II. Coverage-Continued P. Interstate and intrastate commerce. 1. Scope of the Federal Employers' Liability Act. d. Cleaning car routed on interstate journey.. 3. Cases determined to be in intrastate commerce..... a. Cutting and removing grass from rights of way. PAGE 226 226 226 226 227 228 230 231 232 232 232 b. Cleaning passenger yard and caring for switch lamps.. 236 236 236 e. Working in car shop upon car loaded with cargo from without State. 237 f. Ripping a plank in a railroad shop.... 237 g. Repairing car not regularly used in interstate traffic. h. Towing barges upon navigable waters of the State. 4. Federal Safety Appliance Act not enforceable in New York.... 5. Burden of proof that accident has occurred in interstate commerce. 242 2. Resort to common law or admiralty remedy upon discontinuance of compensation payments.... 244 3. Accidents occurring between October 6, 1917, and April 17, 1918 245 4. Constitutionality of the Congressional Act of October 6, 1917.. 246 5. Resort to compensation remedy under the Congressional Act of October 6, 1917.. 248 6. Exclusiveness of the Workmen's Compensation Law under the Congressional Act of October 6, 1917...... 251 7. Death on shore not the test of jurisdiction in admiralty.. 257 261 275 III. List of cases. IV. Index... GENERAL The general constitutionality of the Workmen's Compensation Law of New York has been tested and upheld before the Court of Appeals of New York and the Supreme Court of the United States: Jensen v. Southern Pacific Co., 215 N. Y. 514, July 13, 1915; New York Central R. R. Co. v. White, 243 U. S. 188, March 6, 1917. Full text of the Court of Appeals opinion is in Bulletin 81, pages 21-28; and of the United States Supreme Court opinion, in Bulletin 87, pages 11-22. At the same time with the New York law, the United States Supreme Court held the compensation laws of Washington and Iowa constitutional, with opinions the texts of which are in Bulletin 87, pages 22-37. Besides the unsuccessful attempt to prove the New York Compensation Law unconstitutional in its entirety, unsuccessful attempts have been made from time to time to prove several of its special provisions and amendments unconstitutional, as follows: A. PRESUMPTIONS OF § 21 The Appellate Division has sustained the constitutionality of § 21 in casting the burden of proof upon the employer as to important features of compensation claims: McQueeney v. Sutphen & Myer, 167 App. Div. 532, May 5, 1915 (Bulletin 81, pp. 31, 392-394). B. THE ONE HUNDRED DOLLAR CLAUSE, § 15, SUBD. 7 The Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals have sustained the constitutionality of § 15, subd. 7, which requires insurance carriers to pay to the State Treasurer "for every case of injury causing death in which there are no persons entitled to compensation the sum of one hundred dollars" and applies the fund so accumulated to lifetime compensation of employees totally disabled from loss of two bodily members by two successive accidents: State Industrial Commission v. Newman and v. Edsall, 179 App. Div. 481, July 2, 1917; 222 N. Y. 363, 651, Jan. 29, |