The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1908-09-23
FAMOUS NARRAMORE CASE
Tafts Decision Of Great Bsnsfitto
Employe as Against Employer.
BROAD SYMPATHY FOR LABOR
Libel About His Being Father of GOV.
crnment by Injunction AIanufac.
tured For Political Eject.

men VINO labor come to know
Mr.. Taft and study what he has done
for their interests they win wonder
now there could be any sincerity IN
the attempt by the Democratic party
to prejudice labor against him.
Take the Narramore personal In
jury case in Ohio which when consid-
cred should forever set at rest all this
manufactured talk for political effect
charging Mr.. Taft with being the
father Of government by Injunction"
Judge Taft's decision in the Nara
more case when he was on the bench
has been OF tremendous benefit to EN-.
ploye as against employer In Ohio In
personal injury cases.
The facts of the Narramore case
are these. Early In 1890 Narramore
was a brakeman. on the Big Four
road. One day while at work his foot
caught in an unlocked frog. "A
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 for sup
port. Narramore sought the aid OF
the courts.
Ohio law held that the frog should
not have been left open and courts
generally held thatan employee know
ing that his employer was in the habit
of disobeying law intended for the
employees protection by continuing at
work assumed the risks Of the em-
ployment. The judge before whom
the case was tried promptly dismissed
the complaint.
On appeal the case reached the
United States Court of Appeals, and
came before Judge Taft. Judson Har-
mon argued very masterfully for the
railroad, but the Republican candi.
date for President went squarely
against Ohio court precedents and OF
courts in many other parts of the
country in rendering decision In IA.
vor OF Narramore. In his decision
Judge Taft said:
THE intention of the Ohio Legis.
lature was to protect the employees OF
railways from injury from a frequent
source of danger by compelling the
railway company to adopt a we'll
known safety device. And, although
an employe implicitly valves CONS
pliance with the statute and agrees
to assume the risk from unlocked
frogs and switches by continuing ID
the service without complaint, this
court will not recognize or enforce
such agreement. The imposition Of
penalty for the violation Of statute
does not exclude other means of en-
forcement, and to permit the company
to avail himself Of such an assumption
OF risk by Its employees Is, in effect, to
enable 1t to nullify a penal statute,
and is against public policy"
Judge Taft's decision still stands
m q IN INs1A HRYr
the Common Pleas Court In Cleveland
took an opposite stand in 1908 the
Ohio Legislature In the spring OF
1904 passed law which made Judge
rats decision one of the laws Of
Ohio. Who shall estimate the service
that Judge Taft performed for all
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?
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 skilfully drawn to do incal-
culable 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 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 broadest sympa-
thy for all who labor. No man will
go farther than he IN efforts In their
behalf, but he is not INDUCING In
cheap talk Of the Democratic type OF
hoodwinking by mere promises and
Misrepresentation to catch a vote.