Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

compel the Federal judiciary to fall in line with his policies. Whenever he is to make appointments to the Supreme Court and to the various Federal circuits, or is to select an Attorney General for his Cabinet, he will have a distinct understanding and ascertain definitely before the appointments are determined upon that his nominees are in accord with him upon constitutional construction and executive power. We know what he will do in the future from our experience in the past. He held his party in Congress under absolute vassalage and subjection, and he will revive his attempt to place the judiciary under his influence and control.

Make no mistake. I am not exaggerating the situation. He is perfectly sincere, and his motive is not a corrupt one. He will do this because he is possessed with a mad fancy that this is and ought to be, an Executive Government, that the powers of the Executive ought to override those of the legislative and judicial branches of the public service. And what he proposes is not by constitutional amendment, because he knows he can not procure it, but by all the patronage and all the power and all the resources that he can command, to practically force upon the country an interpretation of our organic law that will level its distinctions and mutilate and obliterate its checks and balances. He will then, in the pursuit of his own insatiable ambition, possess a degree of autocratic power that no President of these United States has ever attained or would have ever dared to exercise, except at the risk of impeachment.

Speaking for my country and not for my party, speaking for the autonomy and stability of our institutions, speaking for the Constitution in all of its parts, if we are to pass in again under his yoke, with his outstretched arm, hanging over the seat of justice, the refuge and bulwark of our institutions, ready to strike it down with a wanton attack upon its integrity, and if this attack is to succeed and the era of the common law is to be revived, when its judges were the abject serfs and

slaves of the Crown, then, in my judgment, it would have been better if the Constitution had never been framed and its authors had never attempted by an apportionment of constitutional functions almost perfect in their allotment, to construct an indissoluble Union of indestructible States.

SINKING OF THE STEAMSHIP TITANIC.

In an address delivered in the Senate May 28, 1912, Senator Rayner reviewed the Andings of the select committee named by that body to investigate the most appalling marine disaster in all history, and urged sweeping amendments to the navigation laws.

I desire to ask the attention of the Senate to the subject matter indicated in my notice in reference to the disaster to the Titanic.

I shall not bring to your attention the harrowing details of this overwhelming calamity, but my purpose is to ascertain what lessons this disaster teaches us and what legislation, if possible, can be framed in order to avoid a recurrence.

Mr. President, we must change the admiralty and navigation laws of this country. They consist of an incongruous collection of antiquated statutes which should be repealed and reenacted so as to meet the necessities of ocean intercourse of the present day. This is surely one lesson that has been taught us by this dreadful calamity. Without entering into minute details, I submit to the Senate the following suggestions for its consideration.

In the first place, let me say a word about the investigation by the Senate Committee. The committee of the Senate has no power beyond that which it has exercised. In conducting the investigation it acquired its jurisdiction under constitutional clause to regulate commerce. It is because Congress has jurisdiction to regulate commerce between the States and foreign

countries that the committee had the right to undertake this investigation. It would have had no right whatever to summon and examine witnesses unless it had jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the jurisdiction it has, is based upon the fact that by virtue of this examination it is able to recommend to the Senate, under this clause of the Constitution, such improvement in our laws as will enable us to avoid a recurrence of this accident. Therefore the Senate was perfectly right in appointing this committee. The committee, acting strictly within its jurisdiction and the decision of our courts under a case that I read to the Senate a few weeks ago, has done its full duty in the premises and has done it well, and the committee, and especially its able chairman, deserves not only the gratitude of the Senate, but the commendation of the country for the impartial performance of their delicate and arduous duties. If it had not been for the prompt action of the senior Senator from Michigan there would have been no investigation, and his analysis and conduct of the case, thorough in every respect, deserves the appreciation of the Senate and the approval of the people in the highest degree.

I come now to the second proposition. It seems to be universally conceded that this ship was not equipped with a sufficient number of lifeboats to provide for the safety of its passengers. There There may have been a sufficient number in accordance with the rules of the British Board of Trade, but it is a conceded fact that the great loss of life occurred because there was an insufficient number to meet the necessities of the case and rescue the passengers and crew.

Third. The failure of foreign steamships to carry searchlights is utterly inexcusable, and if a proper seachlight had been upon this vessel, in my judgment, the accident could have been avoided.

Fourth. The failure to supply the proper officers with binoc

ulars was unquestionably an act of negligence, especially, as I gather from the testimony, that a demand had been made by the proper officers for them, and the demand had been refused.

Fifth. There was not the proper attention paid to the wireless messages that the ship received. This appears to me to have been an inexcusable act of negligence.

Sixth. The speed of the vessel was not lowered, as it should have been, when notice was received that she was in a dangerous zone. My own judgment, therefore, is that there was negligence in this case, and that the disaster was attributable to the want of due care upon the part of the company and of those in charge of the ship. The proper tribunals will determine upon this question, unaffected by any conclusion that we may arrive at in the premises.

I have said that the navigation and admiralty laws of the United States ought to be changed. Now, in what respects ought the proper amendments be made?

First. We can not change the criminal features so far as crimes and criminal negligence occur upon a foreign ship on the high seas. Prosecution for criminial negligence in the Titanic disaster can only be brought in the British courts, as a British ship upon the high seas is British territory. This is an unbending rule, and, as announced by the Federal courts, is stated as follows:

The general rule is that such courts have no jurisdiction of the offense, even when committed upon the high seas, except when committed on board of a ship or vessel of the United States, unless it appears that the vessel was sailing under no national flag.

The only exception to the rule is where death occurs in one of our States as the direct result of injuries or exposure resulting from criminal negligence of some one on the ship. Such a prosecution, as has been decided by the Supreme Court

of Massachusetts, might be sustainable upon the theory that the crime was committed where it took effect.

Second. There ought to be a remedial statute providing that a civil action for personal damages against the owners of the ship could be brought in either the Federal or State courts, and the limited liability statutes of the United States should be repealed.

Third. There ought to be a statute providing that surviving relatives, under Lord Campbell's Act, can bring suit either in the State or Federal Courts, and the limited liability statutes should be repealed so as not to apply to a case of this sort.

Fourth. There ought to be a statute providing for a sufficient number of lifeboats and for the adequate equipment of ships with wireless telegraph. There is no doubt about our right to pass such a statute, even as to foreign ships, because we have full authority to say that foreign ships shall not enter or leave our ports unless they are properly supplied in this particular, and even our statutes now are supposed to furnish that remedy.

Fifth. The doctrine of "Knowledge or privity of the owner" should be swept from the statute book, and it should not be necessary in order to hold the owners to a full responsibility, to prove that the negligence occurred with the privity or knowledge of the owners. There is no reason why owners of ships should not be responsible for the negligence of the crew in the same way that railroad corporations are held responsible for the negligence of their employees. The whole subject is largely in our hands. We should without delay pass a system of laws that, in my judgment, would be sufficient to avoid a repetition of this heart-rending disaster. For a full discussion of the law as it now stands, I refer the Senate to the following cases: Schoomaker v. Gilmore (102 U. S., 118); Rich

« AnteriorContinuar »