St. Paul daily globe., 1893-05-04
Co-EMPLoYA LIABILITY.

The supreme court of the United
! States has rendered decision which is
! not onlyO interest to the classes di-
rectly affected, but to all who believe in
the sovereignty of the states over their
own citizens, and. within the constitu-
ton, to make such regulations as they
may see proper.
Under the common law an employer
is not liable to an employe for injuries
resulting from the negligence of CO.
employe. There has been constant
agitation against this palpably unjust
law, which diScriminateS against men
and in favor of implements. If the
employe is injured by defective ma
chine or implement supplied by the
employer, he can recover; but if he sup
ply fellow lab0rer defective because
of his carelesSneSS or reckleSSness, the
co-laborer injured by his fault is rene
dileSS. Corporations, and especially
railways, have contested the passage Of
laws repeating the common law, and
giving to an employe injured under
such circumstances a right of action.
The effort to pass such a law in this
state in the session Of '91 furnished a
rich harvest to the boodler and the lob
byist
Ohio passed such law. An employe
of railway company was injured
through the negligence of the engineer
of the train on which he was at work.
Action was brought III the state court,
and at the instance of the defendant
was transferred to the federal court
The plaintiff recovered a verdict, the
court holding that the law Of the state
and not the common law controlled.
The supreme court, TO which the case
was taken, holds that in such cases. the
action being transferred to a federal
court, the common law and not the state
law obtains, and reversed the judgment.
The decision is far-reaching one. 1t
goes away beyond the facts which gave
rise to it; to the law on which it passes,
and strikes direct and powerful blow
at the autonomy of the States 1t holds,
in effect, that where state law super
sedeS and replaces the common law the
federal court will enforce the latter and
ignore the former. There are numerous
cases which will readily occur to
any lawyer where this decision
will apply to rights established
under statue law which has dis
placed the common law. The changed
relations of husband and wife re-
gardlng the property rights of the
latter caused by statute law in almost
all OF the states, granting to the wife
rights which the common law denies
enlarged dover rights, separate estate
rights, and other alterations-is one :in-
stance IN which the humane intent of
the state may be defeated where those
rights may be assailed by citizen of
another state in the federal courts.
The case calls attention again to the
steady encr0achment on the states of
the federal government through the
medium of its courts. 1t recalls the
warnings OF JEFFERSON, who saw in it
the possibility of destruction of the
states. Judge THOMAS WILSON, in a
pamphlet issued few years ago, gave
a succlnct history of these encroach.
ments and warned the public against
them. 1t fell on deaf ears, which would
hear no warning because the danger
was remote. This decision affects a
large class who will not be silent under
it, and their protest may direct the pub
lie attention to the real danger that
threatens the states.