The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1908-10-07
AGAINST CORPORATIONS.
fudge Taft's Decision In tho Nara
more Personal Injury Case.

| HoFo TcTsoHai INJURY Sasos
If men who labor come to know Mr..
| Taft and study what he has done for
their interests they Will wonder how
there could be any sincerity in the at
tempt by the Democratic party 10 pref
udice labor against him.
Take the Narramore personal injury
case In Ohio. which when considered
| should forever set ut rest all this man
| ufaetured talk for political effect
charging Mr.. Taft with being the fla
| cher of government by injunction"
| Judge Tafts decision In the Nara
more case when he was on the bench
has been of tremendous benefit to en-
ployee as against employer In Ohio In
personal injury eases.
The facts of the Narramore case are
these: EARLY In 1899 Narramore was Il
brakeman on the Big Four road, One
day while ut work his foot caught In
| an unlocked frog. A train came along.
and he was MANNED for life. The rail-
road refused to do anything for him
and his wife and children dependent
upon him for support. Narramore
| soustlt tHe diu VI thc couits.
Ohio law held that the frog should
not have been left open and courts
generally held that an employee,
knowing that his employer was In the
habit of dlsobeying law intended for
the employees protection, by contlnu
Ing at work assumed the risks of the
employment. The Judge before whom
|
the complaint.
On appeal the case reached the Unit
ed States court of appeals aud came
before Judge Taft. Judson Harmon
argued very masterfully for the rail
road, but the Republican candidate for
president went squarely against Ohio
court presidents and of courts In many
other parts of the country In rendering
n decision In favor of Narramore. In
his decision Judge Taft said;
"'rhe intention of the Ohio legisla-
ture was to protect the employees of
railways from injury from II frequent
source of danger by compelling the
railway company to adopt II well
known safety device. And, although
an employee implicitly valves n com
plianee with the statute and agrees
to assume the risk from unlocked
frogs and switches by continuing In
the service without complaint, this
court Will not recognize or enforce
such agreement The imposition of
| penalty for the violation Of Il statute
| does not exclude other means of en-
forcement, and to permit the company
To avail itself of such an assumption
of risk by lis employees Is In effect to
enable II To nullify II penal statute
and Is against public policy"
Judge Taft's decision still stands as
| the law In federal courts. When the
common pleas court In Cleveland took
IN opposite stand In 1903 the Ohio
Legislature In the spring of 1904 pass
ed n law which made Judge Tafts
decision one of the iuws of Ohio.
Who shall estimate the service thai
Judge Taft performed for NIL who In
Dor In dangerous employment by his
decision In the Narramorc case, by
which he made the law on the side OF
those who work?
The decision I'm the Narramore ease
was against gigantic corporate inter.
ests and In the face OF Ohio supreme
court decisions. but Judge Taft found
n way to Justice through the meshes
OF the law skillfully drawn to do In
cnlculable service for all time to those
who labor. His record on the bench
Is not one requiring explanation, but
understanding. to see Its convincing
business and fairness. In all this
talk for the purpose Of creating mis-
guided prejudice there IL not Demo
crat IN the land who has said that
any of his decisions were wrong.
In NIL his career Judge Taft by deeds
has shown the broadcast sympathy for
all who labor. No man will go fur
Their than he In efforts In their behalf,
but he is not Indulging In cheap talk
Of the Democratic type of hoodwiDk-
Ing by mere promises and misrepre.
sensations to catch II vote.