The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1908-10-08
ElII0Is IIHRRAlIgRE gAsE
Taff cIsloa 81 5rsa 8snsfltto
Employ gslElst pIoysr.
BROAD SIZE aIIIY F1I. -
Libel About His Being Father e
eminent BY Injunction alnnillaSs
tured For 76IIticaI IllIect

I -
II men who labor come To lir
Mr.. Taft and study what he has ono
for their interests they WI won q Or
how there could be any stucerity Q
the attempt by the Democratic d
to prejudice labor against him
Take the Narramore personal 1-
jury case In Ohio which " hen con 81 u
cred should forever set AZ est al p u.
manufactured talk for poll teal 81 9pt
charging Mr.. Taft with haln
father Of government BY I'M
Judge Taft's decision IN the
more case when he was on the bench
has been of tremendous benefit 70 ems
ploye as against employer In Ohio In
personal injury cases.
The facts of the Harramore case
are these Early In 1899 9arrau1ore
was a brakeman on the Big Four
road. One day while at work his loot
caught in an unlocked frog.
train came along and he was manned
for life The railroad refused to DO
anything for him and HIS wife and
children dependent upon him Tor sup
port. Narramore sought the aid Of
Ohio law held that the frog should
not have been left open and courts
generally held that an enpioye kno
ing that his employer was in the IN
of dlsobeYing a law intended Tor he
employees protection by coutfnulng at
work assumed the risks OF the ems
p1oyment. The judge before y hone
the case was tried promptly dism isseo
the complaint.
On appeal the case reached the
United States Court OF Appeals an
came before Judge Taft. Judson Hat-
mon argued very mastertuIly Tor the
railroad, but the Republican canotS
date for President Went
against Ohio court precedents ana OF
courts in many other parts OF the
country in rendering a decision In IA
vor of Narramore. In his decision
Judge Taft said:
1.-THE intention of the Ohio Eag
lature was to protect the employees o9
railways from injury from q trequ el4s
source of danger by compelling the
railway company to adopt Ell
known safety device And, although
an employe implicitly valves CONS
pIiance with the statute and agrees
to assume the risk from unblocken
frogs and switches by continuing IN
the service without complaint, this
court will not recognize or entoEea
such agreement. The imposition q
penalty for the violation OF statute
does not exclude other means OF enc
forcement, and to permit the com many
to avail himself OF suchan assumpelou
of risk by It's employees Is, IN ehect, 70
enable It to nu1lify penal statute
and is against public policy.
Judge Taft's decision stu stands
as the law in Federal courts V1en
the Common Pleas Court In Cleveland
took an opposite stand IN 1903 the
Ohio Legislature in the spring OF
1904 passed a law which made Judge
Taft's decision one OF the laws OF
Ohio. Who shall estimate the service
that Judge Taft performed for al
who labor in dangerous employment
by his decision In the Narramore case
by which he made the law on the side
of those who work?
The decision in the Narramore case
was against gigantic corporate inter
ests and in the face of Ohio Supreme
Court decisions, but Judge TAFT found
a way to Justice through the meshes
of the law skilfuIIX drawn to do meal
culable service for all time to those
who labor. His record on the be4cn
Is not one requiring explanation, but
understanding, to see Its convincing
business and fairness. In all this tang
for the purpose of creating misguided
prejudice there is not Democrat IN
the land who has said that any OF his
decisions were wrong.
In all his career Judge Taft by
deeds has shown the broadcast syrnpa-
thy for all who labor. No man VIII
20 farther than he In efforts in their
behalf. but he is not fndulgtng IN
cheap talk of the Democratic type Of
hoodwfnking by mere promises ana
misrepresentations to catch vote.