FENCING OF RAILROAD TRACKS.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R 71] pending at the adjournment yesterday.
Mr. MAGEE withdrew his motion to recommit.
The question being on the amendment [Mr. Willard's] to strike out all that relates to attorney's fees, it was rejected by yeas 14, nays 22
Mr BAILEY, explaining his vote: The law in reference to mechanic's lien and in other cases provides for attorneys' fees, and I see no reason why such a provision should not be included in these cases, so I vote "no."
Mr. MAGEE: I don't think we can make such a provision apply to involuntary contracts. I therefore vote "aye."
Mr. McINTOSH: If this attorney fee is stricken out it will cost the farmer as much to hire a lawyer as the fence is worth, so I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I understand the friends of this bill put it on the ground of police regulation, and not on a contract basis. That uneducated professionals who may advise a suit for the sake of a fee may not profit by such legislation I vote "no."
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. WINTER moved to amend by inserting the word "receiver" after the word "assignee" wherever it occurs.
Mr. YOUCHE questioned whether receivers already appointed can be affected by such a provision.
Mr. WINTER considered they could under police regulations.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. YOUCHE offered an amendment that the fences may be constructed in part of wire. All the new fences in my part of the State are built of barbed wire.
It was adopted by consent.
Mr. OVERSTREET moved to strike out the words "with gates and bars." This bill ought to be fair and equitable to the railroad company as well as to the land owners. Is it reasonable when the railroad company have no use for the gates, when they are broken down the company is to be held responsible? Then the bill does not state how frequent these gates shall be built. The roads may be required to build them at every field.
MR. WINTER: I favor the amendment for the reason I don't believe the feature it proposes to strike is constitutional. The only right we have to pass a bill of this kind is to protect the public by police regulation from the liability of having trains thrown from the track by animals getting on it.
Mr. YOUCHE moved as a substitute an additional section, requiring gates and bars at farm crossings to be built and kept in repair and kept closed by the farmer in the absence of a written contract.
Mr. OVERSTREET: Adopt my amendment and then the amendment of the Senator from Lake (Mr. Youche) and all cases will be covered.
Mr CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: It occurs to me the position taken by the Senator from Johnson (Mr. Overstreet) is right. We have no right to require railroads to make gates at crossings; that is not for the protection of the public.
Mr. MACY: I don't know why the interests of railroads should be regarded as so page: 161[View Page 161] much more sacred in Indiana than in any of the adjoining Stages. In Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts and a number of other States - in fact, every where railroad fencing in required - they are compelled to keep up fences and barriers the same as in this bill.
The substitute (Mr. Youche's) was rejected.
The amendment (Mr. Overstreet's) was agreed to.
Mr. YOUCHE now re-offered his substitute as an additional section.
It was agreed to.
Mr. SELLERS moved to amend by striking out "cattle guards and barriers" where they occur in Section 2. There ought to be no provisions that will allow any person to go upon and occupy the track of a railroad. The loss of one life is of more importance than all the advantages to be gained from this bill. No one ought to be allowed to tear up a track except an experienced railroad man.
Mr. HUSTON: Would not the railroad company put in such barriers and cattle guards within the time prescribed for notice?
Mr. SMITH of Jennings: This amendment would persons to go upon a railroad track and make it insecure - it is a most unreasonable thing
Mr WEIR: It seems to me this amendment is eminently proper and ought to be adopted
Mr. McINTOSH: If this amendment is adopted we might as well indefinitely postpone the bill. It is the knife that will slaughter it.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I think the amendment ought to be adopted.
The amendment was rejected by yeas 21, nays 23
Mr. BAILEY, explaining his vote: It seems to me the adoption of this amendment would in fact nullify the bill. Senators exaggerate the idea of inexperienced men working upon the track. I vote "no."
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I regard the amendment as wholly immaterial. If you strike out this clause you still require the tracks to be fenced. If a fence is run on two sides and no cattle-guard is placed where a road crosses, the track is not fenced.
Mr. WINTER moved to insert in Section 2 a thirty days' notice to the railroad agent.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, moved to amend that such corporation shall not be required to build fences between the first day of December and the first day of May.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr RAHM moved to amend so that fences may be dispensed with by consent. In several townships in my county stock are fenced in, and there is no need of the tracks being fenced.
The previous question was demanded, and being seconded by the Senate, under its operation -
The amendment was rejected.
On motion the amendments were ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr HUSTON the bill was read the third time and passed by yeas 33, nays 9
Mr. RAHM, explaining his vote: I favored the passage of this bill, but when it compels railroads to build fences of no use to anybody I can not vote for the bill. The fences cost a great deal of money; the farmers will have to pay the bill at last, and as corn and produce are too cheap already I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: Every dollar required from railroads to pay for fencing will be gotten back by reducing the pay of laborers or increasing the charges for carrying freight, and with that view I vote "no."
