Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1893-02-02

sections if death had not en-
sued, an action therefor shall be brought
in the manner provided by section 23lO
of the Compiled Laws of New Mexico, as
amended by chapter XIX of the Session
Laws of 1891 of New Mexico, and any
sum recovered therein shall be sub ject to
all of the provisions of said section 231O
as 80 amended.
Sec. 4. This act shall take effect and
be in force from and after its passage.
1t came up on its third reading.
Mr.. Martinez moved to strike out the
words through the exercise of reasona-
BILE care and diligence in" and said that
he did SO at the instance of those who
had special interest in the bill. As pro-
posed by the railroad committee it would
be no improvement on the present law.
This bill in no way divides the risk be-
tween the company and the employees;
and even with these words stricken out it
Is only small step toward improvement.
Mr.. Fall: "Ihese are the qualifying
words which to some extent equalize the
risk between the company and the en-
ployes. There is no need to discuss as
to whether the companies are grinding
corporations or not.
"Following the Iowa statute it is pro-
vided in the first section of this bill that
the railroad company shall be responsible
in a sum sufficient to com pensate him for
damage or injury sustained in Its service
by reason of mismanagement,c careless
ness, default, neglect or wrongful act of
any other servant of the company. The
qualifying clause, as drawn up by Mr.
Martinez and myself, was afterwards
adopted by the committee, which means
that when an employee Is injured, that
two or three questions of fact are pre-
sented to the jury. First, whether there
is any damage; second, the amount; third,
whether that damage can be traced to the
railroad company through want of due
care and diligence in the selection of COM
petent employees, and that it has not over
worked them. If reasonable carefulness
has been exercised the jury must acquit
the company. Under the present law the
poor man took all the risk, under the
amendment the company takes it all. !
might paint pictures of the father dying
in the company's service by the fault of
fellow EN- ploye, and his family actually
suffering for food; but on the other hand
I could show the company paying hun
dreds of thousands of dollars for the
neglect of an employe; even it may be by
the fault of one whose retention has been
forced on the company to avoid strike
Right and wrong exist on both sides, and
the time of this council is too precious to
enter into the merits of the case. The
railroad company should have the priv
| H.. Is AL,A ~
IDLE for such man.
"Mr. Veeder said the other day that the
employe has the worst of it before the
court because he can not obtain neces-
sary evidence. My experience is that the
jury is always prejudiced against rail
road company; and our courts very sell
dom reverse finding of fact. In these
cases it is only when the supreme court
announces the doctrine of contributory
Negligence that the railroad gets its
right under the present law. This pre-
serves the equilibrium.
"This bill wipes out the doctrine of con-
tributory negligence and makes it jury
question; and the company must prove
due care and diligence in employing its
men. 1t is simply the qualifying clause
that divides the risk between the men
and the company that I am constrained
to insist upon"
Mr.. Veeder; "When this substitute
came up before had not considered it
carefully, and then desired to have the
subject re-referred, and if possible to
have a compromise substitute reported.
No agreement has been reached. The
effect of the amendment offered by Mr..
Martinez would be to make the company
the insurer of the lives of its employees
just as it is of it's passengers. 1t requires
an absolute perfection on the part of the
corporation, and assumes an impossible
ty of mechanical skill and an in
fallibility OF human judgment. If this
we're possible I would be willing
to allow the employees demand. This be-
ing impossible, due care and diligence is
the most we can demand. All we can do
in justice is to divide the responsibility
of error between the employe and COM
pany. If the men can not furnish alb
solute perfection why should the company
be required to do so. The company does
its work through the fallible human be-
ings whom it employs; and all that can
be required of them is due diligence. Is
it just that the corporations should pay
all damages suffered by employees? This
is as far as we ought to go. The COM
panies should not be required to insure
their employees lives"
Mr.. Hubbell: do the railroads keep
incompetent men in their service?"
Mr.. veeder: II am not able to BAY from
personal experience; but do know that
as the company is responsible for every
passengers life and all freight, that it has
the highest interest to secure the best
employees, and the best reason to dis
charge an incompetent man. Some may,
it is true, be retained because of fear of
workingmen's associations, and if this is
so is it right, equal or just that the COM
pany should suffer for his negligence?
"Labor is as exacting in its demands as
capital; and it is my duty to preserve
golden mean between them. At this
period of New Mexico's history the exact
ing demands of neither should be regard
ed. We should drive away neither cap
ital nor labor, but encourage both. Either
may be driven away by radical legisla-
ton, and both are necessary to our growth.
Let us treat this question so as not to re-
tard our future.
II maintain that the employe has the
greater task to present a case in court,
but the prejudices of juries against cor
porations is sufficient Offset
Mr.. Hnbbell: "How can the employee
prove due diligence in the selection of
employees, except by railroad officials?"
Mr.. veeder: "In many ways. 1t is
possible to prove defects in machinery,
track, ETC., by employees. Of course, it is
not easily done, or that the company has
not the advantage. If an employe will
not give true testimony for his injured
fellow workmen in court of justice, be-