The Paducah evening sun. [volume] (Paducah, Ky.) 1906-1929, 1907-04-11
Now Before Supreme Court of
The United States
General Argues That 1t is
the Common Carrier and
Not Employer.
STRAIGHT WHISKY WINNER

Washington, d. c., April H.-Ar-
gument began in the supreme court
|of the United States in the two cases
Iof Damsell Howard and N. c. Brooks,
the constitutionality OF the
employers liability law, holding rail
roads engaged in interstate com
merce responsible for damages to
employees when casued by
the neglect of fellow employees or
deficient appliances. The cases have
attracted wide attention and in both
of them the trial courts held against
the validity of the statute.
In the Brooks case. Mrs. N. C.
Brooks a citizen of Kansas, brought
suit against the Southern Pacific
company in the United States circuit
court. for the western district of
Kentucky, because the company Is a
Kentucky corporation, TO recover
$4,000 damages on account of the
death of her son. killed in an acct
dent while employed as locomo-
tive fireman on a Southern Pacific
train in Nevada. The case was tried
before Judge Evans, former MEM
Der of congress. who held the law
to be unconstitutional, both because
1t does not fall within the scope of
the authority given to congress to
regulate interstate commerce, and at
the same time it undertakes to regu-
late commerce within the states.
Judge McCall's Decision.
In the Howard case, the suit was
for $4,000 damages, occasioned by
the. accidental killing of the plain
tiff's husband while serving as a
fireman on the Illinois Central rail-
road near Memphis. Tenn. The case
was tried before Judge Mccall, in
the United States circuit court,
district of Tennessee, who
also held the law to be invalid on
the two grounds that liability for ac-
cident cannot be regulated under the
Commerce clause of the constitution,
and that even II II could be, the au-
thority would not extend to the reg
ulation of Interstate commerce,
which he like Judge Evans, asserted
was undertaken by the law.
The government was not at first
a party to either of the suits, but
since the law has been attacked. it
has interviewed and the department
Of justice viii be represented in the
argument. HE attorney general has
lied an exhaustive brief in the case.
in which he strenuously upholds the
aw.
On the point as to whether con-
gress has the power to regulate thel
nstrumentality of interstate com
nerce, the attorney general contends
hat such regulation is in line with
he regulation of interstate COM
nerce itself, and he asserts that the
'ourts have frequently recognized the
lower to regulate the liability of
COMMON carriers. cit is difficult." he
ito see. way, if congressl
nay regulate the liability of common
arriers and others engaged in inter-
tate commerce to strangers, it may
lot regulate their liability to theirl
employees the protection of inter
tate commerce being as much in
Tolved in the one case as in the 9TH
r.
ut would be strange, indeed. If i'll
hould be held that congress can
'rotect everything and everybody
onnected with interstate commerce
the carrier, the passenger, the
tranger the merchandise but
ould not protect the persons en-
loyed to carry 1t on. those that bear
he heat and burden of the day.
From the foundation of the gov
'rnment the power of congress to
a o,.1o&o s.to~~4o&o 80 R---s--.. -.