The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-05-08
FELLOW SERVANT BILL
MIR. LEWIS CONFIDENT his PRINCE
PIE WILL YET PREVAIL
He Founded His Measure in Equity
Wns Killed In the House.

feilow-RerYant bill ~ asked post repre-
sentative Of Senator Lewis. author OF the
senate bill on that subiect
"Ot course. | feel disappointed that the
house did not rass either the original bill
or the modified bill as 1t came from the
senate" he replied u feel that the prin-
ciple upon which my bill WAS based vac
just and sound and Will In time be general
ly recognized. ANY doctrine that prevents
an o1nploye from recovering damages for
personal Injuries, merely because he is an
cmploye is wrong and unjust and can not
be sustained. The liability OF a railway
corporation ought not to depend GIsoa the
Identity uf the person injured 1t ought
TO be controlled by legal principle, uni
form In lis application TO all persons alike
II stranger be injured through the neg
Hgcnt acts Of an cmployo the corporation
is liable. Il an etnployc. however. be in
lured undcr tnc same circumstances, or
even by be SAME acts. the corporation 20
not liable This ] BAY, H. discrimination
against the employe aud ought to he
changed II the company Is hold respou-
sable for the negligent acts Of its servants
upon The legal principle that such acts are
itA OWN thea H. ought TO be Liable 10 every
person Who suffers injury for such ncgli-
gent acts. ! believe the railroad CON, amy
owes as high obligations 10 It's employees
as II does TO strangers With whom II has 10
connection, and it II no hardship upon the
company 10 make It's liability to rs en-
ployeS the sam" Ms Is It's Liabilities to
suangers--no greater, no ioss
Besides the question Of "qr,ul justice
there is a serious consideration Of public
policy involved 4 railway .,nplo,e loses
an "A mr. M tu fa.tfrf
pied through the negligence Of another
employ the loss muat fall either upon the
crippled omploye or upon the company.
Public policy asks who can best afford to
bear the loss? In the Farwell cuHe- tn,
leading cdHc giving birth 20 the fellow
servant doctrine Chief Justice Sh.w asked
this queetion. and founded his opinion
largely upon tue consideration that as a
matler Of public policy he injured cnplo;e
could better afford to bear the loss than
tho. company. When AN cmploye II injured
without any fault or neglect on his part
and while In the performances Of his duty
he is certainly blamcloss ON tho Other
hand the conn any has not been guilty o.
any personal wrong, but its agent and ser
want. authorized 10 net for the company
and while IN the prosecution Of tho com
pany's business. hod been negligent. and
lherby an Innocent employee is injured
Who ought to lear the loss-the company
or the inIdrod employe?
The company employs II. men. It con-
trolls them and directs them I'm Tho per-
iormancc Of their dutio. 1t discharge.
them Ought not the company Ia be re-
sponSblo for their acts. rather than The
injured omploye who has no control, diroc-
Non or supervision ever his 90 enplaya?
corporations can only art through their
employees and they ought not to complain
Of the rule that makes them liable for tho
acts OF their employees done within the
scope Of their employment
However. the railroad Influence les
great. and take 1t the vote Of the ho,ge
IL n definite expression against the urouo
si;ion to ahrogatc the fellow sorvait de-
Tense. In the late National campaign. In
discussing the financial question. demoC-
facy leader but repeated great truth
when hc said No question IS ever set
tied until il Is settled right and take II
the democratic party will yet demand n
final. Just and equitable settlement Of the
fellow servant question"
What is your opinion Of the substitute
bill passed by the house?"
! regard The substitute hill an a make.
shitt ana subtcringe. II was prepared I'M
der the Influence or direction Of Tho rail-
way attorneys and is not an improvement,
upon the present law. However wo may
differ A. % the full scope and meaning Of
IN" ninth plank Of the last 1emgs,nt,t
Platform, We must agree that the plat
form demands that the fellow servant INV
be llbcralizod and made fairer 10 tho en-
pioyeS Tho decision Of the supreme court
IN the Warner case rs recognized as tho
immediate cause Of the plank being put in
the platform. and necessarily il WIS in
tended that the la~ should be 80 amended
That tho rule laid down IN the Warner case
would bc changed feet assured that the
substitute bill would not furnish any RELIEF
from rho oppressive rule laid down In tho
Warner case, but would leave an engineer
ana swltchman fellow servants ns wag
decided In that case
Tho substitute bin applies the dafini-
Non Of fellow servants 10 all corporations
and makes no distinction between railway
corporations and those purely private The
law might wen apply 10 ali corporations
mat are common carriers. but there II no |
demand al this time for extending tho stint |
ate to purely private corporations.
Again Nh" substitute iii leaves out two |
~ the important conditions or characters |
tics Of tho present fellow servant Law Ia |
his opinion In the Warner case Judge Den. |
man points ont the four distinguishing
characteristics Of the follow -pervan, law
which must concur 10 make two cnployes
fellow servants. The first Two charac,er-
isties az pointed out are; They must be
engaged In Tie common service. they mus,
be IN the same grade Of employment and
the oui1lon then defines and CONSTITUTES ,hr
81 these requirements why hoy
were omitted IN the substitute bin 40
not know. hut am not slmric enough IN
hellev" inst they were omitted wlthou, a
purpose tn" h'll adds nothing 10 tho
preFen' law. while II takes from n Two n,
the important conditions In the definition
OF foll0w-Fcrvants
~ tho legislature Is not willing 10 ali.
rogh'e The fellov-saryant defense 1, o,sr.
II 10 Itself to define who ar. foIlog,, scr'
wants with such cl'arness that tho con
flict between the decisions Of our avn
courts upon his important subject WIN he
rntilod. and tho law should he 20 main
tha, tho r"onle whose riRhts nre Affect,
can read aud unfcrriaud without a rosor,
in every case 10 judicial constrie,ion
Recovered $1,000 Damages.
Dallas. Texas. Nay 7. Dir, Flor.,e.
Jones was today awarded a iudem.n, a,
5000 against the ciiy Of Dallas in a ami
"a roc"ver daFnAges Tor Injuries st,t,in.a
by fa'ling INTO ditch dug by the civ In