The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1908-10-08
AGAINST CORPORATIONS.

Judge Taft's Decision In the Nara
more Personal Injury Case.
If men who labor come to know Mr.
Taft and study what he has done for
their interests they will wonder how
there could be any sincerity In the at
tempt by the Democratic party to pref
udice labor against him.
Take the Narramore personal injury
case In Ohio, which when considered
should forever set at rest all this man.
ufactured talk for political effect
charging Mr.. Taft with being the ia
ther 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 Narramore case are
these: Early In 1899 Narramore was a
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 and 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
generally held that an employee,
knowing that his employer was in the
habit Of disobeying 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 precedents and of courts In many
other parts Of the country in rendering
a decision in favor Of Narramore. In
his decision Judge Taft said:
''The intention of the Ohio legisla.
ture was to protect the employees OF
railways from injury from frequent
source Of danger by compelling the
railway company to adopt well
known safety device. And, although
an employee impliedly valves a CON-
pliance with the statute and agrees
to assume the risk from unblOcked
frogs and switches by continuing in
the service without complaint, this
court will not recognize or enforce
such agreement. The imposition Of
penalty for the violation of a statute
does not exclude other means of en-
forcement, and to permit the company
to avail itself Of such an assumption
Of risk by its employees Is In effect to
enable 1t to nullify penal statute
and Is against public policy"
Judge Taft's 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 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
those who work?
The decision In the Narramore case
was against gigantic corporate inter
ests and in the face Of Ohio supreme
court decisions, but Judge Taft found
way to justice through the meshes
of the law skillfully 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 its convincing
justness and fairness. In all 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 were wrong.
In all his career Judge Taft by deeds |
has shown the broadest sympathy for |
all who labor. No man will go fur
ther than he In efforts in their behalf,
but he is not indulging in cheap talk |
Of the Democratic type Of hoodwink-
ing by mere promises and misrepre-
sensations to catch vote.