The Spokane press. [volume] (Spokane, Wash.) 1902-1939, 1909-12-23
~ gibson GARDNER.

WASHINGTON, ID. c.. Dec. q
Any workingman has right to get
killed or mangled. In this right"
the courts will see that his consti-
tutional liberties are not disturbed.
The supreme court of New York
state settled this matter in the case
of Miss Knisely, aged Is. whose
arm was wrenched off in the fac
tory of q man named Pratt A jury's
verdict for damages was set aside,
an the court held that he girl had
a right" to work amid the Illegal
and dangerous machinery, and that
no safety appliance law could rob
her of this right"
One of the strongest opponents of
this doctrine in our day is Horace
H., Lurton, selected by President
Taft for the United States supreme
bench Lurton has applied the doc
trine to railroaders. He has held
that these men may lose as many
arms or legs as they choose, and no
law passed by congress can deprive
them of that right or make the rail
roads liable in damages for such
losses.
This is one reason why railway
employees oppose the appointment
and confirmation of Judge Lurton.
Here is one of Lurton's decisions:
E.. NJ. Delk had his foot mashed
while coupling cars at Memphis.
The accident was due to the failure
of the railroad to provide safety
~ q
federal statute. Lurton decided that
Delk was careless to work around
such a car, and therefore he could
not recover.
Congress had said (sectiOn of
the act) in such a case as this an
'employe shall not be deemed 10
have assumed the risk, although
continuing in the employment of
the carrier"
In every circuit in the United
States except the one presided over
by Judge Lurton, the courts have
observed and given force to these
words. Judge Lurton's ruling d.
rectly opposed that of the United
States supreme court. In the Tay-
lor case Justice Moody went all
OVER this ground and said, among
other things:
~There is no escape from the
meaning of these words Quoting
the above statute). Explanation
cannot clarity them and ought not
to be employed to confuse them or
lessen their significance"
Justice Moody went on to discuss
the statement that he statute is
Marsh in its application to rail-
roads, and calls attention to the
rather obvious truth that such acct
dents to employees are rather
harsh on the victims
fIt would be better" he says, ito
look harshness in the face rather
tAbn break down the rules of law"
In. that expression Justice Moody
accurately characterized decisions
like that of Judge Lurton in the
Delk case. Judge Lurton is among
those judges who break down" the
law when it is harsh" on the rail
roads. He is, in a manner of speak
idg, Ia sort of judicial anarchists
breaker down of law.
Or take the case of John T. Ha-
Zelrigg, another instance where
Judge Lurton broke down" the
law in the interest of a railroad.
In order to be fair, let us read the
facts of the case from the courts
own opinion:
SIT appears that directly after
the injury tHaZelrigg had his arm
crushed while coupling cars at
Williamson, Va, for the Norfolk &
Western road. he was taken to the
hospital provided by the defendant
trailroad), where his arm was am
pufated, and where he remained
and was taken care of for five or
six weeks, until he was supposed to
be recovered and was DISCHARGED.
An agent of the company agreed
with him to pay him $25 in cash, to
give him a pass over its own road
aud $2.75 for further transportation
toshis home for any possible claim
against the company he might have
on; account of the accident: and
thereupon the plaintiff gave the de
PENDANT the following receipt:
THE receipt set forth contained
these words: 1 do hereby release
and discharge the said company
from all liability for and on account
oflthe matter described above"
The court goes on to say that
when this receipt was set up by the
railroad, Hazelrigg gave some evil
dence tending to show that at the
time OF giving 1t he was without
money or means of subsistence, and
had no suitable clothing; that he
was worn down by suffering and
was afflicted by malady which af-
fected his mind, and that he did