New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-01-01
LIABILITY ACT
Federal Court Decides Lac Is
Unconstitutional.

Louisville. Dec. s1.-Judge Walter Evans Of
the Federal Court, to-day declared the Employ
ers' Liability act unconstitutional The decision
was given IN the case OF the Administrative of
n c. Brooks against the Southern Pacific Rail-
road and is believed TO be the first one rendered
IN connection with this act
The alleged cause of action occurred IN Kan
sas The husband Of the plaintiff was killed in
a railroad accident and suit was brought for
$4,000 damages and an amount sufficient to
cover the cost Of expenses incident to death The
court holds, iE brief. that the act in effect would
regulate commerce within the state and is there
lore unconstitutional. The demurrer of the
Southern Pacific Railroad 10 the action for dam
ages is sustained. In sustaining the demurrer
Judge Evans said from every point of view the
judgment OF the court must be that the plaintiff
has not manifested by the averments Of her pc
tition any right recover.
Judge Evans sale IN part:
The Attorney General Of the United States
conceivlng, we suppose. that the United States
had some interest in the case, sent one of his
special assistants to intervene on behalf of the
government; When the application was made
st was objected by the defendant that
this was litigation strictly inter parties
with which the United States had no con-
Germ The court found il difficult to see how
any other conclusion could be reached. But.
while 1T is not thought that such a practice
should be especially encoura ged inasuluch as
directs the Attorney General TO support by ar
guments in the courts generally theNlegislation
OF Congress where the United States is not a
party nor its interests involved IN any tangible
way, yet the court, desiring Ii II upon the very
important questions involved in the case de-
cided TO hear the special assistant Of the At
itorney General a friend Of the court
A most patient consideration OF the question in
this instance has led 10 the conclusion-we think
to the inevitable conclusion-that the act of June
IL, 1906. only creates and imposes upon certain
common carriers liabilities to their employees and
In no way prescribes fines for CARRYING on traffic
or commerce among the states and con seuuently
IN no way regulates such commerce If the opera
ton Of the act could in any way affect commerce
among the states. II would do in q manner
so remote incidental and contingent as in no
proper sense to afford a factor OF any value in
determining the question now in contention. IN
deed, II may be said that II IS obvious that Con-
gress in the act referred to. had in contempa-
ton no more than the creation of the la bty
mentioned and ii would be almost strained con-
struction to hold that it included anything
broader than that Creating new liabilities
growing out of the relations OF master and ser
want on the hand and regulating commerce
on the other are two things entirely different
that confusion of the judicial mind upon them is
hardly to be expected under normal conditions.
In the opinion of the court the act does not reg
ulate commerce among the states.
While the title is not controlling III the con-
struction Of act of Congress, the title in this
instance accurately describes the contents Of the
measure. for il in fact does nothing more than
fix the liability of certain common carriers to
their employees.