St. Paul daily globe., 1893-02-28
LAWYERS FIELD DAY,
The Legal Gentlemen Take UI
Most of the Time.

MT. Cotton spoke at great length
against the amendment as being in
iquitous and not in the interests of all
the people. He quoted with impress
siveness an old English law, which
limits the amount to be received in
such cases to g1,000. and asserted that
nearly all of the American states have
established such rate as fair and
proper. The gentleman from Duluth
grew very fierce and denunciatory,
when Mr.. Walsh sharply called him to
order as misquoting utterances on the
floor. Mr. Cotton disclaimed any inten
ton Of putting the gentleman from
Ramsey in false position, and went
Oh in very earnest manner to combat
the intent of the bill.
Mr.. Horton took strong ground in
favor of the bill. He said not seintilla
of evidence had been presented to sup
port the claim of those who are OppOS-
ing the bill that mans life shall not
be held worth as mnch as a leg or an
arm. In Minneapolis very recently a
man had recovered 10000 for the loss
of limb. The speaker ridiculed the
arguments of the member from Duluth
as to the common law rule established
in England, and quoted some of the
crimes in the era referred to by the last
speaker. He submitted that such weak
arguments should have no weight in
the settlement OF question touch
ing the value of human life.
When an accident occurs on railroads
through negligence, said he, the first
inquiry the managers send out is not
"HoW many are killed." but ''How
many are hurt?" Because there is where
the cost to the companies is heaviest. /
hope the bill will be passed,
Mir. O'Neill opposed the bill, because
ne considered it the worst kind of class
legislation. in favor of the rich man.
Mr.. Wyman said the gentleman from
Big Stone had in few words stripped
the mask from the sophistry of1the
arguments made by the legal gentlemen.
The bill would put money in the pockets
of the friends of the rich man who
might be killed and in the pockets OF
which appeared in the GLOBE he COIL
sidered very sensible. 1t had proposed
all amendment which would limit the
amount of fee to be recovered by the
plaintiffs counsel, and he would pro-
pose such an amendment later on.
p. H. Kelly spoke in opposition to- the
amendment. As an employer of labor
for thirty-tive years he had never de-
Tended personal injury suit. He Won
dered that the author of the bill had not
specified what amount the lawyers
should receive in such cases, and thought
the general run of employers could be
trusted to de al fairly by their employees.
Mr.. Fleming said he could not sup
port the amendments, and was i'll favor
of leaving the law just as it is at pres
ent He had been special target for
the opposition Of the railroads last fall,
and was under no obligation to them.
But careful investigation had convinced
him that the bill was calculated to work
in jury to the industrial interests of the
stat e, and to the best interests of the
poor men whom it was sought to bene-
tit. Being convinced he was wrong
when he pronounced for. the bill last
week, he now had no hesitation In say
Ing he thought the law should be left as
it is.
Mr.. Walsh said he knew if all en-
ployers were like his friends Kelly and
Wyman no widow or orphan would ever
have to 20 begging for pittance, as
they do when dealing with great cor
porations. But all employers were not
like them, and in the interest of conf
mon justice he hoped the bill would be
enacted into law. He quoted an edl-
torial from the GLOBE of Sunday in
favor of abolishing the limit, and as
serted that all the best thinkers Of the
land would coincide with the opinions
and arguments therein expressed.
Mr.. Abbott spoke vehemently in sup
port of the principle of the bill, but
against the amendment. He recalled
many terrible accidents occasioned by
hnl do
men are surrounded by dangers which
may be oosed for their destruction by
negligence of employees. 1t was cold
blooded, he admitted, to plead tor a
limit; but he believed in fixing one. He
thought there was Il middle ground. and
he was in favor of trying to find it lit
tie higher than $1,000.
Mr.. Holmberg thought there was no
demand for such law, and said he
should vote against the amendm ents.
Mr.. Linnemann expressed himS elf as
decidedly in favor OF the present law.
He thought the pending bill was i'll fa-
yor OF the lawyers alone.
Mr.. Wacek offered an amendment en-
powering the jury to liX the compensa-
tion of counsel in such cases, ami pro-
vide that no additional sum should be
asked or received.
Mf. w dlSD expressed nlluS6tI dS uedTG-
lily in favor of the amendment.
Mr. Ives said he was glad that the
bill could now be put in shape to re-
ceive the support of his friend Wyman.
He went on to make powerful argu-
ment for the bill, holding that in the
wisdom of the courts OF older days the
principle has been established that
actual damages should be recovered by
the person or persons injured, and he
saw no reason why heirs or next OF kin
should not have the same right of action
where negligence resulted in destruc-
ton of life. Only in such cases, he
held, could anything be recovered at
any time. He also expressed himself
as in favor OF an employers liability
bill.
P. II. Kelly said he had investigated
in the constituency of his young col
league from Ramsey and could find
no man who knew anything about this
bill. He considered that corporations
had some rights as we'll as individuals,
and fairness should govern the action
OF the legislature i'll such matters. The
pending bill he considered a personal
injury lawyers BILL and the title should
be changed TO read that way.
Mr.. Greer struck the logic and merit
of the arguments in a brief speech. He
did not believe the legislature should
fix the price of human life. They re-
fused to attempt to fix the price of
wheat or other commodities. yet here