The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1895-11-20
At present corporations were liable

The whole thing was wrong in princi-
pie and should come out There
should be no discrimination between
corporations. Look at the matter
aside from corporations, and
you will not hold corporation liable
for damages to coServant. All that
could be reasonably expected was al
ready provided for in a better way
than in this section. The injured
man had the best claim against a
corporation. The servant had ad-
equate remedies at law. They could
not defeat the rights of servant, ex-
cept in cases of insolvency--somethin
that could not be helped. The rule as
to negligence had been extended as far
as it should be. This was putting too
much on the corporations. There was
great danger of al unfair liability un-
der the section. The proposition was
too unjust to do any good.
Mr.. McCaslan wanted the employees
of a road protected in some way. Take
the case of a rear end collision when the
rear train follows; orders; there was
every reason why the conductor, en-
gineer and firemen should be protect
ed and be allowed to recover.
Mr.. Henderson stated that in such
cases the injured persons had COM
mon law right and the flagman stood
in the shoes of the railroad. The rail
road conferred certain duties it had
to discharge upon its fiagman and
that made the corporation responsible.
MIR. sTANYARNE WILSON.
Mr.. Stanyarne Wilson thought that
MIR. McCaslan was correct.
MIR. PRINCE.
Mr.. Prince said that the trouble was
that it only applied to one class of
Observation-Disclosures
DR.. Stokes thought the substitute
covered this and all other objections,
in his opinion.
The substitute was then put before
the house by thepresident.
There was further debate on both
sides.
MIR. Henderson submitted that if an
engineer was obeying the orders of a
conductor, the conductor stood in the
attitude of the corportion and was re-
sponsible.
Mr.. Wilson said it only makes the
railroad liable when an employe could
not protect himself from the acts of
superior.
MIR. J. L. Glenn said this substitute
with a few amendments was the same
thing as the present law. This was
simon-pure legislation. 1t was regrt-
lating the relation between employe
and employer. If not amended, the
matter would be unwise-it would he
class legislation.
DR.. Stokes wanted to know if the
corporations didn't get special privil-
eges.
MIR. Glenn said they got none so far
as the employees were concerned. The
roads had no authority over their en-
ployes different from an individual.
Mr.. Wilson's plan went further in
class legislation than all other schemes
he had heard of; it wanted to discrirn-
mate between the corporations.
Mr.. Glenn then cited cases, assisted
by Mr.. D. S. Henderson, going to
show that even a section master occu-
pied the position of the company in
regard to his little crew.
Mr.. Howell then took the floor,
agreeing with Mr.. Glenn, and said it
was class legislation of bad kind.
There were farmers who had corpora.
tions of their own.
DR.. Stokes-If you are satisfied with
the law a., 1t stands, why object to
putting it in the Constitution
Mr.. Howell said that he objected
because he wanted no legislation
placed in the Constitution. He would
vote against the section and the sub
stitute also.
Mr.. Bates asked him if section 10
was strictly legislative also.
MIR. Henderson asked Mr.. Bates, as q
member of the committee, why he had
presented report that he admitted to
be purely legislative in nearly all par
| ticulars.
MIR. Stanyarne Wilson then argued
that it was simply to put the employ
es on the same plane as passengers
Mr.. D. s. Henderson moved to in
definitely postpone the whole. Lost
yeas 81, nays So.
Mr.. Henderson moved to strike out
the last sentence to the substitute read
ing "The general assembly may ex-
tend the remedies herein provided for
to any other class of employees"
Mr.. OTIS moved to table this amend
ment, which was done.
Mr.. Ragsdale said the substitute was
less Objectionable than the original
and should pass for that reason.
Mr.. Il. Glenn moved to strike out
the words "or one engaged in a separ.
ate piece of work" The motion was
tabled on motion of DR.. Stokes.
The substitute of Mr.. W. B. Wilson
was then adopted and clinched on
motion of DR.. Stokes.
Section sixteen was then taken up
and Mr.. Stanyarne Wilson moved to
strike out all after the word 'article'
on the third line.
Mr.. w. B. Wilson said there was
nothing which they could put in this
Constitution that would SO frighten
capital away from the State as this.
It was throwing an unnecessary block
in the way of the march of progress
upon which the State was just enter
ing. ,
The amendment was adopted and
then the section went through in this
shape:
Section 16. All existing charters or
grants of corporate franchise under
which organizations have not in good