much struck at as a quiet lane at the back of the workman's house. A trade union may tell a master that in a certain event his men will quit their work, even although that certain event is his, the master's, doing something he has a perfect right to do. The existence of an evil motive or of no motive at all, does not signify. A trade union may not try to make men break their contracts; nor may it counsel and persuade men to refrain from taking employment, unless it can justify its intervention to the satisfaction of the king's judges. A trade union may not, when no strike is pending, call out an employer's men and persuade his customers not to deal with him, if the object be to injure the employer's business so as to coerce his will. A trade union may not order stop-days, or any other act on the part of workmen which has the effect of causing the men to break their contracts, even although the men have themselves re solved upon this policy, and only ask the direction of the union in carrying it out. A trade union will be responsible in damages to the full extent of its resources for anv loss incurred in consequence of any of its officials having, while acting in pursuance of its orders, overstepped legal bounds. These propositions, I think, contain a fair abridg ment of the law as we see it today, viewed in the light of the decisions of the Courts. SPEAKING of one phase of the recent Chi cago strike, The Laiv Register says : It is said to be a practice of motor-men and conductors running in the vicinity of the "stockyards" to aid the striking butchers by refusing to stop street cars at the proper corners to let on or off workmen employed at the plants. The object is to force the men to run the gauntlet of the pickets and "slug gers" who line the streets in the vicinity and waylay the men lawfully going to and re turning from work. Many assaults have taken place under these circumstances, and out of them actions for damages may arise. Any lawyer engaged in prosecuting such a case would render a public service by joining
the car company in such action and make it liable for these unlawful practices of its em ployés. It would teach public-service com panies of this kind a much-needed lesson, that they are not to aid and abet the lawless in times of labor troubles. Such a practice would be quickly stopped, if the company should be compelled to pay the resulting damages. IN an article on "The Civil Code of Louisiana as a Democratic Institution, in The American Lawyer for August, Charles E. Fenner, late Justice of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, gives this outline of the Napoleon and Louisiana Codes: Let us pass in hasty review a few of the fundamental principles on which it rests: Absolute equality of all persons before the law, with the sweeping away of all per sonal and class privileges, proclaimed and put into effect for the first time in the his tory of the world. Separation of the powers of government into Legislative, Executive and Judicial, independent of each other, and recognition of the making of laws as the exclusive function of the Legislative de partment. Separation of church and State in all mat ters of legal right and obligation, and especially by the establishment of marriage as a purely civil contract, regulated and pro tected by law, and freed from all canonical interference or control. Establishment of an order of succession based on the law of nature, with abolition of all rights of primogeniture and recogni tion of complete equality amongst heirs of equal degree. Recognition of the parental power, but re stricted within reasonable limits consistent with the rights and liberty of children. Maintenance of the marital authority as an essential principle of family organization, but restrained within limits consistent with the essential personal and property rights of wives, and elevated and humanized by the grand principles of the community between spouses.
