The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1901-01-25
ARE MILL OWNERS
TO PAY DAMAGES?
THAT Is THE QUESTION WHICH wOR-
RIES 1IIfG HOUSE.
Fight Commenced h1"ndny NIghi-Nn ID, II.
nit" Action on the IiiiI to Make Nlilia
Financially Ihnbtc for Bodily
4 riuy to Employee.
The State, 22nd.

mary skirmish along tho cntronch-
mcnts Of the outposts to tho labor
problem fortress. 1t looked for a
while as if Il general engagement
would result, but there was a cossa.
ton Of hostilities before either side
could claim signal success.
However, an attempted flank move
mont was thwurted, tho victory being
in favor Of the representatives of tex
tile operatives.
Tho bill under discussion was that
introduced by MIR. Webb of Aiken to
grant additional rights, and remedies
to the employees of toxtilo mills, street
railway companies and telegraph
companies.
After preliminary business had
been disposed Of and when the bill
WAS called in its order for second
rending, Mr.. Sinklor OF Charleston
moved to strike out tho epuctine
words. This motion is tho usual ono
unfavorablo to q bill.
MIR. JOHN McMASTER
Of Columbia then secured tho floor
and mado an able argument and an
earnest speech in bciluif Of tho bill.
Ho explained that he has ono of
identical import before the house
1t means that tho law should be OK
tended to textile operatives and the
others mentioned in tho bill, to give
them tho right to obtain damages
from the employing corporations for
accident resulting from defective
machinery or tho negligence of fcl.
low employees.
This bill was introduced in this
house four years ago. 1t passed tho
house, but after somo lobbying
against it, it was killed in the senate.
This is the old common law principle
Of master and servant.
Why not give the protection to the
employees Of tho cotton mills? Ifthc
operatives arc hurt through tho ncgli-
gence of other employees, are they to
have no redress?
During his remarks ho referred to
tho recent uttorances of tho cotton
mill owners in supporting tho action
of the Republican party in it's foreign
policy. He charged that the mill
owners arc taking this position bo.
cause for profit they weave tho
shrouds Of tho soldiers who arc boine
slain in tho Philippines.
IN REPLY.
Mr.. Sinklor of Charleston made q
thrust at Mr.. McNIastcr by stating
that he (Mr. Sinkler) would discuss
the merits OF tho bill. Ho declared
that it is unwiso. 1t unfairly opens
the door to unfair litigation, for it
makes tho employer be the insurer ol
the Of tho employed against all &C
cidents. He argued that there arc
circumstances which would not justi
fy the rights which, under tho pro,
posed law, would bo givon.
A TRIAL OF STRENGTH.
MIR. Moses of Sumter moved to
continue the bill The motion was
not understood by some. IL is ,
parliamentary move to kill measure
and does not admit debate. At the
request Of Mr.. Croft, tho speaker sc
explained.
BY vote Of o0 to 40, the motion
was overwhelmed by tho friends ot
tho bill. Speaker Stevenson anC
others. however, did not vote upor
tho merits Of the bill directly, but
because tho author, Mr.. Webb, hat
not been heard on it.
The motion to continue haviDe
hoen killed, tho debate reverted tt
tho motion to strike out tho enactlna
words.
| TIE FIGHT RENEWED.
Mr. Prince Of Anderson spok,
against tho bill. "Why not extent
these provisions to tho employees o
ginncries," he asked facetiously
Why not extend them to every occu
patton? There is now law enough
on the rights Of employees. In cottol
mills there are hundreds of opera
tives in one room, and they are no
export laborels, % in the case of rail