Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1893-11-02
WITH THE PEOPLE.
Inc Republican Candidates for
judges Of the Supreme Court
and the Corporations.
misrepresentations by the Popu
lists but Their Past Record
Speaks for Itself.

y ~ oupiCulo anu CITCulG
courts has reached the lying stage.
Inc independent party realizing
That It's cause is hopeless has now
begun a systematic course of ms.
representation and falsehood
against the Republican candidates
Tor Judges of the supreme court to
cover up the weakness of their own
candidates who arc VIGOROUSLY
known to be untitled for the office
TO which they have been nominated.
With their old thread bare cry of
the corporations VS., the people they
are now engaged in circulating
through the columns of their papers
one of the worst contortions of truth
Imaginable. But they have made
"a mlscalculatlOn this time, and
when the truth of their false state.
ments Is learned the reaction
against their methods will cause
hundreds of honest voters Of South
Dakota, who had contemplated
voting for the independent candi-
dates, to vote for the Republicans.
The article in question which the
journal desires to call to the atten
ton of the voters of this state was
published IN the Grant County Re-
view and since It's first publication
has been copied in a majority ofthe
independent papers of the state.
The article is headed, "The Re-
publican Supreme Court Judges
Satisfactory to the Railroads." and
Is as follows:
The record the supreme court of this state has
made this year should be gratifying to the rail-
road companies. We fad the following:
Cronk VS.. c. NJ, & st. p. Ry. Action for dam
age on account of fire. The plaintiff recovered
in the lower court and was reversed by the su.
preme courT.
Smith W. c. NJ. & st. P. Ry. The railroad
beat in the court below and also beat in the
supreme court.
Uhe VS.. c. NJ. & st. p. Ry. The plaintiff beat
in the trial count and railroad won In the su.
prems court.
Belding W.. Black Hills & Fl. Pierre Ry. The
plaintiff has judgment in the trial court for
s., 900, and the supreme court reversed the
Judgment.
The juries in these cases thought that the
the court thought not,
The railroads have no ground for fear. The
cases may have been decided on the law but
it is difficult for the common mind to compre-
bend why.
Now what are the facts?
This artiale seems to mislead the
people by leading them to suppose
that these four cases are all the
railroad cases that have been de-
clded by the present supreme court.
There has been a total Of eighteen
railroad cases decided against the
railroad companies and five IN their
favor. Sixteen of these cases were
appeals by the railroads and OF these
sixteen twelve we're affirmed by the
court and four reversed. Of the
two cases appealed by individuals,
one was affirmed and the other re-
versed.
The independent papers have
taken the liberty of citing four OF
these cases, three of which were
cases reversed by the court. The
Journal has looked up the record
of the court upon these cases and
for the benefit of those who might
be misled we give the following
facts which we guarantee to be cor
rpct and can be verified by the Off
cial records:
In Belding VS.. r. L. Co., the
question was whether under our
statutes the action for instantaneous
killing should have been brought
Inv the administrator of the decea-
sed. or by the widow and heirs.
The supreme court held that under
section 5499, compiled laws, the
damages belong to the widow and
orphans and not to his creditors
and that the action should have
been brought by the widow. ana
we understand that an action Is
now pen ling ia behalf of the WIDOW
The question was simply whether
the administrator or the WIDOW ana
children were entitled to the com
~npnSation for the loss Of the nus
band and father. The supreme
court decided in favor OF the latter
reversing the trial court in that re-
spect. ~ Tho ~nIaip.
tiff recovered judgment. The trial
conrt directed the jury that II they
found for the plaintiff they should
add interest. Section 45'S OF tue
compiled laws makes vt optlona'
with the jury whether or not 70
allow interest. The Judgmen. OF
the supreme court was tnae .ns
Judgment should stand II Piaihtin