The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-01-13

legislature or succeeding legislatures to
repeal the fellow servants law. In so FAR
as the inquiry relates to the justice or
injustice OF damage Verdlcts. let 1t be
safely promised that, hrst, the personal
injury practice is conducted by many OF
the ablest lawyers Of the Etate, and the
self same lawyers that appear in every
other character OF litigation, no batter
and not worse and 1t must be conceded
that personal injury suits are tired as
impartialiy by the bar generally rs any
other character of litigation Second, that
courts were Instituted TO pass upon the
conflicting rights of mankind. That 1t
is not human nature for an individual,
much less q railroad corporation, to re-
spond voluntarily in 9 moneyed payment
Sc damages for injury inflicted, and thar
there is not much moro Likelihood OF
railroad corporation paying its servant
who has been injured in its service a
single dollar more that the law requires
or dictates of practical common sense
would direct than would most individuals
when about TO purchase a lot from n
widow pay her so bill more than she
demanded. even If the property that she
offered for sale was worth $1,000 ana the
purchase price was placed by her at $l00.
This is not human nature and those VINO
pirate and talk about the charity or JUS
tice OF railroad corporations are insln-
cere in their statements or ignorant OF
the natural laws that govern mankind
So much for this phase Of the subject
4 ds the fellow servant law unjust. ard
I ought st 20 be repealed? TIE public
would be led to believe from the nunler-
J Gus articles that have been printed, In
spired by railroad lawyers, or otherwise,
( that the iniqulty OF the law "sur2asaeth
all human understanding "A little liRnt
upon the law of fellow servants would
probably tend to clear the atmosphere.
No one ever heard of he proposition that
a servant should assume the risk o. negli-
gence on the part OF his fellow servants
until a South Carolina Judge in 1871 llrst
announced the doctrine 1t wss taken VI
and adopted by Chief Justice Shaw o.
the supreme court of Massachusetts IN
1S42 This rule was afterwards adopted
In New York in fS47 and the preeise
point was FIRST decided In England IN 1880
and followed ever since. Shearinan q
Redheid on negligence section 80 The
authors OF this work, which 5 recos-
nized the world over as standard eu-
thority on this subject, characterize this
proposition OF lsw as inhuman AMI 1ne
that has no foundation In reason or logic,
and attributes the implanting Of this doc
trine upon the law as The work and In
duence Of class interest and looking sole
! iy 10 the Interest and convenience OF q
sing.e class. and having gone 50 sir as
10 shock TIE moral sense Of that yeiy
class and compelled legislatures composed
almost exclusively af masters 10 overrpie
this "iudge-Inade law" by statute. See
shearman & Redfeld on negligence. eec-
ton 177
The English parliament. passed bill
IN 1888 abolishlBg this rule OF law and y
only fell through on account Of certain
amendments proposed by the house o.
lords which the commons rejected. AND
the legislatures OF tie principal States
OF the Union have now abolished this
Judge made law" and adopted the wise
and beneheent statute as did the TeAai
Legislature. without referring 70 The
statutes of any ether State II ought 20 %
convincing and satisfactory statement
TO say that the State OF Massachusetts
where .his inhuman doctrine was IN ;h'
first instance promulgated. following th'
South Carolina case. the lesisla-ire M