The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1908-10-15
AGAINST CORPORATIONS.
Judge Taft's Decision In the Nara
more Personal Injury Case,

more PERSONAL injury Case.
II men who labor come to know Mr..
Taft and srudy what he has done for
their interests they will wonder how
here could be any sincerity In the at
tempt by the Democratic party to pref
udice labor against him.
Take the Narramore personal injury
rase 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
rher of government by injunction"
Judge Taft's decision In the Nara
more case when be 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
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
ha bit 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 squarey against Ohio
court presidents 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 implicitly valves IA com
pliapce with the statute and agrees
to assume the risk from unlocked
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 a 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 too
an opposite stand In 1908 the Obi
legislature In the spring of 1904 pass
ed q 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
Ill lHe CdSc, ny
which be 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. hnt
understanding. to see Its convincing
business and fairness. In all this
talk for the purpose of creating mis-
guided prejudice there is moi Dcrao-
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 broadcast sympathy for
all who labor No man will go fur
Their than he In efforts In their behalf,
but he is not INDUCING In cheap talk
of the Democratic type Of hoodwink
Ing by mere promises and misrepre-
sensations to catch a vote.