The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-04-24
RAILROADS AT THE BAR.
Two Decisions Rendered by the United
States Supreme Court

States Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, April 23-In the United
States Supreme Court to-day decision was
rendered in the case of Morton Marye, sue
cessor to s. Brown Allen, Auditor of the
State of Virginia, appellay t, VS.. the Balti-
more and Ohio Railroad Company, an APP
peal from the Circuit Court of the United
States for the Western district Of Virg MIA.
The Auditor of the State assessed
taxes for eleven years, from 1870 to 1881,
amounting in the aggregate TO 500, 249,
against the rolling stock, etc, of the Balti-
more and Ohio railroad. That company is
Maryland corporation, but controls GER
tain Virginia roads by virtue of leases under
which said roads give it their track, ter
mlnal facilities, etc, while the Baltimore
and Ohio furnishes the rolling stock,
which, however, is not assigned especially
to leased roads, but is used dinterchangeably
over the whole system. The railroad company
resisted the payment Of the tax on the
ground that it applied only to domestic
roads, and IN injunction restraining the
Auditor from seizure of its property was
issued by the Circuit Court. The case
comes here on appeal from that court.
This court holds that while it cannot be
denied that the State has the power by ap-
propriate legislation to tax the rolling stock
of a company not organized under State
laws, careful 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. The iudg-
ment is affirmed. The opinion is by Justice
Matthews.
DAMAGE SUIT.
A decision was also rendered in the case
of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company,
plaintiffs in error VS., Patrick Mackey,
IN faI.ror to tba S,Drap7a Court of tho AStot ~
Kansas The defendant in this case was
employed by the railroad company
and wasl injured by the negligence
of one of the company's engineers.
He brought suit and recovered
damages. In the trial the Judge charged
the jury to the effect that while at common
law master could not be held liable for an
injury sustained by one servant through
the negligence of fellow servant, yet that
this rule had been abrogated, so far as rail
roads were concerned, by the statute of the
State of Kansas enacted in 1874, declaring
that railroads should be liable for damages
done to- any employe by the carelessness of
fellow employe. The railroad ex-
cepted 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 railroads shall be liable
for injury to passengers and freight con-
fided to the care Of employees of the
roads The objection that the law deprives
railroads of equal protection of the laws
seems to rest upon the theory that legisla-
tion which is special in its character
is necessarily within the constitutional
inhibition, but nothing can be further
from the fact. The greater part of
legislation is special and Is not obnoxious
to the fourteenth amendment on that
ground, The business of operating rail-
road is a specially hazardous one and would
business of other corporations is not SUBJ
ject to similar dangers to their employees,
and no objections, therefore, can be made
to the legislation on the ground of discrim-
ination. 1t meets a particular necessity,
and all railroad corporations are, without
distinction, made subject to the same liza
biliuies.