the review contains about 100 pages, and is divided into a number of distinct departments. These departments are: 1. The labor market, consisting of information given by special but unpaid correspondents in the different industrial districts concerning the extent to which labor is employed, factories are in activity, etc. The bureau, however, disclaims all responsibility for the accuracy of the information. 2. Strikes, lockouts, and arbitration, giving a record of labor disturbances of the month and their settlement. 3. Mutuality in Belgium, or information concerning the organization and operation of mutual aid societies of all kinds. 4. The trade association movement in Belgium, or information concerning the organization of trade unions among laborers or associations of employers. 5. Retail prices of the principal food products in the chief cities of the Kingdom on the last day of the preceding month. 6. Labor chronicle, or notes concerning the principal events of the month relating to labor and industry either in Belgium or in other countries. To a large extent this information consists of excerpts from foreign official and other publications. 7. Labor legislation-the reproduction either in whole or in part of laws, both domestic and foreign, relating to labor. 8. Jurisprudence-judicial decisions on questions relating to labor. 9. The inspection of factories and workshops, consisting of reports from the inspection department, showing the amount of work done, and a table giving information concerning the number of accidents in factories, workshops, and mines. 10. Official acts-a reproduction of all official acts or orders concerning labor matters. In addition to these regular departments short notices on other points are also occasionally given. Of the information contained in these bulletins, that relating to retail prices of food products is of the most general interest to other than Belgian citizens. Tables are therefore here given showing these prices as published for February 29 and August 31, 1896. 6395-No. 8-6 RETAIL PRICES OF PRINCIPAL FOODS, ETC, IN BELGIUM, AUGUST 31, 1896. Journal of the Department of Labor: Issued by the Department of Labor of New Zealand. Published monthly. Vol. I, March-December, 1893; Vol. II, 1894; Vol. III, 1895; Vol. IV, 1896. This publication was commenced in March, 1893, under the title of Journal of Commerce and Labor. In August of the same year its name was changed to its present title. The greater part of each number is taken up with the reproduction of statistics which have appeared in British and American reviews relating to labor questions. Its original matter consists of sections giving the condition of the labor market in different parts of the country, notes concerning labor conditions and occurrences in foreign countries, and statistics of commerce, customs, and shipping. DECISIONS OF COURTS AFFECTING LABOR. [This subject, begun in Bulletin No. 2, will be continued in successive issues, dealing with the decisions as they occur. All material parts of the decisions are reproduced in the words of the courts, indicated, when short, by quotation marks, and when long by being printed solid. In order to save space immaterial matter, needed simply by way of explanation, is given in the words of the editorial reviser.] DECISIONS UNDER STATUTORY LAW. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY-RAILROAD COMPANIES-Bloomquist v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 67 Northwestern Reporter, page 804.-This was an action brought in the district court of Hennepin County, Minn., to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff, while in the employment of the defendant, through the alleged negligence of a fellow-servant. The plaintiff based his suit upon section 2701 of the General Statutes of 1894, which reads in part as follows: "Every railroad corporation owning or operating a railroad in this State shall be liable for all damages sustained by any agent or servant thereof by reason of the negligence of any other agent or servant thereof, without contributory negligence on his part, when sustained within this State," *. The defendant demurred to the plaintiff's complaint and the district court issued an order sustaining said demurrer. From said order the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court of the State, which rendered its decision June 8, 1896, and reversed the order of the lower court. From the opinion of the supreme court, delivered by Judge Mitchell, the following, containing a statement of the facts in the case, is quoted: The question presented by the demurrer to the complaint was whether the facts alleged brought the case within the operation of general laws, 1887, chapter 13 (Gen. St. 1894, § 2701), making railway companies liable to their servants for damages caused by the negligence of a fellowservant. The allegations of the complaint were that plaintiff was employed by the defendant as one of a crew of section hands, who were engaged in repairing defendant's track; that while he with the rest of the crew were engaged in the performance of their duties, it became necessary for them to take up from the main track a heavy iron rail, in order to remove the old ties and replace them with new ones, and for that purpose it became necessary to lift and carry the rail, and in so doing it was necessary to use great and extraordinary haste, so as to accomplish the work of replacing the rail before the approach of a coming train; that while the rail was being thus moved and carried by the plaintiff and another section man, who were ordered by the section foreman to make haste, so that the track might be put in order so as to avert danger to a then approaching train, plaintiff's fellow-servant, who was engaged with him in carrying the rail, negligently and suddenly released his hold of the rail, and dropped the same, by reason whereof plaintiff suffered the injuries complained of. The language of the act is broad enough to include any injury sus tained by any railway employee, in any capacity, through the negligence of any other employee of the railroad in the same or any other capacity. In order to sustain the law, we have, by judicial construction, limited its operation to those employees of railroads who are exposed to the peculiar dangers attending the operation of railroads, or what are, for brevity, called "railroad dangers." But, as the general language of the act has been thus limited for the sole purpose of sustaining its validity, we think it ought not to be limited further than is necessary for that purpose. We have held that the test is not whether the conditions are in some respects parallel to those to be found in some other kinds of business, or whether the appliances are, in some respects, similar to those used in some other kinds of business, but that in there is any substantial element of hazard or condition of danger which contributed to the injury, and which is peculiar to the railroad business, the statute applies." We think that under the allegations of the complaint it can be fairly said that the plaintiff's employment involved an element of hazard or condition of danger peculiar to the railroad business, and intimately connected with and growing out of the operation of the road, to wit, that he was engaged in repairing the track upon which trains were operated, and that, in view of that fact, the work had to be done with great and unusual haste, in order to avoid danger to trains that were or might be approaching. We therefore think that the complaint stated a cause of action, and that the demurrer ought to have been overruled. Order reversed. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY-UNBLOCKED RAILWAY FROG-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-Lake Erie and Western Ry. Co. v. Craig. 73 Fed eral Reporter, page 642.-Suit was brought in the United States circuit court for the western division of the northern district of Ohio by Frank B. Craig against the railroad company to recover damages for injuries received in the railroad yard at Lima, Ohio, while acting as foreman of night switching crew. Said injury was caused by his catching his foot in a frog which was unblocked, and thus being unable to get out of the way of cars which were being pushed or "kicked" up a switch. A judgment was rendered for Craig, and the railroad company brought the case on writ of error to the United States circuit court of appeals, Sixth circuit, and said court rendered its decision January 30, 1896, and reversed the judgment of the lower court. In the opinion of said court, delivered by Circuit Judge Taft, among the questions decided, was the following: The liability of the defendant railroad company was asserted by the plaintiff on the ground that it had failed to block a railroad frog in its yard at Lima, in violation of a statute of Ohio passed March 23, 1888 (85 Ohio Law, 105), requiring all railway corporations operating rail |