The Seattle Republican. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1???-1915, 1909-10-01

for each Circuit Court of Appeals
ranges from ten in the first circuit to
twenty-three in the eighth. The COM
plement of a bench is three judges,
but often only two sit and sometimes
four. Looking at the published re-
ports, it seems rarely the case that
the same judges sit together, and even
were it true that they did, at partic-
ular term, the personnel of the bench
varies at different terms.
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT
RIGHT TO SUE IN STATE COURTS.
Judge Simeon e. Baldwin of the SUI
preme Court of Errors of Connecticut
has lately considered several ques-
lions arising out of the enactment of
the federal employers liability act.
Hoxie V. New York, N. H. G H. R. Co.,
70 Att. 1854 These questions are thus
summarized: Cd Did congress intend
thereby to authorize the bringing of
suits in state courts? (2) Could it
impose on state courts the duty of
entertaining such suits? 60 Is the
act constitutional, independently of
the above considerations?
Taking the last of these questions
first, the holding of the Connecticut
court, that it is unconstitutional,
makes consideration Of the other ques-
lions not strictly necessary.
There will be many rulings and
much discussion, in the courts, about
constitutionality, but perhaps not so
much said as to intent of congress as
to suits being brought in state courts
and the power of congress to impose
this jurisdiction upon them. But re-
verting to constitutionality before
passing to what Judge Baldwin said
about the right and duty of state
courts to hear suits brought under the
act it is to be said unconstitutionality
is predicated upon the same ground,
that caused the first act to fail. The
court said: "The act cannot be in
terpreted as referring only to negli-
gence of employees while engaged in
interstate commerce. 1t substantially
enacts in this particular the words OF
the previous Employers Liability Act
of 1906, and must be presumed to
have been drafted with the knowledge
of the construction which those words
had received" In other words the in
separable feature, which invalidated
the previous act, exists in the later
act This constitutes very serious
attack on the ability of congress to
escape the decision upon the old act,
which, it is universally believed, was
the purpose in passing the later act.
Most interesting, however, does the
opinion read in respects to suits being
brought in state courts. In the first
place, as we think, if they cannot
there be brought, because congress
never so intended, then the $4,000
minimum in the federal court again
places congress in singular position,
that is to say, the act pretends to be
in favor of employees generally, when
the maxim de minimis non curat lex
is given a much more virile applica-
ton than the common law ever
dreamed Of In the second place, if
it could not impose on a state court,
nolens volens jurisdiction to hear
causes under the act, it is greatly de-
pendent on the comfy of state courts
for the proper fruition of its legisla-
t1on-this being especially true as to
cases where damages under $4,000
are claimed.
Here is how Judge Baldwin Under
takes to support his conclusion, that
congress cannot require state courts
to assume jurisdiction under the act:
eff we understand correcting the posi-
ton of the Supreme Court of the
United States, no part of the judicial
power of the United States, when it
is to be exercised in the form of an
original plenary action, can be vested
in any court not created by the Unit
ed States. In Martin V. Hunters Les
see, 1 Wheat, 9O4, $50, L. Ed. 81, it
was stated that congress cannot vest
any portion of the judicial power of
the United States except in courts or
dained and established by itself
Houston " Moore, Wheat. 1, 81 5 L.