The Cape Girardeau Democrat. (Cape Girardeau, Mo.) 1876-1909, 1895-05-04
gene. or Indifference Of this switch.

genes or Indifference OF this Switch
Gan, employed TO perform certain
duties. TIE engineer is crushed or
burned to death. CT terribly mutiiated. With
the employment q the Switchman the engi-
neer had nothing 70 do; lie had no connection
With him: he hal not even known him The
7 engineer was in 10 sense TO blame: he had
simply discharged his duty to the fullest limit.
Under TIE law Of Missouri the engineer would
have no legal claim for damages against his
employer. Is that right:
Let me suppose the case OF e train that
should have been sidetracked. but on the con-
trary, was ordered to proceed, and in cocse-
queace of which a collision occurred with ter
rible effect on trainmen and passengers. The
disaster was due to a dispatcher who misun-
derStood or was incapable Of understanding
his orders. or vas guilty OF some gross negli-
gence. The tralnmen were not TO blame;
they simply Obeyed orders and discharged
their duty. Should they be denied all
right OF redress against an employer who
takes q man in his service SO incompetent
or negligent as 10 precipitate such disaster:
II viii not do TO say that the employer was IN
aware OF the habits or ineficiency Of the
swiichman or dispatcher. II should he his
duty to keep himself informed. Passengers
injured in such wrecks would have a cause Of
action. Why should it not be equally the duty
OF the master TO protect its employees in such
cases as l have stated:
D-Sd>ttEs u the KIM OesCE4DeO nave &C
CURED. 1t would not be difficult 10 multiply
instances similar in nature, If not in detail
Such cases illustrate the unreasonable in
justice OF the harsh rule OF the common law,
and demonstrate the necessity of some ma
terial modincation OF it. The force Of this ne
ceSSity has been recognized both N England
and America.
In England, where the doctrine Of exempting
the master was first announced, it has been
greatly mitigated by the statuary enactment,
and in its application to servants operating
railway trains almost wholly abrogated.
! A number Of the American states have en-
tirely changed the rule OF the common law, in
SO far as it applies TO the employees Of railroad
corporations. Section 2OO2 Of the Iowa code
provides that
Every corporation operating a railway shall
be liable for all damages sustained by any per-
son, including employees of such corporation, in
consequence Of the neglect OF agents, or by any
acknowledgement Of the engineers or other en-
ployeS OF the corporation, and in consequence
Of the wi!lfll wrongs, whether Of commission
or omission. OF such agents. engineers or other
/ employees, when such wrongs are in any man
ner connected with the use and operation Of
any railway on or about which they shall be
employed. And no contract which restricts
such liability shall be legal or binding"
Laws OF similar import, and more or less
comprehensive. in the different states. have
4 49, 40 I 6Aos " IA 0AA-o
Florida. Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Wyoming and others. In Mississippi the new
and better doctrine was incorporated in the
constitution adopted in 1890. The l93d section
OF that instrument provides that Every en-
ploye OF my raiiroad corporation shall have the
same right and remedies for any injuries suf-
! fered by him from the act or omission of said
corporation or its employees as are allowed by
J law to other persons not employees" etc.
When the necessity OF q more humane and
enlightened rule-one more in harmony with
the altered conditions Of our later civilization
is being so generally recognized. both in
our own country and abroad, why should
Missouri stand obstinate in the path Of prog
ress, and cling stubbOrnly to an ancient prece-
dent which is fast coming under the ban OF
universal disapproval: Why should not Mis-
souri, enact a law for the proper protection Of
the 5000 men employed in operating the rail-
roads Of this state: Why should Missouri
postpone to the very last, much less deny, any
modification of a rule, unjust in itself, which
never had legislative sanction, but exists pure
ly as the creation OF judicial precedent. and
which stands almost universally conderlnedby
public opinion:
I venture to assert that there are not ten
men in a thousand who would conscientious
ly deny that 4 right Of action should exist
in such cases as I have above described.
Why then 90 We persist in perretuating a
rule of law which shuts the door OF the court
room in the face Of men who have suffered in
Juries for which. in all good conscience and
fairness, as a matter OF wise public policy and
simple justice. they should have redress:
will not say. for 1 do not believe. that there
is no man honestly and conscientiously op-
posed on principle TO a measure Of the kind in
question. It would be difficult to propose any
important measure of legislation or public
policy which would be free from criticism or
opposition from all quarters: and there are
some men, often very good men, so constituted
that their natural sphere is one Of the oppoSi-
ton. But this I say. without fear OF serious
contradiction. that q statute Of the character
proposed could be easily enacted If the ire
mcndous influences OF the railroad corporations
were not concentrated in constant and active
opposition.
Is there one 70 doubt that such a law would
find a place on The statute books If that oppo-
sition did not exist: And why do the corpora
tiOns oppose it: Only because 1t would result
in increasing 10 some extent their own pecuni-
arg liabilities. l know OF 10 other reason for
their opposition But exemption from pecuni-
ary liability in this behalf is ir itself the de-
NAL OK 4 right to others which should not be
denied. Considerations Of that character can
no: justify the maintenance OF a rule OF law
which, if not wrong in its inception, has been
so widened in the scope Of lis application that
manifest injustice is now frequently done IN
der its operation l would not do the least in
justice 10 railroad corporations. But they
should do justice themselves: they should not
seek IN advantage, nor strive to avoid
Just responsibilities. Especially should they
not resort 10 vicious or improper means
to perpetuate al advantage that ought not ex-
ist at all. In view OF the premises, 1 conf
IDENTIFY appeal TO the general assembly TO enact
a just and liberal measure OF legislation on this
subject, while at the same time 1 urge the ne
ceSSity OF exercising every possible care in its
preparation, so as to prevent any abuse Of its
provisions.
Imay be pardoned for divertiHC at this juno
ture to a contention put forth since nv prOcla-
nation converting the general assembly to the
eject that while the governor may submit any
given subject OF legislation at I special ses-
not. in anywiSe. limit the extent 20 which the
general assembly may go when il comes to deal
with that subject From that premises il is con-
tended that when the legislature is called for the
purpose OF defining BY law the relations and
liabilities which should exist between railroad
corporations and their employees, that call au-
thorizes the law-making power, under the con-
stitution, to take jurisdiction OF the whole
field OF the fellow-servant legislation and to
embrace in their enactnents all other classes
Of employers and employees.
The language Of the constitution is as fol-
lows:
The general assembly shall have no power.
when convened in extra session by the COVER
nor, to act upon subjects other than those
specially designated in the proclamation By