WANTED A RAILWAY COURT OF LAST RESORT. 221 



earn these, or either of these, they must first of all be left in peace, 

 and not at their peril to lawfully do all lawful business which 

 comes to them. 



A second ramification of this question of conflicting Federal 

 and State laws may seem at first far-fetched, but on examination 

 it will, I think, be found to be very intricately connected with the 

 public interest. In the President's last message to Congress his 

 Excellency says : 



" I have twice before urgently called the attention of Congress 

 to the necessity of legislation for the protection of the lives of 

 railroad employe's, but nothing has yet been done. During the 

 year ending June 30, 1890, 369 brakemen were killed and 7,841 

 maimed while engaged in coupling cars. The total number of 

 railroad employe's killed during the year was 2,451, and the num- 

 ber injured, 22,390. This is a cruel and largely a needless sacrifice. 

 The Government is spending nearly one million dollars annually 

 to save the lives of shipwrecked seamen; every steam-vessel is 

 rigidly inspected and required to adopt the most approved safety 

 appliances. All this is good ; but how shall we excuse the lack of 

 interest and effort in behalf of this army of brave young men, 

 who, in our land commerce, are being sacrificed every year by the 

 continued use of antiquated and dangerous appliances ? A law 

 requiring of every railroad engaged in interstate commerce the 

 equipment each year of a given per cent of its freight-cars with 

 automatic couplers and air-brakes would compel an agreement 

 between the roads as to the kind of brakes and couplers to be 

 used, and would very soon and very greatly reduce the present 

 fearful death-rate among railroad employe's." 



It seems to me that this passage brings us exactly to the ques- 

 tion before us, for, while the President's recommendation is on 

 the side of humanity, it is possible to see how considerable in- 

 equality and injustice might result from a carrying out of the 

 suggestion. Even humanitarian laws are not always laws for the 

 greatest good of the greatest number. For example, it might be 

 asked, Why interstate railways only ? (of course, in a message 

 to Congress only interstate railways could be mentioned, as under 

 its jurisdiction, though this is only true in a measure and not, as 

 I take it, necessarily so) and, if interstate railways only, how if 

 State laws should also provide for the use of an automatic coupler, 

 and supposing a State law should decree the use of one kind and 

 the Federal law decree the use of another ? Before the railway 

 company could ask for a reconciliation of the two decrees, or even 

 in good faith endeavor to provide an equivalent, how many liti- 

 gants might arise to sue for a penalty under one law or the other, 

 or how many railway accidents be added to the fatality list ? And 

 let it not be forgotten that, strange as it may appear, the enforce- 



