Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1885-12-26
Our Agents.

J. ". Graham. ...... MAYHEM
J. O.. Plattennurg Dove
a aGG yPd S.; MaseF ARE AUTHORIZES Aas!E'i Il
IMPORTANT TO FARMERS.
THE RAILROADS LIABLE IN
DOUBLE DAMAGES FOR
INJURY TO STOCK,
VIII never tn Companies Neglect
to Maintain Proper Fences
and Guards.
The state Law Declared Constisu.
tional by the United states
Supreme Court.
The supreme court of the q. S. has
recently decided a case that must prove
of considerable interest to the farmers
OF Missouri, since it upholds the con-
stitutiOnalily of our state law making
railroad companies liable in double
damages for the killing of stock when
wei they fail OF neglect to maintain
proper fences, openings, gates, farm
crossings and cattle guards. The case
In question was entitled. "Peter Humes
VS. the Missouri Pacific Railway Com
pany," Mr.. .Thos. K. Skinker appear
ing for the plaintiff and Col. L. j.
Ports for the railway company. Ii
was in the nature of all action by MIR.
Humes to damages in double
value for the killing of q mule valued
at Sl35, under the section of the Mis-
souri, statutes referred to. Mr. Humes
obtained a Judgment for $27O in the
circuit cour OF st Louis, and that
Judgment was affirmed by the court of
appeals and by the supreme court OF
the state. The railroad %thereupon
carried the case to the supreme court
of the United States on the ground that
the statute i'll question violated the first
section of the fourteenth amendment
of the constitution of the United States,
in that it deprived the defendant OF
property without due process of law,
SO tar as it allows a recovery OF damages
for stock killed Or injured in excess of
its value, and also in that it denied to
the defendant the equal protection OF
the laws.
Mr.. Justice Field, after discussing at
length the meaning of the term "due
process of law" gives his opinion OF
the merits OF the case as follows:
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
"For injuries resulting from a neg
lect of duties, in the discharge of which
the public is interested, juries + also
permitted to assess exemplary damages.
These may perhaps be considered as
falling under the head of cases of gross
negligence, for any neglect of duties
imposed for the protection of lite or
property is culpable, and deserves pun
ishment.
"The law of Missouri, III requiring
railroad corporations to erect fences
where their roads pass through, along
o. adjoining inclOsed or cultivated
fields or uninclosed lands, with OPEN
ings or gates at farm crossings, and to
construct Inc maintain cattle-guards,
where fences are required, sufficient to
keep horses, cattle and other animals
from going on the roads, imposes a
duty i'll the performance of which the
public is largely interested. Authority
for eXacting it is found in the general
police power of the state to provide
against accidents to lite and property
in any business or employment, "heth-
er under the charge OF private persons
or ot corporations. Under this power
the state, or the municipality exercis-
ing Il delegated authority, prescribes
the manner in which buildings in cities
Shall be constructed, and the thickness
and height of their walls; excludes the
use of all inhammable materials; for
bids the storage therein of powder,
nitro-giy cerine and other explosive
substances, and compels the removal of
derayed vegetable aud animal matter,
which would otherwise infect the air
and engemder disease. In few instances
could the power be more wisely or
beneficently exercised than IN COM
peiling railroad corporations to enclose
their roads with fences, having gates
at crossings and cattle-guards. The
speed AMI momentum of locomotives
render such protection against accident
Tx ~..!i-i portions of the ruuu-
try aosrtu'e,i sen ilI. The omission
10 erect a,rt MAINTAIN >ucn fen es aud
cattle guard, i'll the taco of law would
justly tie deemed gross negligence, and
1t, i'll such cases, where injuries to
property are committed something be-
You'd compensatory damages may be
awarded to the owner by way of pun
i-hment tor the company negligence,
the legislature may fix the mount or
prescribe the limit within which the
jury may exercise their discretion. The
additional damages being by way of
punishment, il is clear that the amount
mav be thu fixed; and it Is not a valid
objection that the sufferer instead of
the state receives them. That is a
matter on which the company has moth
ing to say. And there can be no ration
al ground for cOutending that the
statute deprives it of property without
due process of law. The statute only
fixes the amount OF the penalty IL dam
ages proportionate To the injury in
ficted In actions for the injury the
(, company is afforded every facility for
presenting its defense. The power of
the state to impose fines and penalties
F. for a violation of its statutory require
ments is coeval with government; aud
the mode in which they shall be enforced
whether at the suit of a private party,
or at the suit of the public, and what
disposition shall be made of the amount
collected, are merely matters of legis-
lative discretion. Tue statutes of near
ly every state of the Union provide for
- Increase of damages where the in
dry complained of results from the
neglect OF duties imposed tor the better
Security OF life and property, and
makes that increase in many cases
double, IN some cases treble, and even
qua'iruple the actual damages. And
experience favors this legislation as the
most efficient mode OF preventing, with
the least Inconvenience, the commits
sion Of injuries. The decisions of the
highest courts have affirmed the validi.
ty OF such legisiatioG. The injury &C
tually received is often so small that
in many. cases no effort would be made
by the sufferer to obtain redress, if the
private interest were not supported BY
the imposition of punitive damages, "
"The objection that the statute OF
Missouri violates the clause of the
fourteenth amendment, which prohibits
a stat" to deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws, is "a unteiIable as that which we
have considered. The statute makes
~ discrimination against any railroad
company in its requirements. Each
COMPANY is Snbj ,ct t. the same liabili.
ty. anu from each the same security, BY
the erection OF fences, gates and cattle
guards, is eXacted, when its road passes
through. along or adjoining inclOsed OIL
cultivated fields or uninclosed lands
There is no evasion of the rule O
equaiiJy where all companies are sub.
;.ctr..t to the same duties and iiabilitie.
-