Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1906-11-30

| ~
: the rights of workmen against their
employers? The commission has not
published It's opinion, and no one is
authorized to speak for It. But any
student of the subject can, propose a
plan which in equity, justice, and
: economic value far surpass the anti
quated machinery which we have in
herited from an age which had other
needs. The simplest, cheapest and
most satisfactory method would be
that of Germany, which first had the
courage to sweep away the whole me-
dleval procedure which compels every
Injured workman to take the attitude
OF accuser and prosecutor of his en-
lployer II he insists on securing HIS
rights by law, and which lays on him
the burden Of proof so difficult to es-
tablish in claims OF tort, The Ger
man law simply and directly provides
a modern device for transferring the
burden to the responsible managers
of business, requires them to pro-
vide funds through insurance asso-
Citations, and thus to give reasonable
and measured indemnity according
to the principles of actuarial science.
History has shown that this Is not a
, financial burden which cripples
state In competition with other states
Great Britain has not been willing to
take this step, but she has sought
to reach the same end by her COM
pensation act OF 1897, which requires
nj employers to compensate their In
jured workmen In all cases, whether
due to negligence of the employer
or to other causes. That law is de-
fectiye In many respects, and espe-
cially In this. that no fund Is ready
to pay the indemnity II the employ
or Is poor or bankrupt. With all
IT'S serious defects. the British law
has proved vast advance in the
common law which still, unfortu-
nately, remains there In force. Until |
expert opinions have been collated.
one In this state can offer only sug-
gostlons for consideration. A possi- |
BILE way out OF our legal difficulty |
and into Justice might be law re-
quiring all employers to insure
their workmen against accident from |
whatever cause In causalty compa-
nles or In mutual insurance assocla-
tions, or In state office, all under
state law. II there were appeal, as
there would be occasionally, TO Judi
eial decision OF cases disputed. a
simple court. with both sides repre-
sentod might be devised to arbltrate
and finally settle the dispute without
complicated process or serious cost
In case this court decided that the
employer was negligent the lndem-
nifty might be Increased, even trebled
according TO the degree. Criminal
acts. OF course, would be considered
by other courts In some such way
as this, legally formulated, all com
mon law rights OF workmen would
he far more than secured. The ques-
ton as to the payment of premiums
under this plan really Is minor
matter. Considering the immense
gain to workingmen. their relative
high wages In this country, and the
Tear that the premiums might be
burden In competitive business, the
workmen well might be asked 10 nav
part OF the premiums. Probably the
employers would prefer TO pay them,
lfter. experience, owing to eompllea-
ions OF management and admins
ration. Even II the employees were
o pay all the premiums they would.
m the average, be In far better con-
lition than they are az present. be-
ause now they pay the entire pre-
mum aud at unduly heavy rates or =
hey are ruined .hopelessly II they u
@ without insurance. English ex- :
erience has shown that the casual q
companies, when there is legal :
litigation 20 compensate all work "
ien' are ready and able to carry the :
usiness at rates which form but - !,
comparatively slight addition to the -
ase scale. In deed. there already !, :
re many employers in this country !,
no insure their workmen in such :,
'mpanies and still are able TO meet !
'eir competitors. This process has -
'ne far enough to deprive the argu- -,
ent OF competition Of most OF lts
roe. What few actually have
me, and with financial advantage
themselves. Il would not be q =
lrdnhlD IA raonlra an a. A.