The Washington herald., 1907-10-30
ARGUES ERDMAN ACT
Mr. BOnaparte Wants Union
LabOrer Sustained.
CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT
William Adair, of the Louisville and
Nashville, Who Was Convicted in
Kentucky for DischarginE n Union
Fireman, Appeals Decision-Op-
posed by Government Attorneys.

The United States Supreme Court yes
terday heard arguments in the case of
William Adair against the United States,
from the Eastern Kentucky district
Much interest is manifested in the case,
as it is brought 20 test the constitu-
tionality Of the Erdman act of ISIS. and
is closely akin TO the employers liability
act.
In his message 10 Congress at the be
ginning Of the last session, the Presi-
dent severely reflected upon Judge wal
ter Evans, Of the Western Kentucky dis
trict for holding the latter act uncon-
stltutonaL the President using this as
an argument for urging the Importance
OF Congressional action on a bill giving
the government the right of appeal
where it lost criminal cases in the lower
court.
Such IA Measure Was Enacted.
In the present case of Adair. Judge
Cochran, Of the Western Kentucky dis
trict, holds the Erdman act coustitu-
tional, thus bringing the case TO the
Supreme Court on writ Of error.
Adair, who was a master mechanic for
the Louisville and Nashville Railroad
Company, at Coviugton. KY, was indict-
ed under the act for discharging, or
threatening TO discharge, from the en-
pl0yment OF the company one o. B. Cop
page, a member of the Order of Locomo-
tive Firemen. He was tried before Judge
Cochran and convicted.
Benjamin D. Warheld, Of Louisville,
made the opening argument for Adair.
and cOnteuded that the act which penal
lzes a common carrier engaged in inter-
state commerce for dischargiug an en-
ploye engaged in train operation or
train service" because Of his membership
In labor organization, or otherwise dis
eliminating against him on that ground,
is unconstitutional and void. 1t Is argued
IN behalf Of Adair that the act Of Con-
gress under which he was indicted is un-
constitutional and void for these reasons:
Contentious Against Act.
Because section 10 thereof. under
which the Indictment was found. is not
a regulation of commerce. within the
meaning OF the commerce clause Of the
Constitution; that il prescribes no rule
of conduct for the carrier respecting in
terstate transportation; because said sec
ton violates the Fifth amendment 10 the
Constitution. in that # deprives the car
Tier Of its property without due process
Of law; the right TO make contracts of
employment being property right; be-
cause said section unTeaSOn8bIy Classics
union labOrers. and seeks to confer upon
them privileges which are not accorded to
nOnuniOn laboTers, and, Furthermore. at
tempts TO confer upon union labOTers en-
gagged in train operation or train service.
privileges which are not conferred upon
union labOrers engaged In any other serv-
ice; because by section 1 of the act,
interstate employees are so cOmmingled
that it Is not possible TO make the act
apply only to interstate employees unless
the courts read into the act something
which Congress has not put there"
The case was argued for the govern
ment by Attorney General BoDaparte and
William r. Harr. They conteuded that
the act was in the power of Congress TO
enact and Judge COchran's decision
should be upheld.
The arguments win be concluded to-
morrow.