The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-08-10

a summary OF legislation considered
more or less hurtful TO public SER
vice corporations. introduced in the
General Assembly of Virginia, SEES
sion 1908.
House Bill No. 10: patron. Mr.. Bar
rett. twice referred to Committee on
Roads. This was a bill to confer upon
the State Corporation Commission
power and authority to fix and pre-
scribe certain rules. regulations, ETC..
In the matter Of water gas and cleo
trio light and power companies This
bill was not opposed at first for Narl-
Gus reasons. which seemed good al the
time, and was favorably reported by
the committee and placed upon the
House calendar Considerable oppo-
sition developed in the House. and ii
was recommitted. From thnt time on
1t received wntchful attention, and by
suSgeatinE and obtaining the co-op-
GRAFTON of smaller companies through
out the State, the bill was finally re-
ported unfavornbly and died on the
calendar.
House Bill No. 2o1 patron, George
T. Snead. This was a bill to provide
for toilet rooms on electric lines in
the State. extending a distance OF fif-
teen miles or more from any town,
city. etc. II was referred to the Com
mittee on Roads and Internal Nav-
cation. and there carefully considered,
and. after long arguments and the
appearance of a number of opponents
from various sections OF the State af-
fected thereby, 1t was reported I'M
favorably and defeated in the House.
This bill was similar to the bill in
troduced by the delegate from Peters
burg at the last session OF the Legis-
lature. and the complete and salts
factory compliance by the companies
affected by the bill. with their assur-
ances given the committee at that
time. placed the companies I'm very
strong position before the committee.
and 1t was in a large measure. IL not
entirely, due to that compliance that
the bill was defeated.
Senate bill No. 46. patron Judge
Wickham. referred to the Committee
of Courts of Justice. This was a bill
to prescribe in what cases contribu-
tory negligence shall not bar re-
covery This bill. in effect. introduced
the doctrine of comparative negligence
in our Jurisprudence. and It's passage
would have been most disastrous
The bill was repeatedly and fully ar
gued before the committee. and was
reported with the recommendation
that 1t be not passed. and was finally
uTpnpeu ny ts VINO WIS pur-
sunded TINT it's possible passage would
be very hurtfuI to interest not now in
n position to stand any further strnin.
House bill No. 334, patron Hill!
Montague, of Richmond referred to
Committee on Courts of Justice. This
was a bill regarding the defense OF
contributory negligence in cases of
tort. where tho evidence shows that
the defendant had been guilty OF neg
ligence in the violation of an express
requirement or prohibition of n statute
or city ordinance. The bill was
somewhat similar in its language to
the bill just above referred to, In
troduced by Judge Wickham in the
Senate. except that II was cruder,
more dangerous and aimed chiefly, II
not entirely, at street car companies.
1t was most deliberately argued at
several meetings OF the COMMITTEES,
which gave careful consideration 10
all that was said. It would have been
reported unfavorably by majority of
the members of the committee who
heard the debate. hut in meeting
held on short notice, Mr. Montague
succeeded In having the bill favorably
reported by the aid OF the votes OF
several members who had not been
present at a Tngle hearing. and even