New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-10-29

to prescribe a different rule for accidents
occurring in or outside OF Connecticut III
the course of running a railroad train be-
tween states, and to create a new statu-
tory action for its enforcement cognizabie
by the courts of the United States, 1T car
not in our opinion, require such an action
to be entertained bv the courts of this
state. 1t would open a door TO serious
mscarriages OF justice through confusing
our iuries IL one rule of procedure were
TO be prescribed in one class of suits
against an employer and another. diamet,
REALLY opposed to II. in another class of
them. IL Congress may thus change
the common law relations of master and
servant by giving a new form and cause
of action in the courts of the United
States IT does not follow that they can
give a servant a right to such a remedy
in those of the states where these rela-
lions remain unaltered
Senate Committees Report.
Here. again. 1 hold the doctrine set forth
by YOU to be absolutely retrogressive. |
agree with the comments on the subject
in the report OF the judiciary Committee
of the Senate of March %, 1910, last.
recommending an amendment to the en-
ployers' liability act. Commenting upon
your decision, the Judiciary Committee
states that you are squarely conuadlcted
by some of the very decisions which you
quote in making st. The Senate commit
| tee reports in part as follows, in speaking
or your decisions:
We may disregard for the moment the
suggestion OF the injustice Of particular
statute. The local opinion of the justice
of a particular law is no obstacle TO Its
enforcement If it be a binding law. we
will therefore consider the proposition sole
" as if the factor OF local opinion as TO its
Justice was eliminated from controversy
court may err in Its estimate OF What lts
state really did consider injustice
The position assumed by the court on this
question is without precedent. and is en-
tirely untenable in the,lisht of the judicial
history of the United States. If a federal
right cannot be the basis of a plaintiff 8
claim in state court; if those courts de-
rive their power and authority and COM
pensation from the state for the purpose
of deciding only controversies arising under
the law Of the state, written and unwrt-
ten. then defence based upon a federal
right would be equally unenforceab bic in
said courts.
Federal Law Paramount.
The federal law is imperative, manda-
tory and paramount over every foot Of the
soil Of every state. II is in no sense for
eign when its application or enforcement is
sought in the courts of state. No policy
of state can impair its imperative oblga-
ton. No official OF state, sworn TO sup
port the Constitution Of the United States.
can deny the enforcement of statute of
the United States made in pursuance of the
United States Constitution. Such law by
the Constitution is made the supreme law
of the land. anything In the constitution or
laws Of any state to the contrary notwith-
standing.
How can a Judge of state court deny
tho narrative ohi;patior1 of a federal stat
ute on any occasion in his court? Before
he can lawfully assume his duties as such
state Judge, he is bound by oath, in ODE
dience of the express requirements of the
Constitution. TO support the Constitution of
the United States. Federal laws are not
dependent upon the judicial courtesy of
state courts TO be enforceable in the courts
of some states and to be refused enforce
ment in others. They are the supreme
laws of the land. and the judges in every
state shall be bound thereby"
Again, / hold that this severe criticism
of your position by the Committee on the
judiciary Of the Senate is fully justified by
the facts, and most certainly warrants the
use Of the term ''retrogressive," as applied
to your position. You continued:
The statute cannot be regarded in this
respect as one made for the protection of
an ignorant and imprudent class. such as
the acts regarding shipping articles. The
employees of a railroad company are in gen
eral men OF more than ordinary 1ntelll-
genCe. The dangerous nature of the bust
ness requires and secures this. 1t cannot
be regarded as one made for the protection
of train hands, for it covers every kind of
employees. 1t denies them, one and all that
liberty of contract which the Constitution
of the United States secures to every per-
son within their jurisdiction.