St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-05-07
Reversal of the Ross Case,
Which Went Up From
Minnesota.
Autonomy Of the States Will
Be Destroyed by the
Decision.
Gen. w. s. Rosecrans Resigns
on Account Of His Poor
Health.
Special TO the Globe.

WASHINGTON, May G. - Thirty-six
years ago the United States supreme
court startled the people of the Union
by holding that the negro was so far in
ferior that he had no rights which the
white man was bound to respect. Good
lawyers agree that this famous decision
was based on good law, but that act did
not prevent feeling of horror sweep
which added to the excitement under
which the country was then laboring.
Two justices of the supreme court, Nc
Lean, of Ohio. and Curtis, of Massachu-
setts, dissented. while the other six as
sociates supported Chief Justice Taney.
By the some vote the supreme court
has just rendered a decision as far
reaching on the law Of master and serv-
ant as the bred Scott decision was on
the slavery question, and when it is
given to the world next week it will
create no end of excitement in all parts
of the Union. The decision is in the
case of The Baltimore e Ohio Railroad
VS.. Baugh. The decision was written
by Judge Brewer, but Chief Justice
Fuller joined Justice Field in dissent
ing opinion that is remarkable for the
vigorous manner in which the conclu-
sions of the majority of the court are
controverted.
Both Equal.
Bauph was emDloyed as fireman on
a locomotive, and was injured through
the negligence, as he claimed, of the
engineer. In the circuit court Baugh
was given verdict for Sc, 75O, and the
company appealed. The question con-
sidered was whether the engineer and
fireman of this locomotive, running
alone without any train attached, were
fellow servants of the company or
whether the engineer was in the
position of master and representing
the company. The majority of the
court held the former opinion,
and in SO doing reversed the case of a
railroad company VS.. Ross that went
to the supreme court from Minnesota
some years ago and has since become
the leading case on that subject. In the
Ross case the court held that "a con-
ductor of railroad train, who has
right to command the movements of a
train and control the persons employed
upon it, represents the company while
performing these duties and does
not bear the relation of fellow
servant to the engineer and
other employees on the train"
In this case there was DO conductor, as
the engine was helper, but rule ten of
the company provided that in such cases
the engineer became the conductor.
The majority of the court held that
Baugh was a fellow servant of the engi-
neer. knowing with him the peril OF the
trip, and, by voluntarily riding, as
sumed the risk, and therefore cannot
recover.
The objection of Judge Field and the
chief is to the claim that the question is
one of general law, in which the
State Laws and Decisions
of Ohio, the state in which the accident
happened, are not to be followed. Un-
der the judiciary act of 1889. Judge
Field claims the supreme court must
follow the decisions of the state courts
in all cases to which they apply, and in
his dissenting opinion he points out the
danger in the opinion of the majority
Under this opinion the Ross case falls,
and the law of master and servant is
given construction that will make it
exceedingly difficult for an employe in
jured by the negligence of a co-employe
to secure damages. In conclusion,
Judge Brewer, of the majority, SAID:
at may further be noticed that in
this particular case the injury was not
in consequence of the fireman's obey
ing any orders of his superior officer
1t did not result from the mere matter
of control. 1t was through negligence
on the part of the engineer in running
his engine and the injury would have
been the same if the fireman had had
nothing to do ON the locomotive and had
not been under the engineers control.
In other words, an employe carelessly
manages an engine and another en-
p1eye, who happens to be near enough,
is injured by such carelessness. II
would seem, therefore, to be the Ordi-
nary case of the injury of one employe
through the negligence of another"
In the opinion of Justice Field and
Chief Justice Fuller, the decision of the
majority destroys the autonomy of the
states, wipes out the state line and goes
far toward building up powerful CEN
tralized government in place of the gov
erement of limited powers which was
created by consent of the sovereign
states.