Lewiston evening teller., 1908-01-31

ing the employers in damages. 1t
merely throws upon the employer
the burden of accident insurance
against injuries which are sure to
occur. 1t requires him either to
bear or to distribute through insur-
ance the loss which can readily be
borne when distributed, but what
! If undistributed bears with frightful
hardship upon the unfortunate VIC
tim of the accident. In theory, if
wages were always freely and fairly
adjusted, they would always include
an allowance against the risk of in
jury just as certainly as the rate of
/ interest for money includes an al
lowance for insurance for the risk
Of loss. In theory, if employees were
all experienced business men, they
would employ that part of their wag
F., es which is received because of the
i risk of injury to secure accident in
surance. 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
/, it will ultimately impose no additi-
onal burden upon him.
There is a special bill to which I
call your attention. Secretary
Taft has urgently recommended the
Immediate passage of a law provid-
| ing for compensation to employees
i of the government injured in the
work of the Isthmian canal and that
! 100000 be appropriate for this
purpose each year. earnestly hope
this will be done and that special
bill be passed covering the case OF
Yardmaster Banton. who was injured
nearly two years ago while doing his
duty. He is now helpless to support
his wife and three little boys.
again call your attention to the
need of some action in connection
with the abuse of injunctions in
abor cases.
AS regards the rights and wrongs
of labor and capital, from blacklist.
ing to boycotting, the whole subject
is covered in admiral fashion in the
report of the anthracite coal strike
commission, which reports should
serve as chart for the guidance ot
both legislative and executive OH
GERS. As regard injunctions, l car
do little but repeat what have saiC
in my last message to congress
Even though it were possible con
!, slider it most unwise to abolish the
use of the process of injunction
1t is necessary in order that thu
. courts may maintain their own dig
nifty and in order that they may IL
, effective manner check disorder ant
|, violence. The judge who uses I
who, when the need arises, uses 1
fearlessly, confers the greatest ser
. vice upon our people and his pre-
, eminent usefulness as public serv
ant should be heartily recognized
: But there is no question in my min
: that 1t has some times been use,
! heedlessly and unjustly, and tha
. some of the injujnctions issued in
. fiict grave and occasional irrepar
: abe wrong upon those enjoined.
g It is all wrong to use the injunc
: tion to prevent the entirely prope
and legitimate action of labor orga
i izations in their struggle for ind
I vidual betterment, under the guis
: of protecting property rights ur
e warrantably to invade the funda
d mental rights of the individual.
e is futile to concede, as we all d.
' the right and the necessity of OF
e ganized effort on the part Of wag
Z earners and yet by injunetive pre-
: cess to forbid peaceable action