The Roanoke times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1897-1977, 1898-01-08
EMP LOVERS
LIABILITIES.
The House Committee on Courts of
Justice Discusses II.
ABLE ARGUMENTS BY MR..
REDDY AND MIR. MEREDITH IN
FAVOR OF THE BILL, WHILE
MIR. w. A. GLASGOW, OF ROAM
OKE, PLAYS A STAR ENGAGE
MENT AT RICHMOND IN OPPOSE
/. TON to ANYTHING FAvoRING
LABOR.
LABOR.

I TON to ANYTHING FAvoRING
LABOR.
Richmond, Jan. THE house commit
tee on courts of justice met last evening
in the hall of the house of delegates and
fully three hours discussed the hill
Introduced by Mr.. William L. Reddy. of
this city, entitled "a Bill to fix and reg
ulaie the liability of employers to make
compensation for personal injuries suffer
ed by employees in their service''
Nearly every member of the committee
was present and u large number of inter-
ested outsiders was also present who
closely watcheds the proceedings. Mr..
Charles V. Meredith, Of this city, who
had given much of his time to rhe fraul-
ing OF the bill, was present to speak in
favor OF the measure, ana Mr.. W. A.
Glasgow, of Roanoke counsel of the Nor
folk and Western Railroad Company, was
present to oppose the bill on behalf of
that corporation.
The meeting was called to order by Mr..
Saunders at S:15 p. IN. who announced
that it had been agreed TO allow each side
an hour and half to present their views
Mr.. w. r. Reddy, Of this city, the
patron Of the bill, stated that the sub
lect was an old one to the members of
the legislature and the bill before the
committee was Is ac.simile of the one re-
ported last session by u subcommittee to
the full committee and acted on favora-
bly by the latter. The object OF the bill
was to do justice to the employee who had
been injured while carrying ont the work
at which he is employed
Mr.. Reddy next read the bill and ex-
planned the provisions OF the various sec
iions, which have already been published
IN the columns of The Times. Mr.. r, ddy
stated That the fellow servant doctrine
was n comparatively new one, Which had
first come VI in an English court in 1887.
The reason of the bill was the injustice of
the existing law, which was nothing but
mass Of technicalities. In England this
feliow-servant doctrine had been repuui-
ated. In regard to railroads and mines
there even the, doctrine of contributory
negligence had been abolished.
This legislation was rublc question
and was wanted by the public, said Mr..
Reddy. This law was recognized at least
IN part by North Carolina, Mississippi,
tennessee, Florida, South Carolina, Ala
bama. Georgia, Kansas, illinois, etc.
MIR. Reddy also read an orinioE on the
subject by the late Judge Rurks, express
ed iu letter written by him in 1894 to
Mr.. SHELTON, who had drawn the bill in
troduced last session by Mr.. Julian Brv-
ant in regard to employers liabilities,
but which. in his estimation, did not 90
far enough. In conclusion Mr.. Reddy
said 1t made no difference whether the
legislature would pass the bill at this
time, the time was bound 10 come when
such legislation would become ;.npera.
tive.
Mr. w. a. Glasgow followed Mr..
Reddy and stated that H.. had come to
discuss the bill before the committee, but
no other matter that on other occasions
had been acted upon. He desired to know
who wanted to have such bill enacted,
as he had not heard Of any employees who
wanted such law. He thought the leg
islature should hesit',te tefore"Himposing
such burden upon the people OF this
State if no special need Tor it had been
manifested. The impression had been
created thai there was no liability of rail
road companies in Virginia to-day, but
that was not so. The speaker then en-
deavored to point out all 1.-The various re
Quirements imposed on the .employer by
law in the interest of his employees.
Mr.. Glasgow spent some time In dis
cussing the respective acts in existence
in other countries. The fellow. servant
act had been in existence in England ever
since 1880 and had been continued from
wear 20 year. with the exception of
Kansas, Alabama. Minnesota and North
Carolina there was no other State in this
Union where as strict law was in exist
erce is the one proposed by the bill un.
der discussion.
In conclusion Mr.. Glasgow said the
company whom he represented had been
reoI SaniZed and WAS now doing u good
business. Since 1888 it he'd paid two
million and q half in taxes and under an
act of Congress the company would nave
to pay quarter of a million during the
year 1898 for air brakes and other euuip-
inents in the interest of the employees and
similar amount would have to be paid
In 1871. Liabilities were cons family oc-
curing, and with the rates for coal. etc.
reduced to about half it might be
matter of policy for the legislature to see
how far the State should go in creating
additional liabilities
ANY such expenditure 70, increased
liabilities woul1 have to come either out
OF the pockets of the people or by re-
duction of the running expenses. He did
not think that it would he unreasonable
to ask not to create any further, liability.
Mr.. Charles V. Meredith, who was
largely instrumental IN framing the hill,
was next given hearing. He stated that
the object of the bill was to, restore the
law as it had existed in Virginia previous
TO the creation OF the present court of
ap?e ais with one possible exception The
present court had ripped up the theory
OF Fellow servants, and in support of this
statement Mr.. Meredith cited numerous
cases of decisions Of the courts which had
been IN direct opposition to each other
The discussion Of the bill was brought
to a ci( Sc Mt il.15 n m, and the commit