Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-01-06
Employers Liability Law De-
cIared Unconstitutional.
SENSATION Al, CAPITOL
New Bill Will Be Framed to Meet
Objections.
DIFFERENCE AMONG JUSTICES
Disagreement With the Argument
Outlined in the opiuion-Divi-
sion Was S to 4.

In an opinion by Justice White, the
Supreme Court Of the United States to-
day held to be unconstitutional the con.
gressional enactment Of June II, 1906.
known as THE Employers Liability
Law making railroads and other COM
mon carriers responsible to employees in
accidents due to the negligence Of fellow
servants or to ineffective appliances.
The decision Of the lower courts was
affirmed.
The decision Of the Supreme Court Gre
ated sensation at the Capitol. a number
OF senators and representatives were in
the court at the time and the news soon
became known throughout the Capitol.
IL was SAID by men at both ends of the
Capitol who have been interested in this
legislation that undoubtedly a new bill
Will be framed to meet the objections
raised by the court. and that a long and
tedious night over it is in prospect. So
many conflicting opinions were expressed
by various members Of the court that the
lawmakers will be able to have a good
many suggestions at their disposal when
they frame the new bill.
Representatives of labor unions who
were at the Capitol this afternoon said
that they would proceed at once to
urge the passage of a bill Designed
TO meet the requirements of the court,
and which would afford the partial
measure OF relief Indicated as being
possible by the courts decision.
Divergence Of Views.
The decision has been expected ever
since the beginning Of the recent term
Of court, aas the cases were argued last
term, but the reason for the delay be.
came apparent today when the courts
conclusions were announced. 1t then be-
came evident that although Justice, White
nj -
decision there were comparatively few
Of his colleagues who were agreed with
him as to the argument BY which he
reached his conclusion. and the result had
been reached with difficulty. The. Chief
Justice. Justice Brewer and Justice Peek.
ham Joined with Justice White in the re.
suit reached. but they did not follow him
in his assertion OF the power Of Congress
to regulate the relation between master
and servant.
Justice Moody dissented entirely. holding
that the law Is constitutional on all
points. He expressed the opinion that
Congress had the general power to pass
the act and the courts position was an
interferenee with the domain Of the
Justices Harlan and McKenna united In
an opinion Affirming the constitutionality
OF the act. but holding it to be appliea-
BILE only TO employees engaged at the time
III NtcIStdIc cOIuutcTCe, anu not 10 those
engaged wholly in the state in which the
accident happened Justice Holmes also
delivered brief dissenting opinion.
Summed up the court stood FIVE to four
against the constitutionality Of the law,
Justices Harlan. McKenna, Holmes and
Moody sustaining its validity, ana the
other members of the court holding the
opposite position.
Two Cases Under Consideration.
There were two cases before the
court. involving the question Of the va
lidity of the law. one OF them. being
the case of DamilIe Howard, admin
istratrix Of her husband. VIII Howard.
a locomotive fireman. who was killed
in an accident on the Illinois Central
road near Memphis. Tenn. and the
tratrix and mother OF Morris s. BrooKs.
a 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 west
ern district Of Tennessee. with Judge Nc
Call presiding, and the Brooks case In
the United States circuit court for the
western district OF Kentucky. with Judge
Walter Evans on the bench. In the for.
ner case damages amounting to $2S.0W
were demanded. while In the latter the
sum was fixed at $4,000.
The railroads fought both cases strenu-
ously, both in the trial courts and In the
Supreme Court, and in each case obtained
a verdict against the complainant on the
ground OF the unconstitutionality OF the
law.
Judge Evans and Judge Mccall fol-
lowed the same line Of reasoning In
reaching their conclusions. both holding
the law to be invalid on the double
ground that congressional enactment
could not be made applicable to intra-
state commerce, as they claimed was
undertaken In this law. and that pro-
lection from accidents In interstate COM
merce could not be construed as any part
Of commerce" Of any kind.
Both the Kentucky and Tennessee de.
cistons were affirmed by Justice Whites
opinion on the ground that the law 10
not confined to the regulation of the
business Of interstate carriers. but un.
dertakes to regulate their dealings with
their employees.