The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-31
LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS.


 Tn his speech at Provincetown the President boasted that we have now on the statute books national em- ployers liability law. but it is plain that the law Is not sufficiently drastic and far-reaching to please him. He evidently advocates and expects some thing still more stringent in that re- spect than the present law is. Tt is monstrous." he argues, that man or a woman who is crippled in an indus try, even as result of taking what are the necessary risks of the occu- patton. should be required to bear the whole burden of the loss. That bur den should be distributed and not placed solely upon the weakest indi- vidual, the one least able to carry it. By making the employer liable the loss will ultimately be distributed among all the beneficiaries of the business.
 It seems plain from this remark that he wants a law which will make an employer responsible for all injuries sustained by those in his employ with out regard to the question of who is propriety of national law of this kind we are free to say that we do not see the fairness or justice of such law as he seems to favor. If one working In mill. shop or factory is injured through the fault of the employer, or by reason of imperfect machinery, or because the employer has failed to pro- vide for the safety of those employed by him it would be right for that ern- ployer to be held responsible for the damage sustained, or a share or It at least. In other words, if the em- ployer is to blame for an accident he should pay for his negligence. If. on the other hand. the employe is injured by or through his own negligence or carelessness we see no reason why the employer should suffer for it. Those who accept employment in any occu- DdIlOut edge of all the risks they run should not expect another to pay for their in- juries.
 It Is plain from the Presidents lam guage. that he favors a national law which will make a person, firm or cor poration liable for all damages to em- ployes, regardless of where or on whom the blame rests. This theory or doc Urine is merely an extension of the holy war" now being carried on against corporations and all forms of capital. The Presidents idea, if his language means anything, is that those who are benefited by the labor of others should pay all injuries sustained by the labor CTS. Why, as The New York Commer- cial suggests, should not the employees of an establishment pay for all inju- ries sustained by the owners of the business? The Commercial answers its own question by predicting that Roosevelt will not advocate such law for the reason that Tt wouldn't suit the unions" and that is doubtless true.
 While on the subject it may be of interest to note the English law on the same line. We copy this much from recent issue of Law Notes:
 On July 1 an act went into force in England which very greatly increases the liability of employers for injuries sustained by servants in the course or their employment It goes far beyond the previous act of 1S97 which gave compensation only in respect of acei- dents occurring in particular kinds or employment, and in certain defined To- calities. The new act provides gener- ally for compensation if in any employ ment personal injury by accident aris- ing out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman. The right of compensation Is also ex- tended to workmen suffering from cer tain industrial diseases, and to their dependents. The category of "depen- dents" entitled to compensation is also enlarged by including their illegiti- mate children dependent on the earn ings of a parent or grandparent, and conversely parents or grandparents de- pendent on the earnings of illegttimate children Another far-reaching change is that it will no longer be possible to set up the serious and willful mis- conduct of the workman in defense when injury has resulted in death or in serious and permanent disablement,