The morning journal-courier., 1908-01-07
LIABILITY ACT VOID
Supreme Court Declares Con gressional Law Uncon-
 stitutional.
DECISION NOT UNANIMOUS
Its Provisions Exceed Federal Power
 to Regulate Interstate Commerce

gressional act known as the Employ l CTS Liability law" is not In accord ance with the constitution of the Unit ed States, because it transcends the regulation of interstate commerce, is the conclusion reached by the supreme court of tho United States, deciding two damage cases coming to the court l from the federal courts of Kentucky and Tennessee, which were brought under the provisions of the law. The decision was announced by Justice White, the court standing five to four against the law. Even among the five who voted not to sustain the statute, there were different shades of opinion.
 Much interest was manifested in the
 result of the courts deliberations.
 Following are the principal points in Justice Whites opinion
 ''The act then b, ng addressed to all common carriers engaged in interstate
 commerce, and imposing liability
 upon them in favor of any of their
 employees without qualification or res
 friction as to the business in which
 the carriers or their employees may be
 engaged al the time of the injury, of
 necessity includes subjects wholly out
 side of the power of congress to regu-
 late contmerce. Without stopping to
 consider tho numerous instances
 where, although common carrier is
 engaged in interstate commerce such
 carrier may in the nature of things
 also transact business not interstate
 commerce. although such local business
 may indirectly be related 10 interstate commerce, a few illustrations showing the operation of the statute as to mat ters wholly independent of interstate commerce will serve to make clear the extent of the power which is exerted by the statute. Take a railroad en- gagged in interstate commerce, having q purely local branch operated wholly within a state. Take again the sam, ' road having shops for repairs, and il may be for construction work, as wei as large accounting and clerical force, and having, 1t may be, storage | elevators and warehouses, not to sug. | gest besides the possibility of its hay l ing engaged in other business. Take | telegraph company engaged in th' transmission of interstate and loca | messages Take a express company | engaged in local as well as in inter Il state business Take a trolley lin, II moving wholly within a state as to Il large part of its business, and yet a H to the remainder crossing the stat II line
 AS the act thus includes many sub
 jects wholly beyond the power to regu late commerce and depends for it z. sanction upon that authority, it result ly that the act is repugnant to the con lg stitution and cannot he enforced unles ,e there be merit in the propositions ad w vanced to show that the statute ma T. be saved
 e. So far as the face of the statute 1T concerned, the argument is this, tha Nv because the statute says carriers CT ce gagged in commerce between the state n- etc. therefore the act should be intel
 preted as being exclusively applicabl ,y to the interstate commerce bushes g. and none other of such carriers, an IT, that the words any employee WE ce found in the statute would be held
 mean any employe when such emplo,
 is engaged only in interstate commerc ,,, But this would require us to write in o. the statute words of limitation and ' od striction not found in il But if ' ,.- could bring ourselves to modify II |, statute by writing in the words SUI ., gested the result would be to restri ..,. the operation of the act as 10 the Di ', trict of Columbia and the territorie. aa "of eourse if # can be lawful "a done. our duty is to construe the stt .,.. ute SO as to render it constitution -. Put this does not imply. if the text ,.,, an act is unambiguous. that it may
 rewritten to accomplish that purpo rt Equally clear is it. generally speaki ,r, that where 8 statute contains prov .,.s ions which are constitutional and . ho CTS which are not. effect may be gi7
 to the legal provisions by separat ,,, them from the Illegal. But this app -. only to 3 case where the provisions oh separable and not dependent one ,u.. the other and does not support the c .t-. tention that that which is indivis
 may be divided. Moreover. even il the eo7 eiie v CT slo' suns ii,as ,.a =. in order to save, the rule applies 7 -,. where 1t is plain that congress VI ,.4 have enacted the legislation with
 unconstitutional provisions elimina
 All these principles are so clearly
 tied as not to be open to controvers
 ''It remains only to consider the
 tention which ere have previously T
 ed. that the act is constitutional, ,e Of though it embraces subjects not vi n a the power of congress to regulate (