New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-03-31
BROAD CONSTRUCTION OR NARROW

BHOAD CONSTRUCTION OK AARROWV
An interesting question in constitutional con-
sTUction viii soon be submitted 10 the United
States Supreme Court. At the request Of Attor
ney General Bonaparte argument will be
heard in April on the appeals from the decisions
% two federal district Judges holding the so
called Employers Liability law Of June H.
1905, 20 be unconstitutional This act applied
20 common curriers' and provided that every
common carrier engaged IN interstate COM
meTos or commerce with foreign nations should
BE liable 30 its employees for damages result.
ing from the negligence Of any Of its officers
agents or employees, or by reason OF any defect
''or fnsUd1ciency due TO its negligence In Its
fears, engines, appliances, machinery, track
FrOadbed, ways or works" It was also pro-
xieed nat conributOry negligence on the part
at en- amploye should not bar a recovery where
tise cont1ibUtory negligence was slight ana that
iof the employer Yves gross In comparison"
sbe +uy being authorized TO decide all Ques-
tic1ls OF relative accountability. In the two
courts Ga which the law was first tested its
cons ctutlonallty YVES discredited, Judge Walter
lIFsnss os the Western District Of Kentucky,
end Judge John =. Mccall, Of the Western Dis
sTict Of Tennessee, pronounelng &c invalid as
en- INV GRANTED extension OF the federal mower
10 regulate interstate commerce. Since then It
Gas been three times sustained by federal
,udges-by Judge Cornelius il. Hanford, Of the
Western District OF Washington; Judge Jacob
Tfleber, Of the Eastern District OF Arkansas,
and Judge Emory Spser. OF the Southern Dis
Gtct &c Georgia
The conflict OF opinion thus developed seems
20 have followed the old line of cleavage be-
tween the strict consuuctionists and broad
oonstructiOnlsts. Judge Evans held that de-
tniDg the responsibility OF common carriers 20
employees injured in their service was not an
control OF the agencies OF commerce did not ex-
tend beyond the actual and obvious subject
matter of commerce ana that the liability Of
common carriers Tor damages was an unessen-
tial incident IN the operations oS interstate
ifaslc Judge Speer Rne the Judges who agreed
with him maintained. on the contrary, that the
power OF Congress 20 regulate interstate COM
merce was elastic and plen2ry. III Congress
could control rates and supervise the general
machinery OF operation, IL could also protect
the men engaged IN interstate transportation.
II It could compel the adoption OF safety APP
planes and restrict the hours of continuous
employment, 81 could also FIX the conditions
under which damages could be claimed by rail-
road employe for injury. This argument Is
In line with present legislative tendencies; for
Congress has steadily asserted its right TO use
flle grant OF power over interstate commerce 20
brilg that commerce in all It's details under
federal supervision.
The act OF 1906 was passed chiefly to do
away with the conflicting liability regulations
NJ lie various states and to introduce uni
fo-nifv ,rs tho treatment OF railroad employees
Pr u-der the Eve decisions already given the
ma Inequality has been restored. IN Western
veutuosy and Western Tennessee the injured
cfaI-ns-t cannot now claim rights which are &C
know.sdged II Eastern Arkansas, Western Wash
M,4on and Southern Georgia Fortunately o