The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-04-15
THE NEW LIABILITY LAW.

The overwh Ginning vote by which the
railroad employers liability bill was
passed by the house Of representatives
last week and the promptness with
which it was passed in concurrence by
the senate, without change and with
out division, are sufficiently indicative,
perhaps, of the unanimity of feeling
on this subject. On the principle, at
least, of such legislation there is en-
tire agreement. Whatever the case in
lesser industries, where the employees
are under one employer and may be
known to one another. it is clear that
where. as in the railroad service. fell
low employees can not be known to
one another. an employe injured
through the negligence of a co-em-
ploye should not be deprived of his
right to damages. This is now the
law in every country of Europe. 1t
should be made the law in the United
States.
The first attempt to put us in line
with the rest of the world in this re-
spect failed through attempting too
much. The law enacted in 1906 was
pronounced unconstitutional by the
supreme court because it applied to all
the employees of any railroad that was
engaged in intrastate commerce in
stead Of only those employees of such
railroads as were themselves engaged
in interstate commerce. The trouble
with that statute, broadly stated, was
that it confused interstate and intra-
state commerce and undertook to ex-
tend the federal power of regulation
into a field from which the old bar
rier of state sovereignty excluded it.
Justice Moody in diss enting opinion
did, to be sure, approve the assump-
ton Of congress that included in the
right to regulate interstate commerce
is the right to regulate the conduct of
persons and agencies engaged in such
commerce. But the majority of the
court held that the regulating lower
of the federal government could be
invoked only to cover actual interstate
traffic.
Congress, therefore, had no reason
to be ashamed of the mistaken view 1t
had taken; nor to hesitate to try again
to carry out the popular desires in this
matter, as it has now done. The new
law-there is presumably no question
that the president will sign it, for it is
one of the measures on which he has
been most insistent-being framed
with special reference to meeting the
constitutional objections to the former
law, is necessarily much narrower in
scope. For one thing, it applies only
to common carriers by railroad and not
to all common carriers: and, further
more, though in the case of railroads
| operating in the territories. the Dis
trict of Columbia and the Panama
| canal zone the guarantee of compensa>
ton for injuries caused by negligence
| of the road or fellow servants, in the
case of railroads operating in inter-
| state traffic the guarantee Is limited
| by the provision that the person must
| be himself employed in actual traffic
between the states.
| Oven with all this care, however,
there is still some question as to
| whether the new law will stand the
test of judicial inquiry in case it is
invoked, as it presumably will be-
Three of the eighteen members of the
| house judiciary committee have put
| themselves on record as entertaining
! doubts on this point: and one of them.
Mr. Littlefield of Maine. must have
very grave doubts indeed, for he was
| willing to be the only representative to
vote against the bill when three hun
| dred and two others voted for IT, The
doubt is as to whether the act does
not unduly enlarge the federal power