Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-02-25
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY.

Recent criticism of the Supreme
Court decision by representatives Of
certain labor unions appears to have
been hasty and Ill advised. From the
pen OF William Randolph Hearst. late-
ly candidate for the mayoralty of
New York. and the owner of several
great newspapers, which are special
spokesmen of labor interests, comes an
incisive comment upon the recent de-
oision. II may be recalled that the
Supreme Court has declared uncon-
stitutlonai the law making employers
liable for injuries to the men.
Mir. Hearst corrects the idea that
the Court denies TO Congress the right
to pass such a law, and quotes that
the decision distinctly affirms tina;
right.
The court says: Congress may pre-
scribe, as between an interstate car
rier and such of its employees as are
engaged in Interstate commerce. that
the carrier shall be liable for the
death or injury of any such employee
while so engaged which may result
from the negligence of fellow ser
want"
This Is clear enough. While Con-
gress may make laws over certain
corporations doing interstate business,
Il may not make laws over certain
corporations whose business is con-
fined to separate States. The States
must make the law for these latter
corporations. and, in fact. when there
is any disposition on the part of Con-
gress to invade the field of the States,
we hear protests against an invasion
Of States rights by the Federal Gov
eminent. Mr., Hearst therefore main
tains that the Supreme Court, in re-
iectlng this employers liability bill,
does not say that II rejects it because
Congress cannot pass an employers
liability act, but. on the contrary, dis
tinctly and definitely declares that
Congress can pass such an act that
the court merely says that Congress
has not the right to include in this
particular bill corporations over
which Il has no control chat these
corporations must be dealt with by
tho states: and that the court could
not say anything else and il could
hardly do more to affirm the right OF
Congress TO pass a proper employers
liability law In all this the position
OF Mr.. Hearst seems perfectly sound.
on the question OF boycotting,
which the Supreme Court declared H.
legal, Mr. Hearst decides that boycott
ting IS Illegal 1t is q conspiracy to
injure somebody's business. II con-
spIracy in restraint OF trade and con-
spiracy by big nrms TO lnjure the lit
tie business men are Illegal then con-
4piracies by little business men or la
boring men to inJure any particular
business man, be he big or little, arc
equally illegal.
As 10 that part Of the decision Of
the Supreme Court which says that
an employer may dismiss an employees
for any reason that seems sufficient,
for the reason that ne belongs 10 u
labor union. or FOR any other reason,
Mr. Hearst merely holds that IL this
decision does, IN fact legalize black
listing, then II IN unjust and un-An-
crlcan and wholly out OF harmony
with the othpr decisions Of the SUI
preme Court
Personally he does not think that
this decision legaliaos blaokllsting, ana
Is willing TO frame bill making
Dlacllistng punishable by fine and
imprisonment, ana TO guarantee that
the act win DO sustained as constltu-
tlonal by the supreme Court under
practically the same provisions that
caused the court to declare their sit
ting Illegal His idea IS that II COM
olpation and conspiracy are illegal.
then combination and conspiracy to