| Show LOUP BILL ol 01 BT nv THC THE inac first received assurance from attorney general that measure was not repugnant to constitution washington president roosevelt on wednesday signed tho the employers employ ere bill upon receiving art an opinion on from attorney Alto Atto iney general bonaparte that tha t the measure was constitutional ahe bill makes railroads or other common carriers while engaged in interstate ter state commerce liable for the in jury or death of an employed it if the injury or death results in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers agents or employed emp loyes of 0 suca carriers or by reason of 0 any defect or insufficiency in equipment this provi provision slon la is made applicable to carriers la in the the district ot of columbia the panama canal zone and other possessions ot of the united states it Is provided that in any action I 1 rought under the provis provisions lons of the bill the injured employed shalliot shall not be held to haie hae assumed the risk ri sk of his em employment in any case wit where re the violation by the carrier of any statute at a enacted for the safety of emp employed ioa loyes es contributed to the he injury or death ot of the employed ana an contract conti act rule reg or device to enable the carrier to exempt itself from liability under the act la Is rendered void by a declaration to that end provision la is made mad ho however uever that the carrier shall receive credit for any contribution made to the employed or his family in the form of insurance relief benefit or indemnity an action jor for the ra r covery of damages d images must be corn com menaced within two to years fram the date of the cause of the suit in III hla his opinion the attorney general indicates that the bill la Is confined in its scope to common carriers by rall rail load as distinguished from the act declared unconstitutional by the su all preme court which embraced all common carriers engaged in interstate commerce and foreign commerce tho the attorney general then shows through court decisions and const itil dional interpretations tint that this re arestile stile tion does not make the act repugnant tr the constitution but Is in line with state statutes which have been upheld in the highest tribunals |
