The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1907-01-01
ANOTHER PET LAW
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Employers Liability Act 0ecIar-
ed Void in Louisville
JUDGE EVANS DECIDES
Court Holds That the Act Does Not
Regulate Commerce Among the
States-Text of the
Decision.

Louisville, December 31.-Judge Walter
Evans, in the federal court, today de-
clared the employers liability act un-
constitutional. The decision was given in
the case of the administrators of N. C.
Brooks, versus the Southern Pacific, and
is believed to be the first handed down
in connection with this act.
Judge Evans said in part:
1.-THE Attorney General of the United
States conceiving, we suppose, that the
United States had some interest In the
case, sent one of his special assistants
to intervene on behalf of the part of
the government. When application was
made, it was objectld to by the defend
ant that this was litigation strictly in
ter-partes, with which the United States
had no concern. The court found 1t diff
cult to see how any other conclusion
could be reached, and indeed In all such
matters neither of the parties really in
terested desires to be affected by the
contentious of any outside person. But
while it is not thought that such a prae-
tice should be especially encouraged inas-
much as there is no statute or law which
authorizes or directs the Attorney General
10 support by arguments in the courts
generally, the legislation of Congress,
where the union is not a party, nor its
interests involved in any tangible way,
yet the court desiring light upon the
very important questions involved in the
case. decided to hear the special as
sstant Of the Attorney General, as a
friend of the court; but as both of the
parties in interest in the litigation might
, desire to combat his views If regarded
as conflicting with the grounds and argu-
ments upon which they respectively
might desire to rest the case, the court
thought it best that he should speak
first, and he did so.
Within Power of Congress.
while the courts would be exceedingly
slow to inquire into the mere appropriate
ness of legislation they cannot decline the
duty of inquring whether legislation is
within the constitutional power of Con-
gress when proper case demands the
investigation, and a most patient consid-
Grafton of the question in this instance
has led us to the conclusion-we think,
to the inevitable conclusion--that the
act of June II, 1906, only creates and
imposes liability upon certain COM
mon carriers to their employees and in no
way prescribes rules for carrying on
traffic or commerce among the states.
and consequently in no way regulates
such commerce II the operation of the
act could in any wise affect commerce
among the states, 1t you'd do so in a
manner so remote, incidental and con-
tingent, as in no proper sense to afford
2 factor of any value in determining
L., question now In contention. With
what the supreme court has said In many
cases before us. and with an open con-
stitution to control, we should be trifing
with important things If we gave force
to any other conclusion. Indeed. 1t may be
said that it is obvious that Congress In
the act referred to had in contemplation
no more than the creation of the liza
bility mentioned, and it would be most
strained construction to hold that 1t In
cluded anything broader than that Gre
, atins new liabilities growing out of the
relations between master and servant or
the one hand. and regulating commerce
on the other. are two things SO entirely
diffrent that confusion of the judicial
mind upon them is hardly to be expected
under normal conditions.
Does Not Regulate Commerce.
I'm the opinion of the court the ac
does not regulate commerce among thu
| states.
J while the title/is not controlling IL