The Spokane press. [volume] (Spokane, Wash.) 1902-1939, 1910-10-24

enacted into law, but miSrepresen- |
tative courts have embezzIed the
power to nuIlify popular laws.
This Is the story Of the partial
notification by the supreme court
Of Washington of the law for the
punishment Of careless murder.
THE GREAT SLAUGHTER.
1t is estimated that half million
men, women and children are killed
or MANNED in the United States an
nually in preventable accidents.
These accidents are not prevented,
because it is not profitable for
those responsible for them to pre-
vent them. Lives and limbs are
sacrificed in the greed for profits.
Safety precautions and appliances
cost money, but human life has
been made cheap by the biased ruI-
ings of courts on the law of the
killed and wounded.
If the interests responsible for
these accidents were required to
adequately compensate their vic
tins, nine-tenths of these accidents
would be prevented. But, under
the law of the killed and wounded,
as made or as mutilated by the
courts, nine-tenths of those acct
dents are never compensated. Life
is cheap, but safety appliances cost
money and curtai dividends.
CASE OF JUDSON NOBLE.
Take specific example. Some
twelve years ago Judson Noble was
killed in Seattle by the fault or neg
ligence of another. His parents
brought an action to recover DAM
ages for his death, and in the trial
court were given jury verdict. On
appeal to the supreme court this
judgment was reversed in a deci-
sion written by Judge M. j. Gordon.
The territorial legislature of 1873
had enacted law which provided
that in case of the death of a man
killed in duel, the widow or chill
dren might maintain an action to
recover damages for his death. Two
years later the legislature Of 1875
ed that in case of the death of
person by the fault or negligence of
another, his "neirs or personal rep
resentatives" might maintain such
an action. In the Noble decision
Judge Gordon and the supreme
court did little legisIating, in
which they mutiIated the second
law almost beyond recognition.
They wrote tho provisions of the
fivst> @e~~passed- by one legislature
into the second law passed by an
other legislature, holding that when
the legislature of 1875 said "PER-
SON" it did not mean "person" but
meant MARRIED MAN." and that
when it said THEIRS AND PER-
SONAL REPRESENTATIVES," it
did not mean what it said but
meant "WiDOW OR CHILDREN"
In short, 1t mutiIated the law
passed by the legislature and in
tended to be general in its appIica-
ton so as to exclude parents from
recovering for the killing of child,
a"husband for the killing of his
wife, or sister for the killing of
her brother. Under this decision
employing corporations engaged in
enterprises in which accidental
deaths are frequent need only to
employ UNMARRIED MEN, and to
KILL instead of MANNING them,
in order to escape civil liability for
their negligence.
JUDGE DUNBAR DISSENTED.
In order to stretch a plain stat
ute into such unrecognizable shape,
Judge Gordon wrote on opinion of
several pages, while Judge Dunbar,
the grand old man" of the court,
disposed of the question in a dis
senting opinion of three lines, in
which he said:
Il dissent. l think the right Ito
recover is conferred by the plain
language of the statute, which is
not capable of construction"
There is a rule of law that a
person is presumed to intend that
which is the natural consequence
of his own acts. The natural con-
sequence of the act of corporation
which could safeguard the lives of
its employees and refuses to do so
is to take the lives of some OF those
employees; in short. murder. The
consequence of the Gordon decision
in the Noble case was to nullify the
only legal penalty for most of these
preyentable accidental deaths,
these careless murders.
JUDGE STILES OPINION.
"The decision in the Noble case
was great surprise to the (legal
profession, especially because the
reasoning of it was based wholly
upon decisions under a Kentucky
statute, repealed at the time, and
which bore no similarity to our own
law | have quoted the exact Ian
guage of Judge T. l.. Stiles of Ia
coma, a former member of the SUI
preme court
Frank T. Post of Spokane, one
OF the ablest corporation lawyers
in the state, and one of the first
friends and warmest champions of
the supreme court, said in his brief
in the case of Nesbitt VS. the North
ern Pacific railroad:
THE Noble case we believe to be
wrong, both in principle and upon
authority. The case should be
squarely oyerruled. 1t decides no
rule OF property and no vested in
terests will be disturbed by such a