The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-08-23

pelled to enforce.
 If the deficiencies of the doctrine are acknowledged by the courts, why is it that the court which launched this legal doctrine cannot. now that it has become an acknowledged danger in the course of justice, seek out and destroy the derelict which nobody wants.
 The lay mind cannot readily under stand why the dereliction is not as easy to court as was the assumption of such a doctrine.
 But the rule which prevents the remedy being applied by the courts in this instance is one of the most salu- tary rules which guide the court, one of the most valuable principles in the adm1n1strat ation of justice. It is. that the law should be at all times certain and the uncertainty of the law under which we live and deal with our neigh DOT IS as essential as the reasons un- deriving the law.
 This rule relates to court made laws as well as law enacted by the legisla- tive department of the government
 When the court has in a line of de- cisions led the public to understand that a legal doctrine or interpretation is a feature of the common law, it be- comes the duty of the court to respect it's own decisions and to forever sup port the law as interpreted, until changed by the law making body. On the doctrine of stare decisis, non quieta movere depends the security of busi- ness and the confidence of the public in the Judiciary.
 Now, whenever the fellow servant doctrine is applied by the courts. it is done in the granting of a. remedy in a matter concerning which the liabilities and exemptions of the parties concern ed became fixed by the law as it stood before the questions involved claimed attention of the court.
 The court can only declare the law as 1t stood when the parties assumed legal relations. Perhaps there are no cases which the courts of law are ca-ll- ed upon to consider which are the cause of more general irritation than the decision of those actions involving the law of negligence as between em- ployer and employe. The result of the adjudication of the law as it stands today is a general dissatisfaction with of a class feeling, owing to the appa.r- ent sympathy of the courts with capi- tal in the application of the law of negligence. It involves the clements pathy which makes the application of the principles of the law, governing the situation, manifest, with peculiar force. the underlying justice of those princi- ples. ..s ! Public opinion and the suggestion of the court has brought this matter to the door of the Legislature.
 It Is needless for me to remark to this Senate that this subject matter of legislation is not of novel impression. Most of you Senators are familiar with the legislation already establish ed in various States of this Union and long since established and satisfactor- fly operated in many of the nations Of Europe. The relative liability for i'm applicable accidents, which are a waste in human life apparently as inevitable as is the waste In the wear and tear of the machinery used in industrial operations has for many decades been the subject of much thought and dis cussion on the part of legislative bod ies and the courts. 4
 In dealing with this subject, we have been surpassed by many natiQDs of the world and yet when President Roose-l welt suggested in his initial message to Congress that a law should be pass ed making the using up of a. life by an industry a draft upon that particular industry, the suggestion was thought to be by many radical and entirely ex- perimentai. This was due to the al- most complete ign0rance of the gem corning this, one of the most far reach ing movements of the 18th century. President Roosevelt's suggestion was merely to apply the principle in this country, which has been tried and sat- fsfactorily worked out in many of the countries in Europe.
 Congress did not follow the Presi- dent to the point suggested. Congress, books of the United States relatively excellent employers liability act. But otwithstanding the great improvement which this act works in the law, 1t IS only a temporary expedient and the principle stated in the Presidents message win not prevail everywhere in this country.
 We must accept the advance in the science of government worked out by other nations when their merit Is ap- parent, as we take results from them in other branches of science. Ger many has led the way in this import ant matter and has almost completely incorporated the using up of a man as a part of the cost of manufacture and without any dama ging effect upon it's commercial prosperity. Austria. France, Italy, Spain. Holland, Sweden, New Zealand, South Australia and the lead of Germany in the solution of this legal and economic problem. So that President Roosevelt in the sug- gestion referred to in his message did not counsel experimental legislation. but the adoption of principles which are being universally adopted as being economic, sound and just.
 Aside from the humanitarfan aspect of the matter, the question is of para mount importance to the whole com munity Shalt the industry or the community bear the support of the in capacitated and their families and the families of those who perish?
 Quitting again the humanftarfan side of the argument. consider the in justice of assuming that the laborer insures himself when the wages which he receives indicate to him that he re- ceives nothing as a premium for car rying such an insurance.
 Why should the doctrine of respon- dea. superior be suspended in the case of workman?
 Is there any sound reason why a factory hand on his way home to din ncr, who is run over by a. factory wagon, should not have the same right to compensation as a person not em- ployed in that factory would have? ! Consider too, the burden Of proof which the injured employe must bear if injured by any defect in the ways, works or machinery. He must search out and place the negligence on his employer and the obtaining of this evidence is generally extremely diff ficult.
 Assume the workman attempting to prove his employer negligent. Every obstacle is placed in his way to pre-