish to make money out of these Philippines. And that is the reason why we can not wait; that is the reason why we can not allow the schools to do their work for ten or twenty years, and train industrial laborers. That is the reason why we are not content with the two hundreds that already exist. That is the reason why we are insisting that Chinese coolies shall be introduced into the islands. That is the reason why we do not shrink, at least some of us do not shrink, for the sake of commercial greed, from reopening on the body politic the cicatrized wound of human slavery. Child Labor in New York City. There has been a great outcry of late in the North against child labor in the South, particularly in the southern cotton mills; but it now appears, according to the New York Tribune, "that we need to turn our attention homeward." It has been found that about 16,000 children under fourteen years are employed in New York City in spite of the law, and it has been claimed by workers among the poor that more child labor exists in New York than in all the States of the South combined, which The Tribune calls "a remarkable revelation." An independent body, known as the Child Labor Committee of New York, has investigated the matter, and in its report declares that "grave defects exist in the present Child Labor and Compulsory Education law, to the great injury of the rising generation and of society at large." In spite of the effective work of the State factory inspectors and the city board of health in the enforcement of the present law, children are employed before the educational test has been complied with, and they are employed under the legal age of fourteen. The committee indorses the position taken of the child-labor laws, and has already entered on its campaign for legislation on the subject. The committee in its report cites some phrases of the law and shows the defects "due to the loose phraseology." The law says that children shall not be employed under fourteen, but this allows them to work "if they are accompanied by a parent or elder brother or sister who is paid for the child's work (the child's name not appearing on the pay-roll)." The ten-hour law for children under fourteen "is made difficult and almost impossible of enforcement by a clause which allows any day to be lengthened on condition that a shorter day is made of Saturday." The law allows vacation work for children twelve years old, but the committee states that "only with great difficulty can children who work during vacation be taken out of the many factories and stores in which they are widely distributed and returned to school." The report adds: If, "The statutory definition of those occupations which constitute factory or mercantile work has several times been boys, messenger, delivery, and express amended, but is still incomplete. Office boys, etc., who have been protected by similar laws in other States, do not receive that protection in New York. in addition to a better definition in the mercantile and factory laws, the statutes were extended so as to deal with street work, all children working for wages should be protected by law. This is most desirable as a re-enforcement of the Compulsory Education law. A measure for regulating street trades was proposed and powerfully supported under the last administration. "The Compulsory Education law requires of children twelve years of age merely that they should attend school eighty days. The child-labor laws say that the children shall not work until they are fourteen years old. This lack of agreement between the two laws is perhaps the most serious obstacle to the proper enforcement of either. The inspectors of this and other States agree that the enactment and proper enforcement of such a Compulsory Education Law as that now being urged by the Association of Superintendents of Education is at the same time the most important measure for the restriction of child labor." The work of investigation is being continued under the direction of Miss Helen Marot, says Charities (New York), and one of the "most striking features" has been the "large number of children found beyond the pale of the present law." These include the newsboys, bootblacks, peddlers, office boys, messengers and telegraph boys and those who deliver for the express companies. There are children who deliver milk from four in the morning until the opening of school, and others who work before and after school. Twenty-eight of the newsboys questioned made less than $1 a week. Out of 100 newsboys, 67 were twelve years old or under. Those of the boys who go to school sell their papers after 3:30 in the afternoon until as late as midnight, and some later. The condition among the delivery boys seems to be worse. The committee investigated the case of an express company that employed children of 11 years and upward from 7 in the morning until about 9 and 10 at night. On Friday and Saturday nights they work until midnight, and, if all the packages are not delivered at midnight on Saturday, the children have to work on Sunday. One of the investigators, Mr. Poole, of the University Settlement, as quoted in Charities, found near Newspaper Row over one hundred boys sleeping in the streets. "Other hundreds sleep in stables, condemned buildings, back rooms of low saloons, and halls of tenements. This sleep they piece out at intervals." E He found boys between the ages of 12 and 16 working in the Chinese quarter of the city, cooking opium pills and running errands for the white women who frequent these dives, from 8 p. m. until after 8 the next morning. In Wall street, too, Mr. Pool found hundreds of stock-runners below 14 years of age. "Compared to this the child slavery of the South is the greatest freedom," says the Memphis Commercial-Appeal. "There is nothing in southern factories," it adds, "to be compared to this, and yet the evils that exist in southern factories might be abated." The Philadelphia Record remarks that "if private persons can find cases enough to warrant organization, there can be no excuse for the paid agents of the State whose sole duty is to maintain the integrity of the law." Among the executive officers of the Child Labor Committee are Dr William H. Maxwell, superintendent of public schools in New York; William H. Baldwin, Dr. Felix Adler, and Robert Hunter. Other prominent persons behind the moveemnt include Dr. Lyman Abbott, Jacob A. Riis, Robert C. Ogden, and Bishop Potter. Literary Digest. Court Decisions Collision-Fellow-Servants. LZIE N. HOWE was fireman on No. 13, a mixed passenger and freight train on the Northern Pacific Railway, running from Cheney to Coulee City, Wash. On the day of his injury a snowplow train had been sent ahend of the passenger train to clear the road and prepare the track for the passenger, and at a point about six miles east of Almira, No. 13, upon which Howe was firing the lead engine, ran into the snow plow, and Howe was injured by the collision to such an extent that his leg had to be amputated. Suit for $25,000 damages on this account was brought by Howe against the company, with which were joined as defendants the superintendent of the division and the chief dispatcher of the division. The trial resulted in a verdict for $15,000 against the company, the other defendants having been dismissed by the court. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Washington, where the judgment was affirmed. court in substance held: The In an action for a fireman for injuries sustained in a collision it was proper to join with the railroad as parties defendant the division superintendent and division train dispatcher. A collision of trains is prima facie the result of negligence, where the rights of passengers and of railroad companies are in controversy. lision of two trains can not be held a felA fireman who was injured by a collow-servant of both or either conductors. Negligence of a fellow-servant concurring with the negligence of the master does not excuse the primary negligence of the master for injury to another fellow servant. As the opinion is quite interesting and important we give part of it in full: "We have examined the record in detail and, although it is voluminous, we have been unable to discover any reversible error, either in the admission or rejection of testimony or in the giving or refusing to give instructions. But even if slight error had crept into some of the proceedings in relation to the proof of negligence, we think, under the theory of the appellant, that it would not have been prejudicial, and that the court would have been justified in instructing the jury that negligence had been proven. It is settled law that a rear-end or head-end collision is prima facie the result of negligence, where the rights of passengers and of railroad companies are in controversy. If any different rule obtains in a litigation between the railroad company and an em of the signals, or in the entire failure to use them. It will be noted that there was no careless or negligent use of the signal appliances which were on this snowplow train. They had the appliances, they had torpedoes, they had fuses, and they had lanterns; but, instead of there being a negligent or careless use of them, they did not use them at all. Any one of these signals would have avoided a collision or accident of this sort. A torpedo placed on the track, even though there be but one, is a signal for any following train to stop until it has burned out. * There was a conductor on the ploye who is injured, it must be upon the theory that the employe is in some way responsible for the negligense, either through contribution on his part or contribution by a fellow-servant. It is conceded and asserted in this case that the conductors on both trains, viz., the passenger train No. 13 and the snowplow train, were guilty of negligence, and that the accident would not have happened had it not been for such negligence. After discussing the rules which provide the duty incumbent upon the conductor to use certain precautions in cases of this kind, and referring to the fact that train No. 13 left Almira only ten minutes after the train, who could have done these things; * snowplow train, and the assertion that the officers are charged by the rules with the duty of assuming that another train is coming when their train is delayed, that explosive caps or torpedoes are provided for placing upon the tops of the rails as signals to be used in addition to the regular signals; and many other precautionary provision-the appellant says: 'It is shown by the record that trains very often lose time or actually have to stop between stations. This has been true ever since railroad trains commenced running, and because of this all trains were equipped, as this snowplow train was equipped, with appliances to protect them ahead and in the rear. These appliances are so effective and so easily used that there is no occasion and no reason for a rear-end collision of this sort, except in the instance where the train crews are wholly negligent and careless in the use there was a rear brakeman on the train, who could have done these things; and every single one of these men knew and must have known that train was losing time from the moment that it left Almira; and every one of these men knew and must have known that a fast-running passenger train was behind them, running in the same direction. It is almost inconceivable under such circumstances, and almost impossible to believe, that these appliances for their protection were not used; but they were not, and thus the injury was caused.' Like negligence is attributed by the appellant to the managers of both the snowplow train and the passenger train. This charge must be made upon the theory that the fireman was a fellow-servant with the conductor of the train, and that, therefore, the negligence of the conductor was the negligence of the fireman. We can not con ceive that it is the duty of the fireman to assume or know that the conductor has done his duty-a duty so plain and palpable as is charged upon him by the appellent in this case; or that he is to leave his box, and establish a surveillance over the conductor and other operators of the train. Such conduct on his part would not only be unbecoming or intolerable, but, if tolerated, might lead to the gravest results. There must be some one in control of trains of cars while in transit. There must be some directing mind, some particular person in whom responsibility is lodged; and it would lead to most disastrous confusion if the practice obtained to confer responsibility and directing power equally and miscellaneously upon conductors, brakemen, engineers, firemen, and other operators of a railroad. The proof of such a practice would be the strongest proof of negligence. But it may be confidently asserted that no such practice prevails. It is a matter of common knowledge that the conductor of a train under ordinary circumstances is the controlling power. His official title indicates it; and the assumption of the master's authority by him, together with the actions of the company towards him, proves it. As was pertinently said by the Supreme Court of the United States in Railroad Co. v. Ross, 112 U. S. 377, 5 Sup. Ct. 184, 28 L. Ed. 787: "The conductor of a railway train, who commands its movements, directs when it shall start, at what stations it shall stop, at what speed it shall run, and has the general management of it, and control over the persons employed upon it, represents the company; and therefore that, for injuries resulting from his negligent acts, the company is responsible. If such conductor does not represent the company, the train is operated without any representative of its owner.' But, whatever may be said of the doctrine of fellow-servants in other jurisdictions, under the uniform holdings and announcements of this court the fireman on this train can not be held to be a fellow-servant of the conductors on both or either of the trains which collided, and the negligence which led to this collision is proven upon both equally. The negli gence of the company was so overwhelmingly proven in many instances in this case that, even if there had been negligence on the part of some one who might be construed to be a fellow-servant of the respondent, the appellant would not thereby be relieved of its responsibility. Railroad Co. vs. O'Brien, 1 Wash. St. 599, 21 Pac. 32. It is uniform authority that, if negligence of the master contributes to the injury, he is liable, even though the negligence of a fellow-servant was contributory. Railroad Co. vs. Cummings, 106 U. S. 700, 1 Sup. Ct. 493, 27 L. Ed. 266. This principle has been uniformly followed by this court, and was again announced in Ralph vs. Bridge Co (decided December 23, 1902) 70 Pac. 1098, where it is said: 'It is also well settled that, if the negligence of a fellow-servant concur with the negligence of the master, it does not excuse the primary negligence of the master for injury to another fellow-servant.'" Howe vs. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. et al., 70 Pac. Rep. (Wash.) 110. Acts Held Not Negligence. In an action against the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company to recover damages for the death of Charles J. Goben, the Iowa Supreme Court recites the facts in full in the opinion as follows: On "For some time immediately preceding his death, and at the time thereof, Charles J. Goben was at work for the defendant as a fireman on one of its switch engines in its yard near Valley Junction, Iowa. This yard is situated about five miles west of Des Moines, which is a division point on the line of the defendant's road, and is extensively used for the storage and movement of engines and cars. the twenty-second day of June, 1898, at about 6 o'clock in the morning, the engine which the deceased fired, known as '34,' was standing on the storehouse track in the said yard, and was in his charge. It was steaming at the time, and a considerable amount of the steam was ecaping from the angle valve located near the forward end of the engine. About 9 feet south of the storehouse was another track, and coming from the west on this track was another switch engine, which at the time was running at the rate of five or six mile an hour. This engine was operated by an engineer and fireman, who had also been at work in the yard for some time, and was known as '46.' Engine 34 was first seen by the fireman on engine 46 when about 350 feet west of her, as they were going east. At that time no one was in sight around 34. When 46 got within 80 or 100 feet of 34, the deceased got out of the cab of 34, and walked east by her side to the angle valve from which the steam was escaping. He stopped there, took hold of the valve with his hand, and was apparently attempting to fix it. Both the engineer |