The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-04-02
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

said In part:
THE condition Of slavery soueht to
be established Is q synthetic slavery
made up from the Incidents inherent IN
the condition Of being a convdct law
fully under sentence and the fact tim
said convict was compelled to work
pursuant to the contract made under
the statute. 49, The plaintiffs inability
to dispose OF his person and property
and services Ia In no way due to the
contract Of which he complains, but ID
an incident Of his condition - 4 con-
Wet. AZ We have seen. II u not
claimed that 20 cause q prisoner to work
for the state Is a violation Of the consti-
tutional provision forbddding slavery.
but that to cause him TO work upon
materials Of another than tho STATE.
under a contract between such other
person and tho State. IN the prison Of
the State. under the control Of the State.
the State receiving compensation for
compensation therefor. results In the
traneformation Of the labor which Ia
imposed o tho convict a. . part Of
his sentence. into that Of a slave and
constitutes q condition o. slavery. II
this contention n sUund II follows h
while thu state may compel the convict
20 work for tho State upon the materials
Of the state IN It's workshops situated
In the prison. the State mtst NJ me
! materials upon whtch the work n done
or the convict cannot lawfully b. COM
PEELED 70 work"
Circumstances under which an act Of
! God" does not establish . defence IN .
-.-Ia 49, ~ n
decision Of the Supreme Court OF Florida
In Gulf Coas Transportation Company
Va Howell. in which the syllabus Of the
courts opinion said:
''Where goods are lost o. injured a. .
reeu OF the negligent act Of h carrfer
to whom they ave been delivered for
ira importation. concurring with an act Of
God. the carrier mo maintain that
the act Of ood was the sole proximate
cause Of tho loes OF or injury to the
goods 20 IA to relieve Il from liability.
"A declaration which in substancs al
legee that although the goods which were
delivered b q carrier for transportation
were DESTROYED by an act Of God. yet the
carrier could have foreseen such result
and by She exercise Of prudence and
! diligence could hAve protected h goods
from injury. but that II n~esfissut1y
failed TO DO %. states . cause Of action
against the carrier.
Negligence Of the shtpwar ~ooncurrfng
with an ACT Of God in the destruction Of
Foods delivered to a carr1er for tron0-
purtatfon constitutes no defence by m
carrier 10 an action brought against Il
by the shfppsr for dAma@es for los OF
the goods. where the cArrser n also
guilty Of n~eG1igencs witch, o~cncuIrins
with the act Of God. resulted IN the ION
cf ina goods.
~whers ehe ohim b made ehee. noe-
withdrawing She intervention Of a sce
Of God. injury to the goods delivered to
a common CARRIER for transportation
would MOI hAwU occurred but for the
neg1ieence Of ShA carrier In eEposfn3
them, the burden Of proof - upon the
party asserting such claim"
The onusa nSd 0UucsrHAnG the ~
point quoted from ne sy4isbus:
'swhere the claim u made. a. In thif
oAse, that Notwithstanding tho interven
ton Of an act Of God. TN lon would moi
have happened hut for the n~eG1igence 0i
tho carrier IN u~nreasonAbiy delaying the
transportation OF the goods. and thus neg
ligentiy exposing than to h Destructive
act OF God. the burden Of proof IL upor
him who aehrms II. While Il II true thaa
Gla IapIIIy OF u CUTfbIpUIb VnkI AVT u
fury OF loss Of eoods entrusted to hin
for TRANSPORTATION I Q <hAt Of an inSaror
he In relieved Of 9sdh liability whsre IN
destruction Of or injury to m good'
results solely from IN act Of God. Th<
carriers labniSy IN cAAa where goods
are injured or DESTROYED in his custody
ny act OF God re6ts upon his neeiigencs
which. minGling or coD>urring with M
act Of God, resulted in producing IN
loss"
The Supreme -OoaS Of North caro-
Ina. in Dav5s Va. Southern Railway
holds that plaintiffs injury. II 4 occurre'
az the result Of suction created by Z
rapidly moving train, was An unusua
occurrence. such as engineer could no
have reasonably anticipated would n
suit and hence such operation OF tn
train did not constitute negligence. Tn
court relied on the opinion Of the Su
prerns Court of Kentucky In Railroa'
company VI. Lawson. in which the cour
said:
"Every day hundreds Of trains ~
run at the rate Of e5 or 30 miles q
hour. These trains pass hundreds. an
perhaps thousands. Of persons standfni
within Ave or six feet OF the track. I
the suction from trains were great enough
10 draw persons under the trains Their
would have been innumerahle accident
OF the kind under consideration Not
vi~thstandin this fact, several rA!lroa'
men, who certainly had a n o~pportunit.
70 speak from long experience. say tina
they never heard OF Il live object, capa
bic OF resisting. being sucked under
train. Where In a case like thi
II IL commended that the accident wa
the result Of the negligence OF the rail
road combined with he oper
alton Of a natural law. and where no
only the character OF tho accident. bu
operation OF trains. are such that IN
accident, would have frequently hap
pened IL the natural law were such a
TO make II possible, We conclude tina
evidence TO the effect that no such acct
dent had ever happened has a stronI
and important bearing IN the question
whether or no, It SHOULD have been rea
sonably anticipated. We deem It IN
necessary for the purposes Of this cas-
20 pass on the question nj the possibilit.
Of such an accident. We content our
selves with saying that, even II pos
sihlc, the probability Of its occurrence |
50 remote that II cannot be sale to b
an accident which should. in the exer
else of ordinary care. be reasonably a.
,icipated by those operating %railroa,
} trains. That being true, a railroad com
pany does not owe the licensees walkln
along the side OF It's tracks, and VIII
know Of the approach Of its trains, IN
duty OF moderating the speed OF IN
trains SO a to prevent their bein
sucked under the trains"