The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1904-08-14

T used TO be the case In England, as
X Is in most American States to-
L day, that an injured workman had
for the most part no remedy at law
or in equity against his employer FOR
accident No matter how faithfully he
may have discharged his duty, no mat
ter how free from contributory negli-
gence. the employee killed or MANNED in
the performance OF his work, could OBJ
tain no redress and secure no remedy.
AS in America today. the withdrawal
from the workingman OF the protection
Of the law led to the greatest hardships
and men were thrown upon the streets
manned for life, and women and chill
dren were left penniless and destitute,
as the result of injuries, which If they
had happened TO anyone but working
men, would have been Immediately and
amply compensated for.
This state of affairs, which unfortu-
nately still exists TO the present day in
most OF the American States. arose from
the action Of the courts.
1t had always been assumed by the
English law that an employer was re-
sponsible for the acts Of his employee
in the ordinary performance Of his du-
ties, and this doctrine had been proved
necessary 20 protect wOrkingmen and
third persons from the carelsssness Of
the employer and his agents.
Protection Removed.
In the case Of the workingman him
self. however. this protection was en-
tirely removed In the year 1887. in the
famous case OF Priestley-Fowler. II was
stated by the court that an employee
could not recover where the injury had
been inflicted by the carelessness OF a
fellow employee.
The workman " as supposed tc assume
the known risk OF his employment. and
he was also supposed to assume the liza
bility OF accident resulting from the
carelessness OF any one Of the men who
were working with him
AS a consequence the workingman
ceased 70 have any protection whatso-
ever. II there were a wreck on train
as the result OF the carelessness Of a
switchman or gatekeeper. and the con-
ductor. engineer. brakeman. and all the
passengers were killed, the result would
be, according TO law, that all the passen-
gers. whether rfch or poor, might re
cover. while the engineer. conductor
and brakeman could not recover, be-
cause they were supposed to assume the
risk that the switchman. whom. per
haps, they had never seen. would leave
the switch open.
Union Agitation.
For many years the British work.
men. through their unions and espe-
cially the Union of Railway Employees,
sgitated for a redress Of this grievance,
and in 1850 they secured the employers
liability act, which was passed for
seven years and which was annually
renewed after 1887.
This act limited somewhat the scope
OF the doctrine of common employment
and provided that where a workman
was killed, his representative should
have the same compensation and rene
dies against the employer as though he
had not been a workman.
While this act remedied the scope of
the doctrine OF any employment, and,
therefore. did some good. the advan-
tages arising from IL were. on the
whole. very small Under the act the
employer was enabled TO evade the law
by a device called Contracting out
BY contracting out was meant to Of
fer an alternative plan or TO persuade
the employe in one way or another to
waive his rights under the act.
AS the employe was frequently In the
dilemma Of being forced either 20 waive
his rights under the act or TO lose his
Job. the advantages accruing TO him
from the law were not very great.
An Act Obtained.
Moreover. II was soon found that thu
percentage Of cases where the injury
could be directly traceable TO the negli
Eence OF the superiors Of the employt
without any contributory negligence or
his own part was exceedingly small. I
was soon felt that a remedy Of wide,
scope was necessary. and this wa.
eventually obtained in the workmen'i
compensation act. which is now tn,
law Of England.
The inspiration OF the new law cam
from the continent Of Europe, and es
pecially from Germany In the so
Germany inaugurated her system Of in
suring workmen against sickness. oil,
age and accident. and the exanplt
which she set was soon followed b,
France. Austria, Belgium and Holland
Italy and most Of the continental coun
tries. The principle Of the new legisla
ton was new and entirely dineren
from that which the English law hat
been following.
Injustice and Hardship.
The English law. as our America
law today had sought TO discover VIII
was responsible for each accident, L
weigh carefully the liability Of the EN-
ployer and of his agents upon the on
hand, and the contributOry negligenc
OF the injured workman on the other
and 70 make an exact balance betwee
the two.
This system worked injustice an
hardship, because the smallest amour
Of contributory negligence. howcyt
slight, was sufficient TO debar the IN
5ured man from securing relief. More
ever In the great majority Of cases
was absolutely and entirely impossibl
20 determine who was responsible. an
in more than half Of the cases there wa
no direct responsibility or carelessnes
on the part OF either the employer @
the employe The German law. how
ever. took the stand that just as III
soldier should receive q pension 70
death or manning due TO the nature c
his work. SO the injured workman {
the heirs OF a killed workman shoul