The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1912-01-20
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY FIXED.
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CON-
STTTUTIONALITY OF LAW
PASSED In 1908.
Under New Act, as Sustained by
Highest Tribunal, "FellOw Servant"
Is Made Obsolete and "COEtribu-
tory Negligence" Limited.


Washington, Jan. 16.-After nearly
years consideration the supreme
court Of the United States today gave
Its unanimous approval to the en-
ployers' liability law, enacted by con-
gress in 1908, to take the place Of a
similar act declared unconstitutional
The decision marks an epoch in la
Dor 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 the abolition Of the fellow
servant doctrine" and the substitu-
ton Of law making employers liza
BILE for the negligence Of an em-
ploye receiving an injury to an inter-
state employe. Furthermore, it frees
this employe from contributory
negligence" in many instances, and
limits the effect Of the doctrine in
others and likewise in many cases
liberates the employe from assuming
the risk when he enters the employ
ment knowing the danger in his en-
ployment.
The law was attacked seemingly
from every conceivable point Of view.
| Justice Van Devanter in announcing
the opinion Of the court considered
these objections and rejected each
He first decided that congress had
the power to regulate duties Of COM
| mon carriers in respect to the safety
| of their employees while both are en-
gagged in commerce among the States
and the liability Of the former for in
| juries sustained by the latter.
| Objections were refuted that the
law prevented contracts whereby
fthc railroad exempted itself from La
hiiity and that the law improperly
classified carriers into interstate and
mtrastate groups. Authorities were
cited also to show that no valid OBJ
lection could be grounded in the fact
that several States already determin-
i ed the liability Of interstate COM
merce employees.
\ Pursuing this line, the Justice said
Now that congress has acted, the
laws OF the States, in SO far as they
Il cOyar tho xyovDa 6a1d o~> !,
\ Tor necessarily that which Is not su-
preme must yield to that which is."
4 Finally Justice Van Devanter 'sor-
sidered the position advanced by
! Judge Baldwin Of the Connscticu,
I supreme court Of records that Con.
4 necticut could not enforce tho Law
i because It's public policy was con-
4 trary to the law.
I'VE are quite unable to assent u
the view that the enforcement Of tn,
4 rights which the congressional &C,
l'creates WIS originally intended to bs
Restricted TO the federal courts" saiS
Justice Van Devanter. "Ths aot con.
4 talns nothing which fs suggestion ol
such q restriction.
THE suggestion that tho act o1
Icongreas n not in hlumouy with the
Ipolicy OF the State, and thsrssors
fhat the courts OF tho State are free
10 decline Jurisdiction Is quite mad
missible, Sucause It presupposes wha,
IN legal contemplation does not exist
When congress. in the exerrion OF tn.
power conffded to 1t by the constitu.
thon, adopted that act. it spoke for ali
the people and all the States and
thereby established policy for all
That policy is as much the policy
of Connecticut IA if the act had emo
mated from its own legislature and
shu1ld be respected accordingly La
the courts OF the Staten
| Justice Van Devanter said the
court was not disposed to believe that
the exercise Of jurisdiction by the
States courts would be attended Nv
appresiable M1convenisnce or con-
| fusion.