Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-01-15

| BraZelJOn, BulOcL Caldwell, Garter Of Hardin,
Cooper, Dayie D bison, Dodso1, Dunlap, Ewing,
Frazer, Fulton, Golladay, Griffith, Harvey Ivie,
Keeney, Laokey, Lamb, Low, Nancy, Harris, Mickey,
NeWbern, Polk, Randolph, RoalstOn, Richardson,
st. John, Sehmittou, Sentsr Shrewsbury, StovaI,
Summers, Turner Of 'Roane, White Of Knox, Wood,
and Vsughn-42
So, the resout ons were reieced.
Mr. POLK entered his motion to reconsider this
vote.
A Senate message announced amendments to the
bank bill; and, on motion by Hr ROWLES it was
ordered that Is copies Of the bill it passed the
House Of Representatives, be printed with the Sem
ate amendments marked with inverted comas.
KILLING STOCK BY RAILROADS.
The House now took up the calendar of bills on
the third reading and Hr Nris bill (50l to repeal
the 9Th and 10th sections Of the act Of 1856, and to
return to the act Of lS33-rela;iYe to killing stock
| by railroads
Ar BULLOCK explained, thst the report Of the
! judiciary Committee was to repeal and return to
the old law only far relates 10 the killing Of
stock.
Hr HARIS. The amendmeatof tae committee is
on the bill.
Lr COOPER explained the act of Of 1866, pro-
| viding that where they proved vigilance TO
"Whlstle, lookout and avoidance Of accidents, the
railroad company should moi be liable for killing
| stock. The act Of 1854 made them liable for all
stock killed The bill is 10 return to the act of
1858 A, and in other respe. to effect the law Of
last session. He had reported The bill as amended
| by the committee, but should vote against it.
/ Mr. POLK spoke against the bill
| Mr. HARVEY had stood a0ue in the Judiciary
Committee in opposition 10 this bill. He was oppo-
sed to such stringent legisauona glinst the railroad
companies, and stated some OF the reasons which in
duced the change Of this law at the last session Of
the General Assembly. The former law was a dis
elimination against railroads This stringent rule
/ WAS not spplipd TO gteamb0a.s &c
! Mr. RICHARDSON. There was no single instance
Of the recovery Of damages for stock killing by rail
| roads under the act of 1906. He would Just as
| soon give the roads general license to kill stock
with mpuniy Of law to allow the law Of the last
session remain upOnth book. lie read the 9th and
10Th sections Of the act Of the last session. How
was the loser Of property prove unfaihfuness on
the part Of the servants Of the company? He then
read and commented on he act of 1854 Il was
a measure of benefit and advantage to the roads
themselves, as well as o. protection to the cOmmu-
nifty.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Doss IL make any provision in
case of careessuess or evil designs on the part of
the stock owners
Mr. RICHARDSON No. The roads should enclose
their tracks.
Dir POLK submitted bill in lieu, making the |
roads liable for half the value Of all stock killed
damaged by them-resoyerable before any justice |
Of the peace.
Mr. MARKS moved 70 lay the bill in lieu on the ia
ble but withdrew for
Mr. ROWLES. His constituency were interested |
in the passage of this bill. They did not wish to |
invade chartered rirhts. They asked for simple |
justice TO be done. Since the act Of 1861 no re-
covery had been made for killing stock by railroads
Stock running at large privilege guaranteed by
law in the State Of Tennessee. The railroads took |
their charters with full knowledge of this. To re- |
qulre stOck-Owners to enclose their stock, would be
act for the benefit Of the roads. Il the Prac
tce in Georgia and elsewhere for the road to foot
the bill at once, for sl stock killed; and so their
roads were secured against becoming o9iOus He
rehearsed the operations Of the law Of 1854,
where the proof Of negligence or evil design was
deyOved on the road; whereas under the provision
Of the act Of 1856, the proof of negligence, Sc,
devOlved upon the owner Of the stock killed. The
cOnstitutiOnaity Of the act Of 1854 had been sus
tanned by the Supreme Court.
Mr. WILLIAMS opposed the bill, and supported
the bill in lieu submitted by Mr. Polk, dividing
Hr NEWMAN for lfr PoIk) now Withdrew the
bill in lieu.
IF BULLOCK. Notwithstanding the difficulty
and delcacy of the question: he should support the
bill
4Ir COOPER had found no difficulty in getting
judgments under the act Of lSj5-G; and be rehear-
sed the provisions of that act and insisted upon the
justice and equality Of the same He submitted, in
good conscience whether it was Just and right and
equal to require the company to pay for accidents
Wnlch Jhey could not prevent. The act Of 1901,
makes it incumbent upon them to take every precaU-
ton, and to prove that they have done so.
Nr WE represented the views of his constituents
on this subject, living the Nashville and Chatta-
nooga road. TheycOuld prevent accidents in the day
time. He gave cases Of harshps underline law Of the
last session He had lost nothing himself but he
could testify to their want Of the exercise Of due
diligence to prevent accidents
Mr. WHITE Of Knox read extracts from petition ]
by sundry citizens Of Knox county, asking for
amendment Of the law Of REDRESS for railroad inju
robustness in this respect. q
After further remarks by Mr. BRAZELTON and C
Mr. CARTER Of Carter-the yeas and nays were Or e
iered and taken the first reading Of the bill re-
46, nays lS-as follow:
Te1S-Messrs. Anderson, Bate Bsyless, Bick-
NELL Bradford Brazelton Bulloch Carter of Carter,
Carter Of Hardin, Copeland, DObson DodsOn, Estes,
Ewing Frazer, Cannon, Hamilton, Ivie, Johnson,
Hendrick, Keeney Lackey, Lloyd Lowe, Maris, 4
Newbern, Newman, Randolph, RoustOn Renshaw, ?
Roberts, Rose, Rowles, St John, Saun-
lers, Schmittou, Senter, Stanton, Summers Turner
# ROane Wilson, White Of Hamilton, White Of C
Knox, Wood and Speaker D0nelson-46. II
Nqys-Messrs. Beale, Benton, Blackburn. Cald- v
veil, Cooper, Davidson, Dunlap, Fulton, Griffith,
Iarney, Lamb Shrewsbury, Snartt, Stoyall ThOmp- =,
on, Williams, and Yaughn-lS. f.
The House then took recess till half past two a
clock ?. NJ. .,