HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, February 21, 1881--2 p. m.The folllowing described bills were introduced, read the first time and referred to appropriate Committees.
By Mr. COLE [H. R. 403]: To amend Sections 48 and 49 of an act to regulate general elections, prescribing the duties of officers in relation thereto, etc., approved June 7, 1852. [Each Inspector, Judge or Clerk to be allowed the sum of $2.50 per day for his services, to be paid out of the County Treasury.]
By Mr. RYAN [H.R. 404:] To provide for he examination of surveying party to a suit at law.
By Mr. MITCHELL [H. R. 405]: For an act prohibiting certain animals running at large in the State, providing remedies for damages done, prescribing the duties of certain officers, and excepting railroads and Railway Companies from the provisions of this act.
By Mr. SMELZER [H. R. 406]: To amend Section 7 of an act for the incorporation of Building and Loan Fund Associations, approved March 5, 1877, and March 6, 1873, and legalize all such Associations now in existence.
FREE ROADS.
Mr. FLOYD called up the special order, being his bill [H. R. 77] providing for purchase and making free roads of toll roads, which was read the second time, with a majority report from the Committee on Roads recommending its passage, with an amendment to Seetion 3, adding these words: "Providing that the bonds issued under the provisions of this section shall at no time exceed 1 per centum of the assessed value of the taxable value of the property of the County."
The report was concurred in.
Mr. CARTER moved to amend Section 1 by adding the following: "Providing that the County Commissioners shall not purchase any gravel roads, except upon petition of a majority of the legal voters in the County."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. FLOYD--In speaking upon this bill, I am not actuated by any personal considerations of profit to myself; nor am I unmindful of the obligation that is upon me in legislation to labor for the good of the whole people. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, the mere mention of which will secure the mental assent of every gentleman this floor, that nothing adds so much to the wealth of a State as her public highways,and nothing indicates so clearly the spirit of progress in a State, or marks the status of the improvement and development of a State as the condition of her public highways. Moneys appropriated to the application and operations of a systematic method of working and improving the highways of the State bring in returns to the Treasury of the Commonwealth far in excess of what can be known by any method of computation.
The improvement of the public highways affect the general prosperity of the State to such an extent that every branch of industry responds to such improvement as the springing grass responds to the gentle showers of springtime.
In speaking of the importance and utility of such public improvements as are now under consideration, I know I shall not be considered as drawing a fancy sketch. But beliving that gentlemen upon this floor are fully aware of the vast wealth-producing power attaching to public highways, I proceed to speak of the merits of bill now before us as embodying a system by which the material wealth of the State may certainly and equitably be developed by a process at once simple and practical.
The bill proceeds upon the principle that to every highway there attaches a local value and a public, or general, value. Those who live along the line of the road receive the greatest benefit. This is what I mean by a local value. It is of greater value to them because of their location in proximity to the road. Then, Mr. Speaker, I hold that every gravel road, and every other highway that is constructed in the State, has a general value attaching to it; that is, it is of value to the public--it increases the public wealth. It adds to the general wea1th more, vastly more, in the aggregate, than to the individual wealth of the few who live along the line of any given road. The present law proceeds upon the assumption that a page: 210[View Page 210] gravel road is of but little advantage to the public, or to anyone axeept those who live within a distance of one mile and a half or two miles. Now, gentlemen, I take it that this view is not only narrow in itself, but it involves a principle that is inequitable and unjust. Can anyone establish before a Court of Equity the obligation of parties in a given locality to tax themselves to make a public improvement? Upon what prnciples of justice or equity, I ask, are parties along a given line of road required to make public improvement, which adds materially to the wealth of the State, even though such parties may be benefited thereby more than the same number of persons living more remote from such improvement without any aid from the public? If this improvement was exclusively local, then I admit it would be just for parties desiring it to bear the entire cost of making it. But since it is general, and because it adds to the public wealth, and to the convenience of the public in traveling, I claim that the public ought to bear a part of the expense of building every gravel road that is built in the State. I claim it not only upon the ground of equity, but upon the ground of profit to the State. The State's wealth is increased by building or purchasing gravel roads by the same method and to the same extent that individuals,or corporations, are increased in wealth by building or purchasing them. If the State should build these roads and bear the entire expense, it would simply be a large corporation swallowing up the smaller ones. But then could she control this interest to the advantage of the people? and then, too, would she rise rapidly to a point of respectability and profit in the improvement of roads? Private property, or individual rights in roads is so antagonistic to the public interest that the attention of the Legislature ought to be at once devoted to the best methods of brnging about the result contemplated in this bill, viz: the absorption of individual rights in roads. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of private property in public improvements if it were applied to our State Institutions, e. g., our Deaf and Dumb Asyum, our Blind Asylum, our State House or our Educational Institutions, would at once appear to the most casual observer as an unwise method of managing these Institutions. But sir, it would involve the same method now existing in the management of our public highways.
A public highway as legitimately and justly belongs to the State, considered in the light of its object and use, as does a State House or any of the Benevolent Institutions of the State. It will readily be seen that the provisions of this bill pertaining to the construction of roads as provided in Section 7 are intended and that they do blend the local and the general interests together so as to secure the rights of individuals along and adjacent to the road, nor does it work any injustice to the tax-paying public. But on the contrary it secures to the citizens of the County large returns for the money invested. This is true in its application to every man owning real estate or doing business in the County. Nor are cities or towns any exception to the rule in this case. Cities and towns are dependent upon the country adjacent to them for their prosperity. As a rule the measure of their prosperity is determined by the development and prosperity of the country surrounding them. Hence, they should be as much interested in the development of the country as the yeomanry of the State, for the reason that the interests of the former and the interests of the latter, as it pertains to public improvements are, and of necessity must be mutual.
Nor will it change the obligations of cities or towns as it petains to a measure so important and so general as that contemplated in this bill for such cities and towns to refuse to support the bill, because they may have roads already built leading to their city from every point of the compass. It is not expedient for cities and the rural districts to separate their interests in matters of public improvement and public enterprise.
There are too many Court Houses, State Houses, Benevolent and Reformatory Institutions to be built and maintained, for which the whole people of the State must be taxed to justify a city or town in opposing the general good, as provided for in any bill, upon the hypothesis that they are provided for, and that therefore they are under no obligation to aid a measure in the interests of the State.
These remarks, I apprehend, do not apply to any town or city in the construction of gravel roads, but only in the purchase of such. Nor do I know that they apply to any considerable extent to the purchase of gravel roads. But the local value of gravel roads to a city or town is so apparent that they always contribute liberally to their construction.
Mr. F. proceeded to show that it is to the interest of the State to absorb by a gradual process all the gravel road corporations within the State, and to convert all the toll roads into free roads.
Mr. CARTER--It seems to me that this measure is a dangerous one. We will have within six months after the passage of this bill every County in debt and owning all the toll roads in the County. I think it would be an injurious thing to put in the hands of Commissioners the power and require them to exercise it at once. Another thing unfair in this bill to the people of this State is this: A bill passed the Legislature two years ago, authorizing the people of any portion of a County to build their toll-roads and tax the land within a certain distance on each side of the same. A large number of Counties have, under the operations of that act, taxed the people and built roads in the last two years. If this bill passes, you will tax these same people and make them help pay for the new roads, thus taxing them twice. A great many gravel roads, under the law of this State [making them free roads after existing twenty years] will soon become free under the operation of the existing law. I do not believe the people want this law. It would be a very unwise thing to require the County Commissioners to buy every toll road in the State as soon as possible. I hope this bill will not be ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. STUART, the bill was recommitted to the Committee on Roads.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
The Judiciary Committee reported on the bill [S. 22] amendatory of Section 4 of an act concerning voluntary associations, etc., recommending its passage with amendments.
The report was concurred in and the bill was read the second time.
LIABILITY FOR INJURY TO EMPLOYES
The same Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 29] fixing liabilities of employers for injury to employe, recommending its passage with amendments.
Mr. RYAN moved to amend as follows: "In case the injury received by any employe when such employe would be entitled to recover except for carelessness of some co-servant, such carelessness of such co-servant shall be no bar to such recovery by such injured party." He thought this measure a very unjust one. In cases where the employer and employe are equal, there would be no harm in such a rule, but take a Railroad Company in that case: The employe goes to the service of the employer perfectly ignorant of all the duties and particulars pertaining to that business. The contracting parties are not equal, thus putting the employe on an additional responsibility of dligence. The law as it now reads is to the effect that every individual who takes employment from a corporation or individual, becomes thereby not only the page: 111[View Page 111] guarantee of his own carelessness in the performance of his duty, but is put, by the operation of the rule, the guarantee of every one of his co-servants. Where dangerous machinery is in operation, and a person loses an arm or leg in consequence of carelessness of a servant operating a particular machine, he can recover from his employer, notwithstanding the fact that the machine was dangerously arranged. Every individual takes a position with a full knowledge of the responsibilty, subjecting himself to such accidents as may result, but it is an unjust rule that he should become the guarantee of his fellow-servants. It is for this purpose that the amendment is offered.
Mr. GIBSON believed when a man engages himself he assumes certain responsibilities connected with such employment. He said decisions of Courts in cases of gross negligence were that the road becomes liable, and under this amendment it would destroy what is known as the doctrine of contributory labor, and he did not think the amendment ought to prevail. The passing of this amendment will force Railroad Companies and corporations to compel employes to sign deadline warrants.
Mr. COLE--I think the amendment ought to prevail. Take for instance the case of a fireman being injured by the carelessness of the engineer, where it was not in the power of the fireman to guard against the carelessness of the engineer. I think a Railroad Company or any other Company ought to be responsible for injuries caused by the negligence of other employes. Some body must be responsible; the railroad can use the proper care and diligence, a thing which the sub-employe can not do. They are, as the law now stands at the very mercy of these powerful corporations. In reference to the dead-line warrants, I am in favor of enacting a law, making every dead-line warrant null and void.
Mr. ROBERTS said the law did consider them void, and always considered such documents illegal. He said in case of an accident, the person can collect damages under the existing laws, and he did not see the necessity of such legislation.
Mr. CARTER said in running upon railroads there is a risk, and somebody must assume the responsibility of that risk. This amendment changes it so that the Company shall carry the risk in place of the employe.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COLE moved to amend the bill as follows: "All contracts between an employer and employe by which the rights of the employe under the provisions of this act are waived shall be void."
The amendment was adopted, the Committee report was concurred in, and the bill ordered engrossed.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
The following described bills were returned from the Judiciary Committee with faverable reports, which were concurred in, and the bills severally ordered to be engrossed:
The bill [H. R. 162] relating to wild game; [H. R. 378] concerning incorporated cities; [H. R. 361] referring to Building and Loan Associations; [H. R. 379] winding up of corporations, etc.; [H. R. 389] relating to Churches.
A majority recommended that the bill [H. R 328] to reimburse Clark County for $3,880, expenses incurred in a murder trial, be laid on the table. A minority recommended its passage. The minority report was rejected and the majority report was concurred in.
The House adjourned till 9 o'clock to-morrow.
