Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1910-10-29

They apply to every servant and every
! master"
If this is mot retrogressive doctrine,
/ cruel and unjust to the workingnan,
I that is to the servant, as you use the
word in your decision, then would be
at a loss toadefine what kind of doc
trines can sbe called retrogressive as
| opposed to progressive.
You continue: IF it be assumed that
congress bats power to prescribe diff
ferent rule for accidents occurring in
or outside OF Connecticut in the course
of running railroad train between
states, and to create q new statutory
action for it's enforcement cognizable
by the courts of the United States, it
cannot, in our opinion, require such an
action to be entertained by the courts
of this state. 1t would open a door
to serious miscarriage of justice
through confusing our juries, if one
rule of procedure were to be prescrib-
ed in one class of suits against an en-
ployer and another diametrically op-
posed to it in another class of them.
If congress may thus change the COM
mon law relations of master and SER
want by giving a new form and cause
of action in the courts of the Unit
ed States, it does not follow that they
can give a servant right to such a
remedy in those of the states where
these relations remain unaltered."
Absolutely Retrogressive Doctrine.
Here again hold the doctrine set
forth by you to be absolutely retro
gressive. l agree with the comments
on the subject in the report of the
judiciary committee Of the senate on
March 22, 1910, last, recommending an
amendment to the employers liability
act Commenting upoon your decision,
the judiciary committee states that you
are squarely contradiced by some Of
s-s- IL
in making 1t. The senate committee
reports, in part, as follows in speak
ing of your decisions:
I'VE may disregard for the moment
the suggestion OF the injustice of a
particular statute. The local opinion
obstacle to it's enforcement il it be
binding law. We will therefore con-
slider the proposition solely as if the
factor Of local opinion as to it's justice
was eliminated from controversy. A
court may err in it's estimate of what
it's state really did consider INJUSTICE"
Position Without Precedent.
The position assumed by the court
on this question is without precedent.
of the judicial history of the United
States. 1T a federal right cannot be
the basis Of a plaintiffs claim in a
state court; If those courts derive
their power and authority and COM
pensation from the state for, the pur-
pose of deciding only controversies
arising under the law of the state.
written and unwritten, then a defense
based upon federal right would be
equally unenforcible in said courts.
Federal Law Paramount.
The federal law is imperative, man
datory, and paramount over every foot
of the soil of every state. 1t is in no
sense foreign when it's application or
enforcement Is sought in the courts OF
a state. No policy of a state can i'm
pair it's imperative obligation. No
official of a state, sworn to support
the constitution of the United States,
can deny the enforcement of a statute
of the United States, made in ppursu-
ance 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 notwithstanding.
How can q Judge Of state court
deny the imperative obligation of a
federal statute ON any occasion in his
court2
Before he can lawfully assume the
duties as such state judge he is bound
by oath in obedience of the express
requirements of the constitution to
support the constitution of the United
States. Federal laws are not depend
courts to be enforcible 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"
Severe Criticism Of 5aIdwin's Position
Justified by Facts.
Again l hold that this severe critic
ism of your position by the committee
on the judiciary of the senate is fully
justified by the facts and most GER
tainly warrants the use of the term
''retrogEessive" as applied to your po-
sition. You continued, "the statute
cannot be regarded in this respect as
one made for the protection of an ig-
Dorant and imprudent class. such as
the acts regarding shipping articles
The employees of a railroad company
are in general men of more than ordi-
nary intelligence. The dangerous ma
ture of the business requires and Sc
cures this. 1t cannot be regarded as
one made for the protection of train
hands. for 1t covers every kind of en-
ployes. 1t denies them one and all
that liberty of contract which the con-
stitution of the United States secures
to every person within their jurisdic-
ton"
Gross Miscarriage Of Justice.
In this statement you practically ad.
NIT that acts of congress for the pro-
lection OF SdllOTS ana men engaged IN
the. equally dangerous but no more
dangerous occupation of commerce on
the seas are constitutional, your con-
tention seeming to be that seamen are
ignorant and improvident and that as
to them the acts of congress are con-
stitutional but that brakemen and
other toilers on railroads are so high
ly intelligent that they need no pro-
lection under the laws. II you viii
turn to the chapter of Mr.. Alger's
book on '.Morai Overstrain." to which
l have referred, you Will find instance
after INSTANCE selected out of the many
hundreds of instances in which the
nominal securing to working people Of
liberty of contract under The theory
that you set forth has worked most
cruel injustice tp them. The doctrine
you set forth fs exactly the kind of
retroeressive doctrine to which | OBJ
ject and to which as / hold all<really
progressive men who have the welfare
of worsingmen and therefore the vel
fare OF all our citizens at heart must
object. ! cannot imagine what defini-
tlon GolxId ha xrirAu Of the urofft Hratra.