THE M. C. B. ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDS A KNUCKLE OPENER "Which will throw the knuckle completely open and operate under all conditions of wear and service." THIS RECOMMENDATION EXACTLY DESCRIBES THE OPER. ATION OF THE PITT COUPLER 'O make the operation of opening the knuckle by means of a "Kicker' as safe as it has always been by hand it is essential that the "Kickers' should work every time. The failure to do so has been the cause of many serious accidents. We find many switchmen who, taught by experience, disregard the presence of any "Knuckle-Opener" or "Kicker" and open the knuckle, always, by hand. Thus, in a very practical way is made manifest the necessity for a safe design in a "safety-appliance." The "Knuckle Opener" in the Pitt Coupler is positive in its operation and pushes the knuckle open to its fullest range of movement either from a fully closed position or from any partially open position regardless of rust. With the Pitt Coupler the switchmen will never be obliged to reach in-on sudden impulse-at the last moment and when the car is in motion to open the knuckle by hand. Manufactured Only by The McConway & Torley Co. PITTSBURGH, PA. The RAILWAY CONDUCTOR Vol. XXII. CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA, AUGUST, 1905. RELIEF DEPARTMENTS IN CANADA. For a number of years some one or more relief departments have been conducted by the railway companies in Canada similar to those conducted by some railroad systems in the United States and under which the common provision obtained that an employé becoming a member of the relief department was required to sign an agreement releasing the company from liability for damages in case of personal injury. The legislative representative of the railroad brotherhoods secured the introduction in Parliament of an act declaring such agreements void and against public policy. The Dominion Parliament enacted this bill into law subject to the decision of the Supreme Court as to the right of the Dominion Parliament to enact the legislation, it being contended by some that this was a right which rested only in Provincial Parlia ments. The question was recently argued before the Supreme Court, supported by Mr. Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice, M. C. H. Ritchie, K. C. and Mr. Lennon, and opposed by Mr. Walter Cassels, representing the railway companies. The court before which it was argued consisted of Chief Justice Taschereau, Sir Louis Davis and Justices Sedgewick, Nesbitt and Girouard. On May 16th a decision was handed down declaring that the right to enact this legislation was vested in the Dominion Parliament, Justice Nesbitt being the No. 8. only one who dissented from this opinion. Justice Sedgewick did not hand in written opinion but concurred with the judgment of the majority. It will thus be seen that the Supreme Court holds that the railways of Canada being created under act of Federal Parliament, that Parliament has the right to control them in respect to their treatment of their emyloyes, as well as in the matter of rates and conditions under which the roads must be operated. It appears that under the Canadian laws appeal from decision of the Supreme Court can be had to the Privy Council and we are informed that such appeal has been taken which is a desirable move because it is well to have so important a point passed upon by the highest court of jurisdiction so that it may be definitely determined for all time. The decision of the Supreme Court seems to be founded in logic and good common sense, which always is, or ought to be good law and it is not thought there is much danger The of the decision being reversed. following are the written opinions of the members of the Supreme Court: Re The Railway Act of 1903. THE CHIEF JUSTICE:-I am of opinion as at present advised, that the Act, in question is intra vires of the Dominion Parliament. I view it as one of public order for the good Government of the whole of the Dominion in relation to corporations and undertakings under. the control of the Federal Authority. THE HOPE UNLIMITED, ARIZONA Courtesy Santa Fe Railway. The case of Citizens vs. Parsons, relied upon by the railway companies does not, as I read it, help their opposition to the validity of the Act. I see nothing in it to justify their contention that if the Dominion Parliament had imposed statutory conditions for the whole Dominion upon the Federal Insurance Companies, such statutory conditions would have been ultra vires. The exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament over Federal Railways must include the power to enlarge or restrict their rights and duties in the administration of their various roads so as to make them uniform all through the Dominion. It is certainly expedient, not to say more, that upon such railways, the relations between the corporation and its employes should be governed by the same rules all over the Dominion, and that the right of any employe of such a Company, or of his personal representative in the event of his death, to recover compensation if he is injured or killed in the performance of his duties be not different whether the accident happens in British Columbia, for instance, or in Nova Scotia or Quebec, or made dependent upon the locality where he has joined the service of the Company. And the Federal Parliament alone can pass such a law for the Dominion. Then Federal corporations are created and these railways are operated in the public interest of the Dominion at large, and whatever the Federal Parliament thinks it expedient to decree in relation to their management and administration in that same public interest, it must have the power to do. Reference re Railway Act, 1903. GIROUARD, J-If I were unfettered by authority, I would feel inclined to declare that the Statute before us was ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada. But in face of the decisions of the Privy Council, I consider that doubt is not even possible and that we have only one thing to do, that is, to uphold that Statute as being incidental to the power which clauses 91 and 92 of the B. N. A. Act give to the Parliament of Canada, to make laws for the creation, regulation and maintenance of interprovincial or international, or even Federal railways, within the meaning of said Act. Reference Under Amendment to Railway Act of 1903. NESBITT, J-That the Dominion Parliament has the exclusive jurisdiction to legislate in respect to the incorporation, organization, operation and management of certain railways is not open to dispute, and the sole question presented for our consideration here is whether the Act in question is not an infringement of the Provincial Jurisdiction as being legislation upon civil rights and not purporting to be upon a subject incident to or ancillary to "Railway Legislation". It is to be observed that the Act is one claimed to be promoted by a section of the employes of the railway and aimed at the redress of a contract grievance or supposed destruction of civil remedy and as such it is frankly supported by the fact filed on behalf of the promoter acting for such employes. It is also to be observed that, although it is headed "An Act to amend the Railway Act of 1903," it stands quite apart from the "Act to amend the Railway Act 1903" to be found in the very next chapter of the same statutes, and which latter Act deals with what might well be described as "railway legislation". I merely draw attention to this as lending some color to the argument that the Act in question was only passed to interfere with contract rights and has no real relation to the operation or management of "railways". The Act itself, we were told on argument, was passed because the Dominion Parliamment had incorporated an insurance company and compelled the Grand Trunk Railway Company to contribute a certain sum yearly to the funds of the company which company had been empowered to make by-laws, and that one of the by-laws, No. 15, made provision that any member of the Society or his representatives became disqualified from maintaining an action against the railway company for injuries arising from accidents. This has been held to be a contract authorized by the employe who took advantage of the benefits of the company's contribution, etc., and APACHE CANYON, NEW MEXICO. Courtesy Santa Fe Railway. BIG TREE, RED-WOOD FOREST, CALIFOR NIA. Courtesy Santa Fe Railway. to preclude recovery for negligence. The Act in question apparently goes much further than legislation upon such a subject as was said to be aimed at; and as I read it provides that no railway company shall be relieved from liability for damages for personal injury to any workman, employe, or servant of such company, or by reason of any notice, condition or declaration made or issued by the company, or by reason of any rule or by-laws of the company, or by any express or implied acknowledgement, acquittance or release obtained by the Company * prior to the happening of the wrong or injury complained of, or the damage accruing, to the support or effect of relieving or releasing the company from liability for damages for personal injuries as aforesaid. * * * Such legislation would, it seems to me, enable an employe to recover, notwithstanding his express breach of duties prescribed although the provincial law regulating the rights of the parties was to the contrary, and I am unable to conceive that such legislation can be said to be in any way incidental to the operation or management of railways, or to be in any sense railway legislation". Since railways were operated no such provisions, so far as I know, can be found in any country under the guise of legislation regulating the operation or management of railways, and I cannot believe would be enacted by any Parliament as part of a Legislative Railway Policy. Necessarily at almost every step in railway legislation property and civil rights must be involved such as expropriating lands, contracts for carriage of goods, regulating the tolls to be charged and the terms of carriage. Duties must be precribed but the remedies for breach of such duties it seems to me are within jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislature. No doubt if Parliament saw fit to enact as part of the operating policy of the railway that workmen should only work certain hours; that men of certain age should only be employed; that no woman or young boys or girls should be employed; that workmen should not go on strike, it could do so as an incident of railway operation, but this legislation. does not appear to me to fall within the doctrine of operation or management but rather within legislation as to contract, as for instance, if Parliament prescribed that if a passenger was injured on the railway he should give EL CAPITAN, YOSEMITE VALLEY, CALIF. Courtesy Santa Fe Railway. notice within twelve hours or no action would lie, which would be in my opinion outside its jurisdiction. I think Parliament can say the railway shall do so and so and upon failure any person injured by such failure shall have an action, but there it seems to me its jurisdiction ends and the doctrine of civil rights leaves the railway subject to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislatures as to the remedies and the defenses respectively. Mr. Lennox, the promoter argued that the legislation was necessary because the Insurance Society was incorporated by the Parliament of Canada, but it seems to me that a foreign corporation of which the employes became members or policy holders under similar recited conditions would have been the same. The remedy given otherwise by law, the employe was held to have contracted himself out of, not because it was a Dominion Corporation but for reasons I have indicated, and the legislation in question, therefore, is admittedly to get rid of the effect of what has been held to be a contract and is not to prescribe certain rules to govern in the employment of operatives in the management of the railway, viewed in which aspect it might well be "railway legislation," and intra vires. In Ontario the 10th Section of R. S. O., 1897, cap. 160, would seem to regulate the defence. In Quebec in case of death Art. 1056 of the Code would indicate the workman could receive compensation for the injury prior to his death and so allow him to contract for a release for any injury from which death might result, which would bar action by his representatives. This statute if intra vires would appear to override any provincial law. I am not deciding that rule 15 of the G. T. Provident Association is a binding contract, but this legislation as I read it embraces any acquittance obtained by the company prior to the accident, and therefore seems to me a matter purely affecting civil rights and not legislation falling within the subject of "railways" as relating to the incorporation, organization, operation or management of them. I have been constrained to this |