The Mena weekly star., 1907-04-18
LIABILITY 0 EMPLOYERS
Argument Begun in Federal Su- preme Court on Constitutions
 lity of the Law.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS ARGUMENT
Mir. eonapsrte Files an Exhaustive Brief ln the Case in Which ne strenuousIy upholds the Law---A ksnsss Woman One of the Appel lants.


 kansss Woman One Of the Appel.
 lsnts.
 Washington. April 11.-Argument was begun Wednesday in the supreme court of the united States fin the two cases of Damscll Howard and N. c. Brooks involving the constitution aiity of the employers liability law, holding railroads engaged in inter state commerce responsible for dam ages to employees when caused by the neglect Of fellow employees or de ficient appliances. The csses have attracted wide attention and in both of them the trial courts held against the validity of the statute.
 Tn the Brooks case. Mrs. N. C.. Brooks. citizen of Kansas, brought suit against the Southern Pacific company in the United States circuit court for the western district of Ken lucky. because the company Is a Kentucky corporation. to recover S25,- 900 damage on account Of the death of her son. killed in an accident while employed as a locomotive fireman on a Southern Pacific train in Nevada.
 The case was tried before Judge Evans. a former member of congress, who held the law to be unconstitu tional both because 1t does not fall within the scope of the authority given to congress to regulate inter state commerce and at the same time 1t undertakes to regulate commerce within the states.
 In the Howard case the suit was TOT 2O.o00 damages occasioned by the cidental killing of the plaintiffs hns- band 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. northern 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 constitu ton and that. even if it could be. the authority would not extend to the regulation of interstate commerce which he. like Judge Evans. asserted was undertaken by the law
 The government was not at first a party to either of the suits. but since the law has been attacked, 1t ha' tervened and the department of jus tice will be represented in the ar gument. The attorney general ha. filed an exhaustive brief in the case in which he strenuously upholds tho law.
 On the point as to whether con gross has the power to regulate th' instrumentalty of interstate com merce the attorney general contend that such regulation is in line witt the regulation of interstate commerc' itself. and he asserts that the court have frequently recognized the DOW CT to regulate the liability of common carriers. Tt is difficult" he pro ceeds. ''to see why. if congress ma, regulate the liability of common cal riers and others engaged in inter l state commerce to strangers, 1t ma not regulate their liability to thei ! employees, the protection of interstat commerce being as much involved i the one case as In other.
 Ut would be strange. indeed. If should be held that congress can prt tect everything and everybody COT nected with interstate commerce. the carrier, the passenger, tn stranger, the merchandise-but coul not protect the persons employed [ carry 1t on, those that bear the hea aud burden of the day.
 From the foundation of the go' ernment the power Of congress { regulate interstate and foreign con merce has been construed to ei tend to the regulation of the fl strumentalities by which such con mercs is conducted aud the regul, ton nr sucn nstrumentalit;es to II clude control over the persons opera ing the same"
 ! With reference to the applicabilit If the law to railroad employees who's duties are confined to one state, h' says:
 sli is the carrier and not its en ployes that the act seeks to regulate and the carrier Is subject to such r gulations because 1t Is engaged i interstate commerce, Il Is submitte that congress can make a commo carrier engaged in interstate con merce liable to any one for it's nel ligence who Is affected by 1t: and
 they can do that. necessarily 1t ca make such carrier liable to all of it