Defective Engine-Promise to
Repair.

B. F. Garren was a locomotive fireman in the employ of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway Company. His run was from Cleburne to Purcell, and from Purcell back to Cleburne. One day while on the eve of pulling out of Purcell it was discovered by him and the engineer that one of the iron steps on the engine used in getting on and off the engine was out of repair. The engineer attempted to fix it, but could not, for the want of proper tools. He said to the fireman: "I'll turn it around under the engine. I'll have it fixed." He did turn it under the engine and tightened it in that position. The train pulled out of Purcell and reached Gainesville about sundown, and stopped twenty-five minutes for supper After leaving Gainesville and nearing Saginaw, the fireman noticed some sparks flying from under the engine trucks. When the engine stopped at crossing of the Fort Worth and Denver City Railroad he got out to see what it was. Some pieces of waste had caught fire. He reached under and pulled it off and the engineer started the train. It was moving slowly and, when the gangway reached the fireman, he reached up, caught hold of the hand holds, and placed his foot on the step, which turned, causing him to fall, resulting in the injuries alleged. The engineer was superior to the fireman, and the fireman worked under his directions, though the engineer had no right to employ or discharge. When out on a trip, it is the duty of the engineer to inspect and keep his engine in repair, as near as he can. When the engine reaches the terminal, which was Cleburne in this instance, it is the duty of the engineer to enter upon the roundhouse register any defect, if any, that it may be repaired there. There were train inspectors at Gainesville, but their duty was only to inspect cars, not engines. It was the custom not to have defects repaired at Gainesville unless such defect interfered with the running of the train. When there is a defect that the engineer desires fixed at Gainesville, he wires ahead for some one to fix it. He did not wire in this instance. The train stopped at Gainesville long enough to have had the step repaired, but it was not done. The fireman, at the time he was hurt, supposed that the step had been repaired at

Gainesville. He was not guilty of contributory negligence.

In an action against the company for damages on account of the injuries, Garren recovered a judgment. This has just been affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, its conclusions of law being as follows:

"1. The evidence showing that it was the duty of the engineer to inspect and repair, or have repaired, the said step, and that the fireman was working under his directions, his promise to have said repairs made was the promise of the defendant, and the fireman was warranted in regarding it as such. Railway vs. Bingle, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 41 S. W. 90.

"2. Appellant insists that as Cleburne, under the custom shown, was the place where repairs were to be made, the plaintiff was not warranted in relying on the promise to repair before the engine had reached there, and that he assumed the risk by continuing at work, knowing of the defect in the step. When the master is apprised of the defective condition of machinery with which a servant is working, and the master promises the servant to repair the defect, the servant does not assume the additional risk arising from the defect by continuing in the employment, if he has reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe, that the master will fulfill his promise, unless the danger is such that a man of ordinary prudence, under all the circumstances, would not continue in the service. Railway vs. Bingle, (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 674; Id., 91 Tex. 287, 42 S. W. 971. When a promise is made by the master to repair, on which the servant is warranted to rely, the servant is at once relieved of the assumption of the additional risk arising from the defect until the master has had reasonable time and opportunity to repair, after which, if the repair is not made, and he continues in the service, knowing this, he assumes the risk. But if the time and opportunity to repair are passed, and the repair is not made, and he continues to work, not knowing it has not been made, and is injured, then it can not be held that he assumed the risk. The charge of the trial court on this phase of the case was not error, and the evidence is sufficient to support the finding of the jury." 73 S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 1028.

entered dismissing the complaint on the merits.

"The judgment must be reversed. The facts established at the trial do not bring this case within National Protective Association vs. Cumming, nor has the principle there announced any application whatever. On the contrary, by reason of such facts, the case comes squarely within our former decision, and the principle laid down in Curran vs. Galen, 152 N. Y. 33, 46 N. E. 297, 37 L. R. A. 802, 57 Am. St. Rep. 496. The question pre

or combination of workingmen be to hamper or restrict that freedom, and, through contracts or arrangements with employers, to coerce other workingmen to become members of the organization, and to come under its rules and conditions, under the penalty of the loss of their positions and of deprivation of employment, then that purpose seems clearly unlawful, and militates against the spirit of our government and the nature of our institutions. The effectuation of such purpose would conflict with that principle of public poli

sented in National Protective Association vs. Cumming was one between two rival labor organizations, and the court held that a labor union did not commit an unlawful act by refusing to permit its members to work with fellow servants who were members of a rival organization. In Curran vs. Galen the question was whether a labor organization had the right to procure the discharge of an employe because he would not become a member thereof. The Court of Appeals held that a labor union had no such right, and in so holding the court (in which all of the members concurred) said:

"Public policy and the interests of society favor the utmost freedom in the citizen to pursue his lawful trade or calling, and if the purpose of an organization

(From Denver Post)

cy which prohibits monopolies and exclusive privileges.'

"Here the sole question is whether the defendants, because the plaintiff would not in a formal way recognize the association, or for an alleged affront to its walking delegate, have the right to maliciously cause parties who have entered into contracts with him to deliberately break them, by means of threats to cause, or actually causing, a strike of all the workmen in the employ of such parties. That they have not such right was clearly and unmistakably announced on the uppeal from the order vacating the preliminary injunction; the court then saying that the case furnished 'no authority for a resort to fraud, intimidation, force, or threats,' except within the limitation

proper motives and by a malicious desire to injure the plaintiff; and, this being so, the plaintiff was entitled to relief, within all the authorities to which our attention has been called.

"Upon a careful consideration of this record, we are of the opinion that an injunction should have been granted to the

extent indicated on the former appeal, and that the court erred in not so holding. The judgment appealed from, therefore, must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur."

Beattie vs. Callanan et al., 81 N. Y. Supp. 413.

Washington Gossip.

By Eva McDonald Valesh.

Official Unrest in Washington.-With the President away and Congress not in session it might be supposed that Washington would be a very quiet place at this time of the year.

It is certainly a most beautiful city, for the Government keeps a succession of flowering plants blooming in all the squares and circles which make the capital of the nation very like to some of the continental cities.

The White House has ample grounds and the flower beds and fountain in the Presidential front yard are the source of much pleasure to those of us who see them every day, as well as the tourist who must perforce take a hurried glance and

away.

Just across the street from the White House is Lafayette Square, with its masses of blooming flowers and all sorts of trees.

I heard a dear old lady telling a visitor the other day that Lafayette Square had in it specimens of more than one thousand varieties of trees and that among them was a real cedar of Lebanon. Maybe, but the forest doesn't look quite that thick.

But amid all this natural splendor which mingles so joyously with the artificiality of city life, there is a seething, bubbling caldron of official discontent and anger and fear and trembling.

Of course, the postoffice investigation is a familiar news topic, but one needs to be in Washington to see and hear certain curious phases of the investigation and to note how it affects people.

The postoffice being our one general utility that is managed for the people by the Government, we of the labor world are all a little more interested in its progress than we would be in some department which would be purely that of the Government. This investigation is

not likely, however, to yield anything of permanent value.

There isn't much doubt but the postoffice department has been run upon a most lavish, not to say extravagant, scale for many years past.

In addition the regulations and red tape have grown more exasperating every year. The publishers of books and periodicals have grown to dread having any dealings with the department on account of the arbitrary rulings by heads of departments.

In many cases they seem to have enacted a law whenever it suited their caprice regardless of the rights of the public or the fact that Congress is power which makes the laws.

But these things are not the subject of investigation nor is the railway mail service being queried. Yet in the rates paid to railroads for hauling mail comes one of the greatest and apparently most inexcusable expense of the department.

There is no reason why the railroads should be paid double and triple for hauling mail when it is a class of material compactly and readily handled.

No reasonable citizen would object to a fair rate, but the railroads get an enormous sum, out of all proportion for the service rendered. But as I said before, this piece of extravagance is not under investigation.

In Washington it is the general opinion in well-informed circles that the whole investigation arose out of personal rivalry between Mr. Machen, of the rural free delivery department, and First Assistant Wynne.

They are both good fellows, but there is no question but the rural free delivery branch of the service has been mighty convenient as a place for congressmen to dump office seekers, who had no very remarkable qualifications for official work.

It must be remembered that the bulk of the clerks in this division were appointed