Waterbury Democrat., 1901-04-04
INJURY OF EaIPLoYEs.
Long Arguments Before Judiciary
 Coo,,,,,t+e.,. An o1,oy 1yaoc,,raS

Long Arguments bSIOfe Juulclafy
 Committee on Labor Measures.
 The hearing before the judiciary committee on Sennior Kennedys bill concerning injuries of employees and the senate bill regulating liability of employers for injuries to employees were considered together during the week. The Senate bill Is to extend the liability and provide for damages where injuries are received by reason of defective machinery, works or ways where the same are in charge of per- son standing in the relation of vice. principal, and also to give damages for injuries on railroads where the injur- ies are caused by the negligence of fel- low servants. and makes employers liability extend to injuries caused by the negligence of contractors and sub- contractors.
 Senator Kennedy declared that his bill has the support of every labor or ganization in the state and that la- boring men are very respectable and considerable minority. Tn nearly every action of tort and case where dam- ages are claimed in consequence of in- jury to employees the defense set up Is that the Injury was caused by the act of fellow servant, and that the company, Is not responsible.
 Judge Blydenburgh of New Haven asserted that the bill does not put any burdens upon corporations except what they should hear If 1t operates to make corporations a little more care full in selecting employees upon whom they place responsibility that Is de sirnble.
 H. w. Taylor of Danbury, represent ing the Central Labor union of that place, occupied considerable time Tn urging the merits Of the bill. He gave .a list of states in which similar piils have been passed. He declared that there is too frequently a feeling on the part of many laboring men against cor porations that expose their employees and that it would be much safer for corporations to eliminate the defense that of two employees standing side by side, one is responsible for the others injuries, and to cast away the claim that the mnn is a principal and that he is not hired to injure himself or his shopmate.
 General s. w. Kellogg of Waterbury disputed the belief that. the legislation is necessary in Connecticut. He did not believe in taking nway from labor CTS any reason for being careful or themselves. He disputed n statement that the bill would make skilled labor CTS more careful.
 Hugh O O'Flaherty of Hartford denied that the laboring men are fully pro- tected. He illustrated a point by talk ing the case of men ordered by super fbrs to perform certain duties which are accompanied by danger. If the men refuse they are discharged; If they execute the orders they, may have broken bones, may even lose their lives. A drinking engineer may be retained by a railroad company, if there IS no time to secure another. He may rush his train into an accident, but the law permits the company to set up the de fense that the brakeman whose bones are broken was injured in consequence of the acts of a fellow servant. MT O'Tlaherty quoted Judge Hamersley in support of his assertion that the pres ent law Is ian eyil,'
 , MT Hamilton referred to the Davis case, in which the theory was con- ceived that damages cannot be re covered if death Is instantaneous, but can be if the victim of the accident fingers a. second.
 ' MT Danaher said that the courts have ruled that there Is need for law and that the .questloil before the com rnittee is whether the bill meets the need. Af.,
 James Grieson. representing the Central Labor union of Norwich, at tackled General Kellogg's assertion that the bill would make workmen care less.
 Felix Callahan of Norwich also ar gued in favor of the measure.
 Judge Stoddard of New Haven con tended that it is rarely that the doc urine of fellow servants interferes un- justly.
 Judge Gager of Derby claimed that the bill,is obscure and he signified his .disapproval fnsa general way.
 Senator Kennedy stated that many companies see that the lives of their employees are insured, and that in the end the result Is not unprofitable to the employers. There Is no discourage ment to manufacturers in the meas ures. sss
 The committee on temperance is the first legislative committee toefinish it's work, having closed It's hearings yes terday, The committee will hold m executive session next Wednesday af- ternoon to decide upon reports on the several measures which have been be.