The Sentinel=record., 1912-01-16
LIABILITY
 LAW VALID
SUPREME COURT APPROVES IT AFTER A CONSIDERATION OF
 MORE THAN A YEAR.
Law Was Enacted in 1908 to Take the Place of One Which Had Been De
 cIared Unconstitutional By the Court.

Washington, D. C., Jan. 15. After nearly years consideration. the SUI preme court of the United States to- day gave it's unanimous approval to the employers liability law, enacted by congress in 1908. 10 take place of a similar act declared unconstiA,tion al The decision marks an epoch in labor legislation.
 The old common law, hedging in the rights of employees, is displaced in several particulars by the statute as approved today
 Notably among these is tue aholi- tion of the fellow servant doctrine' and the substitution of a law making employers liable for the negligence of an employers resulting in an in- jury to q state employe. Furthermore. it frees the .employe from ''contribll- tory negligence" in many instances. and limits the effect of the doctrine in others, and likewise, in many cases liberates the employer from assum'ng the risk, when he tthe employe) eu. ters employment. knowing the dan ger In his employment.
 The law was attacked seemingly. from every conceivable point of ,sitw Justice Var Deventer in announcing the opinicn of the court, considered these objections and rejected each.
 He first decided that congress had the power to regulate the duties of the common carriers in respect to the safety of their employees. while beth are eiisaged in toffmerce among the states and the liability Of the former for ininries sustained by the latter.
 Both have real CT substitute re. lation to interstate commerce and therefore are within the range cf this power" said the justire
 Objections were refuted that the law prevented ccntracts whereDy the railroad exempted Itself from liabil- ty and that the law improperly classi- fled carriers into interstate and intra. state groups
 Authorities were cited to show valid objection could be grounded in the fact that several states had al- ready determined the liability of in- terstate commerce employers. Pur- suing this line. the justice said that ''now that congress has acted. the avs of the states. insofar as they cover the same field. are superseded, for necessarily that which Is not su- preme must yield to chat which is
 Finally Justice vaa Devenrer con sidered the proposition advanced hy Judge Baldwin of the Connecticut SUI preme court of errors. that connecti. cut could not enforce the law because it's public policy was contrary te .sle law
 We are quite unable to assent 10 the view that the enforcement of the rights which the congressional act creates was originaIly intended to be restricted to the federal courts,v said Justice Van Degenter eThe act con- tains nothing which is suggestive of such restriction
 'The suggestion that the act of con- gross is not in harmony with the pol- icy of the state, and therefore that the courts of the state are free to decline jurisdiction. is quite inadmissable. be- cause it presupposes what. in legal contemplation, does not exist Con gress, in the exertion of the powers, confided to 1t bv the constitution, adopted that net. 1t spoke for aIl the people and all the states and thereby established a policy for all. That policy is as much the policy of Con- necticut as if the act had emanated from it's own legislature. and should be respected accordingly in the courts of the state
 Justice Van Deventsr said the court was not disposed to bsgeve that the exercise of jurisdiction by the state leourts would be attended hy any ap- Epreciable inconvenience or confusion.