| OCR Text |
Show "LIABILSTY IMP IS 101 CONSTITUTIOHAL By Narrow Margin of Five to Four Supreme Court Decides Important Question. WASHINGTON, Jan. f. In an opinion by Justice White, the Supreme Court of the United States today held to bo unconstitutional un-constitutional tho Concessional enactment enact-ment of Juno 11, 1000, known as the "employers" liability law," makliiK railroads rail-roads and other common carriers responsible respon-sible to employees In accidents due to the negligence of fellow-servants or io Ineffective appliances. The decision .of the lower courts w;ls affirmed. The decision was In suits for damages one being' the case of the widow of Will Howard, a man who was killed In an accident near Memphis; tho other, that of the mother of Morris S. Brooks, a Ilroman klllud on the Southern Pacillc In Nevada. Tho Howard case was tried In TonncH-see, TonncH-see, with Judge Mc.Call presiding, and the Brooks caso In Kentucky, with Judge Walter Evans on the bench. Bailroads Upheld. The railroads obtained a verdict against the complainants on the ground of the unconstitutionality of the law. Judge Evans and Judge McCall both held the law to be Invalid, on the double ground, that a Congressional enactment could not be mado applicable to Interstate commerce, com-merce, as they claimed was undertaken In thlG law, and that protection of the accidents In interstate commerce could not be construed as any part of "commerce" "com-merce" of any kind. Both the Kentucky and Tennessee decisions went aftlrmod by Justice White's opinion, on the ground that the law Is not confined to the regulation regu-lation of the business of Interstate carriers, car-riers, but undertakes to regulate their dealings with their employer. The Chief Justice. Justice Brewer and Justice Peckhatn Joined with Justice White In the result arrived at, but thoy did not follow him In his assertion of the power of Congress to regulate the relation re-lation between master and servant. Justice Jus-tice Day concurred In the decision. Justice Jus-tice Moodv dissented entirely, holding that the law Is constitutional on all points. Justice Moody's View. He expressed tho opinion that Congress had the general power to pass Hie act, and the court's position was an interference interfer-ence with tho domnln of the legislative branch of the Government. Justices Harlan and MeKenna. united In an opinion affirming the constitutionality constitution-ality of the act. but holding it to be applicable only to cmployoos engaged at the time in interstate commerce and not to those engaged wholly in tho State In which tho accident happened. Justice Holmes also delivered a brief dissenting opinion. Summed up. the court 6tood 5 to I against the constitutionality constitu-tionality of tho lav. Justices Harlan. MeKcnnii. Holmos and Moody sustaining Its validity and the other members of tho court holding tho opposite position. j |
