Show 4 4 4 4 4 4 GO BH GOVERNMENT II T HELPS hELlS THE TilE n. JI RAILROAD nO n MEN g 4 4 4 4 One of the most Important cases which the government 4 4 of the United States un under er the Republican administration 4 t tha 4 ha has fou fought ht successfully ii In the tho courts was tho ease case of John John- 4 44 4 4 son soi an o of the Southern Pacific railroad company 44 4 n against that thai company compan for damages es under the safety ap 4 4 law ha Johnson fought rought has caso case through tho the lower Jower 4 4 courts and was getting the worst of or It when his mone money 44 4 4 gave out An appeal was wa made to th the tho government o and the tho 44 4 4 Department of Justice took up the th case caso and carried It to 4 4 the successful I issue me In favor Cavor of Johnson before tho the Supreme 4 court of oC the United States 44 4 The decision set a hard hUld an and fast rub rule rulo In certain cases of or 4 4 personal onal injury from rom which there thero can be no appeal and 4 4 which should operate In the future to lo enable every railroad rall- rall 4 4 road man who receives Injuries under the peculiar clr- clr 4 4 which prevailed pre in this case caso to make an appeal 4 4 successfully for or damages 4 4 This was an nn action for personal injuries sustained by the Iho 4 44 4 plaintiff Johnson while engaged In fn coupling an on engine ino to toa toa 4 4 a dining car Tho railway company is an nn interstate carrier 4 4 and was as alleged to bo be liable for damages es under the safety safety- 4 4 appliance law passe passed by congress which provides cs In sub sub- 44 4 4 stance that Interstate carriers must equip their cars with 4 44 4 automatic couplers which shall couple by Impact The rhe 4 f engine and car cal were each cacti fitted with wiLl automatic couplers couplets 44 4 4 but being of different makes they failed to lo couple an and 44 4 4 when the plaintiff went vent between the tle engine and the car carto carto 4 4 to couple them 1011 ho he received his Injuries 4 4 Johnson was its unsuccessful In the circuIt court an and also In Inthe Inthe 4 4 the circuit court of appeals whereupon pon he ho tIled med a II t petition 4 4 for a writ WIlt of certiorari in the tho Supreme court which was 44 4 4 k granted 4 Owing to the great Importance of tho case to railway 4 4 the government took look an n almost unprecedented 44 4 4 step and obtained leave to Intervene nc to argue arguo the question 4 4 relating to the proper construction of tho the reme remedial lal 4 44 4 laUon lation of congress 4 4 The government contended that a an engine Is a car ear within 4 the meaning of the law and that the law Ja is not satisfied 4 unless the couplers couple by impact An amen amendment amend amond- 4 ment to lo the law h luis has s passed since thIs case arose nrose making 4 44 4 It II clear cleal that en engines must have automatic couplers This 4 44 4 act the contended 4 government o was merely declaratory 44 4 of oC the Intent of the first act acl There was a further question 44 4 4 In the case cabe as to what whal constituted an interstate car which 4 44 4 the government argued Tho The defendant conten contended ed that thai the Iho 4 44 4 dining lining car because e It II was not nol but was upon a 4 4 siding although rend ready for use and about to be used tiRed was 4 not an nn interstate car COl The government on tho other hand ha 4 contended that thai a car Cal regularly employed ei on interstate 44 4 4 Journeys Journe s 's docs does not nol lose loge Its Us character because it Is 4 4 arlly delayed 4 4 The governments government's contention received tho the unanimous approval ap- ap 4 of or the court and Johnson won his case 4 4 Not content with this the thc government went further and 4 the general attorney Issued a letter o of Instruction to all 4 United States attorneys Ii In which he said 4 It does docs not appear that an any question can now nov arise 44 4 4 as to the proper propel Interpretation of the la law since 44 4 4 this decision apparently settles every disputed point 44 4 4 And tho the United States attorneys were Informed that thai the thc 4 4 government go Is determined upon the tho strict enforcement o of 44 4 the these e statutes and the they were Instructed to pay particular 44 4 4 attention to all cases eases of their violation brought to lo their 4 44 4 attention by the interstate commission or its 4 4 b other 4 Inspectors or by persons 44 4 Later In the case of oC United States vs The Southern Raila Rall- Rall 4 44 4 a way company the law ha was still more clearly Interpreted 4 4 and further strengthened A strong point of or this decision 4 was that the exercise of oC reasonable care caro 0 or Inc duo diligence 4 4 on the part o of the railway company is no defense to lo an 4 4 action brought to recover tho the penalty for tor violation of oC the 4 4 safety-appliance safety laws of oC 1893 1813 nn and 1896 4 In both these decisions it was strongly emphasized that thai the Iho 4 purpose of the law was to protect the lives hives and limbs of off f men and that it Jl will bo be so constructed b by the courts as to 4 4 accomplish that purpose What law plainly requires is tho the 44 with which will automatically 4 4 equipment of cars couplers 4 couple with each cach other so as to ren render er It unnecessary for tor 4 t 4 mon to tho thin cars either cither to lo couple or uncouple i 1 4 These decisions d have ha enabled the government to lo obtain 4 an effective enforcement of the law la in practically all cases 4 an and have brought about a vast improvement In con conditIons 4 4 throughout the country Since the decision against the 44 4 4 Southern Railway company no ca case e has been contested In Inthe inthe 44 4 4 the courts The carriers prefer to lo confess judgment an and 4 44 4 pay the penalty In cases of violation rather than to stand stan 4 the chance of a adverse jud Judgment on a a. trial 4 As a re result mIt the interstate commerce commission have havo 4 4 been able to lo secure the observance of oC a 3 rule practically in 4 4 operation throughout the tho country countr whereby hereby the different 44 44 4 4 carriers are required to refuse to accept interstate cars in 44 4 4 exchange e unless the safety safely appliances arc are In proper con- con 44 4 4 44 4 4 Another phase In this case caRe for tor the railroad men menis 4 4 Is Js that the Intervention of the government and the decision 4 44 4 of the Iho court Is warning to the thc railroad companies that the 4 4 government I Is looking out for or the tho Interests of tho the 44 4 under this law 4 44 4 4 4 4 t 4 |