The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-10-11

snow mat the CDlis1LI Oii LILY -iS'E
law were remarkably uniform and not
contradictory and conferred. as Mr.. Car
ter had stated.
In consequence of the noise made by
the band parading Broad Street. the con-
vention took a recess of ten minutes.
AS soon as the speaker could be heard
he resumed his argument, taking up MS
unfinished examination OF supreme Court
decisions to show the uniformity OF con-
struction which prevailed in reference to
the now law.
He said If the Constitution in primitive
times thought it right to declare that
private property should not be taken Tor
public uses without compensation, he did
not see why that same Constitution III
this day OF innumerable cuasi-puhlic
corporations should not provide that d
private citizen's property should not ne
damaged by a corporation without COM
nensation.
He said the decision Of the Virginia
courts had placed the most extreme and
restricted construction upon the word
taken. He hoped for the interest OF III
dividuals that the law would be adopted
Justice alone prompted it and IT Wonlo
moi work a hardship on corporations, pc
cause corporations should. like lndi'.o-
uals. be glad TO see equal justice admins
tered to all under the law
Mr.. HATTON OPPOSES.
Mr.. Hatton then SPOKE IN opposl.ioit
49,, revert and in favor of Mr.. KOBE u
sons amendment ,.o,,1s
He conten6ed that the convention "oulo
no false 10 the people of Virginia TO aoopt
this law and thereby say 10 lneill' PuN
your hands in your pockets, employ 10
yers and go into the courts TO see w.
this thing means When the Consttu
t;on creates a new right it certainly should
state it with sufficient clearhess 10 iiiaN0
if plain. ,,ao,,
. false principle It proposes TO gre
redress for a class OF damage 1or Which
none has heretofore been given.
am injured. my redress should not oepeiio.
upon the injury being brought ABOUT ny
a public use any more thah = H. ~
brought about by a private use. Inc
rev law dsres not extend Inc principle
TO that extent in words. bat who KNOWS
which may be the construction
He illustrated this by saving an IN
oiyjdual could pitt up a building III
certain portion of a residence oiock that
would greatly damage the deshepA.S
for that purpose and yet there wotlo &c
no redress but a city would be response
blo fo, the damage for improvement o.:
the public street.
WHY confine the Jaw to the source o.,
the damage instead OF its nature ana'
extent. This alone would show uw
inequitable the law was. 1t vas only
by showing the false foundation upon
which the law was based that its danger
could be determined.
JUDGE R0BERTSON'S REMARKS.
Judge Robertson here spoke for some
time to show that the new law. created
a new class of damages and read from
el,c hot s,n WA
damage was not as easy OF construction
as the word taken. The difference in the
courts heretofore has been in defining
what is meant by the word property,
rot the word taken. Judge Robertson
said the argument made by Mr.. Hatton
should be given great weight lie oeilleo
that the present law was a great evll
and insisted that the Legislature would
have corrected it If it were.
Mn, r. Walton Moore here asked
question and Judge Robertson took his
seat saving that Mr.. Moore always made
a speech in, a question. Mr.. Moore dld
make a speech before he concluded. lie
contended that the new law would not
work a hardship on municipal or other
corporations, and its object was solely
and entirely for the purpose OF pro-
tecting private rights that were not pro-
tectcd.
Ill
saving if Mr.. Moore had read as much
law on this subject as he had. his heSac
would be in such a state OF confusion
that he would see clear enough to con-
vince him that the proposed law was dan
gerous, oppressive and unwise.
ARGUED ABLY.
Mr.. Meredith followed in a brief but
able argument in favor Of the report OF
the Committee. He said he had seen SO
:luch of the gross injustice done the peo-
lie by the absence OF such provision III
The Constitution he felt constrained 70
add his approval to the change, although
il had already been SO amy supported ny
his coIlea CUES.
Mr. Meredith cited that twenty-four OF
the States of the Union had adopted such
a provision, and that it had worked 40
lnirably and he MADE an eloquent plea
for its adoption III Virginia lie then
took up the strong points brought out by
those who had spoken on the other side,
and answered them in Il most convincing
manner.
lie said the proposed law would tread
the beaten paths trod by twenty-seven
other States; that its construction had al
ready been we'll defined in the courts OF
those States and in the English courts
for fifty years and the confusion referred
10 by Judge Robertson did not exist.
MI. Meredlth SAID ne haO peeh unfair III
reading an excerpt from decision which
vas an extreme illustration. Judge Rob
ertson here said that the excerpt he
quoted was used by Lewis, the text
writer on whom Mr. Meredith depended.
He then heatedly objected to Mr. Mere
dith charging him with unfairness in any
sense Mr. Meredith disclaimed any pur-
pose of being offensive and proceeded to
refer to the many instances Of gross in
justice under the present law. He said he
wanted to put his foot down on the doc
trine that private rights had to be subor-
dinated and DESTROYED without redress by
any kind of corporation. He said. munich
raj corporations in making improvements
damaged private property of citizens in
Tie outlying wards. VINO had their little
homes. built after years OF sacrifice, and
was their all.
AMENDMENT LOST.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Meredith's
speech Mr.. r. Walton Moore read 3
few decisions of the Supreme Court lei
alive to the construction which had beer
placed by the courts on the word dam
ase. re then called for a vote on .he
question.
The amendment offered by Judge Sob
e,tson 70 strike out the words ''or de M