The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-24
Conclusions.

Your committee in this report has endeavored to set forth in a general way the law in Connecticut governing the relations of employers to em- ployes, what is known as the rule of Fellow Servant, the efforts made to modify it's application by what are known as Employers Liability Acts, and the rather new treatment of the whole subject in countries that have passed what are known as Workmens Compensation Acts. Your committee has endeavored also to set forth the advantages claimed for these measures and to state the objections offered to them, placing before you, so far as it has been able to gather it, the evid- ence as to different forms of legisla- tion on this subject
 Your committee after the investiga- tion it has thus given to the subject, feels compelled to ake two observa- tions, one is that legislation on this subject, whatever form it may have taken has not reached final state but is more or less experimental, It Is constantly undergoing change and amendment, and no one system has been so effectively worked out that it can be adopted without considerable study as to it's local application.
 Another observation is that the question involved in the subject mat ter of your resolution is most diff ficult and important one. It involves legislation of far reaching conse- quences. To investigate this subject even to get such a general idea of it as is embodied in this incomplete re- port has taken considerable time and study; and to recommend legislation at this time which would merit your serious consideration is impossible. Your committee believes that legisla- | ton on this subject ought to be ap- preached only after the fullest investi- gation, deiberation and discussion. A committee recommending it ought to have ample opportunity to think out carefully each provision of any pro- posed act and to consider all possible objections to 1t; while the general as- sembly itself ought to have such an act before It at the very opening ot the session in order that each member might study it carefully and discuss il 1 intelligently. Necessarily, wise legis- Ilation of this character must be work. ed out slowly,
 Your committee, however, has come to certain general conclusions:
 I 1.In the opinion of your committed lit is not wise or advisable to abrogatt in toto the rule of Fellow Servant
 without in any manner limiting tn, amounts which may be recovered against the employer on account of In
 jurles which he may suffer through tn negligence of a co-employe. Your com
 mittee does not therefore recommend
 for your favorable consideration
 House Bill No. 99 which provides fol
 the abrogation of the rule of Fellow
 Servant.
 | 2 In the opinion of your committe, lit is very difficult matter to creat lby legislation exceptions to a genera
 rule so that the rule as thus modified
 will work satisfactorily Your com lmittee does not say that possibly sucl Legislation may not be worked out, bu in view of the application of the Elm lployers' Liability Act recently passet
 by congress to a rather peculiar rail
 road situation in Connecticut, and il
 view also of what seems to be the gen
 eral testimony as to the unsatisfactor
 workings of what are known as Elm lployers Liability Acts in other juris
 dictions, your committee does not deer lit advisable to recommend for you favorable consideration Senate Bi
 No. 2 or House Bill Mo- 23, being bill in the nature of Employers Liabilit Acts.
 8. In the opinion of your committe : a study of comparative legislation o
 this subject, more, however, from it
 theoretical than its practical sidt } points toward legislation on this sub 5 ject like that embodied in what ar , known as Workmen's Compensatlo
 Acts, as having produced the most sat Iisfactory results. Whether such leg . islation for Connecticut is practice and sensible at the present time, you } committee does not undertake to say It believes, however, that the subjec is of sufficient importance to warran it's careful study and investigate
 both by employers and employees Leg
 islation of this character if ever adopt ed ought to be only that which is fai
 and practically in it's application bo:
 to employers and employees, and coul
 best be worked out by the mutual co loperation of beth.
 Your committee does not deem it ad
 visable to recommend legislation c this kind without more complete ir vestigation of the subject than it ha been able to make.