The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-07-14
COMPENSATION LAW
Is CONSTITUTIONAL
Court Of Appeals Decides
Against Appeal Of South
ern Pacific Road.
VIOLATES no Us. STATUTE

ALBANY. July l3-The Court Of Ap-
peals. Judge Miller writing the opinion
and all the Judges concurrtng. declared
constitutional to-day the workmen's COM
pensation law passed unde GOV. GINnn'
! The statute was attacked by the South
ern Pacific Railroad company ON the
ground hat II offended the Federal Con-
s,itution by depriving OF property WITH
out due process Of law. The lower courts
awarded damag $ TO the widow chill
dren o! Christen Jensen, a lonsshore-
nan, killed when unloading a Southern
Pacific steamship at New York city.
Two similar cases, William j Burns
against the Southern Pacific company
and william 4. Walker against the Clyde
Steamship Company, were decided like
wise by the court on Judge Miller's op!n-
ioi in the Jensen case.
The new compensation Law was also
attacked under the decision OF the Court
% Appeals in the Ives case. which held
that the Wainwright compensation law
was unconstitutional
our conclusion is that the employ
ment in which the deceased was en-
gagged was not governed by the Federal
compensation statute says Judge MIL
Ter. that the workmen's compensation
- 'IlfA'N ~ - nav Ai'N NAi' hhNsh
act is not violative OF the Federal Con-
stitution for attempting directly to reg
ulate or impose a tax or burden on In
terstate or foreign commerce. Neither
does this law violate the FEDERAL Con-
stitut!on by takin- property without due
process of law"
mo one has a vested right under the
Constitution" says Judge Miller. so
the maintenance OF the common law doc
trine that the master is responsible for
the acts OF his servants, which doctrine
undoubtedly may be extended or cur
tailed by the Legislature. No one doubts
that the doctrine OF assumption OF risk
and the fellow servant doctrine. also de-
veloped by the courts under different
conditions than those now prevailing.
may be limited or entirely a~brogated by
the Legislature.
st would not he a great extension
OF that doctrine for the Legislature TO
! provide that the employee should as
sumo the risk Of all accidental injur-
les. and II that can be done. 1t Is GER
tainly competent for the Legislature TO
provide for the creation OF an insur-
ance Juno for a limited compensation
TO the employee for all accidental in
juries, regardless of whether there was
4 cause OF action for them at common
law
Amy plan devised by the wit OF man
may in exceptional cases work unjustly,
but the act is to he judged by its gem
eral plan and scope and the general good
&c be promoted by II.
The act now before US seems TO be
fundamentally fair to both employer
and employee, OF course. ! do not speak
OF details. which may or may not be
open 10 criticism, but which. granting
the validity of the underlying principle,
are plainly within the province OF the
Legislature.
1T is not open TO the objections, found
TO he fatal 10 the act considered in the
Ives case, 1t is plainly justified by the
amendment to our own State Constitu-
ton and the decisions of the United
States Supreme Court. notably in the
Noble state Bank case. making II
reasonably certain that It will be found
by that court not to he violative OF the
Constitution OF the United States"