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

show that tho statute may be saved.
$50 far as the face OF the statute Is
concerned, the argument Is this. that be-
cause the statute says carriers engaged
I'm commerce between the states. etc.
thereof the act should be interpreted os
being constitutionally applicable TO the
interstate commerce business ard none
other of such carriers, and that the words
any employer as found In the statute
should be held TO mean any employe
when such employe is engaged only in
Interstate commerce.
But this would require us TO write
into the statute words OF Limitation and
restriction not found In IL. But IL we
could bring ourselves 10 modify the stat
ute by writing i'm the words suggested the
result would be TO restrict the operation
OF the act as 10 the District OF Columbia
and the territories.
"Of course. II IL can be lawfully done,
our duty is 10 construe the statute so as
TO render 1t constitutional. But this does
not imply. IL the text OF an act Is unam-
biguous. that II may be rewritten TO ac-
complsh that purpose. Equally clear Is
IL. generally speaking. that where a stat
ute contains provisions which are con-
stitutional and others which are not effect
may he given TO the legal provisions by
separating them from tho illegal
But this applies only to case where
the provisions are separable and not de-
pendent one upon the other, and does not
support the contention that that which liz
indivisible may be divided.
Moreover, even In a case where the
legal p rovisions may be severed from
those which are illegal In order to save
the rule applies only where II Is plain
that congress would have enacted the
legislation with the unconstitutional pro-
visions eliminated. All these principles
are so clearly settled as not 90 be open
TO controversy.
PROPOSITION REFUTED.
1T remains only 10 consider the con-
tention which we have previously quoted
that the act is constitutional, although
II embraces subjects not within the pow
er OF congress TO regulate commerce. be-
cause one who engages In interstate
commerce thereby submits all his bust
ness concerns TO the regulating power OF
congress. To state the proposition is TO
refute IL.
1T assumes that because one engages
In Interstate commerce he thereby en-
dows congress with power not delegated
to Il by the constitution: In other words
with the right 10 legislate concerning
matters OF purely state concern.
1T rests upon tho conception that the
constitution destroyed that freedom OF
commerce which II was It's purpose TO
preserve. since It treats tho right to en-
gage In Interstate commerce as privi-
legc which cannot be availed OF except
upon such conditions AS congress may
prescribe. even although the conditions
would be otherwise beyond the power OF
congress.
1T Is apparent that II the contention
were well founded IL would extend the
power Of congress 10 every conceivable
subject, however, inherently local, would
~ 10 nj IA init .af Itn ufer n
imposed by tho constitution and would
destroy the authority OF tho states as TO
all conceivable matters which from tho
beginning have been and must continue to
be under their control 80 long as the
constitution endurcs.
Concluding as VIC do, the statute,
whilst IL embraces subjects within the
authority OF congress to regulate COM
merce, and includes subjects not within
Its constitutional power and that the
two are so interblended In the statute
that they are incapable Of separation. we
are OF the opinion that the courts below
rightly held the statute to be rcpugnant
to the Constitution and non-enforceable:
and tho judgments below are therefore
affirmed"
LITTLE OR NO EFFECT HERE.
Railroad officials I'm this city say the
opinion OF the United States supreme
court relative TO the unonstutionallty
OF the employers liability act will have
practically no effect in this state
state industries are controlled by the
state law, and while there are several
Interstate trolley lines the arrangement
Of the Rhode Island company In chang
ing crews at the state liiye has made II
unnecessary for the employees to bring
any SUIT under the act.
For the New York. New Haven and
Hartford railroad Nathaniel w. Smith,
said:
"The opinion Of the supreme court OF
the United States will have practically
no effect on the New Haven road here.
As far as I know. no case has ever been
brought under the act In Rhode Island !"
General Manager A. T. Potter OF the
Rhode Island company. said:
with the exception OF small piece
OF track from woonsocket to Beling-
ham. Mass. none OF the trips OF the
Rhode Island company is made without
a change either Of employees or employers
at the state line, going and coming. In
the case of the Attleboro cars there In
no change 81 crews, but there Is a change
OF employers at the state line. The
crews continue on the runs, but they are
paid for their time by the Rhode Island
company. The Interstate company re-
imburses the Rhode Island company for
the wages that are paid these crews.
covering time and runs outside the state.
The Fall River and Taunton cars
carry our crews TO fNe state line. where
shifts are made The same thing is done
In connection with the Danielson line. so
that on the foce OF II We are working not
under the Interstate act. but tho laws
OF Rhode Island
-------------