mission of that state, after determining that the injury occurred in interstate commerce affected by the federal Employers' Liability Act, has refused to award compensation." Injuries to an employé,

take the oath of fidelity to it. The government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme; and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, ‘anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding' "-quoting Chief Justice Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. Ed. 579. "By this act Congress has undertaken to cover the subject of the liability of railroad companies to their employés, injured while engaged in interstate commerce. This exertion of a power which is granted in express terms must supersede all legislation over the same subject by the states. it

follows that in respect of state legislation prescribing the liability of such carriers for injuries to their employés while engaged in interstate commerce this act is paramount and exclusive"-quoting Lurton, J., in Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 33 Sup. Ct. 192, 57 L. Ed. 417, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 176. The court also quoted language to the same effect from Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 223 U. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 169, 56 L. Ed. 327, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 44, and Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Horton, 233 U. S. 501, 34 Sup. Ct. 638, 58 L. Ed. 1068, L. R. A. 1915C, 1, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 475.

9 Where a brakeman employed in interstate and intrastate commerce was attacked by tramps and killed while he was working on a through freight train, the California Act did not apply. Lutze v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Ry. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 739. Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 738.

California Act held inapplicable since the workman was injured while engaged in interstate commerce.-Where an employé, working in the repair shop of a railroad engaged in interstate and intrastate business, is injured while repairing a locomotive. Beamer v. Southern Pacific Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 737. Where a car inspector, in the employment of a railroad engaged in both interstate and intrastate commerce, was injured while coupling the air hose of a freight train carrying some cars destined for points outside the state. Bridge v. Southern Pacific Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 736. Where a mechanic, in the employment of a railroad engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce, is injured by a fall from a locomotive upon which he is working in a roundhouse of the railroad. Donaldson v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Ry. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 699. Where a section hand is injured while working upon the tracks of a railroad engaged in interstate and intrastate business. Harris v. Western Pacific Ry. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 697. Where it appeared that the injured man was a watchman in the employ of an interstate railway, and at the time of accident was weighing freight cars of an interstate character.

the scope of whose employment concerns both intrastate and interstate commerce, are compensable under this Act, however,

Keast v. Santa Fé. Ry. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 694. Where it appeared that the applicant was engaged at the time of the accident in the repair of a bridge, which was a portion of the main line of an interstate railway. Sandberg v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 694. Where an employé of the Santa Fé Railway was injured while engaged in the repair of a bridge used by the Santa Fé Railway in its interstate business. Battenfield v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Ry. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 688. Where an employé of the Southern Pacific Company. 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 969. Where an employé of the Santa Fé Railway, while engaged in loading timbers intended for the repair of stockyards used by said railway to confine live stock shipped to and from points both interstate and intrastate, was injured by a falling timber. Hummer v. Hennings, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 859. Where an employé of the Southern Pacific Company was injured while engaged in repair work on a bridge, part of the main line of the railway used in the interstate business of the defendant. McCarthy v. Southern Pacific Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 780. Where an employé of the Southern Pacific Company was injured while engaged in switching cars of a train, some of the cars of which were used in interstate business of the defendant. McCarthy v. Southern Pacific Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 752. Where it appeared that at the time of the accident the employé was a section hand, and was being carried on a hand car from one point to another on the line used for interstate commerce of the railway. Moreno v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 754. Where it appeared that the injured employé was at the time of the accident doing work in the construction of a bridge on a branch of a railway used for interstate traffic. Walde v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Ry. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 751. Where an employé of the Southern Pacific Company was injured while engaged in the repair of an engine used by the Southern Pacific in its interstate business. Bishop v. Southern Pacific Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 749. Where a workman was engaged in rearranging, transferring, and changing tracks used indiscriminately for interstate and intrastate commerce. Cuebas v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 3 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 17. Where a brakeman on a wrecking train, sent to rerail an engine which was obstructing the tracks of an interstate railway, and at the time of derailment was hauling cars of interstate freight. James v. San Pedro, L. A. & S. L. R. R. Co., 3 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 13. Where an employé of the Santa Fé Railway was injured while engaged as a brakeman in switching a railway car, such car being a foreign car loaded with freight destined to points outside this state. Grigsby v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Ry. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 748. Where a section hand, employed by a railroad doing interstate business, is injured while working upon the repairing of railroad track. Karras v. Southern Pacific Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 748. Where an employé of the Southern Pacific

where at the time of injury he was not engaged in interstate commerce.10 10 Where one in the employ of a railroad lying wholly within the state is injured, the burden of proving that he was injured. while engaged in furthering interstate commerce rests on the railroad company. Such burden is not sustained by proof, which is not clear, that certain small packages of freight, which alone are claimed to give an interstate character to the work, originated outside the state and were not broken or reshipped locally.11

Railroad construction for an interstate carrier is under the state's jurisdiction, whether the work be performed by a railroad company's own employés or by contract. Such construction work

Company is injured while loading steel rails upon one of its flat cars at its terminal, the rails to be used in repairing the main line of its track. Campos v. Southern Pacific Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 747. Where an employé of the Southern Pacific Company is injured in repairing and maintaining a trestle and roadbed. Lambert v. Southern Pacific Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 743. Where an employé of a railroad engaged in interstate and intrastate business is injured while repairing a flat car. Garcia v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Ry. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 741.

10 Where an employé of a railway was injured while in the construction of a dining room of a railway engaged in intrastate and interstate commerce, such dining room being constructed within the state of California, the injury did not occur while he was engaged in interstate commerce, and the Compensation Act of California applied. Harrington v. San Diego & Arizona Ry. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 797. Where a baggageman, employed at a mailing station used in both interstate and intrastate commerce, was injured by accident while on his way out of the baggage room, which he had entered with the purpose either of preparing a local shipment or of ascertaining whether such a shipment was to be prepared, he was not engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident, and his injury was compensable. Luke v. A., T. & S. F. R. R. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 1011. Where a freight handler, employed at a station within the state to load cars with freight destined to points within the state, was injured while loading a car with freight which had originated within the state, but after his injury the car was loaded with more freight, including four pieces which had originated at points outside the state, and the accident and injury were not due to any negligence on the part of the employer, the injury was compensable. Wilmunder v. Southern Pacific Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 1030.

11 Conners v. Sugar Pine Ry. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. $79.

does not become interstate commerce until turned over to the actual use of interstate trade.12 Steamboats on Lake Washington are engaged in traffic on interstate waters, and therefore outside the jurisdiction conferred by the Washington Act upon the Industrial Accident Commission of that state.13

§ 11. Administration

The Washington Act requires the state to pay the entire cost of administration of the state insurance fund, leaving the whole amount paid into such fund by the employers to be devoted to the payment of awards for injuries.14 In the opinion of the commission, the state can well afford to bear the cost of administering the insurance fund, "as its courts will be relieved of a large amount of work, and the burden now placed upon taxpayers by the trial

12 Wk. Comp. Act Wash. § 18; Rulings Wash. Indus. Ins. Com. 1915, p. 23. That the workman at the time of his injury was employed as a common laborer on the construction of a railroad tunnel, which, when completed, would be used to shorten the interstate line of the railroad, did not make him engaged in interstate commerce. Raymond v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 233 Fed. 239. In Bravis v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 217 Fed. 234, 133 C. C. A. 228, the court said: "The mere fact that it was the purpose and intention so to use it at some future time did not make it an instrumentality of interstate commerce. That purpose and intention might be changed, and it might never be used in interstate commerce, or at all. The argument that the building of the cut-off was the mere correction or prevention of a defect or insufficiency of the defendant's instrumentality for conducting interstate commerce is too remote and inconsequential to convince."

In Pedersen v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R., 229 U. S. 146, 33 Sup. Ct. 648, 57 L. Ed. 1125, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 153, the court said: "The true test always is: Is the work in question a part of the interstate commerce in which the carrier is engaged? Of course, we are not here concerned with the construction of tracks, bridges, engines, or cars which have not as yet become instrumentalities in such commerce, but only with the work of maintaining them in proper condition after they have become such instrumentalities and during their use as such."

13 (Wk. Comp. Act Wash. § 4, class 20) Rulings Wash. Indus. Ins. Com. 1915, p. 12.

14 (Wk. Comp. Act Wash. § 29) Rulings Wash. Indus. Ins. Com. 1915, p. 27.

of negligence cases will be minimized. The tendency of this act should be to produce good will between employer and employé, and to lessen the cases of hardship among dependents of injured employés. In taking into consideration the state's many vital interests in the welfare of the workman and his family, the general taxpayer may well afford to bear the expense of administration." 15 The physician's report relative to the injury, as part of the workman's claim, is a duty to the state; no payment is allowed therefor, though charge for professional services rendered to a workman is his personal debt, unless the employer contracted to pay the same.16 Reports of the accident made to the insurance department must state the time, cause, and nature of the accident and injuries, and the probable duration of the injury resulting therefrom, and also whether the accident arose out of or in the course of the injured person's employment.18 All necessary blanks are furnished free of cost.19

17

The state insurance fund of Nevada, not being part of the "state treasury," though paid to the state treasurer, is not subject to the constitutional restrictions on the payment of funds from the state treasury.20

The Minnesota Commissioner of Labor and any employé connected with that department are prohibited from disclosing wheth

15 (Wk. Comp. Act Wash. § 29) Rulings Wash. Indus. Ins. Com. 1915, p. 27. 16 (Wk. Comp. Act Wash. § 12) Rulings Wash. Indus. Ins. Com. 1915, p. 20. 17 (Wk. Comp. Act Wash. § 14) Rulings Wash. Indus. Ins. Com. 1915, p. 21. 18 (Wk. Comp. Act Wash. § 14) Rulings Wash. Indus. Ins. Com. 1915, p. 21. They must answer all questions fully that appear on employer's report of accident, form 21, and workman's report of accident, form 22, so far as they apply to the particular accident being reported and any other information pertinent to the injury. Questions which are seemingly of no importance are asked for statistical purposes and should be answered whenever possible. (Wk. Comp. Act Wash. § 14) Id. p. 21.

19 (Wk. Comp. Act Wash. § 12) Rulings Wash. Indus. Ins. Com. 1915, p. 21. 20 State v. McMillan, 36 Nev. 383, 136 Pac. 108.