Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-04-24
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Decision in n Virginia Case-nam'
ages 30 a Railroad Employed.

WASHINGTON, April 23.-In the United
States-Supreme Court to-day a decision
was rendered in the case of Morton
Marye, successor to s. Brown Allen,
Auditor OF the State of Virginia, appel
liant, az. the Baltimore and Ohio Bail
road Company on an appeal from the
Circuit Court of the United States for
the Western district OF Virginia. That
company is Maryland corporation, but
controls certain Virginia roads by virtue
Of leases under which the leased roads
give it their track, terminal facilities,
&c, while the Baltimore and Ohio
furnishes rolling stock. which, how
ever, is not assigned especially to
the leased roads, but is used
INTERCHANGEABLE over the whole
system. The railroad company resisted
the payment of the State tax on the
ground that it applied only to domestic
roads, and an INDUCTION restraining the
Auditor from Selling its property was
entered by the Circnit Court. The case
comes here on an appeal from that
court. This court holds that while it
cannot he denied that the State has
power by appropriate legislation to tax
the rolling stock Of @ company not
organized under the State laws, care
ful purview Of the act in question shows
that it was intended to apply only to
domestic roads and not to outside roads
doing business within the State.
Judgment affirmed. Opinion by JUS
tice Matthews.
1 decision was also rendered in the
case of the Missouri Pacific Railway
Company. plaintiff in error, rs. Patrick
Macy, in error TO the Supreme Court
Of the State OF Kansas. The defendant
IN this case was employed by the rail-
road company and was injured by the
negligence of one OF the company's en-
zineers. He brought suit and recovered
damages. in the trial the Judge charged
the Jury to the effect that while ut com
mon law the master could not be held
liable for an injury sustained by one
servant through the negligence of fell
low-seryGnt, yet this rule had been abro-
gated so far as railroads were concerned
bv the statute OF the State of Kansas
enacted III 1874, declaring that railroads
should be liable for damages done to any
employee by the carelessnesso Of afellow-
employee. The railroad company
excepted to this charge, but the
United States Supreme Court upholds
it. and also the validity OF the
Kansas law at issue, which it declares
simply extends the doctrine that rail
roads shall be liable for injury to passen-
gers aud freight TO the csse of employees
Of roads The objection that law de-
prives railroads of the equal protection
Of the laws seems to rest upon the
theory that legislation which IS special
IN its character is necessarily within con-
stitutional inhibition, but nothing can
he further from the fact. The greater
part Of the legislation is opecial, and Is
not obnoxious to one fourth amendment
on that ground. The business OF opera
ting a railroad is a specially hazardous
one and would seem 10 call for special
legislation. The business of other cor
pOrations is not subject to similar dan
gets to heiremployees. and no objections,
therefore. can be made to legislation on
the ground Of discrimination. 1t meets
particular necessity and all railroad
corporations are, without distinction,
made subject to the same liabilities.