The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1906-10-22

WNNit h1''ht tah iNhI AN'H+ vi
does he favor the Texas plan where
the railroad commission has the pow
er and do fix the rates for every
shipment Of freight within the state
Of TexasY would also like to ask
the gentleman whether he thinks the
powers vested I'm the railroad commits
sion of Texas are within the limits
ilcosed by the Federal Constitution
would like to ask the honorable gen
tleIan just how much power under
the Federal Constitution, he thinks
the people OF Oklahoma have to reg
nlate rates within the state? The
people of Texas do regulate freight
rates in Texas just as the people of
Oklahoma should do in oklahoma;
and let me tell you my friends, there
are not any railroads in Texas in the
hands Of receivers. On the other
hand Texas is one of the most pros
poroJs states in the union, and she
is getting richer and grander every
day. and the railroads in Texas are
getting their share of her general
prosperity.
have no hesitency in telling you
my position upon these questions.
favor a railroad commission elected
by the people, with power to regulate
rates within the state ! favor a rail
road commission with power to pre-
vent discrimination and extortion
favor a state railroad commission
with power to prosecute the complaint
OF any citizen of the state before the
Interstate Commerce Commission
whenever any interstate rate into or
out Of Oklahoma Is unjust or unfair
do not want to confscate the prop
erty of the railroads. | do not want
to treat them unfairly. but | shall
put forth every effort within m! pow
er to end the shameless extortion they
are practicing upon the people Of Ok
lahoma And if we can ehd it in no
other way II they cannot be forced
in any other way to attend strictly
to the business OF transportation
and keep out Of politics, II the people
are forced to resort to government
ownership. the railroads will have no
/ body but themselves to blame.
The prevention OF rate regulation
is not the only instance where the
hand Of the railroad lobby has been
raised to prevent fair action in the
ointerest of the people of the terri
tory with the solitary exception of
the demnrrage bill passed by the last
Legislature, there has never been a
single corporation law enacted in this
territory, unless it was something de
signed to make IL easier for the rail
roads to get what they wanted, and
harder for the people TO get a square
deal And speaking of the demurrage
bill. let me tell you how they hap
pened 70 pass that. There were in
the 1905 Legislature a few courageous
honest men, both Democrats and Re
publicans, who were struggling witt
might and main to do some real gooC
for their constituents. and the were
trying to pass both the demurrsg'
law and fellow servant law. Th'
railroad lobby found that by concen
trating it, EFFORTS, they could defea
one measure but not both, the!
slaughtered the fellow servant bill
aud allowed the denurrage bill to be
cone a law Aud that same schem'
was engineered and managed by m,
distinguished opponent, who now say
he is I'm favor OF an employers liza
bility law. / would like to inquir
when the gentleman was converted
, Why this death-bed repentance? VIII
r did he fight so vigorously two year
ago. against what he now says he i
b in favor Of? There H. not very muc
difference between fellow servan
= law. and an employers liability Law
D One applies to corporations and
p generally limited TO common carriers
), and the other applies to all emplo,
s ers OF help corporations and ind
4 viduals alike It is a rule Of the con
e non law. that where a servant
injured through the negligence of tn
e master, the master is liable; bu
IA where the injury results from IN
p clrelessness or negligence Of fello
% servant the master is not liable
4 corporation, is in intangible thinl
s. without Substance aud without a
# individuality of it's own; il can onl
u act through the instrumentality of a
u agent or course. II ,he rule hay
Il quoted was strictly constraed In fave
3, OF the corporations, they could nev'
4 be liable to one employe for an iniur
e resulting from the negligence of al
IT other Some OF the courts in IN
" country, perhaps a majority OF then
e hold TO that view today. other couri
e have held that where the person I
e fault was IN a position of authorit
- or occupied what was called the r
D. lation OF a yice-principle, that the co
"a poration was liable for the negligen'