Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-03-18
rFRoM A STAFF CORRESPONDENT. ]

HARRISBURG, March 17.-There was an
other battle over the employers liability bill
this afternoon, the manufacturers of Phila-
delphia coming in carloads and special
trains TO induce the Senate Judiciary Gen
eral Committee TO jump on Senator Hines
bill with both feet. The bill differs some
what from that introduced in the House by
D. R. Jones, OF Allegheny, though intended
10 accomplish the same end.
Senator Hines advocated his bill in fiery
speech in which he said it aimed to estab-
lish the same rule adopted in Massachusetts,
Ohio, Wisconsin and Alabama. The rule laid
down by our Supreme Court bore more harshly
upon the employe than that of any other State,
and was contrary to that held by the United
States Supreme Court. He scored the Penn
syivania supreme Court numerically, quoting
from Lawson on railroad cases, where he warns
the student of law not to pay too much regard
to the decisions of that body on questions rela-
ting to carriers, and particularly in late years.
it seems to be in control of the Pennsylvania
Railroad which corporation appears to manage
it as thoroughly as it manages the rest OF its
affairs.
Ex-senator Louis Hall, of Harrisburg. ap-
peared for the manufacturers, and handled
Senator Hines very roughly for attacking cor
poratlnns and the Supreme Court He claimed
that Pennsylvania owed her wealth, power and
progress to the corporations. The present rule
relative to co-employes had been held for so
years. 1t had been laid down by Read. 1homp-
son, Agnew. Sherwood and Mercrr. These
were men who could not be belittled by the
assertions Of Mr.. Hines. In this State cor
porations were not exempted from the pay
ment of damages for death or in
jury if they had bad machinery or
incompetent managers. But they were not
ami should not be insurers against accidents.
The rule in this State obtained in every State
but eight, New York and Indiana went even
further than Pennsylvania. In almost every
instance. the States which had changed from
the common law had returned to it. Georgia
and Iowa had changed the common law to
place limited responsibility on railroads, but
not on manufacturers. In Massachusetts they
had limited damages for death to s., 900 and for
injuries to $1,000 and expressly excepted farm
laborers from the operation OF the law
England had changed the rule n lSSO, but was
now demanding its repeal
Mr.. Hall was extremely discourteous in his
argument, his references to his opponents as
Hines" and Jones" being in marked bad
taste, 10 say the least. 1t was generally ad-
mitted that he did not help the manufacturers
very much. Thomas Dolan, representing the
Manufacturers Club of Philadelphia, said he
did not represent corporations, as 70 per cent
of the club we're individual manufacturers,
representing Sl00, ,000, 600 capital and employing
100000 workmer. He held thas manufact-
urers could not run their establishments
under a law like this. In many cases
they could only employ union men, and under
this bill an employer might be held liable for
the negligence of q man who had been forced
upon him by the union. 1t would also tend to
drive manufacturers ont OF the state. The
South was offering a field for manufacturing
free from these unfavorabe conditions. II the
bill becomes law it would rob Pennsylvania
of its supremacy as an industrial State.
The Judiciary General Committee seemed
somewhat dazed by the evil depicted by one
side and predicted by the other, and adjourned
without taking any action.