St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-02-04

in order that they may be considered III
committee.
creased powers. A.,
Winston that the bill should go to the
judiciary committee. ~ ~.
Mr.. Rodgers thought this bill, like
maav Others Introduced this year, should
go iI:tn the waste basket. He thought
it was Intended to give greater power to
rob t. q, people.
MIR. Turrell thought the time used
would tie lost, and hoped 1t WOULD 20 10
the judi" committee
Mr.. Dunn did not wish to be diScourte-
Gus. and would withdraw his motion 10
indefinitely postpone. and allow it TO 90
to the iud cary committee. The mo-
ton to refer TO the Judiciary committee
prevailed.
Tie neXt bill on general orders was
II. +. ~, Mr. Walshs bill, increasing
the limit in case of accidental death
from 5000 to S12,500
Mir. Cotton moved that the bill be re
committed to the judiciary committee
in order that the minority OF the mem
bers of that committee might have an
opportunity to present a minority re-
port. $50,
Mr.. Walsh, the author of the Dill,
hoped the measure, which he cOnSlu-
cred one Of the most merltOrlouS before
the house, would be placed on the cal
endar
Mr.. Fleming explained his position
at the time the bill was forced out OF
the judiciary committee. 1t was to eS-
tablish the precedent that the commit
tees should not be allowed to hold back
bills, but to act promptly and return
them early to the house. He was IN
favor OF recommitment, and hoped the
minority would have an opportunity to
submit il minority report. Mr.. hopkins
thought il was going back on the prece-
dent established Wednesday, and was
opposed TO rccommitment.
Mr.. Abbott was also opposed, and
gave as a reason for so dong that there
had been deriSive thvuSts made at the
Judiciary committee which he SAID
would not even be tolerated III town
meeting in South Dakota. The second
reason was that there was no question
to be decided by the committee, as all
that WIS to be under consideration was
whether the amount to be recovered Ill
case OF accidental death should be IN
creased to So, 500, or remain where 1t is
now, $1,000
Mr.. Leonard agreed with Mr.. Abbott
that the bill should pass, and without
again going into the hands OF the
judiciary committee.
Mr.. Cairns called attention to the TACT
that the bill applies to any farmer in the
state, as we'll as the wealthy corpora
tons. He also took advantage of the
opportunity 10 administer a roast to the
personal INJURY lawyers who make cases
whether cases exist or not. lie Illus
trated the conditions that would arise
under the law.
Mr.. Walsh answered Mr.. Cairns, and
said that all he cOntended for was just
,ce. He made long speech rehearslng
The history of the change two years ago,
when the amount was reduced to $1,000,
and claimed that it was brought about
by the assistance of a corrupt lobby.
Mr.. Turrell spoke of the changes
made two years ago, and said he knew
IF several instances where verdict of
el2. $50 would bankrupt small manufac-
turing concerns. He said he was not
prepared to vote on the limit at the
present time, but hoped the bill would
NOT be recommended 10 pass in Its pres
ent shape.
Mr.. Abbott said there had been enough
said to render it unnecessary to recon-
nit, and moved to amend the motion to
recommit by recommending that when
the committee arise it recommend the
bill to pass.
Mr Cotton asked that the minority
have chance to make a minority re-
port. Denied that he is a corporation
lawyer, and claimed that the measure is
a miSchievouS one, intended to enrich
the personal injury lawyers. He said
that the fixing of the limit is illogical,
as there is no scale by which to measure
the value OF the life of a man. The
death OF some men is good radiance to
their wives and children, while the
death of another man means a loss that
amounts TO ten times the limit fixed in
the bill. He argued that all interests
should be taken into consideration. In
the majority Of cases $1,000 is IA just
limit in the interest Of public policy.
Judge fleming-There is a whole
some, proper and right rule for esti-
mating damages, and | can see no
reason why the limit to be recovered
should not be arbitrarily fixed. He
could see no more reason why the legiS-
latule should fix limit for the loss of
life than for the loss of an arm or any
other member Of the body. If there is
anything wrong about the present limit,
$1,000, let il stand until the citizens OF
this state are ready to wipe it out en-
rirely and 90 back TO the old method of
assessing the measure of damages.
Mr.. Greer thought the punishment
administered by the house to the judi
cial committee would be a lesson, and
that in the future he thought that COM
mittee would not act so hastily, and ia
VOred recommitment.
Mr.. Fletcher characterized some of
tie personal injury lawyers as worse
than criminals, and spoke OF the in
fernal OutrageS perpetrated by the
1iends engaged in this business.
Mr.. Bleecker tried to shut off Mr..
Fletcher, bat the chair held that Mr..
Fletcher was in order.
Mr.. Fletcher continued to recite the
methods pursued by one of the prin-
cipal attorneys engaged in this sort of
business. He said that he had been
taken into the confidence of one Of
these men, and told how he manufact-
urpd evidence. MI. Fletcher stated he
thought the lawyers who are engaged
in practice of this nature are confined
TO the three large cities of the state; the
members of the country bar were not
parties to it. Mr.. Fletcher said he ia
vored limiting the amount of fees at
tOrneys may receive for conducting per-
Sonal injury suits. If this were done
he would be in favor of wipng out the
limit to be recovered, as the business
would then be conducted by reputable
attorneys. Mr.. Walsh claimed that
when attorneys were particularly sharp
and able and fortunate in securing large
verdicts, they are soon found dangling
Oh the strings of wealthy corporations.
Nh. Williams tried to read amend
ments to the bill
Il. Cole raised the point of order