
    PORTO RICO COAL COMPANY, Complainant, v. L. SANTIAGO CARMONA ET AL., Comprising the Workmen’s Relief Commission of Porto Rico, Dfts.
    San Juan,
    Equity,
    No. 1119.
    Workmen’s Belief.
    Workmen’s Compensation — Eights Conferred June, 1922.
    1. The passage by the Congress of the United' States June 3, 1922; of a bill which conferred upon dock workers and repairmen the benefits of the various Workmen’s Compensation Laws enacted by the various legislatures in the states of the Union and in force throughout such states., creates the irresistible conclusion that such dock workers and repairmen were not within such laws previously.
    
      Note. — On applicability of State Compensation Acts to injuries within Admiralty jurisdiction, see note in L.E.A.1918C, 474.
    
      Porto Rico — Ho Powers Greater than States.
    2. Inasmuch as the legislature of Porto Rico can surely not possess more powers than the legislatures of the forty-eight states of the Union, a bill filed in this court in March, 1922, for an injunction against the Workmen’s Relief Commission of Porto Rico states a good cause of action and a motion to dismiss such bill must be denied.
    Opinion filed June 26, 1922.
    
      Mr. Gha-rles Harizell for complainant.
    
      Messrs. Salvador Meslre, Attorney General, and J. A. Loret, Assistant Attorney G'eneral of Porto Pico, for defendants.
   OdliN, Judge,

delivered tlie following opinion:

After tliis motion bad been argued and while the court was considering the same, information reached this court that on or about the 3d day of this present month of June, 1922, a certain bill was passed by the United States Senate which had previously been passed by the House of Representatives, conferring upon dock workers and repairmen the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Ijaws enacted by and in force throughout the various states of the Union. The conclusion is therefore irresistible that these dock workers' and longshoremen and repairmen were not within the .various Workmen’s Compensation Laws previous to the 3d of June, 1922.

Inasmuch as the bill in the present case was filed on the 30th day of March, 1922, and inasmuch as the legislature of Porto Pico can certainly not possess more powers than the legislature of any one of the forty-eight states, this court is bound to deny the motion to dismiss.

The defendants are allowed until the 29th day of July, 1922, in which to answer the bill, serving a copy thereof upon counsel for the complainant.

To this ruling counsel for the defendants except.  