Morning journal and courier., 1880-06-22


 tour through the Southern States says: q 1 was everywhere met in the South with the ] remark that success to the Democratic party
 in 1880 meant vindication of the cause of the Confederacy which was lost by the wager of battle. Time and again was I asked to answer why, if Confederate soldiers and Of fcers were good enough to hold office and take part in the Government, Confederate soldiers were not good enough to be allowed pensions ?" It behooves those who do not want public money spent in pensioning Con- federate soldiers to remember that it will not be so long as the Republican party is in power.
 Schuyler Colfax deems the present a fitting time to again refer to the connection of his name with the Credit Mobilier scandal. He says, among other things: T repeat again,
 as I did seven years ago, that, as I hope for Gods favor at the Judgment Day, never received a dollar from Mir. Ames in money or check that abandoned totally and at the loss of what had paid on it, and four years
 before there was breath of scandal, an in- choate contract for thirty shares of this stock; that never held or owned, therefore, any stock in it, and that I never saw the check payable to s. c. or bearer till the very week in 1873 on which he swore that he paid I it to me as dividend in June, 1863."
 A recent decision of the United States Cir cult Court in Georgia may be profitable to the managers of steamboat and railroad lines l if properly applied by them. The action was brought by an Episcopal clergyman to recov- CT for injuries that he had received while a passenger on the defendants steamboat. One of the most important items of the evidence was piece of one of the boilers found after the explosion. It had been burned to such an extent that it was brittle and easily l broken. Experts gave the opinion that 8 I burned boiler was presumptive evidence ot negligence on the part of the engineer. h | applying the law to these fact the court re | marked that carriers of passengers are not l insurers of the safety and lives of those
 whom they carry, but they are bound to use I the utmost knowledge, skill and vigilance in 1 order to carry their passengers in safety. In l this case the explosion of the boiler made out prima facie case of negligence against the boat owners, and they were bound to remove ] that presumption by positive evidence before 1 they could escape liability. The explosion 1 must have been caused by some latent de- feet in the boiler which the closest examina- tion could not discover, or it must have been the result of negligence. The defendants had to prove the former or be held liable for the latter. ''We are asked, D said the court, ''to find that the explosion was caused by some hidden defect in the material of the boilers, and not to defects caused by carelessness and bad management. No hidden defect is shown
 to exist. The facts prove that the engineers were careless and negligent, and the result of that negligence is shown by the condition of the boilers at the time of the explosion. The natural and almost unavoidable inference is that the explosion was the result of the bad treatment of the boilers by the engineers, and not to the result of some concealed flaw. :" Judgment for $5,oOo was thereupon given in favor of the plaintiff.