Page images
PDF
EPUB

Constitution to regulate commerce Congress has no power to create corporations except those which have for their object the carrying on of exclusively interstate business. Second, that no such power as is contemplated by the resolution should be delegated by the states to Congress. Third, that we cannot recommend that state taxation should be upon property actually within the state only." The property to which reference is made in the resolution must be personal, for realty is necessarily taxed under the laws of the state where located. Fourth, that we cannot recommend "that labor organizations should be relegated to national control under national incorporation."

The committee begs leave also to report in favor of the passage by Congress of an act entitled "An act to authorize the maintenance of actions for negligence causing death in maritime cases." This subject was before the American Bar Association in 1900. A bill had then been introduced in Congress by Mr. Boutell on that subject, and the recommendation of the committee in favor of that bill was adopted by the American Bar Association; but Congress took no action upon the bill. Thereafter the Maritime Law Association of the United States in New York took up the matter, and after much consideration by committees finally, in November, 1903, approved the bill. I may say that I know of my own knowledge that the bill has been very carefully considered by the Maritime Law Association, and our committee has reported in favor of a recommendation to Congress that the bill shall pass. Charles W. Bates, of Missouri :

I do not understand subdivision two of the second subject relating to trusts. Under subdivision two I find the following words: "That no such power as is contemplated by the resolution should be delegated by the states to Congress.' I do not know what the resolution is and therefore I rise for information.

[ocr errors]

Robert D. Benedict:

I have not with me the proceedings of the last meeting, but the Secretary can probably inform the gentleman what the resolution was.

William A. Ketcham, of Indiana:

I think I can answer the gentleman's question. The proposition was that the Constitution of the United States ought to be so amended as to confer upon Congress the power to regulate and control purely state institutions, and the committee was of the opinion that no such power ought to be exercised.

The President:

The report will be received if there is no objection, and the affirmative action will be upon the recommendations made by the committee.

William A. Ketcham :

I move the adoption of the report.

Frank Harvey Field, of New York:

There is a provision in this bill in section 1 limiting the amount of recovery in case of death by accident to $5000. That limitation formerly prevailed in the State of New York by a provision of the state constitution, but at the time of the adoption of the new constitution in 1894 that provision was repealed, and since then recoveries have been had in some cases as high as $100,000, and these recoveries have been sustained on appeal. It frequently happens that a man is killed who has a yearly income so large that $5000 would be little compensation to his next of kin for his death, and it seems to me that it would be a foolish thing to put a provision of that kind in a national law affecting all maritime cases. I, therefore, move that the words "not exceeding in all the sum of $5000" be eliminated from the recommendation.

William W. Dodge, of the District of Columbia:
I support that motion.

Robert D. Benedict:

May I say a word in reference to that proposition? That matter was very carefully considered by the Maritime Law Association. There are great varieties of limitations under the state statutes as to the amount of the damages in cases of death arising within the states. In the District of Columbia Congress has passed a law limiting the right of recovery to $6000. It was urged upon the consideration of the Maritime Law Association that if we put in the bill a limitation of $6000, which Congress had already adopted for the District of Columbia, a law with that limitation would be more likely to pass; but, on the other hand, those in the Maritime Law Association representing the maritime interests, which are largely to be affected by this measure, were very earnest that the amount should not exceed $5000 for death occurring at sea, because unless such limitation was adopted, inasmuch as this act would put an additional burden upon maritime interests, all those interests would be combined to defeat the whole law. We therefore thought it was well to begin with a limitation of $5000, which is the limitation in many of the states. It was our opinion that it was the wisest plan to insert that limitation, and I think that on reflection the gentleman will see that to strike out that clause would array against this bill very large and very important interests which would seriously jeopardize the passage of the bill.

Frank Harvey Field:

If the reasons advanced by the member of the committee are simply reasons of expediency and do not go to the actual merit of the question of the limitation in an action for death, it does not seem to me that the American Bar Association ought to favor a form of bill that is designed to meet possible objection from shipping interests. The experience of New York has been so illuminating on this subject since the revocation of the constitutional limitation of $5000 that it seems to me the whole country will very soon take off any limitation from the amount of recovery in such cases. If there is a right

of action which may amount to a large sum in the case of a person injured, certainly there should be no limitation against the proving of the actual loss to the next of kin by reason of the death of anyone through negligence. It seems to me, sir, that it would be a very narrow-minded and short-sighted action on the part of the American Bar Association to limit the recovery in an action of that kind. I hope my amendment. will prevail.

William A. Ketcham :

This subject matter was one that when it came before this committee was not specially of interest to the members of the committee engaged in general practice, but we were assured and fully believed, and as far as I am concerned I have had no suggestion to change my belief, that that matter had been fully and carefully considered by the Maritime Law Association, and they ask that and they ask no more, and we were willing, therefore, to recommend what that association recommended. It would be well if in life we could all get all those things that we think we ought to have, but when we know by experience that we cannot get all the things that we think we ought to have some of us, as we grow older, have found that it was wise to try to get those things that we thought we could get. It was, therefore, that this committee believed that this measure carefully considered by the Association and recommended in its present form could be adopted, and that it would be wiser to recommend it than to recommend something that might be wiser, but which would not be adopted by Congress. So believing, it occurs to me, that the American Bar Association may concur in the action of the Maritime Law Association, and not follow off after the State of New York, if it be as the gentleman from New York states, that, having created a statutory right and imposed a statutory obligation, that state places no limitation or restriction upon the obligation. The power that can create can also limit, and I think it will be found that the vast majority of the states that have considered this question and have adopted such laws have not

as yet followed in the wake of New York and left no barriers up. If, after Congress shall have passed this law and conferred this right, it shall be determined hereafter by Congress or by this Association that it is wiser to enlarge that right it will be time enough to consider that then, but those who had considered and examined the matter carefully assured the committee that in their opinion, unless this limitation was placed upon it, the law could not be got through Congress, and this Association, as it seems to me, ought not to adopt the impractic able and unreasonable method of calling for more than they can get because they think, perchance, they ought to have it.

Thomas J. Morris, of Maryland:

I ask permission to say a few words on this subject. I think the objection to the limitation of the amount of recovery is a purely academic and impracticable one. I have had some experience in the trial of damage cases in admiralty, and I think it may be said that there is hardly one case in a thousand where $5000 is not a fair and just compensation. More than that, there is a limitation upon the liability of ship owners which in most cases would reduce it to $5000. It is admitted that there is now a defect in the federal admiralty law that should be cured, and it seems practicable to get Congress to pass this proposed act in its present shape. If the amount of the recovery should be unlimited, it may meet before Congress with the solid opposition of the ship owners, which would very possibly defeat it. The President:

The question is upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Field) to strike out in section 1 the words "not exceeding in all the sum of $5000."

The amendment was lost.

The President:

The question now recurs on the original motion made by the gentlemen from Indiana, Mr. Ketcham, that the report be received and its recommendations adopted.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »