Shoshone journal. [volume] (Shoshone, Idaho) 1884-1931, 1908-12-11

should be our immediate duty. 1t n
the larger and more general govern
mental schemes that most European
governments have found themselves
obliged to adopt.
Our present system, or, rather. no
system, works dreadful wrong and is
of benefit 10 only one class Of people
the lawyers. When a workman is
injured what he needs is not an ex-
pensive and doubtful lawsuit, but the
certainty of relief through immediate
administrative action The number of
accidents which result in the death or
Gripping of wageworkers in the Union
at large is simply appalling. In very
1 few years it runs up total far in ex-
| cess of the aggregate of the dead and
/ wounded in any modern war. No
academic theory about freedom Of
/ contract" or constitutional liberty to
contract" should be permitted to in
terfere with this and similar move
ments. Progress in civilization has
everywhere meant a limitation and
especial attention to the bulletin Of the
bureau of labor which gives a state
ment of the methods of treating the
unemployed in European countries, as
this is a subject which i'm Germany,
for instance, is treated in connection
with making provision for wornout
and crippled workmen.
Pending thoroughgoins investiga-
ton and action there is certain legis-
lation which should be enacted at
once. The law passed at the last ses-
sion Of the congress granting COM
pensation to certain classes of en-
ployees Of the government should be
extended to include all employees Of
the government and should be made
more liberal in it's terms. There is no
good ground for the distinction made
in the law between those engaged IN
hazardous occupations and those not
so engaged If 4 man is injured or
killed in any line of work it was
hazardous in his case. Whether l per
cent or 10 per cent of those following
a given occupation actually suffer in
Jury or death ought not TO have any
bearing on the question of their re-
ceiving compensation. 1t is grim logic
which says to an injured employee or
to the dependents of one killed that he
or they are entitled to no compensa-
ton because very few people other
than he have been injured or killed in
that occupation. Perhaps one of the
most striking omissions in the law is
that 1t does not embrace peace officers
and others whose lives may be sacri-
feed in enforcing the laws of the
United States. The terms of the act
providing compensation should be
made more liberal than in the present
act. A years compensation is not
adequate for 4 wage earner's family
in the event of his death by accident
in the course of his employment. And
in the event of death occurring. say,
ten or eleven months after the acct |
dent the family would only receive as
compensation the equivalent of one or
two months earnings. In this respect
the generosity of the United States
toward its employees compares most
unfavorably with that of every couH- .
try in Europe-even the poorest.
The terms Of the act are also I
hardship in prohibiting payment IN
cases where the accident is in any
way due to the negligence Of the EN- .
ployee. 1t is inevitable that daily IA
miliarity with danger will lead men to
take chances that can be construed .
into negligence. So we'll is this recoS-
nized that in practically all countries
in the civilized world. except the Unit
ed States. only great degree of negli-
gence acts as Il bar to securing com
pensation. Probably in no other re-
spect is our legislation. both state ana
national. so far behind practically the
entire civilized world as in the matter
of liability and compensation for ac-
cidents in industry. 1t is humiliating
that at European international con-
crosses on accidents the United States
should be singled out rs the most be-
lated among the nations in respect to
employers liability legislation. This
is itself a large employer
of labor and in its dealings with its
employees it should set a standard in
this country which would place it on
a par with the most progressive coun-
tries in Europe. The laws of the
United States in this respect and the
laws Of European countries have been
in Il recent bulletin of the
bureau of labor. and no American who
reads this summary can fail TO be
struck by the great contrast between
our practices and theirs-a contrast
not in any sense to our credit.
The congress should without further
delay pass model employers liability ,
law for the District of Columbia. The
employers liability act recently de- ,
Jared unconstitutional on account of d,
including in its provisions
employees engaged In intrastate COM =.
perce as well as those engaged in in
erstate commerce has been held by
he local courts to be still in effect so !.
ar as its provisions apply TO the Dis
riot of Columbia. There should be no :
ambiguity on this point. If there is
my doubt on the subject the law