Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-08

~ fbtng Z" directid on required by ihiI
/ act 10 be done. not % BE- done. OF shail nl
or nbet such omission ~ failure snAlt VI
deemed guilty Of a mis1emeanor aud shall
upOu conviction thereof in any district cuufl
/ M the United states within tie iuris1ic
| ton Of which such cnense was cOmmltlel
| be subjected to fine not 60 exceed 500.
Doe any agent or person acting Tor or
| owul0yed hy such corporation" neon that
'ift afpiies only 10 the railroad companies
not 10 the individuals that have no Interest
in the properly OF the iouus' put Hi' Gun
ployes onlyf
Here is where the real difficulty comes
IN. and the finding Of the judges ON
these sections is plausible on It's face.
They themselves put it stronger than the
editor Of The News has.
In answer. some fundamental PROPOSE
tons Of law must be- stated, the correct
ness Of which will be admitted by nny
lawyer In the first place. statute Ia
derogation Of the common law or imp0s-
ing new liabilities. must be strictly con-
strued, and the entire context must be
considered IN order 10 arrive at the
legislative intent A word or a phrase
must give way 10 the real meaning Of
a statute when taken as a whole. An
agent Is only liable 20 his employer or
the employer 10 third persons for the
acts Of tho agent, within the scope Of his
employment, and even there the inferior
IL bound 10 obey the superior officer
The rule Of respondent superior was never
turned around 20 make on inferior cin-
ploye do that which by the terms Of HE
employment no &C. not allowed 30 do. Yet
that is exactly what The News thinks
should be done. Make the switchmcl os
IN this case, responsible under the inter
state commerce law for failure 70 proper
y receive. deliver or forward freight,
when he has no more 20 do with con-
tracing for the reception, delivery or
forwarding Of freight than has the
khedive Of Egypt II the general freight
agent Of n railroad company should re-
fuse 10 allow freight to be forwarded.
then tho construction given the statute
by The News, would make every cn.
ployc Of the railroad company liable 20
fine because he would "omit" 20 for
ward Il, in the language OF the law. ana
"aid' the general freight agent iu keep
Ing 70 where 10 was The proposition Of
making q strict literal construction IN
wolves endless ubsurdtics.
The law should be- strictly construed I'm
accordance with the legislative intent in
passing H. The looscncss Of Sos general
construction in providing a court without
power 20 enforce its DEGREES or even ,oiu-
pei the attendance of ,IIrsscg and
other features showing the legislation TO
pe crude, also constitutes an additional
reason for a strict and careful consiric.
ton
Every thinking man viii admit that the
present situation was never Thought Of
when passing the law, and not word
concerning IL appears Ia the debates upon
the subject.
What was evidently intended was 10
prevent determinations npninst any one
railroad by other roads. as Is stated in
the closing paragraph of the first sec
ton quoted they shall not discriminate
in their rates aud charges between such
connecting lines" There was no dis.
elimination IN rates or charges as ngainst
the Ann Arbor road And nvnin. these
carriers according 20 their respective
powers shall afford all reasonable.
proper aud equal facilities for
the Interchange Of traffic" This
the roads did according 10 their respec-
tive powers" they treated the Ann
Aroor road just as they did an other
roads similarly situated, they were pre-.
vented by condition Of aflnirs ON the
Ann Arbor road itself. which prevented
Them from exercising any more powers
han they did exercise. Il ism we'll.
known principle OF law that equality tx
matter OF class, for example. taxes arc
equal II equal M TO the class upon which
they operate II any other road was I'm
the condition Of the Ann Arbor road IA,
trouble would have been the same. IN,
railroads made no distinction or dis.
elimination against the Ann Arbor road
az matter of law.
Section ten Of the act provides tbot
when a person Is common carrier. tb,n
he shall be liable Tor violating the ln,,,s
provisions, or II the common cnrrier IL u,
corporation which can only net tbrourh
i's agents officers or trustees, then these
agents. officers or trustees shall be- Hable
for an infringement of the law. But II
does not mean TO include those EMPLOYEES
through which the corporation DOES not
net aud who have no authority 10 bind
it IN any way What the law intends 4.
to reach corporations as well as mdiyId.
uals' 10y making the agents, trustees
officers or employees empowered 10 receive
or refuse 20 receive forward or refuse 20
forward. deliver or refuse 10 deliver
liable, not ms Individuals. but as menbers
OF the corporation with authority 10 ACT
lor IT, That this was plainly tho intent
Is shown that as 60 common carriers
who are individuals and therefore Ia bc
reached personally, there is NO proyision
whatever concerning their agents or em.
ployes IL did not mean that an employe
without ministerial authority working
Tor corporation should De placed m
any worse position than the same class
OF employees working for individuals who
are common carriers That is what 'rbo
Ea@ette meant when Il said thai tho
law only applied TO the railroad com.
ppnies, not TO the individuals who bnvo
no interest Ia the property of the roads
hnt are employees only" This should be
hroadened 40 as 10 include such agents
as have power % hind the comnspi,,