Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-01-31
no fault OF his own while faithful
serving the public.
DUTY OF GOVERNMENT.

cldents (eXolu1ing, of course. Hci-
dents due to wilful misconduct by
the employe) on the industry as rep
resented by the employer, which in
this cnse is the government. In all
these countries these principles apply
to the government lust ms much as to
tho private employer. Under no cir
cumstances should the injured en,-
ploye or his surviving dependents be
required 10 bring suit against the
government, nor should there be the
requirement that in order 10 insure
recovery negligence In some form IN
the part of the government should
be shown. Our proposition Is not to
confer right upon the government
cmploye but TO secure him suitable
provision against injuries received IN
the course of his employment The
burden OF the trade risk should be
placed upon the government. Exact
~ as the workingman Is entitled to
his wages. 40 he should be entitled to
indemnity for the injuries sustained In
the natural course Of his labor. The
rates of compensation and the regula-
tons for its payment should be spool
fled in the law. and the machinery for
determining the amount to be paid
should In each case be provided i'll
such manner that the employee Is prop
erly represented without expense to
him. In other words, the compensa-
ton should be paid automatically,
while the application of the law In the
first instance should be vested in the
department Of commerce and labor.
The law should apply to all laborcrs,
mechanics and other civilian employ
es of the govsrnmtnt of the United
States, including those In tie service
of the Panama canal commission ana
insular governments.
LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS.
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. 1t is to be observed that an
employers liability law does not really
mean mulcting the employers in dam
ages. 1t merely throws upon the EN-
ployed the burden of accident insuf-
ance against Injuries which are sure
to occur 1t requires him either to
bear or to distribute through lnsur-
ance the loss which can readily be
borne when distributed, but which, II
undistributed, bears with frighttui
hardship upon the unfortunate victim
of accident. In theory, IL wages were
always freely and fairly adjusted, they
would always include an allowance as
against the risk of injury. just as GER
tainly as the rate of interest for money
includes an allowance for insurance
against the risk of loss. In theory IL
employees were all experienced business
men, they would employ that part OF
their wages which is received because
of the risk of injury TO secure accident
insurance. But as matter of fact
1t 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 real additional
burden upon him.
There is a special bill to which
call your attention. Secy. Taft has urg-
emily recommended the Immediate pas
sage of law providing for compensa-
ton to employees of the government in
jured in the work of the isthmus ca
nal and that 100000 be appropriated
for this purpose each year. / earnestly
hope this will be done, and that a spe-
cial bill be passed covering the case OF
Yardmaster Bantnn. who was injured
two years ago while doing his duty
He is now helpless to support his wife
and his three little boys.
ABUSE OF INJUNCTION.
again call your attention TO the
need of some action in connection with
the abuse Of injunctions in labor cases
AS regards the rights and WRONGS OF
labor and capital, from bacltlisting to
boycotting, the whole subject is GOV,
cred i'm admirable fashion by the re-
port Of the anthracite coal strike com,
mission, which report should serve as
chart for the guidance of both leg
islative and executive offices. AS re-
CARDS injunctions, / can do little but
repeat what | have said in my last
message TO the Congress. Even though
II We're possible, i should consider IL
most unwise 60 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 cautiously and conservatiYeiy
but who, when the need arises, uses il
feariessly, 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 ii has some
times been used heedlessly and unjust
~, and that some OF the injunctions
issued iniiict grave and occasional ir-
reparable wrong upon those enjoined.
ii Is all wrong to use the Injunction
to prevent the entirely proper and legl-
innate actions of labor organizations in
Nllhli loI DttleInlHnt,
on under the guise of protecting prop
erty right unwarrantahly TO invade the
fundamental rights of the Individual
is futile to concede, as we all do.
the right and the necessity OF organized
effort on the part of the wage-earners
and yet by injunctiye process to for
bid peaceable action to accomplish the
lawful object for which they are or
ganized and upon which their success
depends IT. Is my purpose as soon as
may be to submit some further recon-
mendatons in reference TO our laws
regulating labor conditions within the
sphere of federal authority very
recent decision OF the supreme court of
the United States, seemingly of far
reaching Importance and of very serious
probable consequences, has modified the
previously entertained views on the
powers OF Congress in the premises to
such a degree as to make necessary
careful consideration IN order TO de-
eide In what was to call the
matter TO your attention The
fact that the punishment for the
violation OF an injunction must,
20 make the order effective. necessar-
lily be summary and without the inter-
Yention Of jury make Its issuance IN
doubtful cases dangerous practise,
and I'm itself furnishes a reason why
the process should be surrounded with
safeguards 10 protect individuals
against being enjoined from exercising
their proper rights, Reasonable notice
should be given the adverse party,