Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1909-07-22
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Nonnc"ttcuf supreme Court Decides
"fnin>t National Employers
!in',ility .ct,

New Haven Conn, July 2l.-The Con-
nectiCut supreme court OF errors vester-
Day afternoon handed down n decision IN
favor of the New York. %ev Haven g.
Hartford Railway company In the cas-
eS Of William H. Hoxie and Edgar G..
Mondou. actions Cor damages. finding no
error. In effect. this means that tha
court hy unanimous opinion declare that
the employers liability act passed bv
congress on April %, ,eoS is uncons,itu-
tional.
In tho IIoxie case. after the railroad
rs he defendant IN the superior court
had set dp the Yloa hat the act in
question was unconstitutional in he par
allel case of Nondou. who also was :,
railroad brakeman injured while coup
ling cars the federal government inter-
vened with n plea to UNFOLD the cons,i.
tutionaitY Of the.ac the department cf
tus'ic" being represented by a specio,
attorney. The arguments we're 7nade st
Hartford last month
The opinion vas wl:tten bv chief
JuHtio" baldwin. The case was an
action Of William II. -Ioxie. n .rain
hand. for injury on the railroad Of the
defendant corporation at Auburn
Mass. The complaint slleged ;hat
while coupling cars the plnintifY was
hurt. due to the negli Icc of fell
low servant In cont,ci o. mother
train -unning between H"rtford and
Worcester and he claimed damages
under tho federal llahilitv act relat-
Ing to the liability " common car
riers by railroads engaged In COM
merce between States
OPINION OF TIE COURT.
A demurrer to the complaint vas
sustained and Judgment rendered FOR
the defendant, The decision upholds
Judge Ralph Wheeler of thc superior
court who had declared unconstitu-
tional the act in question in the Mon
dou case.
In his opinion chief Justice rald-
win says:
The act of Congress- now in cues
zion creates htatutorY right Of ac-
tion. II is one not existing in common
law nor in Chanccry. It is ono which.
If warranted by the constitution Of tho
United States may. under their general
laws regulating to the Jurisdiction Of
the circuit courts of tho United states
whenever damages exceeding S2.n0p arc
claimed, be made the subject of judi-
cial proceedings in the courts of tho
United Statcs as n suit Of a civil nature
arising under the laws of the United
States without reference to vre citizanshiD
of the parties.
''TWo questions present themse selves at
the threshold of the present case. First
is whether Congress intended by this
act to authorize the institution or an
action under II in the courts Of the
State. The second is whether, If such
We're its intentions. it had power to make
It incumbent on the state courts to as
sume Jurisdiction.
CONTRARY TO COMMON Law
AT common law servant cannot re-
cover from his master for injuries re-
ceived from the negligence of II fellow
servant acting in the same line of en-
ployment. Congress has now seen NJ to
give an action where the common law de-
MED IT,"
Chief Justice Baldwin then goes into
tn" law on the question OF damages as
laid down by various courts of turlsdc-
tion, including the supreme court OF the
United States. He further says:
'1-Congrcss did not intend by tho act
of April %, 1908. to authorize the inst1tu-
tlon of an action under it in the courts
Of the States,
ut had no power TO make 1t incum-
bent on the state courts to assume Juris-
diction of such an action.
"3-The issues for the superior court IN
volved the consideration of these points.
which justified of themselves the dismiss
sal of the plaintiffs action, but, further.
title act. so far as II concerns this
cause, Is wholly void by reason of certain
Of it's provisions which cannot be sep
arated from the rest"