protection of the lives, health, and property of the citizens, and to the preservation of good order and the public morals. The legislature cannot, by any contract, divest itself of the power to provide for these objects. They belong emphatically to that class of objects which demand the application of the maxim salus populi suprema lex; and they are to be attained and provided for by such appropriate means as the legislative discretion may devise. That discretion can no more be bargained away than the power itself."

The fact that the provision in question was embodied in the statute incorporating the Louisiana company does not suffice to show that it became a part of the charter contract, for obviously nothing became a part of that contract that was not within the contracting power of the legislature. Such of the provisions of the statute as were within that power became both a law and a contract and were within the protection of the contract clause of the Constitution, but such of them as were not within that power became a law only and were as much subject to amendment or repeal as if they had been embodied in a separate enactment. As was said by this court in Stone v. Mississippi, supra, "It is to be kept in mind that it is not the charter which is protected, but only any contract the charter may contain."

The subject to which the provision in question relates is the civil liability of a railroad company for the death of its employés resulting from its negligence. That is a matter of public concern, and not of mere private right. It is closely connected with the safety of the employés and undoubtedly belongs to that class of subjects over which the legislature possesses a regulatory but not a contracting power. Manifestly, therefore, the charter contract did not embrace that provision and the contract clause of the Constitution did not prevent its repeal.

There is some discussion in the briefs as to whether the

provision was repealed by the statute of 1884, which was in apparent conflict with it, but upon this record that is not a Federal question. There was neither allegation nor proof that the court of last resort in Louisiana had considered the question or made any ruling upon it, and so it became the duty of the Texas courts, which do not take judicial notice of decisions of courts of other States, to decide the question according to their independent judgment. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Melton, 218 U. S. 36, 52. This they did and, no Federal right being involved, their decision is not subject to review by this court. Eastern Building and Loan Assn. v. Ebaugh, 185 U. S. 114.

Of the ruling that the defect in the complaint was cured by the answers little need be said. While recognizing that the right created by the Louisiana statute was qualified by the one year limitation and that the Texas courts could not disregard the qualification without impinging upon the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, we think the claim that they did disregard it is quite untenable. The action was begun within the time prescribed, and what the Texas courts really held was that the omission from the complaint of an essential allegation was cured by its inclusion in the answers. In so holding they but gave effect to a generally recognized rule upon the subject. United States v. Morris, 10 Wheat. 246, 286. There was no shifting from one right of action to another, as in Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Wyler, 158 U. S. 285, and United States v. Dalcour, 203 U. S. 408, 423, but, on the contrary, an adherence to the right originally asserted. In these circumstances nothing more was involved than a question of pleading and practice in the Texas courts, and its decision by them is final.

Although regarding the question presented under the contract clause of the Constitution as sufficiently substantial to sustain our jurisdiction, we think it is so mani

fest that it was decided rightly by the Texas courts that the case ought not to be retained for further argument. See Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, 118 U. S. 194; Richardson v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 169 U. S. 128; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Melton, 218 U. S. 36, 49.

The motion to dismiss is denied, and that to affirm is granted.

Affirmed.

TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD COMPANY v.

GROSS.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.

No. 832. Submitted April 17, 1911.-Decided May 15, 1911. Decided on authority of Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Miller, ante, p. 408.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Maxwell Evarts, with whom Mr. H. M. Garwood and Mr. A. L. Jackson were on the brief, for plaintiff in

error.

Mr. J. W. Parker for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE VAN Devanter delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a companion case with Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Miller, just decided, ante, p. 408, and arose out of the derailment of the same engine. It took substantially the same course in the state courts, (128 S. W. Rep. 1173) and presents substantially the same questions.

For the reasons given in the other case, the motion to dismiss is denied, and that to affirm is granted.

Affirmed.

VOL. CCXXI-27

GOMPERS v. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE COMPANY.

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 372. Argued January 27, 30, 1911-Decided May 15, 1911.

An order of a court of equity, restraining defendants from boycotting complainant by publishing statements that complainant was guilty of unfair trade, does not amount to an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech; the question of the validity of the order involves only the power of the court to enjoin the boycott. Quare as to what constitutes a boycott that may be enjoined by a court of equity; but, in order that it may be enjoined, it must appear that there is a conspiracy causing irreparable damage to complainant's business or property.

Where conditions exist that justify the enjoining of a boycott, the publication and use of letters, circulars and printed matter, may constitute the means of unlawfully continuing the boycott and amount to a violation of the order of injunction.

The Anti-trust Act of 1890 applies to any unlawful combination resulting in restraint of interstate commerce including boycotts and blacklisting whether made effective by acts, words or printed matter. Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274.

The court's protective powers extend to every device whereby property is irreparably damaged or interstate commerce restrained; otherwise the Anti-Trust Act would be rendered impotent. Society itself is an organization and does not object to organizations for social, religious, business, and all other legal, purposes.

On appeal against unlawfully exercising power of organizations it is the duty of government to protect the one against the many as well as the many against the one.

An agreement to act in concert on publication of a signal makes the words used as the signal amount to verbal acts, and, when the facts justify it, the court having jurisdiction can enjoin the use of the words in such connection; and so held as to words "unfair" and "we don't patronize" as used in this case for the purpose of continuing a boycott.

Civil and criminal contempts are essentially different and are governed by different rules of procedure.

A proceeding, instituted by an aggrieved party to punish the other

221 U. S.

Statement of the Case.

party for contempt for affirmatively violating an injunction in the same action in which the injunction order was issued, and praying for damages and costs, is a civil proceeding in contempt, and is part of the main action, and the court cannot punish the contempt by imprisonment for a definite term; the only punishment is by fine measured by the pecuniary injury sustained.

In criminal proceedings for contempt the party against whom the proceedings are instituted is entitled to the protection of the constitutional provisions against self-incrimination.

There is a substantial variance between the procedure adopted and punishment imposed, when a punitive sentence appropriate only to a proceeding for criminal contempt is imposed in a proceeding in an equity action for the remedial relief of an injured party. Where the main suit in which an injunction order has been granted is settled and discontinued, every proceeding which is a part thereof, or dependent thereon, is also necessarily settled as between the parties; and so held as to a proceeding instituted by the party aggrieved against the other party for violation of an injunction. The fact that the party aggrieved by the violation of an injunction deprives himself, by settling the main case, of the right to pursue the violator for contempt does not prevent the court, whose order was violated, from instituting proceedings to vindicate its authority; and in this case the dismissal of the civil contempt proceeding is without prejudice to the power and right of the court whose injunction was violated to punish for contempt by proper proceedings. 33 App. D. C. 516, reversed.

THIS is a proceeding to reverse a judgment, finding that Samuel Gompers, John Mitchell and Frank Morrison were guilty of contempt in violating the terms of an injunction restraining them from continuing a boycott, or from publishing any statement that there was or had been a boycott against the Bucks Stove & Range Company. The contempt case grew out of litigation reported in 33 App. D. C. 83, 516. It will only be necessary to briefly refer to the facts set out in that record.

The American Federation of Labor is composed of voluntary associations of labor unions with a large membership. It publishes the American Federationist, which has a wide circulation among the public and the Federa