| Show EMPLOYERS I LIABILITY LAW LAWi LA LAU i U S Supreme Court 5 to 4 lff xi Holds That it is Unconstitutional 1 Yv tonal 1 W Wi lw i T i SEVERAL V RIl OPINIONS ARE GIVEN r R q i l f fl d di i c l hlll With While iMil 4 jp l Vot coi VY i tru With tutu n to III U Ut l 1 mir JH 1 W i Ihl t ti I III 1 lifter III n hersI II IIA III I V r riiS A q i D n I C Jan GIll U In an un opinion t i bV h Justice JuIce J While Ow th thi V i i court c c i LoC L of the thc Untied States F tobo t i hn unconstitutional tU the th hi rII J i t M ii yE oC t Juno J IIO 11 U 1900 knowlI known in n nH H th it employers n liability I Ii bilLy law In tina common ST responsible T to in due of fellow or to t i to cillI ri 1 Ineffective i i T appliances Tho d decision of Iho thu lower oer OUI lna j jT Jit it T T decision Vf s in two h o tat for dain diun h 1 tim thc ruse of or 1111 I who lW wall II tol thet her J If nn ll W r that or QI lii mother of oC Moril S H f killed oi IU tho Southern In dil v The Howard ca Ia as ti W n 1 lon I I n with vI th Juge ge I ng md I tho ti I w I In Kentucky with 2 Walter kr on the bench The Th obtained ft IF t verdict I 1 l 1 complainant on the of or the hit Hu I at olho Iho i t Slide I and both bOlh bothi i i eld that the 1111 law hill hi invalid Inv on tho tim thoi i doU ilo ro n 1 a cn on 8 lI C Oil IU not no t be bl mad nih applicable t 1 to t h commerce ns they thoy Ih lini F undertaken In Iii thiN law n nd that t In III iho I I co could not be ht I construed f ns any pun of C of If any HUY Kind anti CO rO affirmed by Whites f bui O ground lint the luw la Is I not to the thc re of oC tho the of qC Interstate l carriers hut but no dt to their dealings with their s i uio no tho th principal lal points i Jr Whites opinion Thy Thi not being addressed 8 cd to nit nil com coni conix x inon carriers engaged In Interstate com hj norto tc and Imposing n 11 liability upon v them In favor of if any OilY of ot their eA eAi without or restriction ns nl n to i tIm the business In which the curriers or orth their th lr may ron be ho at nt the thc theS J S tinui of or tIe the Injury of or necessity Includes subjects I Wholly Wh ll of oC tho power powe pow of cC o oi i Congress to f f An rAil A the net act subjects J holly beyond tho pl to depends d for lOl IR iti 18 sanc tion upon that IhM authority u It that t tI I tho IB 15 to 10 to Iho Constitution t 1 at apa l cannot be enforced unless ells thorn thero ho he heI I 11 ll in iii th 1 propositions to r the th statute tony may no Ito navea 11 2 S So o far Cai r us 1111 the taco face of ot tho the statute Is t ee the argument Is III this Ihl b this thu says en engaged engaged In hi commerce between bel thc tho states etc therefore the tho act should lx ho 1 0 Inter Interpreted III tel ns as bains exclusively applicable 11 to tiu Interstate commerce reo business nna anil other of if such carriers and that HI any us as found In tho th I statute should bo ho held to mean tiny when such Is encased only Ii Ill Interstate commerce nut But this would v requite Us to write wilto Into tire the Ih tat C ili words vird of nt 11 anti ami not now In hi It But Thu If it I we could bring ourselves OUI t to ID modify the th statute by y writ writing writing ing lIlg In the tho words suggested the lire result lii bo 10 to ies I riot tire till operation O pen open tic n of I ir irth th to lu District of Columbia and f tho h territories The Fie contention Is II made that tim tho net act Is H constitutional although It subjects II not flat within the power of Con C n Kr Irp ss 1 to tor commerce because ono one who vho engages In by admits AUn oil nil his 1118 business to the power of oC Congress To state stalo y hc o proposition Is to It It that ono nile In lerco lw ht thereby endows with lIh power not hot to toi i it II by tiit Constitution In lit other othel words C c with vI I ii tho ti II II itt to U ii of or purely concern JI H it rests 1 ti t lie Jl I ott that t ha I the thu Itu IlI hilt I dc it t I at itt com ill It I t was wall Its purpose to 10 pro It treats the Iho rl ht to on ott gligo o in lit 1 Interstate as llila a ii irue cannot he bl availed of or ex ox except I lit upon up n Much such conditions condition as tilt Congress nuy tt even though al the titi con conditions would be bc otherwise beyond tilt ItO ong ess I I H It Is If it Ut he t I tori eie ivell founded tided It would tile the power of to 10 ahle subject oel however ln III fI ly local would obi I tern to nil alt the tho Imitations I of nor un 0 ell by hy 1 ty tilt till ito Constitution hull destroy the h an iii of oC Iho states ns nil to tu nil nU au tile ile matters which VI from flom ho I h l ing been and ti must ni t continue lie to 10 I 0 bo Is nil ut tier ler their control oi so ao long tong us its tho thu ullon Con Cott na we WO 1 do d that the tho stat statute ute uti while it embraces subjects with within ho Ito authority of to 10 regulate commerce ulso also Includes subjects not within Its lIs constitutional power and that tile ho two are so In lit the tho stat statute ute ite that it they aro are Incapable of s larn loll on wo We are arc of oC the opinion that tho courts coutts below rightly held helli the tho statute to toM tobe tolie lie be M repugnant to the tho Constitution und anti anti and the Judgments below bolow are arc The Tho duet chief Justice Justice r and aini Justice Peckham Joined with Justice hUo itt the arrived at hut but they did thu not net follow toll him In his Itis of ot tho Ito power H l of Congress Co to regulate the relations between master and nil d servant Justice Day DIlY concurred In thc tho Moody dissented entirely mUrch that the law ht Is III constitutional o iid on all ll points Ho lIo exploded the IhO opinIon Ion Ian on that Congress Con had bud the general pow pou er or to pass PUliS the net act and the courts position lion tion was nn nit Interference with the tho do iii domain main ot or the legislative branch of oC tho tim government h and united i i In Iii an IIII opinion ll the constitutionality or f the tho act but holding It to lo be 11 applicable only to 10 engaged nga o l lut nt ut the time lime In Interstate and alit not riot those engaged wholly In iii tim thu state In which wh ah the t happened Justice Holmes S alsip delivered a Il brief dissenting opinion Summed SU up UI the tho com t stood 5 Ii to 10 4 against the tf of lit tho lii law Justices Harlan Holmes and sustain ing big Its validity and alit the tho oth 1111 r of tho court tho thu opposite pool thin |
