The morning call., 1895-02-26
The SOUTHERN PACIFIC Won ITS
POINT BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE.
AND THE APPEAL IGNORED.
IF THE BILL BECOMES LAW THE
CITY WILL HAVE TO PROSE-
CUTE.


| appeared before the Committee on Corpor-
atoms tonight to urge favorable action on
Assembly Bill No. 8S2 This is the bill
which proposesto strike out that clause of
the civil code which makes the railroad
company liable in 5000 damages for every
time it refuses to grant stopover privileges
ON tickets sold at lawful rates.
The bill provides instead that the cor
poration violating the provisions of this
act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. This
makes it liable to fine of not more than
$500, though the fine may be only cents.
The person aggrieyed also has recourse
for the damage by him sustained"
DR.. W. III. Robinson was on hand to
fight the measure. To every member of
the House he had sent the following letter:
To the Members of the Legislature: The sole
and only object of the bill is to interfere with
cases now pending in the courts and deprive
the people of stopover rights, which recent
decision OF the Supreme Court secured in the
case OF Robinson VS.. the Southern Pacific Com
pany.
This bill is an appeal to the Legislature to
nullify that decision, deprive DR.. Robinson of
rights and remedies that decision gave him
and relieve the railroad company from all liza
bility under that decision and put on one poor
old man a burden Of at least $4,000 expense
incurred in securing that decision and making
the railroad company grant stopover rights to
the people.
No one in California except the railroad COM
pany wants section 400 repealed and Assembly
bill S82 passed. The railroad company has
always violated section 400, and has made
from $500, 900 to $500, 900 out of the people of
this State in SO doing. Now, as soon as
DR.. Robinson has, through the courts,
compelled them to obey that law
they come to ask legislative protection
for intentionally defying the law ever since it
was passed and depriving the public of the
right the law gave them. do not ask the Leg
islature to do the least wrong to the railroad
company, nor do I ask the least favor for N.Y.
self, but do, in the name of American man
hood and justice, ask this Legislature not to
interfere in a legal contest between one of the
weslthiest and most powerful corporations of
the nation and one poor old man.
Surely corporation worth hundreds of
millions and the power and influence such
vast resources give has nothing to fear from
such contest, and is able to take care of itself
without coming to this legislature for protee-
ton. Is there any danger that shall hurt the
railroad company in a fair legal contest to
make it obey the law?
Once more 1 implore you, the representa-
tives of the people, not to crush me in this
contest, if am beaten 1 will not plead the
baby act and ask the Legislature to help me.
He addressed the committee on much the
same line. Senator Savage urged that the
bill was a fair one. 1t made the crime q
public one, he exclaimed, and thus relieved
the citizen from the burden of bringing
suit. 1t made the company liable for a
fine of $500, as well as giving the aggrieved
persons damages, and SO he thought it was
really more valuable than the old measure.
Barker of Santa Barbara protested that
the new bill offered no incentive for
the individual to take time to fight for his
ceive a fitting sum for his lost time and
trouble, if he got anything.
Mr.. Savage then said that the bill
would make it the District Attorneys
business to do the prosecuting, wherein
Mr.. Barker reminded him that every
body's business was nobody's business.
He thought it wrong to pass such law
that would seriously affect DR.. Robinsons
judgments.
He therefore offered as an amendment
the following: Provided that nothing in
this act shall apply to or affect any pend
ing action or any right or liability of any
person or corporation existing at the time
of the passage of this act''
Mr.. Barker waited anxidusly for second.
None came.
The other members of the committee
looked at him gravely, but said nothing.
Then they decided to recommend the bill
for passage as it stood. Mr.. Barker alone
voting ''No."
Those voting in its favor were Pendleton
(chairman) of Los Angeles, Hatfield of
Sacramento, Meads of Santa Clara, Dinkel-
spell of San Francisco, Cutter of Yuba, and
Davis of Tulare.