The Indianapolis journal., 1891-01-29

Argument In Favor of House Bill No. go.
To the Editor of the indianapolis Journals
The Legislative Board of Locomotive Engineers
desires present its views to the public touching
q bill now before the Legislature, In which loco
motive engineers, locomotive iremen. switch
men. brakemen and conductors are profoundly
interested. We call attention to Bill No. 20, in
troduced In the Pouse by Hon. L. Inman, enti-
tied IAN act TO extend and regulate the liability
OF employers to make compensation for personal
injuries suffered by employees In their service"
As matters now stand there 10 no statute in In
diana upon the subject, and as q consequence,
when when an dis emRiloye OF a,l.,Ia railroad ,p op
or death was caused by the negligence
or the ignorance, or the mistakes of a coem-
caflies to the rescue of the employer the corpora
ton, and the case OF the employe, crippled or
dead, is unceremon1ously thrown out of court
intact, this common law" practice operates in
way that prevents the injured emplOye from
getting into court at all, In any proper sense.
Hoe never gets his case before FURY Of his
peers" His case is never heard on its merits.
III the employer shows, as he usually does show.
that the Injury for which compensation is de-
manded was the result of the negligence or ig-
norance of a coemploye, the court consults de-
cisons handed down from remote generations
and then and there the case is killed, killed by
decision outrageousy i'll degrogation of the rights
ofCthe injured employe.
We deem 1t worthy of remark that this thing
called common law" ought not, in the nature
origin before the age Of steam. Its authors, if
siIch a term were admissible. never dreamed OF
arailroad, nor could they have any custom. or
their highest courts any conception of the rights
OF railroad employees, and When any OF their
customs, or habits, decisions made to
strike down the rights of railroad employees eil-
gagged IN the train of the State, an in
justice Is perpetrated so fagrant that unbiased
/ lten see the wrong at a glance In such cases
the commOn-law decision Is always in favor of
the employer, the corporation. and, necessarily,
always against the emplOye, because, under the
lcommOn law, an employe had few, If any, rights
the employer was bound to respeot. He was
L. the newer of wood and the drawer Of water"
I HI was flood for powder" He was not a citi-
zen, RS we understand the term He had no
voice in the government, and wac expected TO be
satisfied III he was permitted to ltve
y What does the bill which has been introduced
indry or death a railroad empioye. or his heirs.
may come into court on an equality with his en-
plOBer, with the corporation, and not be knocked
eoutfey some old moss-grown precedent, some
antisuated custom, some decision based upon
other decisions forming links In chain of decis-
ions ions running back into the twilight of civiliza,
there is nothing unusual. We say that since in
sgodd old colony times" the American people
have been constantly modifying and abrogating
common law by enaoting statutes, the Constitu-
tons of the original States providing for such
modification and repeal. and we therefore assert
that no serious consequences can result to the
jurisprudence of Indiana by the enactment of a
law which does only simple justice to a large
number of the citizens of the State, by enabling
absolute equality with railroad corporations AS
matters now stand this right Is denied them,
and we confess our astonishment when informed
that there are members of the Legislature who
are hostile 10 the measure we advocate. 1t is
urged by some that to pass the bill will create
confusion IN the Jurisprudence of the State; that
II will be revolutionary law; that old land
marks will disappear. and 40 on. for qantity and
quality. We are of opinion that what are urged
as objections should be accepted as cOgent argu.
ments In favor of the measure. We simply de-
mand that crippled employe may come into
court not handicapped by any cOmmOn-aw
practice whatever, and that his heirs may do
the same when his mangled remains are gath
whatever and earnestly protest against the dis
advantages under which we now labor, and
which we believe the bill under consideration
will substantially remove.
If the bill introduced by Mr. Inman secures to
large body of men simple justice, which has
hitherto been denied them; IL it enthrones the
right and crushes wrong, is ii to he regarded
as Objectionable because II creates, for the time
being, new departure In court practicel Are
wrongs to be regarded as sacred because of their
antiquityl Are they to be perpetrated and prac-
ticed because the few-the rich. the corporations
will be benefited by their continuance; or, be-
cause If they are cloven down partial, dshon-
orahle and uns0und Jurisprudence will be revO-
mits the owner of a goose. sheep. a pig, mule,
an ass, anything OF bovine order, III Ii is
MANNED or killed, to come into conrt AMI sue for
damages and the case is heard on its merits;
old cOmmon-law decision. or practice, or maxim,
Is permitted To interfere with the course of us.
tice And are We TO conclude that railroad M
ploye is TO be denied rights which are promptly
recognized when citizen whose live stock has
been manned or killed demands compensation
LEGISLATIVE BOARD OF THE
LOCOMOTIVES ENGINEERS.
INDIANAPOLIS, Jan. IS.