The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1903-05-18
AUTOMATIC COUPLER
LAW TO BE TESTED
Importance of Case Pending
in Supreme Court.
GOVERNMENT PARTY TO SUIT
Contention That Statute Does Not Pro.
vide for Uniformity of Couplers.
Also That Tender is Not a Car.

If the Supreme Court of the United
States fails to reverse the decision of
lower courts in the case of w o. John
son against the Southern Pacific Com
pany the law requiring railways to equip
their cars with automatic couplers will
be null
After years of effort railroad men and
their supporters induced Congress in
1903 to pass law which compelled all
railways to equip cars engaged in inter
state commerce with couplers which
work automatically. The Railway Com
mission compelled the railways to make
changes in coupling devices which cost
more than $120. o00,C COO. but the law re-
curing these changes has been under
mined by court decisions and must be
re-enacted unless the Supreme Court
comes to Its rescue
petition for writ of certiorari is
on hearing by the court today, and or
ganiZed labor throughout the country is
anxiously awaiting to hear whether or
not the decisions of the lower courts
will be reversed. The Johnson case Is
of such Importance to the Government
that the Department of Justice Is assist
ing in bringing the case to the attention
of the Supreme Court
Trying to Save the Law.
Johnson brought suit to recover dam
ages for the loss of an arm while he
was trying to couple an engine and din
ing car which were equipped with auto
matte couplers of different types and
consequently would not couple by i'm
pact. as the law required. The Govern
ment has not taken up the case in John
sons behalf. but because of the inter
pretaticns of courts which threaten TO
emasculate the automatic coupler law
Three points of great Importance will
be brought TO the attention of the Su-
preme Court.
In the lower courts il was held that
the railway company complied with the
law because its engine and dining car
both had automatic coupling devices.
The courts ignored the fact that the
devices were of different makes. and,
consequently endangered the life of
brakemen more than the old-fashioned
link -and-pin couplers.
The courts also held that the tender
of an engine was not a car within the
meaning of the law. No specific pro
vision is made in the law that locomo-
tives shall be equipped with automa-
tic couplers, and the courts held that
the company could not be held liable
under the law for injuries sustained
in coupling an engine and car
Status Of Non-Moving Car
When Johnson was injured the dining
car he was attempting TO couple to the
engine was not in use, and was stand
ing on a sidetrack at Promontory, Utah.
The company maintained the car was
not engaged in interstate commerce.
The law applies only to cars engaged in
interstate commerce, and the courts
sustained the company in its contention
that car not actually in use is not en-
gagged in interstate commerce.
1t is the purpose Of the Attorney Cen
eral to show that an engine tender is a
car within the meaning of the coupler
law; that car has not to be in actual
use to be considered in interstate com
merce, and that cars which are not pro-
vided with the same type of automa-
tic couplers. are not equipped according
to the law.
w. L. Maginnis and L. a. Shaver are
Johnson's attorneys, and Solicitor Gen
eraI Hoyt is appearing for the Govern
ment.