davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-24
The Federal Law.

By an act of congress approved June Il, 1906 it was provided:
 That every common carrier engaged in trade or commerce in the District of Columbia, or in any territory of the United States, or between the several states, or between any territory ana another, or between any territory or territories and any state or states, or the District of Columbia, or with for eign nations or between the District of Columbia and any state or states or foreign nations} shall be liable to any of it's employees, or, in case of his death, to his personal representative for the benefit of his widow and children, if any, if none, then for his pareiISs, if none, then for his next of kin depend- ent upon him, for all damages which may result from the negligence of any of its officers agents, or employees, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency due to it's negligence In it's cars, en- zines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, ways, or works.
 On account of the peculiar situation in Connecticut, there being here prac- tically only two railroad systems, those being engaged in commerce between the different states, it is probable that, assuming this act of congress to be constitutional, the rule of fellow ser- want would no longer be a defense here in actions brought by employees of these | railroads for injuries resulting through the negligence of co-employes working thereon. Taking into consideration, therefore, this act of congress, and be- ing mindful of the construction of the rule of fellow servant in Connecticut, it would not appear that the law here now in regard to the liability of em- ployers to employees is very much diff ferent, except as to certain acts of su- perintendents, from the law of the states of this country which have pass ed acts similar to the English Elm 1 ployers' Liability Act of 1SsO and prac- tically not at all different, except as to some notifications in in. | depreciation, from the law in those
 states of this country which have ab- 1 rogated the rule of Fellow Servant only so far as employees on railroads are concerned.
 Evidence on the Subject.
 It has not been possible for your
The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-24
In This Country.

In this country Massachusetts, Ala bama, Indiana and New York have en- acted Employers Liability Acts prac- tically similar to the English employ CTS Liability Act of 1880, while Utah has passed an. act containing most of the provisions of the English act but not all. Colorado adopted an act sim liar to the English act, and later also abrogated entirely the rule of Fellow Servant, The states of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Mon- tana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Texas have enacted acts abrogating the rule of Fellow Servant entirely as to all co-employes on rall- roads, while Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina and Vlr- ginia have abrogated It as to certain co-employes on railroads, mainly as to those occupying positions of superin- tendence.
The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-24
Judge McCurdy's Opinion.

In Connecticut the rule was adopted in 1867 in the case of Burke vs. Nor wick and Worcester Railroad com- pauy, 34 Conn.,, 474, not without some hesitation, Judge McCurdy writing the opinion, and since that time it has been applied by our courts, eliciting. however, from time to time, occasional
The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-24

and competent person. The default of vice. principal in the performance of any duty imposed by law on the mas ter shall be the default of the mas ter"
 These principles prescribe the duty of the employer to the employe. In en- tering into a contract of service with the employer, the employe on his part impliedly assumes certain risks and obligations. As a matter of law it is held that when an employe suffers an injury to which his own negligence materially contributed, there can be no recovery of damages from the em- plcyer; that he assumes all the risks, and hazards incident to or attendant upon the exercise of the particular em- ployment, or the performance of the particular work in which he is engaged as the same is conducted by the em- ployer; and that as q part of his as- sumption of risk he implledly agrees that the employer shall not be liable to him for an injury which he may sustain, resulting from the negligence of other servants in the same employ |ment, These principles state in sub stance the assumption of risks which the employe undertakes to bear in en- tering the employment of his employ CT. Fault is not found with the rules of law which provide that the duty of the master shall consist in using reasonable care to provide for servants
 a reasonably safe place in which to work, reasonably safe appliances and instrumentalities for his work, and fit and competent persons as his co-labor- CTS; nor with the rules of law which provide that the employe must bear the results of his own contributory negligence, and assumes the risks incl
 dent to the conduct and operation of
 the business in which he is engaged;
 but 1t is claimed that the rule of Eel
 low Servant, whatever may have been
 the reason for it's adoption is not suit
 ed to the condition of society as 1t ex-
 ists to-day, and that the State of Con-
 necticut by legislative enactment
 should abolish it's operation as a de-
 fense in suits by employees against em-
 ployers.
The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-24
Fellow Servant Rule.

The rule of Fellow Servant or Co., employe provides that if the master or employe uses ordinary care in the selection of competent servants or em- ployes for the carrying on of his husi- ness, he shall not be responsible to one servant or employe for injuries which result to him through the negligence of another servant or employe in the same employment, It is a doctrine worked out by the courts not by the legislature, and was enunciated by the courts both of England and of Amer ica at about the same time.
 In the case of Priestly vs. Fowler, S Mees. & Welsb. decided in 1887, Judge Abingdon first stated the rule and declared that 1t is not just to make one man responsible for incom- petent acts over which he has no per sonal control, and that what risk, if any, was involved in the co-laboring of a number of men must be assumed by those most intimately acquainted with the conditions and most liable to be affected
 The rule in America was first enun- ciated by the courts of Couth Carolina in the case of Murray vs. So. Carolina Railroad company, 1 McMullan 1885, decided in 1841. Since that time the rule has been applied as a defense in actions by employees against employers generally throughout this country by the courts both of the different states and of the United States.
The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-24
Grounds For Its Adoption.

Various grounds have been assigned as reasons for it's adoption, one being that the duty of the employer was performed when he had used reason able care to select competent servants for his work; another being that in the contract of employment it is not provided that the employer should compensate his employe for injuries resulting from such acts of negligence; but the one most generally relied upon being that the employe impliedly agrees to assume the risk of injury re- sulting from the negligence of a CO., emplOye in undertaking the work of his employer. The reasons for it's adoption are perhaps stated best in the l famous case of Farwell vs. Boston and Worcester Railroad company, Met calf 49, decided in 1S42, in which Chief Justice Shaw delivered the opinion and in enunciating the rule of Fellow | Servant for the first time In Massa- chusetts said:
 The general rule, resulting from considerations as we'll of justice as of policy, is, that he who engages in the employment of another for the per- formance of specified duties and ser vices, for compensation, takes upon himself the natural and ordinary risks and perils incident to the performance of such services, and in legal presump- tion, the compensation is adjusted &C., lcordingly. And we are not aware of any principle which should except the perils arising from the carelessness and negligence of those who are in the same employment. These are perils which the servant is as likely to know, and against which he can as effectu- ally guard, as the master. r....W We are of the opinion that these considera- ] tions apply strongly to the case in question. Where several persons are employed in the conduct of one com- mon enterprise or undertaking and the safety of each depends much on the care and skill with which each oth- CT shall perform his appropriate duty each is an observer of the conduct of the others, can give notice of any mis- conduct, incapacity or neglect of duty, and leave the service, if the common employer will not take such precau- tions, and employ such agents as the safety of the whole party may re- quire. By these means, the safety of each will be much more effeetually se- cured, than could be done by a resort to the common employer for indemni- ty in case of loss by the negligence of
 each other Regarding it in this light
 it is the ordinary case of one sustain ing an injury in the course of his owr
 employment, in which he must bear
 the loss himself, or seek his remedy t1-rot1 e-dae1 it
The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-24
The Law in Connecticut.

The law affecting the relation of master to servant-of employer to em- ploye--has been a growth, developing and changing as our courts have ap- piled the principles of the common law to tke ever changing conditions of so- ciety. In Connecticut the law pro- vides that the employer assumes cer- tain duties towards the employe and also that the employe assume certain risks and hazards incident to the busi- nes of his employer. An employer assumes the duty towards the em- ploye of exercising reasonable care and diligence to provide the employe with a. reasonably safe place in which to work, with reasonably safe machin- cry, tools and implements to work with; with reasonably safe materials to work upon, and with suitable and competent fellow servants to work with him; and in case of a dangerous or complicated business, to make such reasonable rules for it's conduct as may be proper to protect the servants employed therein.
 The law does not require of the em- ployer that which is impossible: it only requisites that he exercise the care of an ordinarily prudent person in the conduct and operation of his business. Oftentimes he must perform these dut- ies through an agent or an employe, and in Connecticut the employer who does an act which It is his duty to do, through an agent or another employe, must see that that agent or employe performs the duty imposed upon the master and performs it with due care.
 In 1901 the general assembly passed a statute declaratory of the principles already applied by our courts to the re- lations existing between employers and employees, and which reads as fol- lows:
 Tt shall be the duty of the master to exercise reasonable care to provide for his servant a reasonably safe place in which to work, reasonably safe ap- plianees and instrumentalities for his work, and fit and competent persons as his eo-laborers; to exercise reason able care in the appointment or de. signation of a vice-principal, and to appoint as such vice-principal a fit
The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-24
REPORT OF COMMISSION EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT An Important Question That Requires Extended
 Study. INSTRUCTIVE REVIEW. A New Commission Advised
 To Report at the
 Next Session.
INSTRUCTIVE REVIEW.

The special commission, consisting of Edward M Day of this city, E. Allen Moore of New Britain and Charles J. Donahue of Derby made their report yesterday on the subject of Employers Liability legislation. After reciting the act under which the commission was appointed the report in full says:
 On March 4, 1907, the committee pro- vided for in your resolution received its appointment from His Excellency, Governor Rollin S. Woodruff, and pro ceeded at once to undertake the inves- tigation of the question of the liabil- ity of employers for accidents to em- ployes.
 On March 2S, 1907, your committee reported to you that it would be una ble to make final report on or before April 2. 1907, and recommended that the time limited for it's investigation and recommendation of the subject matter of your resolution be extended to a date not earlier than May 20, 1907.
 By house joint resolution S90, ap- proved May, 1907, it was resolved by your general assembly that the time for the final report of your commit tee be extended to May 20, 1907.
 Immediately upon organizing as a committee, after notice was given to all interested in the question of leg islation affecting the liability of em- ployers to employees, public hearings were held, and your committee has en- deavored in every way to so accommo- date itself to the convenience of those desiring to be heard as to get the full est possible discussion of this ques- ton.
The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-24

desiring to be heard as to get the full est possible discussion of this ques- tion.
 Bills Considered.
 No bills for proposed legislation were presented to your committee, but your committee assigned for hearings three bills introduced to your assembly which were referred to the Judiciary committee. Of these three bills one provided in substance for the abroga- tion of what is known as the Fellow Servant Rule, and the ather two bills provided in substance for acts known as Employers Liability Acts. These three bills served as the basis for a general discussion before your com nittee of the important question of legislation affecting the liability of en- ployers to employees Not only it's legal phases were considered before your committee, but the question was treat cd to some extent from its economic and .soatsl aspects; and it may be said at once that those advocating some legislation proposed first, either the abrogation of what is known as the Fellow Servant Rule; or, second, the enactment of law similar to what is generally known as an Employers Liability Act; or, third, legislation carrying out in principle what are known in other countries as Work mems Compensation Acts. Those in favor of these proposed changes in the law of our state were fully heard by your committee, while objections to each of them were pointed out and dis cussed by those who thought it was hardly possible to enact law affect ing the relations of employer to em- ploye which would be fairer and more just to all concerned than the law of Connecticut as it now stands. The members of your committee not only listened to the discussion of these questions at the public hearings, but have investigated the subject them selves so far as the limited amount o1 time would allow them, endeavorng il every way to so inform themselves as to be able to act intelligently ant wisely in regard to this important matter.
The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-24

remarks by some judges as to its in justice.
 The strict application of the rule has been somewhat modified by what is sometimes called the doctrine of Vice Principal and the courts of the differ ent states have been at wide variance in particular cases as to who are vice. principals and who are fellow ser wants. In Connecticut under the de- cisions of our courts it is held that whenever the employer delegates to any officer. servant, agent, or employe the performance of any of the positive duties devolving upon him, then such officer, servant, agent, or employe stands in the place of the employer, and the employer is liable for his acts and his negligence to the same extent as though he himself had performed the acts and was guilty of negligence
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-08-26

for the tvO new pumping plants In brookIs IL
and after 1 have bought the land VIII be 1ree
10 talk about my plans.
It is the theory of Mr.. Titus that the water IN
the sand Of Long Island, especially at deep lev
els flows from watershed in Connecticut. run
ming slowly in a subterranean stream beneath
the clay under Long Island Sound, thence under
Long Island and out into the Atlantic Ocean.
At depth of fifty or sixty feet there is thick
clay bed underlying Long Island, and TINS
seems to be impervioUs to water Generally the
citys pumping plants use the shallow wells
taking the water from the sand above the clay
bed. Mr. Titus's air lift pumps go clear through
this clay bed TO a depth OF about two hundred
feet, and he says that he taps inexhaustble
supply at the deep levels
The story is told that more than twenty years
ago Mr.. Titus was taking soundings in Lake
Ronkonkoma. Long Island. The lake has no
inflow or outflow but still the water is pure and
cold. It is said that the United States Geologl-
cal Survey engineers tried to sound the depths
of the lake and were unable to find the bottom
Mr.. Titus's theory is that the lake is a surface
outcroppng of a water supply flowing from the
Connecticut shore under Long Island Sound. ana
that when plummet is dropped into the depths
Of Ronkonkoma 1t fails to strike the bottom be-
cause strong current, two hundred feet down.
sweeps the plummet oceanward.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-08-26
BRAVE RUNAWAY RESCUE.
Mounted Policeman Com phmented
bu Superior on Scene.

When James Reilly, mounted patrolman. OF the
West I52d station, stopped the runaway horse
attached to carriage IN which were Charles Ole
sons and family. of No 241 West 18th street,
Yesterday afternoon he did not know that Deputy
Commissioner Bugher just behind him in the
police automobile. lie therefore a good deal
surprised when Dir. Bugher appeared on the scene
and effusively shook him by the hand and thanked
him for good work done
passing automobile started the runaway near
Broadway and 16Sth street. Swerving around the
corner, the horse dashed east TO Amsterdam ave
nue. Just as a northbound passed. Nip and
tuck the runaway and the car sped up the avenue
the passengers in the shouting directions TO the
driver These frightened the horse still more and
he became totally ungovernable.
With the carriage rocking from side Ia side the
horse reached I79th street There Patrolman
Reilly swung into his mount alongside. and, after
repeated unsuccessful grabs at the bride of the
runaway at last got a firm hold and brought the
animal to a halt at 1Sfst street and Amsterdam
avenue Mr. blossoms and his family piled pellmell
ont of the rig too shaken up and nervous to do
more than stanrner their thanks to- the policeman.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-08-26
MUDDER-IN-LAW.'
Lieutenant Asks Complaining Has
band if He Looks Like Cupid.

A crestfallen young man entered the West 4th
street police station last night. and waking up
Lieutenant Bolan. said;
Cap, a crooI an unnateral muddeF-in-ia" S'"i7
me wuf. / wants cop 70 heip me sit NeI p'N NJ
see!"
Not so fast young man.. said the lieutenant
ITS dull here Sundays since Judge " Eitiiiah mas
ceased TO raid the saloons in this precinct that IN
sist on dispensing liquid refreshments on 'he oa"-
bath day and TO hold night court for the oHehueis
IN tbe station house Suppose you take IL easy anu
sing me your tale of woe
And this is the tale -
cor,o months ago William Dempsey. OF No 0lo
Tenth avenue. met pretty Florence Macabee. VINO
ata che was eighteen. But mamma, with whom
Florence formerly lived. at No. 2iis Eighth avenue
saws she is still under age; hence the trouble
wu,au, and Florence decided 90 plunge into the
sen of n,atrimOny. and got the Rev. MT f<|epcheh
70 tie th,, knot al his home. No 4S1 West asa
street at noon yesterday. Following the ce'e
n,onv bride and bridegroom departed on an extend
ed honeymoon trip to Fort George. on their return
10 the city the still happy couple went to the nome
OF Edward wochschlager. at No 51o Tenth avenue
where Dempsey had been staying before the we'd
ding and they sat down ~ enjoy wedding "a-
ner with Mr. and Mrs. WOchsChaser.
The wedding party had just been seated when tho
"crooI rnudder-in-law'' entered When she FOUND
out the state Of affairs she turned upon the
guilty Dempsey and with words OF burning 7ar-
casm upbraided him for his part in the day :
Of a word jugger. being in his spare time polit-
cal orator the debate waXed hot and furious.
Didn't I win her from de of de bunch?"
qleried William In his most convincing style.
Yes all but me- replied his unwilling mother
n-Iaw and. II you think that you've won her
now my boy. you're badly mistaken. and with
that Mrs MaCabee marched out of the fiat with her
daughter in tow
And word of warning 10 you. Dempsey,
added the mother. as she was leaving: III you
come around trying to get her again some one
will get shot.
IL was after pOndering these last words OF Mrs.
Macabee that Dempsey decided 10 enlist the police
in his cause. and thus outwit the mother-ln-law.
becalIse'' he reasoned IF tries TO get away and
gets plugged Florence is up against it..
R,t the lieutenant knew better than 20 face an
angry n1other-in-law. Now, do l look like
Cupidc" he said. And II did, which GER
tainlv do not doesn't Cupids duty end as soon as
the couple is hitched?
Court and a summons in the morning. was the
terse advice he gave the lovelorn swain. and
Dempsey's eonnubial bliss has been postponed for
at least day.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-08-26

Hopper Trying to Regain the Lead
erslHp of ThUty-trst.

The political situation In the 3lst Assembly Dis
trict in Harlem. is becoming more complicated as
the date set the primaries approaches. and the
fight for leadership In the Democratic ranks prom
ises to he the hottest there in years
Isaac \ Hopper. ex-Superntendent OF Buildings.
once a leader the district he is now striving 10
reCapture is of the Democratic candidates Tor
reelection. while opposed TO him is William J.
Wright the present leader. who defeated Hopper
at the primaries last year by an overwhelming ma
tOrity.
The ralying cry of the Wright adherents ia
"lngratitude' which they explain by reciting an
incident of three years ago. when Wright was the
lieutenant of Hopper. ON July "a. 1884, Hopper in
vted Wright Thomas b. LeaAey. Hopper's CAM
paisu manager; Thomas p Brennan, his chief
lieutenant and four five others TO be his guests
for A sail to Travers Island. the Sound. The
party left the city I'm the evening. and when
returning that night the motor launch Alena
struck Il submerged reef just off Hunters Island.
Things looked dark for those of the party who
could not swim Wright. knowing that Hopper
was unable swim. took him on his back to a
rock about hundred yards distant. Then Wright
got two boats and took Hopper ana the rest or the
party To the shore.
One month after this accident Hopper and the
other members of the yachting party appeared at
Wrights house. No 2e3 Lenox avenue and gave
him a silver cup. This cup is now used as one Of
the chief exhibits in Wrghts campaign. and every
day his leutenants tour the district in an auto
mobile showing the cup a reminder of the in
gratitude of Hopper. calling particular attention to
the inscription:
Presented to our friend. William ]. Wright. for
his generous and heroic conduct at the wrecking
of the launch Allena at Hog Back Rock near
Hunters Island on Sunday evening. July a. 1894. !"
Hopper and his friends are sparins no time or
expense tn make their fight interesting one. and
the Harlem Democratic Club is daily filled with the
adherents the ex-leader. They refuse to discuss
the Yachting trip incident. but say they attend
ing strictly business and confident that after
the primaries A. Hopper Will be their leader.