The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1895-11-16
RAILROADS IN THE CONVENTION
The following section was discussed
in the Convention on Tuesday:


in the Convention on Tuesday:
Section Is. Every employee of any
corporation doing business in thi
State shall have the same lights ant
remedies for any injury suffered b!
him from the act or omission Of suct
corporation or its employees as ART
allowed by law to other persons no
employees, and when drath ensue
from any injury to an employee thu
legal or personal representatives of
such employee shall have The same
rights and remedies us are allowed b,
law to such representatives Of Other
persons. Any contract or agreement
-sxpreessseaaA implied, made 5e-ae!sla5' a!lj
employee to waive the benefit Of this
section shall be null anu void.
The committee accepted Mr.. Will
sons substitute and the debate pro-
ceeded on the substitute.
Mr.. Ragsdale, of Fairfield, was op
posed to the substitute and the original
section. He said: We cannot mend
matters by adopting provisions mani
festly unjust. Corporations are now
liable for the same damages as inGi-
viduals. The section is wrong in
principle and should come out. There
should be no exception made against
corporations. If you view this matter
aside from the corporations you will
not hold a corporation liable for the
damages Of co-scrvant. It will be
seen BY the statute law that all that
can be expected is already provided
for, a1.1 better than IS provided tor in
this section. The injured employee
has better claim against a corpora
ton, better than that Of anyone else.
The servant now has adequate rene
dies, and there is no possible way to
defeat the right of the servant except
in case Of Insolvency, and that cannot
be helped. These corporations employ
8 great many Sc ?ants, and in my
opinion the rule as to negligence had
been extended inst As far as it we'll can
be.
Mr.. McCaslan, Of Abbeville, said
there should be some way Of protect
ing the employees Of road. In the
case of rear end accident, where the
rear train follows orders, he saw every
reason why the conductor, engineer
or fireman should be protected and
have right to sue.
Mr.. Henderson: s'In such q ca
the injured persons have a common
law ri ght, and the flagnan stands in
the shoes Of the railroad. Railroad
companies must give proper signals,
and if they depute that duty to flag
man he must carry out the orders.
Mr.. Nathans, Of Charleston, thought
}he substitute as Objectionable as the
original. It tignored entirely the risk
Of a servant. An employee necessarily
has 10 assume certain risks. When
the law requires the master or en-
pleyer to have proper appliances and
to e1ei else due care, it has given that
protection that ought to be given in
view of the fact that his pay is regu-
lated by the risk he las to run. It is
10 be presumed that al corporations
employ safe and competent servants.
Such special legislation is gross in
Justice to all corporations. 1t is pro-
posing protection not given any other
CLASS OF employees.
Mr.. Glenn, Of Chester, said that
with e few amendments the section
was about the same as the present law.
This, however, was simon-pure legis-
lation. The Convention has nothing
to do with this. This is not q part OF
Constitution making. If there was no
other objections it ought to be thrown
out. Further, it is class legislation.
It provides q different rule for iGdi-
vidusls and corporations.
Mr.. Glenn, Of Chester, moved to
strike cut the words, cor one engaged
about different Piece Of work" He
did not want to break the section, but
thought it would clarity The sectioa.
The section was adopted.