New Britain herald., 1917-07-10

participation of both carriers and passenger. and the act of one party alone does not suffice.
 Total Disability. In Moore V. Peet Bros. Mfg. Co.,, in the Supreme Court of Kansas, 162 Pacific Reporter, 295, Judge Mason, in 8 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 plaintiffs incapacity had ceased, and that he earned from SIP to S15 a 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 employment 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 disability; 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 1t came to him for services rendered to an employer. 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- tion act
 If 1t had been shown in this 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 tracea ble 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 1y that he is making certain sum weekly out of the business which he Is Important Decisions by the U. S.
 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. of 37 Supreme Court Reporter issued under date of February 18th.
 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. I o<,-{o o% intended to be received. possessed, sold. or in any manner used in viola ton of state or territorial law.
 It will be recalled that the validity Of the act has been a source of grave concern ever since it's enactment, and that President Taft vetoed it on the ground that 1t would be unconstitu- tional even If he acquiesced in putting 1t on the statute books. Congress- however, mustered a sufficient num- Der 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 1t 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 liquor into the state in violation of law. Preliminary injunctions were iro 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 commerc 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