New-York tribune., 1908-12-09

ground for the distinction mad' III INC loE
between those engaged in hazardous occupa-
tions and those not so engaged IL a man IL
injured or killed in any line or WORK II was
hazardous in his case. Whether | per cent OF
10 i,er cent of those following given occupa-
ton actually suffer injury or death ought not
to have any bearing on the question OF thel
receiving CONDENSATION. It is a grim logic
which saws to an injured employe or TO the de-
pendents of one killed that he or they are en-
titled to no compensation because very few
people other than he have been injured or
killed in that occupation. Perhaps one or tie
most striking omissions in the law IS that II
does not embrace peace officers ana others
whose lives may be sacrificed in enforcing the
laws OF the United States. The terms OF the
act providing compensation should be maue
more liberal than in the present act. years
compensation is not adequate for wage
earner's family in the event of his death py
accident in the course Of his employment. Ana
in the event of death occurring: say zen OF OF
eleven months after the accident, the tarnlIy
would only receive as compensation the GquiEa-
lent of one or two months earnings. IN Ill9
respect the generosity of the United states
toward its employees compares most uh1aNol-
ably with that OF every country IN Europe
the poorest .
prohibiting payment in cases where the accl
dent is In any way due to the negligence OF the
employe. 1t is inevitable that daily familiarity
with danger will lead men to take chances that
can be construed into negligence So well IS
this recognized that in practically all countries
in the civilized world. except the United states
only a great degree of negligence acts as a bar
to securing compensation. Probably IN no
other respect is our legislation, both state and
national so far behind practically the entire
civilized world as in the matter of liability and
COmpeh tiOn for accidents in industry. II IS
humiliating that at European international con-
gresses on accidents the United states should
be singled out the most belated among the
nations in respect to employers llapliltE IeSls-
lation. This government is itself a large en-
ployer of labor. and in its dealings with It's en-
poyes 1t should set a standard IN this country
which would place il on par with the most
progressive countries in Europe. The laws OF
the United States in this respect and the laws
oF
in a 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 thers-a contrast not IN any
sense to our credit.
The Congress should without further delay
pass a model employers liza blhty law Tor the
District of Columbia. The employers liability
act recently declared unconstitutional on ac-
count of apparently including in It's provisions
enployes engaged in interstate commerce as
we'll as those engaged in interstate commerce.
has been held by the local courts to be still in
effect so far as its provisions apply to the Dis
trict of Columbia. There should be no am
higuity on this point If there Is any doubt on
the subject the law should he re-enaCted with
special reference to the District of Columbia
This act however. applies only TO employees of
common carriers. In all other occupations the
liability law of the District IS the old common
law. The severity and injustice of the common
law in this matter have been in some degree or
another modified in the ma iority of our states,
and the only Jurisdiction under the exclusive
control of the Congress should be ahead and
not behind the states Of the Union In this re
should he passed for the District of Columbia
renew my recommendation made in a pre-
vioUs message that half holidays be granted
during summer to all wage workers in govern
ment employ
I also renew my recommendation that the
princjpIe of the eight hour day should rapidly
and as far as practicable he extended to the
entire work being carried on by the government;
the present law should be amended to embrace
contracts on those public works which the pres
ent wording Of the act seems to exclude.
I most earnestly urge upon the congress the
duty of increasing the totally inadequate sal
aries now given TO our judges.
The Courts. On the whole there is no body
of public servants who do as
valuable work. nor whose moneyed reward is
so inadequate compared TO their work Begin
ming with the Supreme Court the judges should
have their salaries doubled It IS not behtting
the dignity of the nation that its most honored
public servants should be paid sums small
compared to what they would earn in private
life that the performance of public service by
them implies an exceedingly heavy pecuniary
sacrifice
It is earnestly to be desired that some method
should be devised for doing away with the long
DELAYS which obtain in the administration
of Justice and which operate With peculiar
severity against persons Of small means. and
favor only the very criminals whom it is most
desirable to punish These long DELAYS in the
final decisions of cases make in the aggregate a
crying evil; and a remedy should he devised.
Much of this intolerable DELAY is due to i'm
proper regard paid to teChniCalities which are
q mere hndrance 10 Justice In some noted
recent cases this overesard for techncalities
has resulted in strildng denial II Justice and
fragrant wrong to the BODY polite
At the last election certain leaders Of organ
lied labor made q violent and sweeping attack
upon the entire judiciary Of the country an
attack couched in such terms to include the
most upright. honest and broad minded Judges
no less than those Of narrower mind and more
restricted outlook. II was the kind Of attack
admirably fitted To prevent any successful at -
tempt 10 reform abuses Of the judiciary because
il gave the champions nf the unjust Judge their
eagerly desired opport tUnty to shift their ground
into a championship of just judges who were
unjustly assailed. Last year, before the House
Committee on the Judiciary. these same labor
leaders formulated their demands. specifying the
bill that contained them. refusing all com
promise stating they wished the prinCIpIe OF
that bill nothing. They insisted on r,ro-
should issue except to protect a property right
and specifically provided that the right t. carry
I on business should not be construed as a Dron-
crty right; and in a second provision their hin
made legal in a labor dispute any act or agree
ment by or between two or more persons tho p
would not have been unlawful If done law -
single person. In other words this bill IePaIiza5
hlacklisting and boyCotting in every form legal
izing, for instance. those forms Of the
boycott which the anthracite coal strike cor, =
mission 81 unreservedly condemned. wbiIa tba
right 70 carry on "A business was explicitly taknn
out from under that protection which The Ia,.
I throws over property The demand was ,,o-aa
that there should he trial by jury i'm ronta,,,I,,
cases thereby most seriously impairine ~
authority Of the courts All this repraSenta5 =.
course OF policy which. II arrted ont ,ro,,,5
/ mean the enthronenlent of class privilege i'm a.
Crudest and most brutal form and the dastr,o
ton OF one Of the most essential functions =,
the judiciary in el civilized lands -