Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-01-12
TO FENCE TRACKS.
BILL Requiring rNcLosuRE or
noApBEDs Considered.
POSTPONED TIL MONDAY NIGHT.
lengthy Arguments For and AGAINST
the Ncasurc--Ansther Bond-Lfst-
fnr Rn,-The Anti-Trading-stamp
Measure.

done cattle thereon. came up before the
House Committee on Roads and Internal
Navigation last night and after a lengthy
discussion that body decided to take the
measure ND IN executive session next
Monday night. Mr. Pitcher presided
The BIN was read by the Clerk, atter
which It was decided to limit the arg"-
men, 10 one hour for each side.
ARGUMENT FOR THE BILL
AIR saunders opened the discussion and
explained his bill. Under the present
law railroads are only required 10 en-
close their tracks when the latter runs
throueh enclosed lands. The erect OK
his measure would be to require the COM
nanfes 10 fence their entire track, or &c
liable 10 damages for any cattle kiiieu
thereon. Mr.. saunders read statutes OF
several states in which more stringent
fence laws prevailed. among them De'"e
ohio Illinois. Kansas. and Michigan. A
EN- right Of the General Assembly 10
,roc, s,cb n law. he would not consume
tt,,, ~ nrouing as he thought II netu-
less Tho arguments used in the past
were that IL would bankrupt the corpora
lions 20 fence in their tracks. Ihere was
- recd 10 fear anything from thas
source The railroads would not enclose
their tracks as they had not done IN the
mast. but would pay the damages III cas-
where stock was Killed That was tne
safeguard the public desired. II a man ll,s
COW or sheep was Killed. and the track
49, NOT enclosed then the railroad would
be compelled 10 pay for the animal, as II
that IL tnOulN.
SPEAK FOR THE BILL
Captain Parks. Of Page. next spoke IN
favor Of the bill. lie was not one OF
tnoae Who arrayed himself against cor
porations. He believed the latter had
riehts. as well as private individuals
Tut the law conferred upon railroads the
lrieht 10 condemn private property ana
mn their tracks through a mans lahu'
whether the owner desired it or not
therefore the railroads should protect
mat mans cattle They should be re-
ouired 10 do Just what adjoining land
owners did. If they wished 10 Keep an
other mans cattle off of their GROUNDS
they were required TO fence them IN
The railroads owned the roadoeds' ana
should be required to use the same me-
thod 10 guard their property.
Mir Craig. of Rockbridge. followed cap
,ain Parks in an argument in favor OF
the bill. He cited a case Of an old gen.
tleman in his county who had lost TWEEN
weight head Of cattle in five years by
reason Of the railroad which ran through
his land.
AGAINST THE BILL.
Mr.. Glasgow. OF Roanoke, then spoke
in opposition 10 the measure. Captain
parks. ne said. had announced PROPOSE
ton which he Glasgow was willing TO
stand on. He would accept the PROPOSE
,ion that the railroad company should do
exactly what any other landowner should
do-that IS, when a railroad company goes
through a mans land and buys strip
sixty feet wide. that he should be re-
o,.ired TO do just what citizen would
be were he 20 purchase the same tract.
That was that the other man should
fence his land as well as the corporation
should enclose their own. The same rule
should apply to both. which was the law
to-day Treat the railroad company as
a citizen and he would be satisfied, he
said He claimed that the argument al
ducod before the committee was one OF
expediency and not of right. The NoriOk
and Western railroad had spent So'vVO IN
fencing in their forty-nine miles of track
in Page county.
Mr. Glasgow said that the company
was doing the work by degrees. II cost
money TO fence in railroad tracks II
would take half a million dollars TO ac-
complish such task. II was not fair 10
REQUIRE a railroad company to fence It's
tracks in forty counties where no one else
was compelled 10 enclose their property,
and ne named certain counties In when
such would be the case.
The bill presented by Mr.. Saunders, he
said. would increase the danger TO the
lives Of railway travellers. Mr.. Glasgow
mentioned a dozen or more States IN
which the laws were almost similar 10
those of this state as they now exist in
regard to fencing in railroad tracks.
DIR. WINSTON OPPOSES.
Dr. winston. Of Hanover, opposed the
bill. He said he had observed that when
"a county had no railroad running through
IL they We're crazy 10 get one, and after
they succeeded In their object then they
Immediately began war upon II. lie be-
licved that railroads should have some
rights. He could not recall a single suit
that had been instituted against either
one OF the two railroads in his county
for killing cattle Of adjacent landowners.
The corporations had always paid for
cattle killed on their tracks, without the
owners being compelled to resort TO the
courts.
Mr.. Saunders closed the argument. The
bill would either be good one or a bad
one. III any gentlemen desired to exempt
their counties. why they could DO so.
What he desired was that Franklin
county should be subject 10 Its provisions.
He had been endeavOring for years 10
have enacted law applying only TO his
county Those gentlemen who didn't think
the measure would benefit their own
county could very easily have IL ex-
empted. In dealing with corporations, he
argued, a different law should apply than
that which applied to man and man. Pub
JIG interests demanded this.
TOO MUCH CONSERVATISM
All Of the arguments made In opposi-
tion 10 the bin had been used year after
year every time a measure affecting the
railroads had come up for consideration
Wholesome legislation had been checked
said he. by a strict regard to that con-
servatism which had almost been the ruin
Of Virginia.
Al the conclusion Of Mr.. Saunders's re-
marks the committee went into executive
session. and decided that as the hour was
late. II lacking only a few minutes OF
midnight. that the further consideration
of the measure be postponed until next
Monday evening at o'clock.
THE CONTESTED CASE.
The House Committee on Privileges ant
Elections met yesterday morning to con
slider tho contested election case Of l.. B
lie Sueur VS. b. W. ID. Blanton, for the
seat IN the House from Cumberland anc
Buckingham counties Mr.. Parker pre-
sided Senator Flood appeared for Colone
Blanton. and stated that on last Tuesday
the consideration OF the case had beer
postponed on account Of the absence OF
a.. 4