Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1859-09-29
PASSAGE OF THE DAMAGE BILL AND COL
PIOLLETT

ment of damage on the line of the North
Branch Canal and at the same time justifying
the action of Mr.. JACKSON, democrat, from
Sullivan. Permit me to say briefly, that Mr.
JACKSON and myself acted together from first
to last, in the passage of that bilI-never SO
much as differing once in our course or vote
No movement was made by either of US with
out consulting the other. Let me narrate the
facts:
The bill sent by the House to the Senate,
was returned-changed in some of its provis-
ions-in fact Senate bill had been substituted
for it, The House, on motion of Mr. Jack.
son and myself. engrafted upon it several amend
ments, among them Section 10 Of the original
House bill, as follows THAT no statute of
limitation now in force in this Commonwealth,
shall be set up as legal defence by the pres
ent or any future owners of the North Branch
and Wyoming Canals, to any of the claims
contemplated by this act" The bill so amend
ed, was sent back and the Senate conquered in
all the House amendments except Sec 10, as
above, which was again stricken out When
the bill again came back to the House, Mr..
SMEAD moved to concur in the action of the
Senate and briefly stated that he thought it
unnecessary and imprudent for the House to
stand out any longer upon point which he
considered immaterial as he did not think
that sec. could in any manner affect the rights
Of the parties. Such action might result in
defeating the bill entirely. | stated that | was
not prepared to act that time-that desired
to take counsel upon the point at issue-that
if by striking out the sec. the claimants would
be deprived of all damages over six years old,
the bill would be worthless and | would pre-
fer none. Mr.. JACKSON opposed concurring
with the Senate. Upon the question to insist
the yeas and nays were called, and the House
insisted on its amendment by vote of 80 to
"a. Mr.. jackson and myself voting to insist :;
Mr.. SMEAD not voting
On my motion a committee of conference
was appointed, consisting of Messrs JACKSON,
WILLsToN and myself Mr. JACKSON tele-
graphed to Mr.. LITTLE of Tunkhannock for his
opinion on the sec, and advice how to act in
the, remiseS, and Immediately left for Philadel-
phia on business. In the mean time took
counsel of several lawyers in the House. and
of Mr.. CASEY, of Harrisburg, one of the best
lawyers in the State, and at the present time
State Reporter to the Supreme Court They
concurred in the opinion that the Canal Co.,
could not set up the statute as defence to
those claims and if they could it was right
which accrued to them at the purchase of the
canals, and we could not, now, by any Iegisla-
ton, deprive them of that right, or fix upon
them liability which they did not then as
sumo. They regarded the section as immateri-
al
Mr.. WnL1sToN and myself met the Senate
Committee, and agreed upon the following re
port : "That the Committee recommend that
the House recede from it amendment non-con
Cured in by the Senate"
Upon Mr.. JACKsoN's return from PhiIadel-
phia, he found a letter from Mr. LITTLE await
ing him, in which he expressed substantially
the opinion l had obtained from NJ. CASEY,
and others, and he urged Mr. JACKSON not to
let that point of difference defeat the bill =
Thereupon Mr.. j., expressed himself satisfied
and signed the report with Mr. WuMsroN and
myself. The report was taken up twice, read
and adopted acihlOut dissenting cote. If Mr.
j., did not vote for his own report, he is the
only man that knows the fact. Certain it is,
no man voted against it.
In spreading these facts before the public
at this time, do not wish to do NJ. J. the
slightest injury, politically or otherwise. On
the contrary, l am free to say that his conduct
throughout was open, manly and honorable,
and he ought to be sustained by every democrat
in his district. Mr.. SNEAD counseled, and act
ed with US from first to last, never differing in
his action from US except in the above instance,
and the sequel shows his views to have been
correct, for we had to come to them in the end
We were counSeed and urged to the course we
pursued by those of our constituents who were
distinctly and personally interested IN damage
claims, some of whom are as good democrats
as Col. PIoLETr, unless abusing members of
the legislature for obeying their constituents
adds very materially to ones democracy. Their
names can be had when required.
suspect our great offending consisted in
passing bill at ALL Had that remained an
open question, that feathered songSter, Col
PIoLETT, would have sung some most melan-
2holy changes this fall, aud added some half
dozen to his now almost deserted democratic
fold Yours for the truth
0. Ii. P. KINNEY.