The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-01-12
PROTECT THE CATTLE.
THE BILL REQUfRTNG RATLROdDS
TO FENCE ~ THETR TRACKS,.
The House Committee on Roads and In
ternal Navigation Listens TO Arguments
on Both Sides, But Defers Action.

Internal Navigation held a lengthy ses-
sion in the Senate chamber last evening
for the purpose Of taking IN Mr.. saun-
dors' fence bill The measure was
thoroughly discussed for several hours
by its advocates and opponents ana fin
ally considered by the committee in *.
ecutiye session. but action was reserved
until next Monday evening.
The committee met shortly after
o'clock with Mr. Z. G.. Pitcher, Of Fau-
quicr. On tho chair Before the bill was
taken up it was decided that each side
should be allowed one hour FOR it's dis
cuss'on. Mr. Saunders then explained the
provisions OF HIS bill and stated that un-
der the existing law tine railroad COM
panics were only required TO enclose their
tracks where they were running through
enclosed lands. tbs bill intended 10
compel the railroad companies TO enclose
| their entire tracks or make them llaule
Tor the cattle killed thereon.
Mr. Saunders then read from the stat
| utcs of several states where stringent
fence laws have been cnactcd-such as
Ohio. Illinois. Kansas and Michigan. The
Legislature of this state, he said had
perfect right 10 enact similar law ana
| on various occasions such an attempt had
been made. The argument in the past
| had been that such law would bank
rupt the railroad companies. but no such
| fear should be entertained by the COM
mittec.
SOME OF THE OBJECTIONS.
II had also been previously said. con-
| tnued Mr.. Saunders. that the people
| drive their stock upon the railroad track
! for the purpose OF securing cause TOT
| "a damage suit. But two years ago the
| Legislature provided for such % case DO
| imposing imprisonment from one 10 ten
years upon those who should oe con-
| yictcd of such offence. A special .aW was
also passed imposing a fine or imprison-
| rncnt i'm ial upon those Who should lie
convicted OF breaking doNn ihc fences
! of the railroad company lu tina man-
ncr ample provision had been made by
| special legislation To- protect the r".rcad
| company.
Captain Parks. Of Page. who was the
J next speaker pointed out tbat the railroad
| companies had the right TO have prNate
| property condemned 90 secure it- lht or
way. and they should, therefore, joe hold
| responsible for damages caused Joy the
killing Of cattle. This bin only intended 10
| nut railroad companies ON the same foot
| ing as other property owners They own
! tine land up0n which their TRACES arc
! built. and they should be required O. 90
| the same thing MS other property Cwr crs-
! 90 fence 30 their property .his was no
| hardship. because al present the com
| panies had 90 pay for an the cattle which
! they killed.
MI Craig Of Rockbridee. thought
] there was O. great difference between the
| line between two farmers and between
/ "a farmer and 20 railroad company lie
! alluded to- the experience Of a farmer boo
! his county. who during the last five years
! had tWenty-cignt head OF cattle killed.
| lie owned that land before % railroad was
! ever thought or He never received
! cent damages from the railroad COM
/ panv. because De could not prove ncgli-
| gauce on the part OF the servants Of The
| company. His was "a great hardship. and
| On such an instance the railroad COM
! pany should pay % fair price for the cat-
! uo. which was not nearly as hard as for
the people 90 lose The stock
THE OTHER SIDE.
Mr.. vs.. a. Glasgow. counsel for The
| Norfolk and Western railroad opposed
! the measure. Ilo said Captain Parks had
! announced a proposition which De was
| willing go accept that The railroad COM
| pany should Dee placed on the same basis
| ass the other land owners.
Mr.. Saunders who interrupted the
| Speaker. stated that wherever The prop
erty owner had been compensated by tho
| railroad company when building the
| track for Tho fencing Boo Of his property
the railroad company under his bin should
| uo. Doc bound 90 fence i'm its tracks
Mr. Glasgow iu continuing his argument
said. that where man had enclosed his
| property by n fence tho railroad com
| pany under the existing Jaw was com
PEELED 10 fence iu IFS tracks ON tho fourth
! side OF his property. The argument used
| by the other side. was not one Of right
| bot ono OF cXpcdiency.
Inn Che county of Page the Norfolk and
I Western Railroad Company had forty
one miles OF railroad track ana had spent
| $500 for fences. II now had there TWEEN
ty-nine miles OF fences There were a
| great many counties i'm this state where
| there are no fence laws and where under
the existing stock laws cattle are not al
! lowed TO run AT large, and it was unjust
| 90 require the railroad companies TO fence
| It's tracks jan these counties. 10 would
! cost $4,000 TO fence the entire road bed
OF his company and Il simply could not
do 10 All at once. 10 was binding the
fences as fast as II could afford 20 do So.
There were at least forty counties ina this
State where the railroad company was
90 be required 10 fence in one side OF the
! property, while no one else was 20 be re-
quired 10 fence IN the other three sides.
The first duty was not 10 the owner OF
the COW but 90 the passenger Of q rail-
road. The bill introduced by Mr.. Saund-
ers would increase the liability TO passen-
gers on the railroad trains. for every cat
tie guard would add 20 the dangers OF
railroad travel The bill provided for
two cattle guards To each mile of a rail-
road track II a steer got on a track
there was no way FOR the animal 70 get
OF IL the tracks were fenced in, until 5.
| dropped into the cattle guard and then
| the train might be dcrailed.
ADDITIONAL BURDENS.
In conclusion Mr.. Glasgow said that
any additional burdens meant an addi-
| tionaI taxation. and he asked the COM
mittce to consider carefully before inn
posing such burdens. which were not re-
quired by right but only by eXpediency.
There ought 10 be some limit in such mat
tcrs
Dr. Winston. Of Hanover. said he re-
cognlzed the fact that railroads. like indi-
viduals, had their rights. His county
was one with no-fence law, and the
| railroad company would not b. liable
there for the killing OF cattle. lie had
never heard o. a case IN his county
whoie tho owner had not been compcn-
stated FOR cattle killed on the tracks The
railroads had adopted a very liberal