New-York tribune., 1908-01-07
LIABILITY LAW VOID.
Il FTYE TO FOUR DECISION.
Sapreme Court Says Congress E.r-
ceeded Interstate Commerce POrer.

Washington Jan. 6.-That the act of Con-
gress known as the employers liability law is
not in accordance with the Constitution of the
United States because it goes beyond the bounds
Permitted in the regulation of interstate COM
fnerce was the conclusion reached by the So
,,reuae Court Of the United States in deciding
ss-o damage cases coming to the court 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 opin-
sca Much interest was manifested in the re-
suit of the courts deliberations.
Following are the principal points frem Jus
tice Whites opinion:
The act. then, being addressed TO all common
carriers engaged in interstate commerce, and I'M
her en1poyes without qusacation or restriction
ss 70 the business in which the carriers or theIr
employees may be engaged at the time OF tne IN
9ery, CT necessity includes subjects wholly OUTSIDE
Without stopping 10 CONSIDER the numerous IN
stances where although common carrier Is en-
slle "a tuIe % la1iss 80 dib ,9 ,oCaI bnsiness
aaIersta1e commerce, a!lhousN slc loC6i 1880
tsT,,re ~ "a 1sffers wholly independent of inter
state commerce VIII maze clear the eX-
tent Of the power which * eNerted by the statute
having purely local Branch operated wholly with
IL q state Take again the same road having shops
fer repairs and. Il may be, for consuuclon Worh.
as wei as large accounting and clerical & force,
houses not to suggest besides the possibility of
its having engaged in other independent enter
Transmission of interstate and local messages.
Take an express company engaged in local as Wen
ing wholly within state as 10 large part of its
business and yet as 10 tie remainder crossing the
As the act thus includes many subjects wholly
beyond the power Of Congress 10 regulate COM
merce and depends for its sanction upon that au-
thoTIy Il results that the act is repugnant to me
constitution ana cafnot be enlofce9 ullIess Ie
be merit IN the proposition advanced TO snow that
So far as the face OF the statute is concerned
Tire argument is this, that because the statute says
etc therefore the act should be interpreted as
being extensively appllcabie TO the intersane Goil
Tnerce business and none other OF such carriers.
and that the words any employees we're found
IN the statue should be held any en-
ploye hen such employe is engaged only in in
eersta1e commerce But this would require US 10
xTite into tie statute words OF nI. alton anG re-
sr4ction not found in IL But il we could bring
o-- S - = ~ l1le; tiS ,C1, 80; i 20 rasrirt
words suggested lne result would pe 10 reslLLcl
The operation of the act 10 the District OF CO.
lunbia and the territories
OF course, if il be lawfully done. our duty
Is to onStrue the statute SO as & 10 reHder Ter II con-
10 ;1ccomDIish that purpose. Equally clear is it,
generally speaking that where a statute contains
provisions which constitutional and others
which are not, effect may be given TO the legal
provisions by separating them from the illegal
are sepafab!e and not dependent one upon the
other. and does not support the contention that
over even in a where the legal provisions
NAV be severed from those which are illegal. IN
order TO the rule applies only where IT is plain
that Congress would have enacted the legislation
with unconstitutional provisions eliminated All
these principles clearly settled as not 10 be
open 70 controversy
II remains only TO consider the contention which
have previously quoted. that the act Is con-
s1itutiona although II embraces subjects not with
power OF Congress regulate commerce.
because who engages in interstate commerce
7hereh- submits ali his business concerns to the
regulating power of congresses To state the prop
..sition Is fc refute il. II assumes that because
in int 10 tharphV
eHdoE-s Congress with power not delegated to it
lIy Constitution in other words with the right
&c sPEiSaIe concerning matters of purely state
ceTn II rests upon the conception that the Con-
srituton DESTROYED that freedom Of commerce which
Il its purpose preserve, since il treats the