union was a corporate body and as such qualified to sue or be sued. In September, 1900, Justice Farwell in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, granted the injunction prayed for.

The trade unions were up in arms. If the position of Mr. Justice Farwell was sound, and sustained by the higher courts, trade unionism, instead of being an element of strength to its members, would become a positive weakness. The decision of Justice Farwell was, in effect, that trade unions were responsible for the acts of their members, and that, being legally responsible, they became civilly liable for damages in case an injury was done by a member. This made the gravity of the decision from the standpoint of the trade unions. The courts had frequently awarded employers damages against individual members of the unions -as in the case of the piano firm above mentioned, and many other recorded instances and the award had always been a barren victory, as the average workman has no money with which to pay the judgment; but if the union was to be held responsible, the situation was entirely changed, as many of the unions have large funds to their credit.

The importance of having Justice Farwell's decision reversed led the trade unions of the country to support the Amalgamated Society in carrying the case to a higher court. It came on for hearing in the Court of Appeal, before the Master of the Rolls, and Lords Justices Collins and Stirling, on November 12, 1900. The opinion of the court, delivered by the Master of the Rolls with the concurrence of the other justices, was that the society could not be sued as a society. The Master of the Rolls pointed out that in the trade-union acts there was no provision empowering a trade union to sue or be sued, except in defence of its own property. The court went very fully into this; discussed elaborately the intent of the Legislature in omitting any provision for the bringing of an action by a trade union; pointed out wherein a trade union differed from a joint stock company; and reached the conclusion that the action was not maintainable against the society, and that its name must be struck out and the injunction against it dissolved. The defendants were granted costs, and the plaintiffs were given leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

Appeal was taken and decision rendered on July 22 of the present year; the House of Lords overruling the Court of Appeal and sustaining Mr. Justice Farwell in the position that a union was a legal entity capable of suing and being sued. The Lord Chancellor, in moving that the appeal be allowed, said:

"In this case I am content to adopt the judgment of Mr. Justice Farwell, with

which I entirely agree, and I cannot find any satisfactory answer to that judgment in the judgment of the Court of Appeal which overruled it. If the Legislature has created a thing which can own property, which can employ servants, and which can inflict injury, it must be taken, I think, to have impliedly given power to make it suable in the courts of law for injuries purposely done by its authority and procurance."

The courts having decided that a labor union may be sued, the Taff Vale Railway Company entered suit against the Amalgamated Society for £20,000 damages. That suit has not yet come on for hearing, and will be contested on both sides to the bitter end. If the case should be decided against the Amalgamated Society, it will lead to a complete change in the management of labor unions. The Trade Union Congress sitting at Swansea at the time this article is written has the question under consideration, and the unions have already discussed the necessity of appealing to Parliament for a modification of the law under which they have a legal existence.

Some of the labor leaders believe that the decision will be to the ultimate advantage of the unions, as compelling employers, for their own protection, to deal solely with the unions and ignore non-union men, because the unions are responsible for their acts, while individual men can escape civil liability. If this same doctrine is applied to this country if, for instance, the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers were in danger of being cast in damages for inducing men to break their contracts with the United States Steel Corporation and go on strike might not that fear have a restraining influence? With that suggestion I leave the question for others to discuss.

A. MAURICE LOW.

THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.

UNDOUBTEDLY a characteristic feature of modern society is the tendency to form organizations made up of those individuals who hold similar ideas on some particular topic. This growing propensity is far removed from that of the primordial communistic and tribal society, being in purpose distinctly intellectual, not industrial. So we have trades unions, secret societies, political clubs, social clubs, scientific societies, religious societies, charitable associations, and so on almost without end. With rare exceptions, the individual now finds that he can accomplish little in the way of social reform unless he works in conjunction with others who hold like opinions. Therefore it is, in part, that we have medical societies, in addition to other organizations.

No doubt the general reader will at first thought consider that the discussion of the subject of medical organization should be confined to medical publications; but I hope in a few words to convince him that, on the contrary, this topic is of interest to every citizen of the Republic. To a considerable extent the medical profession is misunderstood by the public, and its societies are regarded largely as playgrounds for the doctors, just as the secret societies are for laymen. It is my aim to set forth clearly the true objects of medical organization, and to demonstrate the benefits that the commonwealth would derive from its perfection.

The attitude of medicine toward the world to-day is very different from that which obtained up to comparatively recent times. It is not so long ago that medicine was encumbered by a mass of superstition, ignorance, and charlatanry; but nearly all of this incubus has been swept away by the development of the natural sciences and the consequent growth of rational medicine. When we consider what scientists in the various fields related to medicine have done for that profession, we find that the ideal of modern medicine is the prevention of disease, that is, the very destruction of the physician's means of gaining a livelihooda unique situation. It follows naturally, then, that the medical profession wishes to be understood and aided by an enlightened public intelligence.

As a result of the recent strenuous application of the scientific

method to medical research, with the consequent revolutionizing of medical education, the medical profession is to-day in a transitional stage, out of which there is rapidly emerging a true "new school of medicine,” as has just been eloquently proclaimed by the President of the American Medical Association, Dr. Charles A. L. Reed. The day of "beliefs" in medicine is gone forever. The medical sects founded on metaphysical dogmas are rapidly becoming matters of history, in consequence of the steady diffusion of accurate scientific knowledge of the cause and nature of disease. A priori reasoning no longer determines the action of the physician.

There can be only one science of medicine, even as there is but one science of chemistry, of astronomy, of botany, of physics, or of physiology. Now that physicians must be thoroughly trained in the basal natural sciences, it is obvious that their methods of meeting the conditions of actual practice must be to a great degree similar, and that their education totally unfits them for applying any exclusive theory of treatment to the facts of nature as encountered in the disordered functions of the diseased human body. Only a man totally ignorant of physiology, or else wholly devoid of moral sense, will attempt to maintain that any exclusive method can be effectively employed in dealing with the infinitely varied forms of disease. The new school of medicine, then, is the logical outcome of the development of the natural sciences, and it is eminently rational. The address of the President of the American Medical Association at its annual meeting held at St. Paul, Minnesota, last June, contained the following statements concerning this point:

over cure.

"He who now proclaims a dogma cries alone in the night, while the world sleeps. They who demand a creed may read its varying terms only in the progressive revelation of natural laws. Practice has changed. . . . Prevention is given precedence Education implies research and discovery, and all may delve. I proclaim, events proclaim, the existence of a new school of medicine. It is as distinct from the schools of fifty years ago as is the Christian dispensation from its Pagan antecedents. It is the product of convergent influences, of diverse antecedent origin. It acknowledges no distinctive title, it heralds no shibboleth. It is a school of human tolerance, of personal independence, of scientific honesty. It is the slave of neither prejudice nor preconception, and abandons the accepted truth of yesterday, if it only be the demonstrated error of to-day. It places no premium upon personal prerogative, and extends no recognition to individual authority. It makes no proclamation of completeness, no pretension to sufficiency. It recognizes that truth is undergoing progressive revelation, not ending to-day, but continuing through the ages. It yields its plaudits to achievement, and recognizes that he is the greatest among men who reveals the most of truth unto men."

The opening of the new century having thus brought to physicians a realization of the essential unity and interdependence of all true medi

cal knowledge, there has arisen spontaneously in the medical profession a general demand for better methods of organization. It is recognized that some of the most beneficent practical results of modern medical science will not be enjoyed by the citizens of our cities, counties, States, and nation until they are enforced by legislative enactment, or until they receive general recognition and approval. Further, it is perfectly patent to physicians that individual effort will not command the attention of the lawmakers and of the public, and that only through thorough organization can the medical profession effectively accomplish its duty. Here it is that the value to the commonwealth of effective medical organization appears clearly. In the medical societies the conflict of opinion ends in the supremacy of the views promulgated by the leaders in scientific medicine, and the verdict can then be given public force as the collective opinion of the profession. The very weight of numbers, backed by intelligence and by a compact organization reaching into every county in the Union, will give momentum to demands upon legislators and administrators for improved sanitary conditions, and for the enforcement of ordinances tending to protect the people from unnecessary illness and from the crimes of charlatans.

Broadly speaking, medical organization may be said to have two purposes. The first is that of self-improvement, of increasing and extending medical knowledge and skill, and of protecting the material interests of the profession. The second is to give freely to the public the benefit of accumulated knowledge and experience, chiefly in the shape of measures for the prevention of disease. The first object, therefore, is pardonably selfish, though the public directly profits by the increase of skill in the treatment of disease; while the second is wholly altruistic. The following quotation from the new constitution of the American Medical Association gives a clear idea of the purposes of the medical profession in reorganizing its societies:

"The object of this Association shall be to federate into one compact organization the medical profession of the United States, for the purpose of fostering the growth and diffusion of medical knowledge, of promoting friendly intercourse among American physicians, of safeguarding the material interests of the medical profession, of elevating the standard of medical education, of securing the enactment and enforcement of medical laws, of enlightening and directing public opinion in regard to the broad problems of state medicine, and of representing to the world the practical accomplishments of scientific medicine."

Medical organization, then, while directed to eminently practical ends, is dominated by high ethical ideals; and its unwritten creed is chiefly characterized by an active, sensible, and genuine altruism. The