BRANDEIS, J., dissenting. over interstate commerce to afford relief. The promotion of safety was of course referred to in the Committee's report as justifying congressional action; but the moving cause for the Federal Employers' Liability Act was not the desire to promote safety or to secure uniformity, as in standardizing equipment by the Safety Appliance Acts.1 There was, in the nature of things, no more reason for providing a federal remedy for negligent injury to employees than there would have been for providing such a remedy for negligent injury to passengers or to other members of the public. The Federal Employers' Liability Act was, in a sense, emergency legislation. The circumstances 244 U. S. The following facts are significant as showing that employers' liability was not deemed a factor in safety to employees or the public, or a matter in which uniformity was desirable, or as otherwise presenting a railroad problem: (1) The Annual Reports of the Interstate Commerce Commission to Congress for the eleven years ending December, 1908, deal each year at large with accidents, casualties to employees, and the promotion of safety. These reports contain numerous recommendations for legislation concerning safety appliances, hours of labor, block signals, train control, inspection and accident reporting; but no recommendation or even mention of employers' liability. (2) The National Convention of Railroad Commissioners, an association comprising the commissioners of the several States, is formed for the purpose of discussing and aiding in the solution of American railroad problems. Likewise, in its reports for eleven years ending October, 1908, no reference has been found, either in the annual President's address, or in the report of the Committee on Legislation, or in the discussions, to the subject of employers' liability; or any mention of the passage by Congress of the two Employers' Liability Acts, or of the decision of this court on the first act. The absence of such reference is particularly noteworthy in the legislative report for the year 1908, pp. 218-233, which is devoted to a consideration of harmonious or uniform legislation. It contains a résumé of the legislation in Congress recommended and supported by the National Convention of Railroad Commissioners during a period of 19 years and attendances at congressional hearings on safety appliances, block signal, and hours of labor legislation. 244 U. S. BRANDEIS, J., dissenting. attending its passage were such as to preclude the belief that thereby Congress intended to deny to the States the power to provide for compensation or relief for injuries not covered by it. (B) The scope of the Federal Employers' Liability Act: (1.) The act leaves uncovered a large part of the injuries which result from the railroads' negligence. The decision of this court in the first Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463, had declared that Congress lacked power to legislate in respect to any injuries occurring otherwise than to employees engaged in interstate commerce. Later decisions disclose how large a part of the injuries resulting from the railroads' negligence are thus excluded from the operation of the federal law. For the act was held to apply only to those directly engaged in interstate commerce. This excludes not only those engaged in intrastate commerce, but also the many whowhile engaged on work for interstate commerce, as in repairing engines or cars-are not directly engaged in it. Likewise it excludes employees who, though habitually engaged directly in interstate commerce, happen to be injured or killed through the railroads' negligence, while performing some work in intrastate commerce.1 (2.) The act leaves uncovered all of the injuries which result otherwise than from the railroad's negligence, though occurring when the employee is engaged directly in interstate commerce. The scope of the act is so narrow as to preclude the belief that thereby Congress intended to deny to the States 1 Compare Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U. S. 473; New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. v. Carr, 238 U. S. 260; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. 439; Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 239 U. S. 556; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177; Erie R. R. Co. v. Welsh, 242 U. S. 303; Raymond v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 243 U. S. 43. BRANDEIS, J., dissenting. 244 U.S. the power to provide compensation or relief for injuries not covered by it. (C) The purpose of the Employers' Liability Act: The facts showing the origin and scope of the act discussed above indicate also its purpose. It was to end the denial of the right to damages for injuries due to the railroads' negligence-a right denied under judicial decisions through the interposition of the defenses of fellowservant, assumption of risk and contributory negligence. It was not the purpose of the act to deny to the States the power to grant the wholly new right to protection or relief in the case of injuries suffered otherwise than through fault of the railroads. The Federal Employers' Liability Act was, in no respect, a departure from the individualistic basis of right and of liability. It was, on the contrary, an attempt to enforce truly and impartially the old conception of justice as between individuals. The common-law liability for fault was to be restored by removing the abuses which prevented its full and just operation. The liability of the employer, under the federal act as at common law, is merely a penalty for wrong doing. The remedy assured to the employee is merely a more efficient means of making the wrongdoer indemnify him whom he has wronged. This limited purpose of the Employers' Liability Act precludes the belief that Congress intended thereby to deny to the States the power to provide compensation, or relief for injuries not covered by the act. (D) The nature of Workmen's Compensation Acts: In the effort to remove abuses, a study had been made of facts; and of the world's experience in dealing with industrial accidents. That study uncovered as fiction many an assumption upon which American judges and lawyers had rested comfortably. The conviction became widespread, that our individualistic conception of rights and liability no longer furnished an adequate basis for dealing 244 U. S. BRANDEIS, J., dissenting. with accidents in industry. It was seen that no system of indemnity dependent upon fault on the employers' part could meet the situation; even if the law were perfected and its administration made exemplary. For in probably a majority of cases of injury there was no assignable fault; and in many more it must be impossible of proof. It was urged: Attention should be directed, not to the employer's fault, but to the employee's misfortune. Compensation should be general, not sporadic; certain, not conjectural; speedy, not delayed; definite as to amount and time of payment; and so distributed over long periods as to insure actual protection against lost or lessened earning capacity. To a system making such provision, and not to wasteful litigation, dependent for success upon the coincidence of fault and the ability to prove it, society, as well as the individual employee and his dependents, must look for adequate protection. Society needs such a protection as much as the individual; because ultimately society must bear the burden, financial and otherwise, of the heavy losses which accidents entail. And since accidents are a natural, and in part an inevitable, concomitant of industry as now practiced, society, which is served thereby, should in some way provide the protection. To attain this end, coöperative methods must be pursued; some form of insurance-that is, some form of taxation. Such was the contention which has generally prevailed. Thus out of the attempt to enforce individual justice, grew the attempt to do social justice. But when Congress passed the Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, these truths had gained little recognition in the United States. Not one of the thirty-seven States or Territories which now have Workmen's Compensation Laws had introduced the system. Yet the conception and value of compensation laws was not unknown to Congress. It then had under consideration the first Compensation Law for Federal Employees which was enacted BRANDEIS, J., dissenting. 244 U. S. in the following month (Act of May 30, 1908, 35 Stat. 556). The need of its speedy passage had been called to the attention of Congress by the President in the same special message which urged the passage of this Employers' Liability Act. Can it be contended that Congress by simply passing the Employers' Liability Act prohibited the States from providing in any way for the maintenance of such employees (and their dependents) for whose injuries a railroad, innocent of all fault, could not be called upon to make indemnity under that act? It is the State which is both primarily and ultimately concerned with the care of the injured and of those dependent upon him; even though the accident may occur while the employee is engaged directly in interstate commerce. Upon the State falls the financial burden of dependency, if provision be not otherwise made. Upon the State falls directly the far heavier burden of the demoralization of its citizenry, and of the social unrest, which attend destitution and the denial of opportunity. Upon the State also rests under our dual system of government the duty owed to the individual to avert misery and promote happiness so far as possible. Surely we may not impute to Congress the will to deny to the States the power to perform either this duty to humanity or their fundamental duty of self-preservation. And if the States are left free to provide compensation, what is there in the Employers' Liability Act to show an intent on the part of Congress to deny to them the power to make the provision by raising the necessary contributions, in the first instance, through employers? (E) Methods and means of Workmen's Compensation Laws: The principle underlying Workmen's Compensation Laws is the same in all the States. The methods and means by which that principle is carried out vary materially. The principle is that of insurance, the premiums |
