New Britain Herald Newspaper, July 10, 1917, Page 5

. NEW BRITAIN DAILY HERXCD, ru=spAY, JOLY 10, 1917, CAN USE OLD PLOT FOR MOVIE STORIES Jack Londor's Copyright Mot Sufficient fo Protect Idea Story With Old Plot Not Infringed Wy Similar Film. Jack London wrote & story “Just Meat.” which the pub- Jishing magazine protected by copy- right. The Blograph company pre- pared and exhibited in the “movies” & plcture play called “Love of Gold." The fundaniental plot of both ple- tures and story was this: Two thieves commit a burglary. sscuring a large amount of money and jewelry. They return to their room and discuss, not harmoniously. the division of the plunder. Each of them succeeds, un- kuewn to the other, in putting poison in something whick the other is about to gwallow. Each swallows the pol- aow prepared by the other and both 4in. The detalls of the story and the Alm differed from each other. This plot appears many times in fiction and history. Destiny, the Anangke of the old Greex drama, rising from <ftetr own passions, their own wills, 4nd their cwn hands to effect the re- sult, constitutes the strong point. Tt appears in Chaucer's Pardoner’s Tale, in Kipling's story of King Ankus, and numerous others, storles of lesser farmrs; London sued for injunction ' and damages on account of Infringe- mant. Jodge Lacombe, of the U. 8. Dis- trict Court, for the southern district ot New York, holds in London v. Rio- mraph Co., 231 Federal Reporter, 696, thst no one. by presenting this idea with modern incidents, can appropri- ave: it " by copyright. The copyright ewrmot protect the fundamental plot, which was common property long be- fors the story was written: it will protect the embellishment with which the zuthor added elements of literary value to the old plot, but it will not operate to prohibit the presentation By some one elte of the same old Plot without the particular embellish- ments: - P In the Comrse of Employment. In re Stacy (a Massachusetts Supreme Judietal Court Case) 114 Northeast- ern” Reporter, 206, deals with the lia- Bility of an employver for accidental &éath of an cmploye after working Nours. The decedent Stacy was employed as an ice house laborer, and while erosstng the ice on his way home, aft- #r working hours, hroke through and drowned. This appeal was taken from an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act. - The committee found, upon inquiry, that ‘the decedent had followed the ressonable and customary way of leaving his employver's premises. hy creesing the pond, the path around the-pond not being used in the win- ter: He was upon the employer's premtses at the time of his death, and-wuch death was due to his em- ployer's lce-harvesting operations. Im* afrming the award, Judge Crosby sald, in part: “In view of the wpecial findings of the committee aBove recited, we are of opinion that tie conclusion reached by the com- mittee and afMirmed by the board, that the death of the emplove arose out of and in the course of his employ- mert, was justiffied. The finding that the pond was in the control of the employer, and that crossing over it upon the ice was the ‘reasonable and sustomary way' for the deceased to reach home, and that he and other smploves who lived in the same di rection ‘crossed it this way regularly.’ warranted the further finding that the injury occurred in the course of smployment.” Caes Cornering the Wheat Market. A case of unusual importance to the Iaity, both because of the relation that tacts similar to those therein may bear to the present high cost of Uving, and because of the criminal prosecutions which should result trom such disclosures, is the case of Lane v. Leiter, 237 Federal Reporter, 149, ir 1898 Chas, A. Pillsbury and Frank H. Peavey, of Minneapolis, and Joseph Leiter, of Chicago. were heavy” operators in the wheat mar- ket. Peavey controlled some 2,200,- 000 bushels of wheat; Pillsbu Leiter also large amounts., Pillsbury conceived the scheme of pooling their Interests with the purpose of corner- Ing the market, and thereby enforcing a great advance in price. 200,000 bushels of Peavey's wheat was in the Monarch elevators, of the stock of which company he' controlled 84 per cent., and 705,000 bushels in the in- terior elevators, of which he con- trolled 89 per cent, and of both of which companies he was practically aictator After correspondence between these gentlemen, the gist of which is summead up in a letter from Pillsbury to Leiter on April 19, 1898, *'T think, If we can control all the cash wheat In the northwest, we can make for- eigners and home millera pay about what we are a mind to ask for the stuff,”” they met on the 24th in Pills- bury's Minneapolis office, being joined by Thompson, special partner of Pillsbury, who controlled things at Duluth, and French, of Chicago, Leiter's confrere, and consummated their agreement. Leiter wanted it written, but Pillsbury refused on the ground that it was a criminal con- spiracy, and that they would need to work under a ‘‘gentlemen’s agree- ment.” Their purpose was easily carried dut. Wheat rose from $1 to, at one Hme, $1.75. Under the agreement none could sell his holdings without firet offering it to one of the others.At 81.45 Peavey, desiring to realize on his 950,000 bushels, offered it to Leiter at Chicago, who finally con- tracted tor it at that price. When it reached $1.75 Leiter could not unload without breaking the market, and, being unable longer to carry his vast holdings, a committee consisting of Peavey and Armour was appointed to act for his creditors, and they finally ! disposed of his holdings, some beins sold at $.85. Leiter's total loss on the deal, aside from his cash advances, was the agregate notes In controversy 90.71. Action was started to recover on these notes in 1811, The | court sustains Leiter's defense that spiracy or combination to control markets in vielation of article 4 § 35, Minn. Const., chapter 10. § 1, Gen. Laws Minn., in force in 1898, and sec- tion 130 c. 38.R. 8. Tl all of which laws make such a conspiracy a se- rious cirme, with harsh punishment; and the court adds that such agree- ments are void also at common law as being in restralnt of trade and against public safety. To the plaintiff's the Monarch and Companies, who sold the wheat to Leiter, had no participation in the unlawful conspiracy, the court shows Peavey’s relation to them and his !part in the agreement; and to the contention that Interior Elevator lation of the companies to the trans- action was that of Peavey’s undls- closed principals, the court reply that this did not enlarge their right over Peavey's, nor deprive Leiter of any defense against them which he would have had against Peavey. Judgmnt for defendant was affirmed. P To My Son’s Best Friend.” The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia in Farly v. Arnold, 89 South- ed to determine who was a certain mother's son's “best friend.” One Malinda P. Arnold left her property to her son with the provision that if he died with “heirs,” or, as the court construed the word, “children.” then has been his best friend.” The son died without issue, leaving a will which provided: “I do by these presents consider my uncle and aunt my best friends, and do hereby and herewith bequeath and give' to them, etc., naming them. But he was only 20 years of age at his decease, so his realty could not pass under his will, and his uncle and aunt—perhaps on the theory they were one in law my marriage—concetved the idea that they might take under the mother's will as having been the son's ‘best friend.” The court inclined to the opinjon, however, that considering the son could not tell who had been his best friend, for the best he had been able to do was to select two, it was too much of a problem for a court Wherefore they were obliged to hold the mother’'s devise over her son's “best friend” bad for indefiniteness. .o Damages to Leasehold From Widen- ing Street. Commissioner Taylor of the Su- preme Court of Minnesota has written an opinfon , interesting because of the facts and law involved, which ap- pears in the case of Kafka v. David- son, 160 Northwestern Reporter, 1021. In February, 1911, the owners of a huilding in St. Paul leased to plaintiff, for a period of 6 years, & months, a storeroom theretn, for a monthly rental of $165, reserving the right to terminate on a 6 months' no- tice and payment of $1,500, in case the land was sold or rented for 25 years or more. November 25, 1911, the owners leased the land to defend- ant for 100 years, subject to existing Jeases with tengnts. Plaintiff and de- fendant made¥an agreement with- drawing the provision for notice, supra, and allowed defendant to ter- mnate on 60 days' notice and pay ment of $1.500. To widen the street the city condemned a strip of 20 feet along the land, which included all but 6 feet of the plaintiff's leasehold, al- Jowing the fee owners a net damage of $11,508, which was, by previous agreement with the owners, assigned to defendant. The award although not apportioned among those various- Iy interested In the property. was af- firmed on appeal in suit by the plain- tiff for separate damages, on the ground that the award could not be made in gross and then divided among the partles according to their interests. The city took the condemn- ed lands; plaintiff brought this sult for damages. On trial verdict was di- rected for defendant. The court holds that : (1)The con. demnation proceeding being regular, all parties are hound thereby, but any might sue for his share of the gross award. (2) Where a leasehold estate s taken, the measure of damages is the market value of the estate taken, or, if only a part be taken the dif- ference between the entire estate and the part taken. (3) Plaintiff was en. titled to the value of his leasehold. which could not exceed the $1,500 as agreed, plus the rental value for the f0-day notice period. (4) Tt was com- petent for plaintiff to prove that market value of premises as a cigar store had been enhanced by long use as such. (5) Plaintiff is only entitled to such share of the award as would represent his previous interest In the property taken. being allowed to prove that the value of his lease is worth more than he pays for it. e Expatriation. Petitioner, in Re Griffin, 237 Fed- eral Reporter, 445, was a native born American, who moved with his family to Canada, and there enlisted in the 156th Over Seas Battalion Canadian Expeditionary Force, taking the oath of absolute allegiance to King George. A short while thercafter he duserted and surreptitiously re-entered the United States. He was taken into custody by the immigration officers, and applied for a writ of habeas corpus to be released from them. His petition was denied. Judge Ray, for the federal court in the Northern District of New York, delivered the opinion, which holds in part as follows: No person can owe allegiance to two different absolute and independent governments at the same time. A citizen of the United States owes to his government full, complete, and true allegiance. He may remove and abandon it at any time. the notes constituted a part of a con- | suggestion in the hriefs, that the re- | the property was “to go to whoever | eastern Reporter, 900, has been ask- | | This is a natural and inherent right. any abrogation of which is declared by the act of July 27, 1868 (U. S. Comp. St. § 3955) inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this re- public. He may go abroad freely, but it when abroud he enters the military service of the foreign government where he is, and there takes an oath that he will be faithful and bear true alleglance to such foreign government against all enemies ,will observe and ohey all orders of such government, otc., he takes on himself duties and obligations absolutely inconsistent with the duties he owes the country and government he left; for in case of war between the two countries he could not support one without being an enemy to the other. By change of mind finding such service irksome and unpleasant, and by desertion from such foreign military service and sur- reptitious return to the United States, he may not rehabilitate and reinstate himself as a citizen of the United States. By unequivocal acts he may not expatriate himself one week and restore himself the next with all the rights of a citiz To petitloner’s argument that awearing allegiance to King George is not such an oath of alleglance to a foreign state as is contemplated by the act in question, the court answers that in view of the relation of the English king to his government, an oath of allegiance to the king is one to the kingdom and empire. And to his as- sertion that his desertion from the English army and clandestine return here reinstated him as & citizen of the United States, and gave him the right of protection here as such, the court answers that, inasmuch as his act of expatriation was complete, he ost his status as a citizer here, and became an allen and can only become cftizen again in accordance with the naturalization laws: and since he did not do so, he is subject to deportation.. Bea'n A Flery Intent. Due to estranged relations with wifey, home, sweet home, seems to have become a ‘‘hotbed” for poor hubby; so, fortified with “fire water’, he marched thence one day, 'intent upon making it a “flery bed" instead. He thoroughly saturated one of the beds with kerosene, but got “cold feet” then, and threw up the Jjob. However, he was haled into court and convicted of attempt to commit arson, because of his felonious intent. This appeal (People v. Graham, 162 New York Supplement, 334) resulted. and the conviction was reversed. The court held that it was erroneous to convict the defendant of crime for harboring a felonious intent, as there must be some overt act shown in order to es- tablish an attempt. « v ¥Frost Bite Held Accidental Injury. The several Workmen's Compensa- tion Acts added numerous burdens to the courts, whid\ are kept busy With the interpretation of them. The case of Days v. S§. Trimmer & Sons, to be found in 162 New York Supplement, 603, merlts attention. The defendant retails coal, delivering it by wagon and carrying it into the houses of his customers. Claimant was emploved as helper, and it was his duty to as- sist the driver in care of the horses and in carrying coal February 15, 1916, was a very cold and stormy day, and while claimant was engaged in his dutles, wearing on his hands only a palr of cheap gloves, all his | fingers and toes were frostbitten, as a necessary result whereof two fingers were amputated. For his general disability the commission, without considering the amputations, awarded him gompensation, and added a total of selenty-six weeks for the injuries resultant from the amputation, from which award defendant appealed. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, in an opinion by Judge Lyon, holds that hevond question the injuries sustained were accidental within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law, and, since the commission determined that they arose out of the employment., the awards were affirmed. e Nonpayment of Railway Fare No Ground for Arrest by Conductor. In the case of Comisky v. Norfolk & W. Ry Co. et al, 90 Southeastern Re- porter, 385, Comisky had been em- ployed by the defendant compan Transportation is ordinarily an inci- dent to such employment, and was so claimed by plaintiff. At noon of the day in question he quit. Wheeler, the foreman, informed Jennings, the conductor, that Com- isky was not entitled, as an employe, to passage on the return trip that evening. With this information, Jen- nings demanded fare, and being re- fused, he, in his dual capacity of con- servator of the peace and conductor of the train, arrested Comisky, for the sole reason of his refusal to pay fare. Plaintiff was then delivered to a deputy sheriff, on board, who in turn delivered him to be held for trial, which was had, and as a result he was imprisoned. Judge Lynch, of the Court of Ap- peals of West Virginia writes the opinion, a resume of which is as fol- lows: Under such circumstances, the proper remedy is ejection, not arrest and imprisonment; and such being unlawful, and the original wrong be- ing done by the conductor while en- 'ted in performing the dutles actually assigned to him, the com- pany is liable In damages. A warrant issued upon nonpayment of fare only is a nullity. On rehearing it was argued that, as plaintiff was attempting, without pay- ment of fare when demanded, to se- cure passage on the train of a car- rier engaged at the time in the trans- portation of passengers and inter- state shipments, that attempt consti- tuted a violation of the act of con- gress to regulate commerce, approved Febpuary 4, 1887, as amended June 29, 1906, and, as such, was punishable as therein provided or a violation of sections 6 and 7, c. 9. Acts 1913 (chapter 150, West Virginia Code [sections 641, 642]): but the court answers that. under the authorites, the acts cited contemplate the joint participation of both carriers and passenger, and the act of one party alone does not suffice, B Total Disability. In Moore v. Peet Bros. Mfg. Co., in the Supreme Court of Kansas, 182 Pacific Reporter, 295, Judge Mason, in a personal injury case under the Workmen’s Compensa- tion Act, where compensation was allowed for the statutory maximum for total disability, and defendant asks vacation of the judgment on the grounds that plaintiff's incapacity had ceased, and that he earned from $12 to $1 week, speaks as follows: “We do not consider the provision of the compensation act relating to the earnings of an injured workman ‘In some suitable emplovment or busi- ness' as implying that the income de- rived from a business which he owns is to be regarded in itself as a meas- ure of his earning capacity or degree of disabllity; assuming that money which he receives as the direct result of his personal labor, while working in his own behalf, and not as the em- ploye of some one else, is to be given the same effect in that connection as though it came to him for services rendered to an emplover. * * * The return on any capital he may have, although augmented by his personal attention in looking after the busi- ness in which it is invested, clearly is not an element to be considered in the administration of the compensa- tlon - apton . K “If it had been shown in thix in- stance that the plaintiff personally performed a part of the work of cleaning, pressing and tailoring [the business he owned], a very different question would be presented. Pos- sibly any portion of his income that could be traceahle to such work on his part should be given the same effect as though he received it as wages. But the showing made is mere- Iy that he is ‘making’ a certain sum weekly out of the business which he is Important Decisions by the U. Supreme Court. It is not often that so many in- teresting and important decisions can be found in so small a compass as are contained in Advance Sheet No. 6 of 37 Supreme Court Reporter {ssued under date of February 15th. Prominent among them and per- haps of the greatest general interest and importance is Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland R. Co., pagc 180, involving the validity and con- struction of the Webb-Kenyon Act of March 1, 1913, prohibiting the ship- ment or transportation of intoxicat- ing liquors from one state, territory, or district to another in which it is intended to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used in viola- tlon of state or territorial law. It will be recalled that the validity of the act has been a source of grave concern ever since its enactment, and that President Taft vetoed it on the ground that it would be unconstitu- tional even if he acquiesced in putting it on the statute books. Congress, however, mustered a sufficient num- ber of votes to pass it over his veto. It has been involved in numerous de- cisions of the state and lower federal courts, all of which, we believe, have held it constitutional; but it had not, up till this time, come before the tribunal of last resort. In 1913, West Virginia enacted a prohibition law which, with certain exceptions forbade the manufacture and sale, keeping or storing for sale, or offering or exposing for sale, in- toxicating liquors. Under this statute, the state, in one of its own courts, sued the Western Maryland Railroad Company and the Adams Express Company to enjoin them from carry- ing lquor into the state in violation of law. Preliminary injunctions were issued, and while these were in force the present suits were commenced by the Distilling Company to compel the carriers to accept shipments of liquor claimed to have been ordered for personal use in West Virginia; claim- ing, in the first place, that such ship- ments were not in violation of the West Virginia statute and conse- quently not within the terms of the federal act, and, if so, that the Webb- Kenyon act was unconstitutional All of these issues are decided against them. As to the construction of the state statute, the court says that all pos- sibility of dispute has been removed by amendment since the cases were ar- gued. Going into the history of former legislation on the subject, it is said that the federal law was simply meant to extend what was done by the Wilson act forbidding the sale in original packages brought in through interstate commerce when forbidden by state legislation. That act did not, however, prevent receipt and personal use of liquor sold and shipped. Without going into any analysis of the reasonings of the court, it may suffice to say that the act is held perfectly valid to such ex- tent as to allow the individual states to become !‘bone dry"” if they so de- sire. The cases of Caminetti, Diggs. and Hays v. United States, page 192, in- volve the construction and validity of the Mann White Slave Traffic act pro- hibiting transportation of women and girls, or causing them to be trans- ported, in interstate commerce, for purposes of prostitution, debauchery, or “any other immoral purpose.” In none-of the cases was there any plan for general prostitution for gain or hire, but only the satisfaction of the lusts and passions of the accused themselves. It was claimed that on that account the statute was inap- plicable, that is was directed only to commercialized vice, and if construed otherwise, would be beyond the power of congress to enact. The court brushes all this aside, and holds it valld and applicable to transportation for debauchery by personal satisfac- tion of sexual desire the same as for commercialized prostitution. As to the claim that giving the act such a construction will open the door to blackmaliling operations on a large scale, the court replies that such con- siderations are appropriately directed to congress rather than to the court. The bill-board nuisance appears to have received something of a knock- aut blow by the decision in Thomas ICusat‘k Co. v. City of Chicago, page Have You Longed to Own ASteinwayGrand=Up ight and only been kept from the desire of your heart byrthe Price. We believe there are many such who will be glad to know of the opportunity to buy a rebuilt Steinway at a very considerable discount. Our Annual Mid-Summer Piano sale offers some won- derful values in Steinway Grands, each one of which has been rebuilt and refinished and is guaranteed same as new. Following is an interesting list:— Style A Grand—Original Price $1,100. NOW ....3750 Style A Grand—Mah., Original Price $1,150. NOW $675 One Rosewood Grand—Original Price $900. NOW $450 One Concert Grand—Original Price $1,600. Now.. $300 One Style C—Original Price $1,200. NOW .......$250 One Style I, Upright—Original Price $750. NOW $450 One Style I, Upright—Ebony case—Original Price $650. NOW ...... et 9390 WATKINS BROS., Inc. Exclusive Steinway Representatives for Central Connecticut HARTFORD, 241 Asylum South Manchester St. Bristol 190. An ordinance of Chicago re- quiring that before any bill boards or sign boards over twelve square feet in area might be erected in any block in which one-half of the buildings were used exclusively for residence purposes, consent of the owners of a majority of the frontage of the prop- erty on both sides of the street should bhe obtained in writing. The court says. “Neglecting the testimony which was excluded by the trial court, there remains sufficient to convincingly show the propriety of putting bill boards. as distin- guished from buildings and fences, in a class by themselves (St. Louis Gunning Advertising Co. v. St, Louis, 234 Mo. 99, 137 8. W. 929), and to justify the prohibition against their erection in residence districts of a city in the interest of the safety, health, and decency of the community.” The well-known fact of offensive and un- sanitary accumulations from behind such structures is noted, as well as the fact that they offer concealment and shield for immoral practices for loiterers and criminals, and are es- pecially undesirable in residence dis- tricts, which are usually not'as fully policed as busin districts, and yet are more frequented by unprotected women and children. The restrictions imposed on their erection are held valid. The three cases above noted are perhaps more important and interest- ing to the largest number of people, but are by no means the only ones found in this pamphlet. Challoner v, Sherman, page 136, continues an interesting story which had 1ts beginning in an adjudication of lunacy against plaintiff some years ago. It was claimed that he had been corruptly lured from his home in Virginia in 1897 and illegally com- mitted to an asylum, and that an ad- judication of incompetency was made in 1899 on perjured testimony. He subsequently escaped to Virginia and was there adjudrged competent in 1901 and held capable of managing his person and estate. The present ac- tion was brought against the commit- tee appointed In New York to take care of his person and estate for dam- ages for withholding his property. Judgment in favor of defendant is afirmed on the ground that the ad- judication of incompetency is not open to collateral attack. Crane v. Johnson, page holds the validity of the California Statute regulating drugless healers and making an exception in favor of persons treating the sick by prayer. The statute of the same state relating to optometrists is passed upon in Mc- Naughton v. Johnson, page 178. Other cases involve the safety appliance act, the bankruptcy act, limitation of lia- bility of carriers, Indian lands, changes of bridges by railroad com- panies, gas regulations, garnishment of savings bank deposits, freight rates, corporation taxes, etc, 176, up- Ruy an Indiana truck.—advt. BIGGEST CROPS YET IS FARMERS' 1T’ Agricultural Dept. Estimate Is | 8,008,000000 Bushels Washington, July 10.—A billion bushels increase over last year's pro- duction in the principal food crops is the response American farmers have made to President Wilaon's mid-April appeal saying that upon them ‘rests the fate of the war and the fate of nations.” The extent of the farmer's response was disclosed when a production of 6,093,000,000 bushels of principal food crops was forecast in the Department of Agricultural's July crop report. It shows this year’s corn crop ' will be the largest in history, and that four, and possibly five, other crops will make new high records. The corn crop, which will exceed three billions of bushels, shows an increase of 541,000,000 bushels over last year, with a total of 3,124,000,000 mushels. The total acreage is 14 per cent. larger than last year. It is the largest in history except that of 1912, which it may yet equal. The combined winter and spring wheat crop will be 88,000,000 bushels more than last year's, with a total of 678,000,000 bushels. Barley, with prospects of the third largest crop ever grown, will exceed last year's production by 33,000,000 bushels, with an output of 214,000,000 bushels. Oats promise to exceed last year's crop by 201,000,000 bushels, the total production being forecast at 1,453,- 000,000 bushels. That is slightly un- der the record. Improvement between now and harvest may result in a rec- ord crop. White potato production, on a 22% per cent. increase in acreage, will be a record crop with 452,000,000 bushels, or 167,000,000 bushels more than last vear, not taking into account the home garden production, which this year is estimated to be much larger than ever before. Rye, another record crop this year, will amount to 56,100,000 bushels, or 8,700,000 bushels more than last year. Sweet potatoes will register a new high total with 82,200,000 bushels, or 11,000 bushels more than last year. Rice production will total 34,000,000 bushels, the second largest crop ever produced. Production of tobacco will break another record, with a crop of 1.215,- 000,000 pounds, which is 64,000,000 pounds more than was grown last vear. In a said: “A heavy increase in statement, the departmant acreage corn is noted, amounting to o per cent. of last year's area, the increase being on land no merly cultivated, and the bulk { remainder on abandoned wheat and acreage formerly devoted tg The growth is severa! weeks laf as the seed was generally of & quality, stands, color and vij generally above the average. have been some losses on floode tom lands and a moderate amo replanting has been necessary. | “The stands of winter wheat, | clally where thinned by winter have thickened up surprisingly the heads are in almost all heav The growth during the has made an improvement, rep: ing a gain of 29,000,000 bushel being far in excess of what w: pected or is ordinarily exper) lThe improvement was general the! exception of a few States. tically no insect damage is and the plants are healthy. j harvested grain in the South:s turned out much better than pated. “The condition of the winter spring wheat crop combined promise of a yield greater by 3! 000 bushels than was antielp month.” LIQUOR SEIZURE I Smoot Amendment Condemne By Some Senators Who Vot It—Called Unconstitutional. Washington, July 10.—The amendment to the anti-liquor of the focd administration bl which the president was direg scize all distilled spirits in boy | pay for such liquors an amoun to cost, plus 10 per cent., demned as uncopstitutional in in the senate yesterday, even b of the members who voted amendment. This, with renewed oppositi some of the sweeping control ' granted by the measure, a i the dissatisfaction with the b by many senators and resulted rangements being made for aj| ing of the democratic steerin mittee today to consider plans drafting the provisions complai DRAMATIC James Montgomery Phister H: Caveer As Writer. Cincinnati, July 10.—James gomery Phister, one of the| prominent dramatic critics in ca, died he:e last night after fliness. He was born in M Ky. in 1853 and was at one student at Yale university. For more than 31 vears, M | ter was engaged as a writer, o ist, playwright and dramatic During the Spanish-American served as war correspondent. CRITIC DE: