States for the District of Maryland in the case of the British steamship "Ethelred." Unless and until this judgment is reversed on review by a superior court, you will be justified, if satisfied, either upon evidence before you or as a result of inquiry made, that the agreement does not truly represent the real transaction in not sanctioning the engagement, more especially if you have come to the conclusion that the real transaction is an evasion of the salutary provisions of the United States Act. In such a case you are authorized to refuse to sanction such an arrangement. It has been pointed out that cases occasionally occur of "bona fide" special arrangement being made for various reasons, according to which men work their passage home at a nominal wage. Care should, therefore, be taken to distinguish evasions of the law from such bona fide engagements. In conclusion I am to state that such legal expenses as you may incur in defending your action, should it be impugned, will be defrayed by Her Majesty's Government. I am, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, During the year, Dr. C. Hampson Jones, Health Commissioner of Baltimore city, made a sustained effort to enforce the "sweatshop" law, and to this end, his subordinates made a house-tohouse canvass of the district in East Baltimore where the greater number of "sweat-shops" are located. Dr. Jones says that the prosecutions were very few, owing, in part, to the obscurity of the laws relating to the power of the Health Commissioner to enforce sanitary regulations. He holds that one notice to alleged "sweatshop" proprietors is sufficient, an opinion which has not been shared by magistrates at the police stations, who, for the most part, appear to think a notice imperative upon each occasion when the health authorities believe themselves justified in invoking the law to abate "sweat-shop" nuisances. The word "habitually" in the law relating to "sweat-shops" also gave some trouble to the health department, and, Dr. Jones secured an opinion from City Attorney Greenbaum as to when such an establishment could be considered "habitually" unclean and unsanitary. Mr. Greenbaum held that, should notice be given proprietors to clean their places, and not to overcrowd their employees, and such notice should be disregarded, as manifested upon a subsequent visit of the sanitary inspectors, the courts would doubtless rule that such shop was "habitually" unsanitary. It has been pointed out frequently in Baltimore, that tuberculosis was common among sweat-shop workers, the disease being due, in the great majority of instances, to the bad atmosphere, unclean surroundings, and insanitary habits of the employees of the shops, both when at labor and in their homes. In most cases, the "sweat-shop" and the home are in one and the same building. Therefore, Dr. Jones instructed his inspectors to make a note of all persons found suffering from tuberculosis. In one case inspectors discovered two children ill with diphtheria in a room next to that occupied by the workers. The latter was small and unventilated, and the atmosphere vitiated with unhealthy exhalations from the bodies of the workers, who were employed in making up cloaks of costly design and fabric. Dr. Jones, in proceeding against the "sweat-shops" which he claimed were violating the |