The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1908-01-07

United States Supreme Court Decides, 5 to 4,
That Ii Is Void, Being Unconstitutional

Washington, Jan. IA decision
which is regarded as second In impor-
tance only % do ,1e pesd saerSsy SaU'' by ye The
United States supreme court; deter
mining that the employers Liability
law a congressional act OF 1905 Is
not In accordance with the Constitu-
ton OF the United States and is there
fore void. The court bases this con-
clusion upon the contention that the
act transcends the regulation or inter-
The decision was announced by Jus
tice White, the court standing 10 4
against the law Even among the nve
who voted not 10 sustain the statute
there were different shades of opinion.
Much interest was manifested IN the
result OF the courts deliberations.
There were two cases before the
court involving the question OF the
validity OF the law. one OF them hav-
ing been tried In Tennessee and the
other in Kentucky. In both cases the
law was held by the lower courts TO
be invalid.
Both the Kentucky and Tennessee
decisions were affirmed by Justice
Whites opinion. on the ground that tho
law is not confined TO the regulation
OF the business OF interstate carriers.
but undertakes 10 regulate their deal
ings with their employees.
DECISION EXPECTED.
The decision has been. expected ever
since the beginning OF the recent
term OF court. as the cases were ar
gued last term; but the reason for the
delay became apparent yesterday
when the. courts conclusions were
II then became evident that. while
Justice White had hcen chosen 10 an
nounce the courts decision, there were
who were agreed with him as 10 the
argument by which he reached his
conclusion, and the result had been
reached with difficulty.
he III Rre n
and Justice Peckhsm joined with Jus
ticc White in the, result arrived at.
hut they did not follow him i'm his as
regulate the relation between master
and servant
Justice Moody dissented entirely
on all points He expressed the opn-
Ian that congress has the general pow
~ TO pass the act. and the courts
position was an Interference with the
domain OF the legislative branch OF
Justices Harlan and McKenna united
in an opinion affirming the constitu-
tsonality Of the act but holding II 70
be applicable only TO employees engaged
at the time In interstate commerce and
not those engaged wholly In the state
In which the accident happened JUS
tfce Holmes also delivered brief dis
sentfng opinion.
THE MAJORITY OPINION.
Following are the principal points In
Justice Whites opinion:
The act. then, being addressed TO
all common carriers engaged In inter-
state commerce., and imposing liabil
ity upon them in favor OF any OF their
employees without qualification or re-
ssriction str as to the business In Which s
engaged at the time OF the injury. OF
necessity. includes subjects wholly
outside OF the power or the congress to
regulate commerce..
ssNttHOut StODDing In consider the nIl-
merous instances where. although a COM
mon carrier Ia engaged In Interstate COM
merce. such carrier may In the nature OF
things also transact business not inter-
state commerce. although such local busl-
ness may indirectly be related TO inter-
state commerce. a few illustrations show
ing the operation OF the statute as To
matters wholly Independent of interstate
commerce Will serve to make clear the
extent of the power which Is cxcrted by
the statute
Take a railroad engaged in interstate
commerce. having a purely local branch
operated wholly within state Take.
again. the same road having shops for
repairs. and II may he for construction
work. as well az large accounting and
clerical force. and having. II may be,
storage elevators and warehouses. not 20
suggest besides the possibility OF it's hav-
Ing engaged In other independent enter
prises.
Take telegraph company engaged In
the TRANSMISSION OF interstate and local
messages. Take an express company en-
gagged In local as well as in interstate
business. Take trolley line moving
wholly within a state as to large part
OF its business. and yet as TO the re-
nainder crossing the state line.
ACT REPUGNANT.
''As the act thus includes many sub
jects wholly beyond the power to regu-
late commerce and depends for its sane
tion upon that authority, IL results that
the act Is repugnant 10 the constitution
and cannot be enforced unless there be