The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-02-17

referring to the fact that iou, a.
ago. Mr.. McIlwaine offered pin III ,ast
ss.s.- similar TO this one and at the la9t
,segeion no measure OF the sort was pr
sonted Mr. Flood said this was quiz
,,,arto,ie u what Mr.. Withers had halo
ohnut The rails being red with pioou "H1
m, roads ballastcd with bones Oh ~
msn. was true. He thought Il ule 80
tion Of things was as bad az n essar,s
there would have beeH
10 correct the evil. .os
THO Supreme Court Of Appeals that mao
-, criticised was defended by MI'
plood. He thought the present court W.
confused of as able and as upIlsnt nv"
as constituted the former court -
uevcd the court was better quah"eu
Inv down a legal principle 'hdn
legislature in the hurry ana rush "a
,orisist,on The very fact Of the various
lEsrgss made in this bill since IL was
introduced proved this statement.
Nr T5lood went into the question OF
court decisions and read from op'nlo"S
IN sustain his position with reference
To this proposed law -....,,,o,,,
COMING down 10 consider the Stationery
nd, nv Mr.. Withers that this bill should
20. die and If necessary IL would be maze
-, iss,o and he would like 10 see no"
,,ar,, senators who were opposed 10 the
measure would be returned, MT flOou
said the gentleman from DanNihe eNlu
ontlv did not know those who CONSTITUTED
the opposition. They were not men 10
be moved by threats from th' pa" ol
drtv -Four years ago he opposed lhe
Ncilwaine bill and when he came up LOT
Reelection not word was uttered
against him on account OF MS posllloh
| regarding that measure
| Mr. Flood closed with an eloquent APP
neal to the Senate to vote down TINS Oh
and he was generously appauded. lie
spoke for little more than an hou''
MR.. MUsHBACHS REMARKS.
Mr. Nushbach said II had been his pur-
use TO take part In this debate uu.
80 davs oeo ne changed his mind and
,,v ne had changed i, agar. II want
1T understood tnat he was not rail-
60 AL lawver-in fact. he was no lawyer
!. an. simply an attorney trying 10 be-
ne lawyer He had been engaged
~ several railroad cases but always on
~ side i'm opposition 10 the corpora
,to, g The railroads were able 10 EN-
In,, much better lawyers than himself
- therefore he was never employed by
tbese corporations.
40, r criticisng the bill in somewhat
- tic vein Mr. Mushbach said nc
- 81 red Of hearing the railroads con-
,,"rau denounced He believed In rail
80 They were great inventions. IN
.teod ot striking down railroads he would
a., III "a could TO encourage their devei-
-,,r,.,t pIe would as soon vote 10 strike
a., ,b, sewing machine as 10 cripple
49, rajir, eds He could not understand
IN. I'm THE state was confronted with
" cerious Grnncial problem there should
~, afff - calculated 10 work TO the
s.,ions INN nv Of railroads which were
| ~ ..,,,rco Of much revenue TO the Com
NJ Wnehl a.ch again turned his atten-
ttor 20 The wording Of the third clause
/ - tho biu a ~ criticised the provisions.
! m. ia,,, as announced by the Court Of
.r,ooie was good enough for him and,
.,leroforo no ralt constrained To- oppose
ri I'm The bent OF his mind was such
thot he could mot see any injustice IN
AVOIDING nrote stion to 5000 people and
Withholding II rom l@o'VD olh5iS e"b"eoO
I'm hazardous Xxx.
THE 81 LII DEFEATED.
The substitute was defeated by the fol
lowing vote: ~ o,.-. ~.
uwalnc. Turnbull and Withers-o.
! Noes-Messrs. i arucs. Blakey, Boykin
EA,leston. FART, TX, Flanagan, Flood
Tosrer Hale. Han tley Jackson, Kane
Ie cato. Letcher. Mason. Massie, May
nard Morris. NUM- ord, Mushbach, Parr
southan. ST. Clair, Steele. Tate. Wick
| ham.-26.
The following pains were announced
, the first named being IN favor OF the Dill
Barksdals and Mc( ,une; heezeH ant
Wallace; Opie and Jenries.
Mr.. Wlthers stated that Mr. James
i absent on account Of illness desired I
have II entered Of record that he woul
have voted against the substitute and 70
The original bill.
S The vote on the original Reddy bi
was then taken and it was unanimousl
defeated.
y Afternoon Session.
n The first bill reached on the cAlend.
at the afternoon session was the one
2. amend section 1920 OF the Code in relauG
If ! 10 express companies, and Mr.. Flanags
E. moved TO reconsider the vote by which
ID was ordered 70 its engrossment.
- Mr. Barksdale opposed the mo ton.
h said the movement 10 repeal the law HI
ne been criticised by a Norfolk sheet {
r. nlthv TO be read. lie resented the II
IL mutation that the eneloyes Of expire
companies were petty thieves engag
In stealing In order 10 increase 'ne DIV
as dends Of The companies
I'd The Halifax Senator warmed up CO
Ia siderably during the delivery OF his I
ne marks.
81 Mr.. Flanagan replied In SON
.e- what heated terms. saying
de Mr. Barksdale, and If the gentleman frC
Halifax thought him a man 10 be inn
OF enced BY such criticisms as that REFER
w. 10 in tho Norfolk paper he was We
n much mistaken
az Mr.. Barksdale disclaimed any intenti
as 10 make his remarks personal. lie wal
rat ed only TO denounce the Norfolk Pil
zen which made a business Of denounci
pie the members Of the Legislature In a VI
of Indecent manner.
re The Senate refused 10 reconsider. a
i'm the bill was passed
ue' PENITENTIARY BILL.
Ia When the bih 20 enlarge the penit'
80 tiary came up there was considerable
81 cussion over the measure Messrs Tu
not bull. Foster and Flanagan opposed
al, and Messrs. Keezell and Morris adj
nlv Gated the passage Of the act. The me
ar. IRE was passed Dy a vote of 25 TO 9
nee The bin TO incorporate the Virgil
ON Sugar Refining Company was orde
les 10 It's engrossment, as was the one
thorizing the consolidation OF the r.
J. mond and Petersburg and the Pete
burg Railroad Companies
m. Mr. Flanagan endeavored 20 have
IN. | latter measure amended so TO subj
,sy ali the property OF the consolidated &C
the many 10 county ard municipal taxati
by. Tut he failed.
Ies. Mr.. Mcnwaine stated that the &C
law pany was willing 20 release the exer
Odd ton from State taxation but u woula