SUBMITTED BY MR. FLOYD. The undersigned submit the following as our views in opposition to the passage of S. 5382 as reported by the committee: Before submitting our objections to the bill as it now stands we desire to state that it is our judgment that the bill as reported is a great improvement over the bill as it passed the Senate and over H. R. 20487, relating to the same subject matter, which was introduced in the House by Mr. Brantley, of Georgia, and which was also considered by the committee. We therefore cheerfully join with the majority in the recommendation that each of the committee amendments be adopted. We have no criticism to offer to any of said amendments except as to the amendment relating to the jurisdiction of State courts. We think the bill could be improved by adopting a substitute for this amendment or by striking out the last sentence thereof, but if neither of said changes can be secured we favor the adoption of this amendment in its present form. But we can not join with the majority in recommending the passage of the bill as reported without further amendment. It is our judgment that the bill in its present form, if not designed, will operate primarily in the interest of the railroads and will relieve the railroads from the burden of paying damages in personal-injury cases under our present employers' liability act, the validity of which was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States at its October term, 1911, in the case of Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. et al. (See U. S. Reports, vol. 223, p. 1.) The bill if enacted into law will not only relieve railroad companies from all liabilities by reason of their own fault or negligence for damages in personal-injury cases, but the theory and purpose of the proposed legislation is to transfer the burden of compensating injured railroad employees or, in case of death, their dependents, resulting from all accidents, from the railroad companies to the general public, the effect of which policy must necessarily result in a general increase in freight and passenger rates to meet the increased burden imposed upon said companies by reason of the passage of this act. Section 3 repeals the existing employers' liability act and provides that the proposed law shall be compulsory, and shall constitute the sole and exclusive remedy for compensation of railroad employees engaged in interstate commerce for injuries received by accident while so employed. It is our judgment that section 3 should be so amended as to leave in full force and effect our present employers' liability act, with a proviso making it optional with the employee, or with both employer and employee if deemed advisable, to elect at any time before the date of the accident as to whether in case of injury or death compensation shall be claimed under this act. In our judgment the proposed legislation is revolutionary both in theory and principle and of doubtful constitutional validity, but if deemed and held to be constitutional, it is nevertheless new, untried, and wholly experimental in Federal practice, and may therefore in its actual operations disappoint the expectations of its friends and supporters among the laboring people, and result in great detriment to railroad employees, the particular class of persons for whose benefit the passage of this bill is urged. Doubts as to the constitutional validity of the proposed act in the minds of the proponents of the measure are suggested by the fact that an amendment has been incorporated by the committee, as section 33, which reserves all rights of employees under existing laws in case this act should be held invalid. This we regard as one of the most salutary provisions in the bill. In view of the excellent and substantial remedies provided for injured employees under our present laws, we think it unwise, unsafe, and an act of the grossest injustice to deprive them of such remedies and supersede these laws with this or any other new and wholly experimental law. In our judgment, the administrative features of the proposed act are in the interest of the railroads. In our view of the general proposition, the administrative features of the bill are exceedingly unjust, arbitrary, complicated, technical, and cumbersome. Such regulations must always and of necessity result to the detriment of the person who is required to maintain an action under them, which in this case is the railroad employee or his dependents. Under the provisions of this proposed act, complainants in personal-injury cases are denied the right to bring an action directly in either Federal or State courts to recover compensation for injuries received in railroad accidents. All proceedings must be first instituted before an adjuster appointed by a Federal district judge. There is no possible way, under the terms of this bill, in which an injured employee can get his case either into a Federal court or a State court without first going before an adjuster, who is without judicial power, but who nevertheless is authorized to go through the formality of a trial, and who in the performance of his duties in conducting such trial or hearing exercises the functions. of a court and acts in the capacity of a judge. His findings are binding upon nobody, and the whole proceeding before him is absolutely useless without both parties assent to his decision. Exceptions to his findings by either party nullify all proceedings before him and the case must be tried de novo in the Federal court, or if removed to the State court, as provided in the bill, must be tried de novo in the State court. Hence, a double trial and double cost to the employee in such cases. Thereafter the case may be taken to the appellate court and to the Supreme Court of the United States. Section 11 provides for a review of any case tried before the adjuster at the instance of either party at any time within two years from the date of the accident whenever it is alleged in a proper complaint that the injury complained of in the original action has increased or diminished or ceased altogether, and the adjuster thereupon is empowered to review, modify, set aside, or annul any agreement, award, findings, or judgment previously rendered in said cause. Thus it will be observed that this adjuster is authorized and empowered under the provisions of this bill to review, modify, set aside, and annul a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States if the same case should again be brought before him within two years of the date of the acci dent. To those who believe in the doctrine of res adjudicata and who have been taught that the judgments of the Supreme Court are final unless subsequently reviewed by that same high tribunal this particular provision of the bill is as novel as it is absurd and as absurd as it is novel. The bill also in effect relieves the railroad companies from the added penalties now enforceable in damage suits against railroad companies for noncompliance with our safety-appliance acts. In the safetyappliance acts passed by Congress failure to comply with the law by furnishing the required equipments, in addition to fines that may be imposed for such failure, there are provisions that forbid the railroad companies in case of such failure to plead the negligence of an employee as a defense in any action brought against such company for damages in personal-injury cases. This provision is nullified by the provisions of this act, for all compensation under this act is fixed, arbitrary, and limited in amount and it becomes wholly immaterial whether an employee who is injured was, under its provisions, careful or negligent. The same compensation under the terms of this act are paid for like injuries in all cases. The limitations as to the giving of notice of the injury and as to the time of bringing action or instituting proceedings under the provisions of this bill we regard as arbitrary, unjust, unfair, and unreasonable, and we have found no precedents, either under our State or Federal laws, except where specific liens are involved, in which the period of limitation fixed for bringing an action is so short as that provided in this bill. Within 90 days, unless for reasons stated in the bill, the time for giving notice of the accident is extended to six months, and within six months in all cases the injured employee is required to give notice of the injury received by accident, and in case of death his dependents are required to give such notice to his employer. The giving of this notice is made jurisdictional, and hence upon failure to give the required notice within the said period of 90 days or 6 months, as the case may be, the employee is forever barred from his right to compensation under the terms of this act. This requirement, if enacted into law, will result in barring by limitation the rights of hundreds of employees or their dependents each year on account of the short period of limitation. This provision we regard as unjust and unreasonable from the standpoint of the employees, but will result in incalculable benefit to the railroad companies. We also object to the passage of this bill because it creates a large number of Federal officers, to be known as adjusters. The bill provides that the judge of the Federal court shall appoint one or more adjusters for each judicial district in the United States. There are at present 67 districts and there will be at least 67 adjusters and as many more as the district judges in their discretion may see proper to appoint. The duties and mission of these adjusters are to try to settle and adjust disputes and controversies for compensation provided for in this act between the railroad companies and their employees, and yet it is expressly provided that these Federal adjusters shall be officers of the United States and shall receive an annual salary of not less than $1,800 nor more than $3,000, to be fixed by the Attorney General, to settle and determine controversies that are properly within the jurisdiction of our law courts and which could, in most instances, be more readily settled by agreement of the parties or by a trial in the first instance in the courts than under the plan proposed. The decision of the adjuster settles nothing unless both parties are willing to be bound by it. Exceptions filed by either party to his findings nullify the proceedings before the adjuster and the trial proceeds de novo in the court having jurisdiction of said cause. The bill as originally introduced gave the Federal courts exclusive jurisdiction in all cases arising under this act. An amendment was adopted by the committee, the purpose of which is to give State courts jurisdiction concurrent with Federal courts in cases arising under this act, but it is expressly provided in said amendment that the provision shall not be effective until the legislatures of the respective States shall prescribe that the practice and procedure of the Federal court in the enforcement of the provisions of this act shall be followed by the State courts in the trial of causes which originate under the provisions of this act and are afterwards transferred to State courts for final determination as provided in said bill. This we regard as exceedingly unfortunate and unjust. We believe that the bill should be so remodeled and drafted as to give State courts concurrent jurisdiction in all cases arising under the provisions of the act without requiring any action on the part of State legislatures to give validity to such provision of the act. The amendment referred to does not do so, but imposes upon the railroad employees the necessity of securing legislation in their respective States before they can exercise the right to remove their cases from the Federal court to a State court for a trial and determination. This provision, in our judgment, will operate to the benefit of the railroads by enabling them to have these cases tried in the Federal courts. The rates of compensation provided for in this bill are so at variance with the amounts that may be recovered under the existing law and in many instances are so small that they are wholly inadequate to the necessities of the injured employees or their dependents that if we pass this bill without incorporating in it an optional provision giving employees the right to elect whether they will seek compensation under this act or under our general employers' liability act, we may expect a general storm of protests and indignation from the rank and file of railroad employees throughout the country against our action. In conclusion, we submit that our primary and fundamental objection to the passage of this bill, as reported, is that it repeals the Federal employers' liability act and contains no optional feature. If the employers' liability act was not repealed and an optional feature was incorporated in the bill it is our judgment that the importance of the objections herein made, while not altogether removed, would be greatly minimized. Respectfully submitted. J. C. FLOYD. LAUNCH FOR CUSTOMS SERVICE, LOS ANGELES, CAL. FEBRUARY 5, 1913.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. KNOWLAND, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 3625.] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3625) for the purchase or construction of a launch for the customs service at and in the vicinity of Los Angeles, Cal., having considered the same, report thereon with amendment and as so amended recommend that it pass. Amend the bill as follows: In line 8, after the word "dollars," strike out the comma and insert a colon. Strike out in lines 8, 9, 10, and 11 the words "and this sum, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated," and insert in lieu thereof the words "Provided, That the Secretary of the Treasury may use this boat elsewhere than at Los Angeles as the exigencies of the service may require." The following is the report of the Senate Committee on Commerce on this bill: The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3625) for the purchase or construction of a launch for the customs service at and in the vicinity of Los Angeles, Cal., having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass with amendment. The bill has the approval of the Treasury Department, as will appear by the following communication from that department favoring passage of this bill with a certain amendment, which has been duly incorporated: CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, United States Senate. MY DEAR SIR: Referring to the reference by the clerk of your committee of December last, transmitting the bill (S. 3625) for the purchase or construction of a launch H R-62-3-vol 1-48 |