Northern Wisconsin advertiser. [volume] (Wabeno, Wis.) 1898-1925, 1907-07-11
A PERNIcIous DOCTRINE.



Roosevelt in his jamestown speech
propounded an entirely new and radi-
cal doctrine on the subject of the
liability of employers for injuries to
those in their employment, which he
urged as the basis of national and
state legislation. He had said among
other excellent things: I'VE have In
herited and developed a superbly self
reliant individualism in this country.
most earnestly hope that it will not
be lost, that it will never be ex-
changed for a deadening socialism
lence of the .wage-earner,' as he is
fond of calling all workmen, upon the
employer and the obligation of the
latter to take care of him, implies a
kind of paternalism calculated to have
a deadening effect upon the sense of
individual responsibility. The argu-
ment for it even smacks of socialism.
as it would make the community
! through the employer pay for acct
dents and injuries to those who take
the risks of work, regardless of the
F. cause or the personal responsibility
for what happens. 1t would not do
this for all citizens, but would estab-
{, lish class distinction mahilg kind
| of dependent caste of wage-earners.
whom "superbly self-reliant individ-
ualism" should put upon footing Of
equality of rights and responsibilities
before the law.
The president lays down an entire
/ 1y new principle, or theory, of EN-.
pioyment as a basis for his doctrine
He maintains that workmen should
receive certain definite and limited
compensation for all accidents in in
dustry, irrespective of negligence"
and the payment should be "auto-
matte, because the employer is 1.-THE
agent of the public and Sin the bust
ness. of serving the public and
Though the burden will at the mo-
ment be his it will ultimately be as
sumed. as it ought to be. by the gem
erai public" only in this way can
the shock of the accident be diffused.
for it will be transferred from en-
lployer to consumer for whose benefit
jail industries are carried on" This.
be it understood, is said, not of com
mon carriers or public service cor
porations or anybody acting by public
authority, but of all employers in all
industries, corporate or individual.
What is this but "deadening So
cialism," partial in it's paraiyzing eff
feet. but no less Objectionable on that
account? Why should wage-earners
be thus insured against accident by
the public more than salary-earners
who are often paid less, or even en-
pioyers, who are equally liable to in
jury and more liable to loss and are
often ruined by accidents?
This subtle doctrine SENS to us to
be pernicions and utterly destructive
of "selsreiiant individualism' in a
/ large class of citizens who most need
1t and are most benefited by it. Any
thing creating class distinction.
ESPECIALLY one of dependence and of
special claims upon another class and
upon law and government, is most
obnoxious to the fundamental princi-
pies of government of freedom and
equality. Every man should stand
on his own feet, take his own risks
and accept the responsibilities of
manhood. If an occupation is hazard
Gus it is highly paid accordingly, and
has to be so in order to secure men
to work in it. The ordinary risk is
paid for and it is for the interest of
the employer to lessen it as much as
possible. If an accident occurs for
which the employer is responsible
through neglect to provide every rea-
sonable safeguard and to take every
reasonable care, he should pay for the
injury done. If it is caused by earth
quake or lightning or fire or by the
negligence of workmen themselves,
which he has taken every means to
prevent, to compel him to make COM
pensation would be neither justice nor
sound policy He would have no
means of reimbursing himself from
the general public" and If the pub
lie was required to make up the loss
WOulu ut SOCldiloIu III It's TduheSI
form. A general system of socialistic
insurance against injury and loss for
| all members of the community
would be more equitable.
In practical everyday experience
this doctrine would be most harm
| full One of the most perplexing dits
ficulties of employers in Industries
using machinery and mechanical ap-
pliances, especially those involving
special hazard. is to induce workmen
to take reasonable care, to prevent
them from being negligent and taking
needless risks. Let all the risks
of loss by accident be put upon the
employer and let the workmen be as
sured of compensation for injury
whatever happens. and the difficulty
would be multiplied. The sense OF
responsibility on TIE part OF the work
man, hard enough to instill and main
tain in any case. would be weakened
IL not wholly taken away. 1t is bet
ter for the workman to bear his share
4 -