The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-01-07
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY
LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Supreme Court Of the United States by the Close
Margin Of S TOD Declare the Congressional
Act of 1906 Not in Accordance
With the Constitution"
~. Jnn,,ary e.-rhat the

WASHINGTON, january e.--rfat the
congressional act of June II. 1906
known as the employers Liability
Law" is not In accordance with the
Constitution OF the United States be.
cause It goes beyond tho bounds per-
mittcd in tho regulation OF Interstate
commerce. wasttie conclusion reached
by the Supreme Court OF the United
states in deciding two damage cases
coming to the court from the Federal
courts of Kentucky and Tennessee,
which were brought under the provis-
Ion OF the law. The decision wns an
inounced by Justice White. and was re-
ported by the narrow margin of one,
tina court standing Ave to four against
the law.
z Even among the five who voted not
to sustain the statute there were DIFF
fcrent shades Of opinion. Much inter-
est was manifested in the result of the
courts deliberations, but attorneys
generally rafrained from comment. The
law In question makes railroads and
employees in accidents duo to the neg
lgence OF fellow servants, or to inef-
fective appliances. The decision OF the
lower courts was affirmed.
Two Cases before the Court.
There were two cases before the
court Involving the question OF the va
lidity OF the law. one OF them being
the case of@Danyille Howard. admins
tratrix of her husband. VIII Howard. q
locomotive fireman, who was killed i'll
an accident on the Illinois Central
Road near Memphis, Tenn, and the
other that OF n. C.. Brooks, administra-
trix and mother of Morris S. Brooks, q
fireman who was killed on the South
ern Pacific Road in Nevada.
The Howard case was tried In the
United States Circuit Court for the
Western District OF Tennessee. with
Judge Mccall presiding, ana tha Brooks
case In the United States Circuit Coura
for the Western District OF kentucky.
with Judge Walter Evans on the bench.
In the former case damages amount
ing to $4,000 were demanded, while In
the latter the sum was fixed at $50, 600.
The railroads fought both cases siren
uously, both In the trial courts and in
the Supreme Court, and In each case
obtained verdict against the COM
plainant on the ground Of the uncon-
stitutionality of the law.
Follow Lever Courts.
Judge Evans and Judge Mccall fol-
lowed the same line Of reasoning In
reaching their conclusions, both hold
ing the law to be invalid on the double
ground that congressional enactment
could not be made applicable to intra.
state commerce, and that protection
from accidents in interstate commerce.
could not be construed as any part OF
commerce" OF any kind. Both the
Kentucky and Tennessee decisions were
affirmed BY Justice Whites opinion on
the ground that the law is not confined
to the regulation OF the business OF
interstate carriers. but undertakes to
Regulate their dealings with their EN-.
ployes.
The decision has been expected eve,
since the beginning OF the recent tern
term. The Chief Justice, Justice Brew.
er and Justice Peckham joined with
Justice White in the result arrived at
but they did not follow him IN his as.
sertion OF the power OF Congress tc
regulate the relations between master
and servant. Justice Day concurred ir
the decision. Justice Moody dissentec
entirely, holding that the law is con.
stitutional on all points. Hs expressed
the opinion that Congress had the gen.
eral power to pass the act. and the
hcourt's position was an interference
with the domain of the Legislative
branch of the government. Justices
Harland and AIckenna united In ar
opinion affirming the constitutionalits
of the act, but holding 1t to be appli.
cable only to employees engaged at the
time in interstate commerce, and not
to those engaged wholly in the State
in which the accident happened. Jus.
| tice Holmes also delivered a brief dis.
! senting opinion.