The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-04-26
JuR1Es AND RAILROADS AGAIN.

The Advertiser publishes on this page a communication headed Railroad Dam- ages" It occurs to us that the writer begs the question. and misapprehends The Advertisers position. Our editorial had nothing to do with accidents and fatalities on railroads. but was especially directed to one verdict which we still insist was outrageous. In fact, We go further and insist that the woman was not entitled to damages in any amount. According to accounts of the case that we have read in South Carolina papers. there was not particle of evidence to show that any employe of the road in this Franklin case was to blame. There was nothing to show that the conductor had any knowledge that the two men were misbehaving until Mrs. Franklin inform ed him of it and then he took prompt and effective measures to protect her. A conductor cannot possibly be in all the cars all the time. If passengers are quiet and well-behaved while he is in a car, and misbehave after he goes out, wherein Is he or the road to blame. If a quiet passenger should shoot another while the conductor was out wherein would the latter or the railroad be blamable? Exercising the police powers with which conductors are invested they can preserve order, or arrest the disor- derly, but they cannot be made pecuniar- lily liable for what occurs without their knowledge, nor should the railroad be he mi passenger, unless collusion or negligence can be proven.
 There is another point upon which we can not agree with our correspondent. and that is the assumption that the amount of damages in any given case should bs apportioned to the wealth of the defend- ant To speak plainly such theory is monstrous and no court of justice should consider 1t. If one murderer Is worth | one thousand dollars and another is worth one hundred thousand dollars then the punishment of the latter should be one hundred times greater than that of the former. That is the legitimate conclu- sion of the argument advanced by the writer. A law or a court which would regulate punishment according to the
 wealth of the offender would be a dIs- grace to any civilized country. That 1 would be worse than the theories of the anarchist.
 ] Now, as to the excessive verdicts which
 juries give against railroads. In the case
 of Mrs. Franklin there was no charge
 that she had sustained any injury. She
 was insulted by the two men and they
 should have been punished, but does any
 one suppose that she could have secured
 verdict of $25.OO0 against them. or that
 such a verdict would have been rendered f against any individual for a like offence: :
 Admitting that the employees of the rail-
 road were negligent, the verdict was out
 rageous, and the amount was not fixed as
 an act of justice but as punishment for
 a. wealthy corporation.
 I As an evidence that we are correct we
 will cite another case which has just
 been called to our attention, and this was
 also South Carolina jury. It was a
 verdict against the Seaboard Air Line
 Railroad for $25,OO0 in favor of man who
 had lost a leg by an accident on the
 road We are not acquainted with the
 circumstances, hence we assume that the
 road was at fault, but any fair mind must admit that this verdict was excess- ive,/ and that it was rendered because
 the defendant was a rich corporation. No insurance company will insure a
 mans leg for that amount, and no pri-
 vate individual would have been required
 to pay as much. But the offender was d
 railroad and they are supposed to be | friendless.
 We do not take issue with our corre-
 spondent as to the comparison between
 our own railroads and those of Eng
 land, nor do we deny that there Is an
 apparent disregard of human life on the I roads in this country, but the remedy is
 not to be found in excessive damage yer
 diets in individual cases. We repeat that
 it's not to be wondered at If railroad cor
 porations avoid State courts when they
 can do so. This is all we care to say on
 the subject.
 NO EXCUSE FOR SUCH MISREP-