court of Ohio, as against public policy. (Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Spangler (1886), 8 N. E. Rep., 467). See also the opinion of the supreme court of Arkansas in Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Eubanks (1887) (48 Ark., 460; 3 S. W. Rep., 808); of the supreme court of appeals of Virginia, in Johnson's Adm'x v. Richmond & D. Ry. Co. (1890) (86 Va., 975; 11 S. E. Rep., 829); of the supreme court of Alabama in Richmond & D. Ry. Co. v. Jones (1891) (92 Ala., 218; 9 So. Rep., 276). The court of appeals of New York declared void for want of consideration a contract executed subsequently to the employee's entrance on service, relieving the employer of liability. (Purdy v. Rome, etc., Ry. Co. (1891), 125 N. Y., 209; 26 N. E. Rep., 255.) In Runt v. Herring a lower court held a contract of like effect, though based on sufficient consideration, to be void, as against public policy. (49 N. Y. St., 126; 21 N. Y. Supp., 244.) A number of States have laws forbidding the waiver, by contract, of the employee's right to recover for injuries caused by accident. In Pierce v. Van Dusen the United States circuit court of appeals upheld the Ohio liability law, which contains this provision (78 Fed. Rep., 693 (1897)), while a similar law of Iowa was declared constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Ry. Co. v. Herrick (1888). (127 U. S., 210; 8 Sup. Ct., 1176.) In neither of these, however, did the case turn on the particular provision relating to contracts. A like provision was discussed by the supreme court of Missouri in the case of Powell v. Sherwood (1901) (162 Mo., 605; 63 S. W. Rep., 485), and a statute containing it was held valid as an entirety. It has been held that an employer could not relieve himself by contract of a liability imposed by statute, although the statute itself made no reference to such contracts. (Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Peavey (1883), 29 Kans., 169; 44 Am. Rep., 630; Tarbell v. Rutland Ry. Co. (Vt., 1902), 51 Atl. Rep., 6.) An implied waiver of the benefits of a statute which requires frogs, etc., on railroads to be blocked, by continuance in service with knowledge that they were not so blocked, was held not to be valid as a defense in an action for injuries resulting from the company's failure to comply with the law. (Narramore v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (1899), 96 Fed., 298 (C. C. A.). See also Coal Co. v. Polland (1902), 62 N. E. Rep., 492, for a decision of like tenor by the Indiana supreme court.) In Georgia, on the other hand, Western & A. R. Co. v. Bishop (1873) (50 Ga., 465), and in Pennsylvania, Mitchell v. Pa. R. (1853) (1 Am. Law Reg., 717), express contracts limiting or denying the employee's right of action have been upheld. In the former State a later statute declares such contracts void so far as they affect any liability fixed by law. 1st Session. No. 210. MEMORIAL PROTESTING AGAINST FURTHER MULTIPLICATION OF BATTLE SHIPS. Mr. HALE presented the following MEMORIAL OF MEMBERS OF THE CHI ALPHA MINISTERIAL SOCIETY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK PROTESTING AGAINST THE FURTHER MULTIPLICATION OF BATTLE SHIPS IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY. JANUARY 29, 1908.-Referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs and ordered to be printed. FIFTH AVENUE HOTEL, NEW YORK CITY, DEAR SIR: We, whose names are undersigned, members of a ministerial society in the city of New York, known as Chi Alpha, voicing as we believe the sentiments of many thousands of American citizens, respectfully express to you our earnest hope that the present Congress will call a halt in what seems to us the needless and hazardous enlargement of the United States Navy. Believing that America should be the leader among the peacemakers of the earth, we can not but look with regret and alarm on the further multiplication of battle ships, not only because of the disastrous influence which this is likely to have upon the temper and fortunes of our own people, but because it is well-nigh certain to retard that reduction. in the armaments of nations for which a sorely burdened world has long been waiting. CHARLES E. JEFFERSON, Pastor of the Broadway Tabernacle. Menber of Board of Foreign Missions. GEORGE ALEXANDER, President of Board of Foreign Missions. CHARLES AUGUSTUS STODDADD, New York Observer. HENRY SLOANE COFFIN, Pastor Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church. J. Ross STEVENSON, Pastor Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church. Pastor Madison Avenue Reformed Church. NATHANIEL W. CONKLING. Professor Union Theological Seminary. Pastor New York Presbyterian Church. Pastor Evangelist North Presbyterian Church. Professor in Union Theological Seminary. Pastor Church of the Covenant. A. C. MCGIFFERT, Professor in Union Theological Seminary. Assistant Professor Union Theological Seminary. WM. A. RICHARDS, JAMES M. FARR, Pastor Christ Church (Presbyterian). Pastor Harlem Presbyterian Church. Secretary Board Foreign Missions. The Honorable EUGENE HALE, O Washington, D. C. RAILROAD BONDS AS SECURITIES FROM NATIONAL BANKS. LETTER FROM SENATOR NELSON W. ALDRICH, TRANSMITTING THE CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THE GOVERNMENT ACCEPT RAILROAD BONDS AS A PART OF THE SECURITIES REQUIRED FROM NATIONAL BANKS FOR ADDITIONAL CIRCULATING NOTES. JANUARY 30, 1908.-Ordered to be printed. COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, GENTLEMEN: In connection with the proposition that the Government should accept railroad bonds as a part of the securities required from national banks for additional circulating notes, I would be glad if you would advise me: First. What has been done under the twentieth section of the act to regulate commerce, as amended, relative to a prescribed system of railroad accounts? Second. What principles or rules have been promulgated in the orders of the Commission thus far issued relative to operating accounts, and what principles or rules are under advisement pertaining to capital accounts, to be covered by subsequent orders of the Commission, that will tend to give security and stability to railway securities? Third. What has been done under the twentieth section of the act to regulate commerce, as amended, relative to the appointment of a Board of Special Examiners into Railway Accounts? Fourth. Would it be possible, in your opinion, after the various provisions of the twentieth section shall have been carried into effect, for the Secretary of the Treasury, from the records in the possession of the Interstate Commerce Commission, to select classes of bonds which it would be safe for the Government to accept as security for the ultimate payment of these circulating notes? Very truly, yours, The INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, NELSON W. ALDRICH. Washington D. C. |