The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1893-05-17

Is free from coercion as If they were
separated entirely from connection with
the Union. There must also be the like
freedom from coercion or supervision in
the action of their judicial authorities.
Upon all matters of cognizance by the
states, over which power is not granted
to the general government, the
judiciary must be AS free in its
action as the courts of the
United States are Independent OF the
state courts in matters subject to fed
erai cogniZance. ''Such being the sep
arate and independent condition of the
states in our complex system, as recog-
nized by the constitution. and the exist
ence of which is SO indispensable that.
without them, the general government
Itself Would Disappear
from TIE family of nations, it would
seem to follow" as said by the court in
the case cited. ''as reasonable, if not a
necessary, consequence that the means
and inStrumentalitieS employed for car
rying on the operations of their govern
ments, for preserving their existence
and fulfilling the high and responsible
duties assigned to them In the consttu-
ton. should be left free and unimpaired,
should not be liable to he crippled,
much less defeated, by the taxing
power of another government" to
which we may add, nor by the super
vision anG action OF another Government
in any form. 1--WE have said," contin-
ueS the court in the same case, THAT one
of the reserved powers was that to
establish Judicial department.; 1t
= would have been more accurate. and in
accordance with the existing state of
things at the time, to have said the
power to maintain judicial department.
All of the thirteen states were IN possess
sion of this power, and had exercised 1T
At the adoption of the constitution; and
1t Is not pretended that any grant OF it
to the general government is found in
that instrument. 1t is, therefore, one
Of the sovereign powers vested in the
states by their constitutions, which re-
manned unaltered and unimpaired, and
In respect to which the state is as inae-
pendent of the general government as
that government is independent of the
states"
The Ross Case.
In discussing the Ross case, Judge
field says:
1t only remains to notice the Observa-
tons made upon the decision in the Ross
case, which seem to me to greatly mar
row it's effect and destroy its usefulness
as protection to employees in the Serv-
ice of large corporations, under the d.
rection and control OF supervising
agents. That was an action brought by
locomotive engineer in the employ of
the Chicago, Milwaukee q st. Paul Rail-
road company to recover damages for
Injuries received in collision which
was caused by the negligence OF the
conductor of the train. The company
claimed exemption from liability on the
ground that the conductor and engineer
were fellow servants; but the court
charged the jury that it was clear that
if the company saw tit to place one Ut its
employees under the control and direc-
tion of another, then the two were not
fellow servants engaged in the same
common employment, within the mean
ing OF the rule OF law which was the
subject of consideration, ana that Dy IT'S
general order the company MADE the
engineer, in an important sense, sub
ordinate to the conductor. 10 tins
charge exceptions were taken. Inc
correctness of the charge was the
question discussed in the case 10y coun-
sci. and determined by the court. Its
correctness was necessarily sustained
by the Judgment of affirmance, which
could not have been rendered ii the ex-
ceptiOns to it were we'll taken. Inc
majority of the court in their opinion,
while admitting that the charge is much
like the one in the present case, ana
might be we'll said to be
Sufficient Authority
sustaining and affirming the judgment.
contend that the court did not ate pt
to approve the instruction generally,
but simply held that it was not erroneous
rs applied to the facts of the case, and
in support of this view cite the IAN
guage of the court used to show that the
conductor of a railway company, exer-
eisng certain authority. represents the
company, and, therefore. for Injuries
resulting from his negligent acts the
statement that the case required
DO further decision. Clearly. 1t
did not require any further
decision for it covers the instruction OBJ
iected to, that If the company saw MT 10
place one of its employees under the con-
troll and direction of another. then the
two were not fellow servants engaged
IN the same employment wlthln INC
meaning of the rule of law as to fellow
servants. A conductor of railway
company, directing the movements OF
its train. and having its general
management, illustrates the gem
eral doctrine asserted and sought
10 be maintained throughout the
opinion in the Ross case, that railroad
companies in their operations, extend
ing in some instances hundreds ana
through different states, must necessar-
lily act through experimenting agents;
employees subordinate to the company.
but superior to the employees placed
under their direction and control.
Doctrine Necessary.
The necessity of this doctrine OF sub
ordinate agencies standing for and rep
resenting the company was we'll illus
trateL in the duties and powers OF
conductor of train or engine. They
were stated as an illustration of the
necessity and wisdom of the rule, and
not to weaken or narrow the general
doctrine asserted in the decision OF the
court, and which its opinion, IN almost
every line, attempted to maintain. The
necessity of subordinate agencies exists
whenever train or engine Is removed
from the immediate presence and dlrec-
ton of the head officers of the company.
The opinion of the majority not only
limits and narrOwS the doctrine OF the
Ross case, but. in effect, denies, even
with the limitations placed by them
upon it, the correctness of its general
doctrine, and asserts that the risk
which an employee of a company as
sumes from the service which he under
takes is from the negligence OF one In
immediate control. as we'll as from CO.
worker, and that there is no Superln-
tending agency for which corporation
is liable, unless it extends to an entire
department of service.
Remarkable Conclusion.
A conclusion is thus reached that the
company is not responsible in the pres
ent case for injuries received by the
fireman from the negligent acts Ut the
conductor of the engine.