Evening star., 1909-05-03
VALIDITY IS DEFENDED.
Governments Brief UphoIding
Liability Act.
FILED IN MONDON CASE
Constitutionality of Amended Law
the Question at Issue.
PROTECTS RAILWAY EMPLOYEES
Statute Defended as wise, Progress
sive and Humane" Involving
Safety of Vast Numbers.

The government today filed I'm the SUI
preme court of Hartford county, Conn.,.
its brief In the case of Edgar c. Mon.
don, plaintiff. against the New York.
New Haven and Hartford Railroad
Company. The case was brought under
The employees liability act of April -.
1905 and the government by permission
of the court is allowed to intervene and
file brief in support of the constitu-
tional:y of the act which has been
challenged by the defendant company.
Attorney General Wickersham and
Wade III. Ellis, his assistant who pre-
pared the brief, have taken strong
personal interest in this case because Of
its great Importance, and at the outset
OF the brief state that the government
has no interest in any other question in
volved than to defend the validity of q
wholesome and important act Of Congress.
passed for the protection Of a vast num-
ber of citizens and for the afety of in
kterstate commerce In the case involv-
ting the >conS -itutionality of the former
employees liability act t207 US. 463).
the brief says, the Department of JUS
tice was given permission, in the origi-
nal and appellate courts, to file briefs
and TO be heard in oral argument
Congress, in adherence TO the limita-
tions established. by the Supreme Court
in the former case. Ii continues, passed
the act which Is now the subject OF this
controversy, and the Attorney General
Is impelled by the same sense of duty
to the public at large to defend the new
law as that which .actuated him In
seeking TO uphold the old.
Old Objections Removed.
Counsel for the government are able
earnestly to submit that the objections
urged successfully against the validity
of the prior act have been eliminated
from the new statute. and the en-
ployers' liability law now before this
court is clearly within the constitutional
power of Congress. Attention is directed
TO President Roosevelt's message TO Con-
gfess, May -, 1908, recommending the
| immediate enactment of an employers
liability act, drawn to conform to tine
then recent decision of the Supreme
Court and eliminating the constitutional
defects found to exist in the former act
This Congress, exercising its best judg-
ment, proceeded to do. The Senate COM
| mittee. IT is pointed out having the mat
ter In charge. after pointing out the de-
| iectS In the former law stated that the
! proposed measure avoids these criticisms
| by confinlng the application of its pro-
VISIONS TO the employers Of common car
riers, which are within the regulative
| power of Congress over commerce while
employed by such carrier in such COM
| merce. In the brief IL Is contended that
| the questions raised in this case are set
| tied by the decision Of the Supreme Court
1 in the former liability cases and that the
statute is constitutional. though broad
| enough to include an action for an in
| jury sustained by Il servant of a rail-
| road engaged in interstate commerce
by the negligence of an employe not en-
gagged in interstate commerce.
Liability Clearly Defined.
In passing this statute" the brief con-
tines, Congress was legslating solely
with respect to the relation of interstate
railroads and their employees while en-
gagged in interstate commerce. 1t is the
| object of the act to protect an employe
| engaged i'm interstate commerce from In.
| jury as the result of any negligence Of
| the interstate carrier or of any of its
| instrumentalities. While a servant of an
| interstate road is about his masters
bushes and engaged in interstate COM
| merce he is entitled to and Is within this
protection of the congressional power
This power reaches out to him in every
| act of his while performing the duty Of
| his employer in the line of interstate
commerce, and Congress has placed upon
| the railroad the obligation to protect him
while so engaged.
1.-The interstate business of railroads is
50 intermingled with their state business
that no segregation can be recognized In
4 regulating the relation between interstate
L
Protection to All.
The brief concludes as follows:
| This is a wise, progressive and hu-
name statute. 1t seeks. within approved
and conservative lines, TO accomplish an
object whose worth and justice all men
have long admitted and many other civ
ilized nations have long ago attained. Leg
| islation that is to protect railway en-
Iynt0 0t-la.d 10 a oil
safety of an interstate carriers servants
| means the safety OF interstate commerce
itself.
with respect to this act not only its
beneficent purpose, but the care with
which ii was framed To meet the very
constitutional objections now urged
against it should make its validity as
sured.
I'VE respectfully submit that the act
here challenged is an appropriate exer-
else of the power of Congress to regu-
late commerce between the states and
ought to be upheld