The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1908-10-14
aaaINsT coRP ORA HONS.

7 Judi1S TAI Decision IN TIE NaFra-
more Personal injury case.
n men who tabor come to know Mr.
/ Taft ana study what be has done for
( their interests they VIII wonder how
there could be any sincerity in the att
tempt by the Democratic party to pref
udice labor agatnst him
Take the NarramOre personal injury
case in Ohio, which when considered
should foreYer ret at rest all this man
ufactured fnIk for political erect
1 charging Aff. Taft with being the ''fa-
! Their 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-
ployee as against employer In Ohio in
| personal injury cases.
The facts of the Nara more case are
! these: Early in 1899 Narranlore was u
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 rail-
road refused TO do anything for him
and his wife ana children dependent
upon him for support. Narramore
sought the aid of the courts
Ohio law held that the frog should
not have been left open and courts
| knowing that his employer was.in the
habit OF disobeying a law intended for
the employees protection, by continu-
! ing at work assumed the risks of >the
] employment The judge before whom
the case was tried promptly dismissed
the complaint.
On appeal the case reached the Unit
ed States court of appeals and came
before Judge Taft Judson Harmon
argued very masterfully for the rail-
road, but the Republican candidate for
president went squarely against Ohio
court precelentS and of COURTS In many
other parts OF the country in rendering
decision In favor of Nnrramore. In
his decision Judge Taft said:
E"rhc intention OF the Ohio legfsla-
| ture was to protect the employees of
railways from injury from frequent
source OF danger by compelling the
railway company to adopt n well
known safety device. And, although
an employee implicitly valves a com
plfance 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 u
penalty for the violation OF a statute
docs not GAClUuS OluGE llt@StAlS VI CA-
forcement, and to permit the company
to avail itself of such an assumption
of risk by its employees is in effect to
enable it to nulIify Il penal statute
and is against public policy"
Judge Tafts decision still stands as
the law In federal courts. When the
common pleas court in Cleveland took
an opposite stand In 1903 the Ohio
legislature in the spring Of 1904 pass
ed a law which made Judge Taft'S
decision one of the laws of Ohio.
Who shall estimate the service that
Judge Taft performed for all who la
Dor in dangerous employment by his
decision in the NarramOre case, by
which he made the law on the side of
hose who work?
The decision In the Narramore case
was against gigantic corporate inter
csts and In the face of Ohio supreme
court decisions, but Judge Taft found
n way to justice through the meshes
OF the law skilIfuIly drawn to do In
calculable service for all time to those
who labor. His record ON the bench
Is not one requiring explanation, but
understanding to see it's convincing
business and fairness. In ali this
talk for the purpose of creating mis-
guided prejudice there is not Demo-
crat in the land who has said that
any of his decisions We're wrong.
In all his career Judge Taft by deeds
has shown the broadcast sympathy for
nII who labor No man will go fur
Their than he in efforts in their behalf,
but he is not INDUCING in cheap talk
OF the Democratic type of hoodwink-
Ing by mere promises and misrepre-
sensations TO catch Il vote.
.---'---
MARRIAGE IICENSES