The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-08-23
ARNOLD ON LAW OF MASTER AND
 SERVANT For Abolition of Doctrine of "Fe1low Servant" and
 More Humane Law Calls Attention to Roose- velt's Advanced Attitude
 on Same Question
Speech Had Profound Influ- ence upon Members of Senate - Senator Chase Changed His Views.

| Dlll ldlk0n Oy oendlOT 1hOlll<1S <AILOios
 Jr.. as stated by him in his speech favoring the passage of the bill. may perhaps be said to represent the re- ceived ideas of those who believe that
 there should be change in the pres ent law. so that the workman who is injured or killed by the negligence of | a fellow workman may have redress in
 damages. How really conservative
 was this bill. which was killed in the
 Senate. is shown in that part of sena- tor Arnold's speech. which relates to the attitude toward this important question taken by Theodore Roosevelt In brief it may be said that the law proposed by the commission appointed | by Governor Woodruff follows the lines of the present lay. with certain changes the principal of which Is that the doctrine of fellow servant" would be altered so that an injured work man may obtain damages when the fault is with another workman. But the injured workman. his widow. or
 his children. even if this bill became a law. would still be subject to all the chances of law. to the cost of seeking Justice in the courts to the laws de- l lay and the necessity of dividing the damages obtained with the lawyer who presented his case. Roosevelt on the other hand advo- cated plan. which makes the work
 
 dustry as the coal that is consumed by it. Under the Roosevelt plan. which does not materially differ from the plans adopted by several EuropeAn countries. the compensation of the workman would be in the nature of in surance, would be certainly paid to 1 him following his serious injury. or to his widow and children following his death. There would be no lawyers. no courts. and no charges attached to the plan.
 The legal system proceeds upon a
 different idea. from the Roosevelt or templates payment for the life of the
 workman based upon the value of the life. as represented by his earning
 power But in this state the sum Eiv- $5 0O0
 The latter method proceeds upon the idea that the injured workman should
 receive such sum as will prevent
 him from being socially submerged. or | his wife and children. in event of his death.
 ferred to the "compensation'' plan as the better. but like Senator Arnold, advocated with earnestness the pass age of the employers liability act. which represents great improvement
 over the law as it now is. The argu- ! ments of Senator Arnold and Senator Peck were so effective that after hear ing them Senator Chase of Waterbury,
  liability act, declared himself in favor of it.
 Senator Arnold's speech. in full. fol- lows: s The situation with which the Legis- 1ature of the State of Connecticut is called upon to deal arose out of a fic- ton adopted by the courts by which artificial means justice was attempted to be done in matters concerning the relation of master and servant in a condition of. society as it existed in England and this country many years ago.
 In the usual contract of employ ment, there were no terms expressed | except the amount of the wages and | the agreement of the servant to labor. relative rights and responsibilities of employer and employee out of this vague contract. the courts attempted
 contract which were never agreed | to by the parties thereto. Public policy. as it appeared to the judges who were responsible for the
 largely influenced the court in con l triving the hypothetical contract. to | the terms of which the parties were | to be held.
 l Public policy, as the judfcature of
 an earlier day understood it. seemed
 to demand that the servant should as-
 sume all the risks of the service in
 which he engages
 |
 mulgated. dangerous machinery and | life destroying occupations were not l the factors in industrial organization
 that they are to-day. The pressure of
 population did not cause such a fierce
 competition in the labor market. La Dor was more Independent and was
 not compelled by the necessity of the | situation to accept employment with
 out considering the terms. In that
 day, the doctrine of the assumption of
 all risks did not display the injustice policy upon which it was based. The | doctrine has been with practical uni formity applied and enforced from that
 day by the courts. which have regard | ed it to be as much established law as l though it were an enactment of the law making body. While adhering to | the early decisions as precedents in 1 this matter. the courts until recently ! have not considered that. the doctrine
 being originally law made by the judi | ci ary department to apply to the con
 dition which called it forth might re-
 quire modification to meet the change
 in the conditions to which it applies | to-day.
 | Public opinion has long ago pro- nounced against the injustice of writ | ing into a contract of labor. without 1 its consent. clause which makes the laborer the insurer of his own life and
 safety against every hazard of his em- ployment- This public opinion has in l many instances been evidenced by tn l conduct of juries. which have refused
 to apply the doctrine in cases under | their consideration.
 | Public opinion and public policy are | closely related and the courts have l come to acknowledge that a practice which public opinion denounces as un-
 just cannot be good public policy. | Accordingly. in recent years, we have had many deliverances from the bench in many states against this l archaic rule of law.
 Our own Supreme Court has pro- nounccd against the doctrine in the case Of Nolan vs- the N. Y. N. H. 6 H R. R. Go. 70 Conn. page 195. where | in it says:
 "This evil is too. deep -~~ted to be iremedied by judicial action. It needs
 radical treatment through wise lsRts- 1 lation.~ Judges of our Superior Court have
 from time to time denounced the