Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1908-02-05
PRESIDENTS SPECIAL
 MESSAGE ID CONGRESS
Advocates Legislation Remedying Corporation Evils AndRelations
 Between Capital And Labor.

WASHINGTON. D. C., Jan. 3l.- President Roosevelt today transmitted Co the Senate and House of Rcprcsen. tativos a special message dealing with the recent decision of the United States supreme court, declaring the em ployers liability law unconstitutional, and tho attitude of certain heads of great corporations toward the inter. state commerce law, which made it de. sirablc, the message said, that Con gross enact additional legislation af. fecting these and other matters which the message touches upon.
 Chief Feature In Senate.
 The reading of the message was the chief feature in the Senate proceedings today. lt received careful attention from many Senators on both sides of tho chamber. The Senate has ordered 10000 copies printed.
 Unprecedented Scene In House.
 There was an almost unprecedented scene enacted in the House, today, as result of the reading of the Prcsi. dents message. The vigorous language of the document brought forth great applause from first the Democratic and then the Republican side of the cham ber which finally culminated in a dem. onstration by the entire body.
 There was n very full attendance of the House members, and the message was the sole topic of conversation long after It's reading was concluded.
 The Presidents message, in full follows:
 The Presidents Message.
 The recent decision of the suprem, court in regard to the employers linbil ity net, the experience of the interstat, commerce commission and of the de partment of justice in enforcing the interstate commerce and antitrust laws. and tho gravcly significant atti tudc toward the law and it's administra tion recently adopted by certain heads of great corporations render it dcsir able that there shall be additional leg islation as regards certain of the rela tions between labor and capital and between the great corporations and th, public.
 The supreme court has decided tho employers liability law to be uncon stitutional because Its terms apply tC employees engaged in interstate com merce. By constitutional majority the court holds that the congress has power to deal with the question in su Tar as interstate commerce k concern. ed
 As regards the employers liability law, l advocate it's immediate reenact. ment, limiting it's scope so that it shall apply only to the class of eases as to which the court says it can eonstitu. tionally apply. but strengthening its provisions within this scope. Inter. state employment being thus covered by an adequate law, the field of inter. state employment will be left to the action of the several states. With this clear definition or responsibility the states will undoubtedly give to the performance of their duty within their field the consideration, the importance the subject demands. also very urgently advise that comprehensive act be passed providing for eompen- sation by the government Co all employ es injured in the government service. Under the present law, an injured workman in the employment of the government has no remedy, and the en. tire burden of the accident falls on tae helpless man. his wife and his young children. This is an outrage. This is matter of humiliation to the nation that there should not be on our statute books provisions to meet and practi. cally to atone for cruel misfortune when it comes upon a man through no fault of his own while faithfully scry. ing the public. In no other prominent industrial country In the world could such injustice occur, for most all civil ized nations have enacted Legislation emb0dyng the complete reorganization of the principles which places the cn. tire trade risk for industrial accidents (nScluding of course, accidents due to tl willful misconduct, by the cmpl0ye) on the industry as represented by the employer which in this ease is the government. Tn all these countries, the principle applies to the govern. msnt just as much as to tho private employers. Under no circumstance should the injured employe or his sur, viving dependents be required to bring suit against the government nor should it he the requirement in order to SO. cure recovery that negligence in some form on the part of the government should he shown. Our proposition is not to confer n right upon the govern. ment employe but to secure him suit, ablc provision against injuries received in the course of his employment. The burden of the trade risks should he placed upon the government. Exactly