The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1909-07-23
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT
Connecticut Supreme Court Says 1t is
Unconstitutional

Observation-Disclosures
New Haven, Conn, Juy 22.-The
Connecticut supreme court of errors
Tuesday afternoon handed down de-
cision in~favor of the New York, New
Haven & Hartford Railway company
in the cases of William II. Hoxie and
Edgar G.. Mondou actions for damages
finding no error In effect this means
that the employers liability act pass
ed by Congress on April %, 1908, is
unconstitutional.
In the Hoxie case after the rail-
road as the defendant in tne superior
court, had set up the plea that the act
in question was unconstitutional in
the parallel case of Mondou, who also
was a railroad brakeman injured
while coupling cars, the federal gov
eminent interviewed with plea TO up
hold the constitutionality of the act,
the department of justice being repre-
scented by a special attorney. The ar
guments were made at Hartford last
month
TIE opinion was written by Chief
Justice Baldwin. The case was an
action of William II Hoxie a train
hand. for injury on the railroad of the
defendant corporation at Auburn,
Mass. The complaint alleged that
while coupling cars the plaintiff was
hurt, due to the negligence of fell
| low servant in control of a another
train running between Hartford and
| Worcester and he claimed damages
under the federal liability act relating
to the liability of common carriers by
railroads engaged in commerce be-
tween states.
A demurrer to the complaint was
sustained and judgment rendered for
the defendant TIE decision upholds
Judge Ralph Wheeler of the superior
court who had declared unconstitu-
tional the act in question in the Mon
dou case.
In his opinion Chief Justice Bald
win says:
THE act of Congress now in ques-
ton creates statutory right of ac-
ton. 1t is one not existing in com
mon law nor in chancery. 1t is one
which if warranted by the constitu-
ton of the United States may under
their general laws regulating to the
| jurisdiction of the circuit courts of
the United States, whenever damages
exceeding $4,000 are claimed, be made
the subject of judicial proceedings in
the courts of the United States as a
suit of civil nature arising under
the laws of the United States without
references to the citizenship of the
parties.
Two questions present themselves
at the threshold of the present case.
First is whether Congress intended
! by this act to authorize the institution
of an action under it in the courts of
the state. The second is whether If
such We're its intentions it had power
to make 1t incumbent on the state
courts to assume jurisdiction.
AT common law servant cannot
recover from his master for injuries
received from the negligence of fell
low servant acting in the same line
of employment. Congress mas now
seen fit to give an action where the
common law denied it,"
Chief Justice Baldwin then goes in
to the law on the question of damages
as laid down by various courts of jur-
isdiction, including the supreme court
of the United States. He further
says:
''1-Congress did not intend by the
act of April %, 1908 to authorize the
institution of an action under it in the
courts of the states.
"2-It has no power to make it in
cumbent on the state courts to as
sumo jurisdiction of sucn an action.
"3-The issues for the superior
court involved the consideration of
these points. which justified of them
selves the dismissal of the plaintiff S
action, but further.
"4.-The act, so far as it concerns
this cause, is wholly void by reason
of certain of its provisions which can
NOT he canarafed from the rest "