The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-01-16
Employers 'LiabilityLaw
Is Declared Consti-
tutional.
EPOCH IN LABOR
LEG lSLATIO
Old Common Law, Which Has
hedged in Rights of Employees,
Is Displaced and Fellow
Servant" doctrine Abolish
ed-Opinion Announced
by Justice underwater.

Washington. January l5.--Arter near.
~ years consiueraIlon the s,,Ir.ns!
COURT VI the UnIleu states tu-day u,lys
us Unanimous approval to the EN-.
pioSefS liauiiity law, enacted oy Con.
Srtss Ill 1915, 10 tane the pace OF a
similar act deciareu UNCONVENTIONAL
Inc uecision MARKS an rpovn IL LABOR
teS iSiatlun. Mn.
Inc oiu common law, hedging in the
hshts OF ei"piuJes, Is u.splll Ell in
several particulars. Dy lne sL,tute as
sppFoVsu to-0hy. NOtapiy ainuuk lnesc
% the aDuLtiun OIL the "ieiiom servant
uoculnc anu the substitution OF q
law making employers l,ap,e Tor the
AtBiiSence OIL an enlpIuye resulting in
INJURY TO an Interstate empioye. Fur
.nermore, 1t Trees the employ, from
cohtriputory ne9isence" III many IN
stances ana limits the eject OF tna
doctrine IN others. and ilnewIse In
many cuSeS ltDrretes the empioye from
assuming the risk when he enters en,-
pioymeht knowing OIL the Danger in
ms employment.
In the Bessie Babcock case from
Montana, the Alary "a. Walsh case from
massachusetts, ana the Eugar G. MHn-
uou case from Connecticut, the law
was attacked seemingly from every
conceivable point OIL View. Justice
CahueNahter. in announcing the opIn.
lou OF the court, considered these OBJ 4
Jections and rejected each.
lie first decideu that Congress had
the power to regulate the uuu.. or the
common carrier IN respect TO tn. safety
OF It's employees, while both are on
gagged in commerce among the States,
anu the Liability of the former tor iI..,
juries sustained by the latter.
Both have real or SUBSTANTIAL re-
latlon to Interstate commerce., apd
therefore are mithin the range OF this
power" said the justice.
Objections hefutsd.
Objections were retuted that the law
prevented contracts whereby the rail-
road exempted Itself from liability and
, that the law improperly classified car
/ riers into Interstate and inirnstats
groups.
Authorities were cited also to show
that nc valid objection could be ground
ed in the tact that several states al
ready determined the liability of inter-
state commerce employers. Pursuing
th.s line. the justice said that now
mat Congress mas acted, the laws or
lhc states. III 50 Iar US they cover the
Same neid, are supeIseded for neces-
safily that wnicn Is not supreme must
yieId 10 that wnicn 49,"
Finally. Juslve vundcvanter con3id-
ered Inc posltlon advanced by Juaga
r'a.dwin, of the Cunnec,Icut Suprema
Court OF errors. that Connecticut could
not enforce the Jaw because its public
rellcy Was contrary TO the law.
we are quite unable 10 assent 10 III,
View mat the enforcement OF the right,
which the congressional act creates was
originally intended to be restricted to
| the Federal courts" said Justice VAN
dcranter The act contains nothing
which is suggestive OF such a rcstrir.
zion.
The suggestion that tho act of Con.
Srcss is not in harmony with the pol-
icy of the state. and therefore thar ~,
courts of the state are free to decline
jurisdiction. Is quite inadmissiblc, be-
cause u presuppos.S what In regal con-
temptation does hot exist. When Con-
Sress In the eNertion OF the power con-
hded TO II by the Constitution adopted
mat act II spoke for all the peopl,
ana ali the states, and thereby estate
iisned policy 10. all. I hal no.icy is
as much the potlcy OF Connecticut as
II Tie act had eInunated from It's own
legislature, and should be respected
accofd!nSly In the courts OF che state.
justice NandcNant,r said the court
was not disposed TO believe that tho
eNIrctse of ju. isdiction by the State
courts would be attended by any ap-
Pfeciaoic Inconvenience or confusion
nv StGonu attempt.
This was the SECOND attempt of Con
Sress 10 change the old common Iaw
rule that an employe OF a common
carrier could not sue for damages from,
lHe carrier tor Injuries received in N,
course OF MS employment when thu. In
JuiIes resulted from the negligence of
= tellow-Scrvant. The first law tbat
enacted In 1906, was declared unconsti-
t"ttohal IN 1908 because it embraced
"tth!' us terms regulation OF iutra-
state commerce. as well as tntcrstuto
The idw considered to-day was snacts,
by Congress III 1905. immctiiately after
the hrSt law was held Unconstitutional,
me conStitutionality and in;erpre
'atoh I'll the new law came before thu
court In number of cases heard as IA,
case about the last of February. ,rha
PRINCIPAL case was that OF Bessie Raj,
COCK. widow of ora l.. Babcock asa'nst
me Softhern Pacific Hallway Company.
Her husband lost his life In /, raiIrn,,,i
collision on the Northern Paci,ic IN
Montana in 1908
MRS. Bnhcock sued under the Federal
employers liability act, which had iust
bech passed. and under its terms sine
WINS entitled to the entire amount OF
Judgment Bahcook loft a sister also.
aud II the Judgment had been procured &
under The statute Of Montana. she
would have been entitled TO one half
OF It: The Northern Pacif'c resisted
the claim. on the ground that if tho
Fedora! law was uncanst!tutionai. IL
might be required 10 par the sister
even Il II had settled with the widow. +
The law was upheld BY the Federal
court of Minnesota
The Welsh Cnse.
Another ease arose out of tho death
of Daniel j. Walsh brakeman on .Sa}S