United labor bulletin., 1909-10-22
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY

of the bench Judges are seldom cor
rupt in the strict sense of that word In
uprightness they will average well with
the rest of mankind. But they are gem
orally men whose education and associa-
tions have inclined them favorably to-
ward capital and against mere men.
They are not selected from that portion
"a the profession who have given care
full and open-minded study to social
questions. They belong TO the safe and
sane" element of their profession. Their
minds are too often stepped in preced-
ents and too seldom instinct with hu-
man sympathy. They are good men
gone wrong on the relation of labor 10
capital-gone far wrong on the relative
value of men and money. Instead of re-
garding capital as the servant of man.
they proceed as though man ought to be
and is the slave of capital Hence in
constituting statutes on this subject, they
reason from wrong premises ana there
fore necessarily arrive at wrong con-
clusions.
Let us briefly consider few illustra-
tive recent decisions:
Missouri has a statute declaring that
all railroad switches. frogs and guard
rails shall be blocked, punishing railroad
officials neglecting or failing to comply
with its provisions and declaring that
all persons injured by reason or u rail-
ure to comply shall be entitled to re-
cover their damages" etc. man was
working for the Missouri Pacific COM
pany as a switchman. In the course of
his employment he was violently thrown
against an unblocked guard-rail that
his arm was caught and he was run over
and injured by his arm being thus
caught and held, which it would not have
been had the statute been complied with.
He sued for damages. The supreme
court of Missouri held that he should be
defeated on two grounds: First, that he
assumed the risk because he ought to
have refused to work if he was not salts
fed with the conditions. and second.
that the statute was intended to prevent
employees from getting their feet caught
and not prevent their getting hands and
arms caught, therefore he could not re-
cover. The violation of a positive stat
ute counted for nothing. The maimeo
The fact that he could not quit his job
without condemning wife and children
to hunger and want counted for moth
ing. The protection of capital was para
mount to the rights of man.
A short time ago car repairer in the
employ of the Colorado & Southern Rail
way company was engaged in repairing
\ cars on a side-track situated very near
the main track. The usual and only
place where drink of water could be
4 obtained was at a water tank on the OPP
posite side of the main track from
where the man was at work. One morn
ing he started for a drink. diagonally
across the track toward the tank. Three
hundred feet to the north was a public
street crossing. Beyond the crossing an
approaching train. He knew that there
existed city ordinance forbidding trains
within the city limits to run faster than
twenty miles per hour and another re-
quring all trains approaching a public
crossing Ito ring the locomotive bell suf-
ficiently loud to warn all persons of the
approach of such engine, and to con-
tinue to ring such bell until the engine
and train shall have passed the cross
ing" He had good hearing. and no bell
was ringing. To cross the track and get
out of reach of the approaching train he
must travel twenty-five feet. II the train
was running at lawful rate of speed
and he walked at an ordinary gait he
point of danger before the train could
reach the place where he crossed. even
though it were at the public crossing
when he started. He was very busy
and started for his drink and the train
stole silently upon him at the rate OF
fifty miles an hour, striking him with
the end of the pilot beam and Killing
him instantly without sounding any
alarm whatever. The court tool the
case from the jury and held that he was
negligent in assuming that the train
crew would obey the law. and In eifeot
that the train crew had perfect right
to run him down and kill him like a wild
beast because he took 1t for granted that
they would observe the require ments OF
the city ordinances and of common pru
dence. The udge was kind-hearred
man, he sympathized with the widow
and five hungry children, but he fol-
lowed established precedents and exon
Grated the defendant. That decision left
a grief-stricken widow penniiess and Ave
helpless children objects of public char
ity 1t is justified. the slaughter OF en-
ployes, by soleless corporations. | do
not blame the Judge. blame the Bys-
TEN. blame the standard OF morality
and law that values the privileges of the
employer above the rights OF the efn-
ploye. blame the sentiment that Judges
men by what they own and not by what