634

THE GREEN BAG

NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM AND ANNOTATED BY SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS (Copltl of the pamphlet Reporters containing full report! of any of these docilloni may be secured from the Weft PublilhlMf Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 45 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be gnen ai well aa the citation of volume and pace of the Reporter in which it ie printed.)

ASSOCIATIONS. (Right to exclusive use of badges.) Mont. — A Montana statute provided that a person not a member thereof who should wear the badge or insignia of any fraternal asso ciation should be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine or imprisonment. The wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers of members were excepted in this provision. On the ground that it denied equal protection of the law, the statute was assailad in State v. Holland, 96 Pac. Rep. 719. Holding it unconstitutional for the reason alleged, the Supreme Court of Montana said: "The women who are excepted from the operation of this statute bear exactly the same relation towards the subject of the legislation as all other women in the community as well as men not members of any of these societies. There is no possible reason, except a sentimental one, why they should be exempted from the penalties of the law." It was held that no way exists to guaran tee the societies exclusive rights to their badges except by patent or copyright. This, surely, is the principle of equality gone mad. It is said the reason for the exemption is sentimental; but why should there not be in a sentimental statute a sentimental exemption quite in harmony with the spirit of the statute? The court gives another reason for holding the act invalid. The fact that the badges or insignia, the wearing of which is unlawful, must be de termined by the association, involves an uncon stitutional delegation of legislative power. On that principle all penal legislation for the pro tection of union labels would be invalid. The argument that the citizen may have no knowledge of the insignia, etc. (the act does not seem to provide for registration, and does not limit the choice of insignia), would be stronger if the act did not require that the use to be unlawful must be willful. The statute, like most of its kind, is neither well drawn nor perhaps wise, and its downfall will cause no regret; but the grounds relied upon for the decision illustrate the unjustifiable lengths to which constitutional limitations are carried by some courts.

The suggestion that the object of the act can be accomplished under the federal patent or copy right laws is quite in line with the rest of the opinion. E. F. CARRIERS. (Damages for ejection.) Miss. — During a yellow fever epidemic two boys, in the last stages of consumption, bought through tickets from Memphis to Oxford, Miss. Arrange ments had been made with health officers at Hollv Springs, an intermediate point, for them to change cars. They had health certificates which they showed to the ticket agent and which one of them testified they showed to the conductor also. Before its arrival at Holly Springs the train was stopped by a quarantine officer of that place. The boys being too weak to protest and the con ductor not doing so, they were put off. They were delayed 36 hours, and one of them died within three days. His administrator brought action for damages. The railroad company con tended that the quarantine officer was acting under an ordinance and that the conductor was ignorant of the health certificates. The Supreme Court of Mississippi in St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Roane, 46 So. Rep. 711, held that under the contract of passage the law gave to these pas sengers the right of full protection, and the com pany should not have allowed them to be put off the train, especially as the physical condition of deceased entitled him to the greatest consider ation, but that compensatory and not exemplar damages should be allowed, and a judgment for $7500, should be reduced to $2500. This is a doubtful decision. It would seem that the interposition of a public officer should excuse the carrier in such a case. The carrier is not liable for the wrongful arrest of a passenger or an officer. CARRIERS. (Passengers.) Me. — Is an em ployee of a street railroad company who has paid his fare with a coupon constituting a part of his wages a passenger while going to his work? In Hebert v. Portland R. Co., 69 Atlantic Reporter. 266, it appeared that one who was employed as