The daily journal. (Salem, Or.) 1899-1903, 1903-01-14

bW'SlihoNGc AZ
In New York and other States. stat.
utes have been enacted imposing taxes
upon inheritances. Such system Of
taxation ought to be essayed in Ore
gon. II has been objected that there
are no such colossal fortunes here as
would warrant or Justify the lmposit
ion OF taxes upon inheritances either
direct or collateral This is in part true
and for that very reason there would
be less opposition to such legislation
now than there would be II II be post
poned to later date. The records
of the County Courts in every county
In the State will disclose the astound.
ing fact that many, II not all of the
estates going through probate. escape
a just share of the burdens OF
taxation during the lifetime Of the
testators or intestates.
The tendency Of modern times is 20
bring about as near as possible di-
vorcement OF local and State taxation,
and there Is no reason why, by prop
er law taxing inheritances and local
and foreign corporations doing bust
ness in the State, as well as the valu-
| able franchises which they enjoy
Oregon may not, following in the foot
steps of other States, raise the greater
part, II not all, the revenue necessary
for State purposes.
A Fellow Servant Law.
The law imposes upon every person
the obligation of regulating and gov
erning his own actions and business in
such a manner as not to cause injury
TO others. This rule is applicable to
employers, so that an employer is
responsible for his personal negligence
occasioning injury to his esmployee.
But while man is responsible for the
consequences of his own wrongful
acts, he is not responsible for the acts
of others, except that master Is
liable to third persons for the wrong
ful acts and negligence OF his servant
perfomed while engaged I'm the pur-
suit Of the masters business within
the scope of his employment. This
exception TO the general rule. while
holding an employed responsible to
third persons for the wrongful acts
Of his servants, has no application In
certain cases where a servant seeks
20 hold his employer responsible for
an injury resulting from the tortious
acts Of another servant. This restric
tion is Incorporated in what Is known
as the fellow servant rule" which
may be succinctly stated as follows:
Where master uses diligence in
the selection of competent and trusty
servants and furnishes them with
suitable means to perform the service
In which he employs them, he is not
answerable, where there is no counter
vailing statute, to one of them for an
injury received by him in consequence
OF the carlessness of another, while
both are engaged i'm the same service" Z"
The Supreme Court Of this State
in Mast VS.. Kern. "a Or. 247, I'm am
pliication of this rule. held that ut
is the personal and absolute duty Of
the master to exercise reasonable care
and caution and to provide his ser
wants with a reasonably safe place
O work. reasonably safe tools, appli.
ances and instruments TO work with.
reasonably safe material to work up
on suitable and competent fellow ser
wants to work with them, and to make
needful rules and regulations for tht,
safe conduct of the work; and he can.
not delegate this duty TO a servant OF
any grade so as to exempt himself
ltsen injured by it's non-performance
Whoever he intrusts with it's per
formance. whatever his grade or rank
stands in place of the master and he
Is liable for the negligence of such
employee To the same extent as II
he had himself performed the act, or
been guilty OF the negligence. But
when the master has performed his
duty In this regard and provided com.
petent employees, reasonably safe
place to work suitable materials, tools
and appliances to work with and
needful rules and regulations, and the
like he has discharged his whole
duty in the premises and Is not liable
to servant for the negligence Of
another servant while engaged as an
operative"
The doctrine enunciated by our
court is the commonly accepted com
mon law rule OF this country and Great
Britain, and from which the courts
have not appreciably departed In the
absence of statute. But the rapid
growth and development Of railroads
and the extremely hazardous occupa-
tion of those engaged in railroad work
have induced the legislatures OF many
States Ia modify the fellow servant
doctrine as applicable to railroad cor.
porations. Such laws have been as
sailed as being violative OF both State
and Federal constitutions, but they
have been uniformly sustained by the
State as well as the Federal courts,
Chicago. etc, X. Co. vs.. Pontius, 157 u. |
s.. 209; Mo. Pac. r. Co. VS.. Mackey. |
127 u. s.. 2O5 Dithermer VS.. Chicago, /
ETC.. X. Co. AZ Wis. 1873; Herrick VS. |
NJ, etc. r. Co.. 81 MINI, IL; Pierce /
vs.. G. /. II. Co., 73 Ia. 40; G. II. Co. |
VS.. Miller 80 Ca, 57l.
One OF the latest acts upon the sub
lect is that OF the State OF Virginia,
approved March a. 1902. II provides
hat every corporation operating a
railroad In that state. whether such
be created there or else
Hhbre, shall be liable in damages for
my and all injury sustained by any
employee OF such corporation In the
cases: when such injury
'esults from the wrongful act, neglect
,r default OF an agent or officer Of {