The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-20

road company to an empIoye injured in It's service. This is most import ant measure. for an unfortunate lack of uniformity has existed heretofore in respect to the rules of liability in such cases, dependent on the court in which the case has been tried. The new statute makes everything uniform duced into Federal law what Is called the comparative negligence theory by which 1T an employe is injured. proof of negligence on his part does not for felt his claim for damages entirely un- less. the accident was due solely 10 his negligence If there was negligence by the company. the .Jary is authorized compensation for the proper part of the damage to the employe and the question of negligence is always for the jury.
 "The most important provision of this law. however, ls that aboiishing what Is known as the fellow-seryant rule. by which an empioye injured cam jury sustained through the. negligence of a co-employe, This rule was in- corporated into the law by Chief Jus tice Shaw of Massachusetts on the ground of public policy. It was ac- quiesced in by the courts of England and of this country. Whatever may haye been the wisdom t,n Of the rue iespgs Grsg it's abrogation, Public policy can be changed by statute. so that this ex- emption from liability. is not secured by the constitution to the railroad conn panies for the exercise of greater care in the selection. supervision and con- trol of all of their employees. which tends not only to the safety of their employees, but also to the safety Of their passengers.
 With these changes, all claims by employees against railroad aa compani;s,ss ;,s doubtless be settled by the railway companies without litigation, just as they now settle without suit substan- sengers. The validity of this law is under consideration by the Supreme Court. The only serious doubt in re- of some carelessness of language In limiting its application to interstate railways, and, therefore, even 1T the present law should fall; there VIII De CT form
 Regulation of Trusts.
 "I pass now from railway regula- ton and the abuses arising in the dis charge of a public function to the evils which have grown out of the combina- tions existing In private business, and so come to the subject of trusts. The combination of capital in large plants to manufacture goods with the greatest economy Is just as necessary as the assembling of the parts of a machine to the economical and more rapid man. ufacture of what in old times was made by hand. The Government should not interfere with the one any more than the other In the proper operation of competition the public will soon share with the manufacturer the advantage in lowered prices. When. however, such combinations not only lower the cost to themselves. but are able to control tho market and maintain or raise the old prices, the public derives no benefit and Is helpless in the hands of monopoly.
 Fear of the existence of such an abuse led to the passage of the anti trust law, in 1890. It recognizes two forms in which this evil may be main tained. One is by an agreement among a number of different manufacturers of an article and the suppression of competition, This Is denounced when the contract is in restraint of inter state trade as 8 criminal offense against the United States, punishable by fine and imprisonment, and q con-