Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-05-04
Government Inleryenes IN
Suit Against New Haven.
viii Fight to Maintain Validity
Of Employers Liability Aci.
Says Aet Is Clearly Within Tho
Constitutional Limit.

Washington, May 3-The govern
ment today filed in the supreme court
of errors. New London county, second
judicial district Of Connecticut it0
brief in the case Of Edgar D. Mondon.
plaintiff, against the New York. New
Haven K Hartford r.. r. Co. The case
was brought under the employers lia-
bility act Of April 20. 1908, and the gpy-
ernment, by permission of the court.
is allowed to intervene and hie q brtef
in support Of the constituttonality .of
the act, which has been challenged by
eral Wickersham and Wade n. Ellis.
his assistant. who prepared the brief.
have taken strong personal Interest
in this case because Of its great Inn
portance and at the outset state that
the government has no interest In any
other question involved than to de-
fend the validity Of wholesome and
important act of Congress. passed for
the protection of vast number Of cit-
izens and for the safety Of Interstate
commerce. In the case involving the
constitutionality of the former en-
ployers' liability act (207 y. 8. 4S3), the
brief says the department OF Justice
was given permission, in the original
and appellate courts. to file briefs and
to be heard in oral argument. ;fF
Congress in adherence to the limita-
lions established by the supreme court
ir the former case, it continues. passed
the act which is now the subject OF
this controversy, and the attorney gen.
eral is impelled by the Same sense to
the public at large to defend the new
law as that which actuated him In
seeking to uphold the old. Counsel for
the government are able earnestly to
submit that the objections urged suc-
cessfuly against the validity OF the
prior act have been eliminated from
the new statute and the employers IL
ability law now before this court, Is
clearly within the constitutional pow
err of Congress. rftE
Attention Is directed tosS President
Roosevelts message to Congrs1ss May
rs, 1908. recommending the immediate
enactment of an efnployer3' 4 liability
act, drawn to conform tosthe then r.
cent decision Of the supreme court and
the constitutional detects
found to exist in the former act This
Congress-. exercising its BEST Judgment,
proceeded to do. The Senate cofuEnittes.
it is pointed out, having the matter in
charge, after pointing out the de6ects
in the former law, stated that tho pro-
posed measure avoids these critioatmS
by combining the application OF ito pro-
visions to the employers Of common
carriers, who are within the 'regulative
power of Congress over commerce..
while employed by such carrier II Sach
commerce. In the brief It h cointended
that the questions raised In this, case
are settled by the decision Of the SUI
preme court In the former liability
cases and that the statute u cou1eltu-
tional. though broad enough. 80 include
an object whose worth and Justice all
servant of a railroad engaged In inter.
state commerce CAUSED by thA 'Me1ai-
gence Of an empioye not engaEed ~ In.
terstate commerce '5
"In passing this status" tn nrief
argues, Congress was lesislAtffi6 role
" with respect to the rsl6tion ~ utter
state railroads and their employees
while engaged in interstate commerce.
1t is the object Of the act to protect an
employee while engaged IN lntssHtate
commerce from injury a. the result OF
any negligence Of the interstate car
rier, or Of any Of it, ihstfutn1t1fa1l9ae
While a servant Of an interstate road
is about his masters bustnAeg ana en-
gagged in Interstate commences he 10 en-
titled to, and Is within the protection
of the congressional power. es ase n
"The interstate busineAs OF railroads
is SO intermingled with their state bus.
mess that no segregation can be recog-
nized in regulating the relation b.
tween interstate carriers and their In.
terstate servants" Al A# srsfi'7 i'.'f
The brief concludes as follows. Z ~.
"This is a wise, progressive. and hui
name statute. It seeks, within approved
ard conservative lines, to accomplish
and object whose worth and justices Alt
mon have long admitted and many 9TH
er civilized nations long ago attained.
Legislation that Is to protect railway
employees does not beneflt class alone.
The safety Of an interstatS catrief,s
servants means the safety Of interstate
commerce itself. Il u - ~ 81 Ia
with respect to this act not only ~
bcneficent purposes but the caro- with
which 1t was framed to meet the very
constitutional objections now Surted
against it should make its validity a.
sured. E,t'fis fg3sg y. z,.sg ~ sss41.s5
1--WE respectfully submit tha& itirst act
here challenged 10 an appropriate sx-
ercise Of the power OF Congress 10 reg
ulate commerce between the states and
ought to be upheld" a..es