Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-04-10
OPENING Of ARGUMENT
Employers Liability Law Be-
fore Supreme Court.
ITS VALIDITY CONTESTED
Declared Unconstitutional by Circuit
Judges.
CONTENTION OF GOVERNMENT
Exhaustive Brief UNFOLDING the
Statute Filed by the Attor-
ney General.
ITS VALIDITY CONTESTED
OF GOVERNMENT

Argument was begun today in the Su-
preme Court of the United States In the
Two cases of Damsell Howard and N. C..
Brooks, involving the constitutionality Of
the employers liability law holding rail-
roads engaged in interstate commerce re-
spOnsible for damages to employees when
caused by the neglect Of fellow-employes
or deficient appliances. The cases have at
tracted wide attention, and in both Of
them the trial courts helu against the valid
ity of the statute
In the Brooks case, Mrs. N. c. Brooks, a
citizen of Kansas, brought suit against
the Southern Pacigc company in the United
States circuit court for the western dis
trict of Kentucky, because the company is
Kentucky corporation, to recover $4,000
damages on account of the death of her
son, killed in an accident while employed
as locomotive fireman on Southern Pa
cific train in Nevada.
Declared Unconstitutional.
The case was tried before Judge Evans,
former member of Congress, who held
the law to be unconstitutional be-
cause it does not fall within the scope Of
the authority given to Congress to regu-
late interstate commerce, and at the same
time it undertakes to regulate commerce
within the states.
In the Howard case the suit was for $780,
600 damages Occasioned by the accidental
killing of the plaintiffs husband while
serving as fireman on the Illinois Central
railroad, near Memphis, Tenn. The case
was tried before Judge Mccall in the
United States circuit court for the western
district of Tennessee, who also held the
law to be invalid on the two grounds that
liability for accident cannot be regulated
under the commerce clause of the Consti-
f11fi nd hat ha 10
authority would not extend to the regula-
ton Of interstate commerce, which he,
like Judge Evans, asserted was undertaken
by the law.
The Governments Contention.
The government was not at first party
to either Of the suits, but since the law
has been attacked it has interviewed and
the Department of Justice was represented
in the argument The Attorney General
has filed an exhaustive brief in the case in
which he strenuously upholds the law.
On the point as to whether Congress has
the power to regulate the instrumentalities
of interstate commerce the Attorney Gen
eral contends that such regulation Is In
line with the regulation of interstate COM
merce itself, and he asserts that the courts
have frequently recognized the power to
regulate the liability Of common carriers
1t Is difficult he proceeds. Ito see why
If Congress may regulate the liability OF
COIuHOu CdiTlSTS anu OluSIS cHSdScu III III
terstate commerce to strangers, 1t may not
regulate their liability to their employees,
the protection Of Interstate commerce being
as much involved in the one case as in the
other.
1T would be strange. indeed, If it should
be held that Congress can protect every
thing and everybody connected with inter-
state commerce-the carrier, the passenger,
the stranger, the merchandise-but could
not protect the persons employed to carry
it on, those that bear the heat and bur-
den of the day. From the founda ton
of the government the power of Congress to
regulate interstate and foreign commerce
has been construed to extend to the regu-
lation of the instrumentalities by which
such commerce Is conducted, and the regu-
lation of such instrumentalities to include
control over the persons operating the
same"
The Carrier the Thing Concerned.
With reference to the applicability of the
law to railroad employees whose duties are
confined to one state, he says:
1T is the carrier and not it's employees
that the act seeks to regulate, and the car
rier is subject to such regulations because
1t Is engaged in interstate commerce. 1t is
submitted that Congress can make a COM
mon carrier engaged in interstate COM
merce liable to any one for its negligence
who is affected by it.; and If it can do that
necessarily it can make such carrier liable
to all of it's employees"