Valentine Democrat. (Valentine, Neb.) 1900-1930, 1904-04-28

After years of contradictory and con-
flicting decisions by State and United
States courts, the Supreme Court OF
the United States has finally decided
the question of the common carriers
liability for damages on account Of in
jury or death in cases where the pas
senger is riding on free transporta.
heirs Of Jay II. Adams, formerly ali
attorney at Spokane, Wash, who was
killed by the Northern Pacific while
he was riding on q pass, holds that
the contract which the deceased signed
releasing the company from liability
is a valid me-. Justice Brewer declares
that there is nothing in such a con-
tract which is contrary to public poll
icy. and therefore the common carrier
is free to contract against liability for
future negligence. 1t is strange that
although this has been a matter of al.
most constant litigation between rail.
roads and their patrons, it has never
reached the Supreme Court. The fact
that the transportation may be free
does not of itself affect the liability OF
the carrier. Railroads, however, never
fail to require the passengers sigma
tuTe to a contract written upon the
pass releasing the company from all
liability. In declaring the legality Of
such q contract the Supreme Court
has followed the English decisions;
which have been uniform upon the
subject. Elliott, in his book on rail-
ways. and the court in the case of the
Indiana railroad VS.. Mundy, declare
that in this country the majority OF
cases and the weight of authority ara
against the legality of the contract
The American and English Encycio
pedia Of Law comments at length upo1
the great contrariety Of judicial Opin'
declares that THE argument of rhd
courts opposed to the validity of tho
contract would seem to be well nigh
unanswerable." The Supreme Courts
decision, therefore, may be taken al
in a measure revolutionary as being
against the weight of authority. I'll
is also interesting to. know that somst
States-Iowa, for eXample-havdI
enacted statutes which declare such
contracts to be illegal and not binding
upon the ground that the law %cannotl
permit a railroad to lay down the pub.
lie character which the law has given
If as a passenger carrier and become
a mere private carrier at will. The
case of the New York Central VS..
Lockwood has been heretofore consid.
cred n of the leading cases Upon the
subject, and in this the court held that
behind any contract establishing the
relation Of carrier and passenger
a public policy which even the
courts cannot allow the parties to
thwart. This public policy referred to
is that requiring railroads to employ
all possible skill and diligence in pro.
suitable and safe means for the
transportation Of passengers. The Su.
preme Court, however, insists that
the stipulation should be viewed in
the light Of a contract between a pass
senger and a private carrier, and there.
fore not to be taken as an exemption
Of the rigid responsibility which the
law imposes upon common carriers,
the service being n which the car.
rier is not bound to perform. 1t Is
held further to be unfair to compel q
to present a gift and then pay
for consequences, especially when the
gift has been coupled with a stipula.
ton to the contrary.