The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1908-02-01

/ legislation embodying the complete recog-
milton of the principle which places the
entire trade risk for industrial accidents
excluding, Of course, accidents due 10
willful misconduct by the employee on thu
industry as represented by the employer
which in this case is the government In
all these countries the principle applies to
the government just as much as TO the
private employer. Under no circumstan-
oes should the injured employe or his
surviving dependents be required 10
| bring suit against the government nor
/ should. there be the requirement that in
| order to insure recovery negligence in
some form on the part of the government
7 should be shown. Our proposition is not
| to confer a right of action upon the gov
ernment employe. but TO secure him suit
able provision against injuries received in
the course of his employment The bur-
den of the trade risk should be placed
upon the government Exactly as the
workngman is entitled to his wages, SO
he should be entitled to indemnity for
the injuries sustained in the natural course
of his labor. The rates of eompensat ton
and the regulations for its payment
should be specified in the law and the
machinery for determining the amount to
be paid should in each case be provided
In such manner that the employe Is prop
erly represented without expense to him.
In other words, the compensation should
be paid automatically, while the appli-
cation of the law in the first Instance
should be vested in the department OF
commerce and labor. The law should APP
ply to all laborers, mechanics and other
civilian employees of the government of
the United States including those in the
service of the Panama canal commission
and of the insular government.
Same Deal To All.
The same broad principle which should
apply TO the government should utimate-
ly be made applicable to all private en-
ployers. Where the nation has the power
it should enact laws to this effect. Where
the states alone have the power they
should enact the laws. 1t is to be oo-
served that an employers liability law
does not really mean mulcting employers
in damages. 1t merely throws upon the
employer the burden of accident insur-
ance against injuries which are sure TO
occur. 1t requires him either to bear
or to distribute through insurance the
loss which can readily be borne when
distributed, but which, if undistributed
bears with frightful hardship upon the
unfortunate victim of accident. In theory,
IL wages were always freely and fairly
adjusted, they would always include an
allowance against the risk of injury,
just certainly the rate of interest
for money includes an allowance for in
surance against the risk of loss. In
theory, if employees were all experienced
business men, they would employ that
part of their wages which Is received be-
cause of the risk of injury to secure
accident insurance. But as a matter of
fact, it is not practical TO expect that
this will be done by the great body OF
employees. An employers liability law
makes it certain that 1t will be done, In
effect by the employer, and 1t will ulti-
mately impose no real additional burden
upon him.
There is a special bill to which call
your attention. Secretary Taft has
urgently recommended the immediate pas
sage of a law providing for compensa-
tion to employees of the government In
jured in the work of the isthmian canal,
and that 100000 be appropriated for this
purpose each year. | earnestly hope this
will be done; and that special bill be
passed covering the case of Yardmaster
Banton, who was injured nearly two years
ago while doing his duty. He is now
helpless to support his wife and his three
little boys.
Abuse of lnjunctions.
1 again call your attention to the need
of some action in connection with the
abuse of injunctions in labor cases As
regards the rights and wrongs of labor
and capital, from blacklisting to boycott
ting, the whole subject is covered in
admirable fashion by the report of the
anthracite coal strike commission which
report should serve as a chart for the
guidance of both legislative and executive
officers. AS regards injunctions. can do
little but repeat what l have said in
my last message to the Congress- Even
though 1t were possible, should consider
1t most unwise to abolish the use of the
process of injunction. 1t Is necessary in
order that the courts may maintain their
own dignity and in order that they may
in effective manner check disorder and
violence. The judge who uses 1t eau
tiously and conservatively. but who. when
the need arises. uses 1t fearlessly, confers
the greatest service upon our people, and
his pre-eminent usefulness as public
srvant should be heartily recognized. But
there is no question in my mind that II
CONTINUED ON PAGE S.