Evening journal., 1908-10-05
AGAINST CORPORATIONS.
iudss Tsfts Decision In the Nara
more Personal Injury Case.

iu5se Tsfta Decision In the Nara
more Personal Injury Case.
II men who labor come 70 know Mr..
Taft and study what he has done for
their interests they viii 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.. TAN with being the ia
ther of government by injunction"
Judge Tafts 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 Rig -Four road One
day while at work his foot caught in
an unlocked frog A train came along
aud 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.
showing that his employer was in the
habit Of disobeying q 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 prcceaents ana OF courts in many
other parts Of the country in rendering
a decision in favor of Narramore. In
his decision Judge Taft said:
"Thc intention Of the OHIO legisla-
ture WAS TO protect the employees of
railways from injury from a frequent
source Of danger By compelling the
railway company to adopt a well
known safety device And, although
an employee impliedly valves com
.piiance 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 a
penalty for the violation Of Il statute
does not exclude other means Of en-.
forcemant. and to permit the company
TO avail Itself of such an assumption
OF risk by It's employees is in effect tc
enable Il 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
cd q law which made. Judge Taft
decision one OF the laws OF Ohio
Who shall estimate the service that
Judge Taft perforned for all who Ia
hor 10 dangerous employment by hi
NINAaAN.4 a ia AliN -NNL ihlAifAf tA0NF 70.
which he made the law on the side @.
those who work?
The decision IN The Narramore case
was against gigantic corporate inter
ests and in the face Of Ohio suprem,
court decisions. but Judge Taft found
a way 70 justice through the meshe.
Of the law skillfuiy drawn TO DO IN
calcuIable service fer al time to thos,
who labor. His record on The bcnG
is not one requiring explanation, hu,
understanding to see its ccnvincin
iustness and fairness. IN al thi,
talk for The purpose Of creating mis-
guided prejudice there IS not a Demo
crat IN the land who has said thai
any Of bis decisions were wrong.
In all bis career Judge Tart by deed,
has shown the broadest sympathy foi
all who labor. No man viii go fur
ther than he in Efforts in their behalf
but he Is not indulglng in cheap tall
Of the Democratic type Of hoodwink
ing by mere promises and misreprc
sentations to catch vote