Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1908-02-05

aS the working man lS entitled tO ms wages. SO he snould he entitled to in dcmnity for the injuries sustained in the natural course of his labor. The rates of compensation and inc rcgula. tions for its payment should he speci- fled in the law, and the machinery for the amount to be paid should in each case be provided in such manner that the cmployc is properly represented without expense Co him. In other words. the compensation should be paid automatically, while the application of the law in the first instance should bc vested in tho de. partment of commerce and labor. The law should apply to all laborcrs, me chanics and other civilian employees of the government of the United States including those in the service of the Panama canal commission and of the insulnr government. The same broad principle which should apply to the government should ultimately be made applicable to all private employers. 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. It is to be ob. served that an employers liability law does not really mean mulcting the cm. ploycrs in damage suits. IL merely throws upon the employer the burden of accident insurance against injuries which are sure to occur.
 IL requires him either to bear. ar to distribute through insurance the loss which can readily he borne when dis. tributcd, but which, if undistributed, bears with frightful hardship upon the unfortunate victim of accident. which, in theory if wages were always freely and fairly adjusted, they would al. ways include an allowance as against the risk of injury, just as certainly as the rate of interest for money in. cludcs an allowance for insurance against the risk of loss. In theory if employees were all experienced business men, they would employ that part of their injury tO secure accident insur. anec. 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 it will be done, in effect, by the employer, and 1t will ultimately impose no real burden on him.
 There is special bill to which call your attention. Secretary Tafe has urgently recommended the immediate passage of n law providing for conn pcnsation Co employees of the govern, mont injured in the work of the isth- milan canal and that $l00,O00 be appro. priated for this purpose each year. 1 earnestly hope this will be done and that a special bill be passed covering the case of Yardmastcr BantoD, who was injured nearly two years ago, while doing his duty. He is now help. less to support himself, his wife and his three little boys. again call your attention Co the need of some action in connection with the abuse of in. junetions in labor eases. As regards tho rights and wrongs of labor and cap. itai, from blacklisting to boycotting, the whole matter is covered in admir-. able fashion by the report of the anthracite coal strike commission which report should serve as chart for the guidance of both legislative and executive officers. As regards in functions 1 can do little but repeat what l have said in my last message to the congress. Even though it were possible, l should consider it most un- wise 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 eonservatively but who. when the need arises, uses it fearlessly. confers the greatest service upon our people and his pre-eminent usefulness as public servant should be heartily recognized. But there is no question in my mind that it mas some times been used heedlessly and unauestion. ably and that some of fhe injunctions issued iniiiet grave and occasional ir. reparabie wroug upon those enjoincd.
 lt is all wrong to use the injunction to prevent the entirely proper and leg
 itimato actions of labor organizations In their struggle for industrial better. ment, or under the guise of protesting property rights unwarrantably to avoid the fundamental rights of the in. dividual. lt is futile to c0neede, as we all do, the right and the necessity of organized affort on the part of the wage earncrs, and yet by injunctive process to forbid peaceable action to accomplish the lawful object for which they are organized and upon which their success depends. Tho fact that the punishment for the violation of an injunction must, to make the order effective, necessarily be summary and without the intervention of. the jury, makes it's issuance in doubtful cases a dangerous practice, and in itself furn. isncs reason why tho process should be surrounded with safeguards to pro. tcet individuals against being enjon. ed from exercising their proper rights.