Middletown transcript., 1915-09-25
UNDER FEDERAL
OR STATE Law
Commission Considers AppIiCa.
tion of Federal Law.
RAILROADS REPRESENTED
Question OF Responsibility For 40
cidents In Interstate Work
Reopened BY New York
Ruling.

The State Industrial Accident Com
mission heard arguments upon the
question whether, under the Mary
land Compensation law, 1t has au-
thority to award compensation for ac-
cidental injuries sustained by railroad
workmen while engaged in interstate
work, in cases where the railroad was
not negligent
Soon after the Compensation law of
this State went into effect the COM
mission held that it did not have au-
thority to do this. The ground for
that decision was that the Federal
Employers Liability act applied to
railroad workmen in interstate work
and that the Federal act expressly ex-
cluded State laws from applying to
interstate employees.
However, the New York Compensa-
tion Commission, which operates I'M
der an act almost identical with that
of Maryland, some time ago allowed
claim against an interstate railroad.
The reason given was that the Fed
eral act provides that compensation
shall be paid only when the employer
that is, the railroads. negligent
and that accidents due to other causes
are not touched.
In the claim in question, 1t was
proved that the railroad was not neg
ligent, but that the accident was one
of the sort which occur from time
to time in the employment. The New
York commission took the position
that as the accident was outside the
scope of the Federal act, because the
railroad was not negligent, it was
within the scope of the New York act,
which provides compensation for all
accidents in extra-hazardous EMPLOY
ments, except where they are caused
deliberately by the workmen or are
brought about by intoxication. In
other words, the New York commits
sion held that where the New York
law applies and the Federal act does
not, compensation may be paid by the
States award.
AS stated, the New York law is al
most identical with that of Maryland.
Following the decision Of the New
York commission, which was upheld
by the courts of New York, the local
commission determined to reopen the
question in this State.
Commission WithhoIds Decision.
George Weems Williams. represent
int the Washington. Baltimore and
Annapolis Railway Company; A. Hun
ter Boyd, Jr., representing the Balti-
more and Ohio Railroad Company, and
George r. Gather were among the
lawyers participating in the argu-
meRt. ]. Walter Lord, counsel to the
commission, and counsel for various
persons who have made claims for
compensation under the section Of the
law in question, also were present.
The commission withheld its decision
One of the principal arguments OF
the railroad lawyers was that Con-
gress. in passing the Federal Employ
ers' Liability act, had assumed the
right to legislate upon compensation
for injuries to railroad workmen en-
gagged in interstate work and that the
states could not encroach upon that
field. 1t also was argued that as Com
gress had provided in the Employers
Liability act that only accidents
due to negligence OF the railroads
should be compensated, the reasonable
deduction was that Congress thought
other accidents should not be compen-
sated.