United labor bulletin., 1909-10-15
BY c. A. Irwin.

BY e. a. Irwin.
TINS is a commercial age America
has made great progress in leIslating
Tor the conservation of property and
property rights, but laws for personal
security have been very much neglected.
Last year the factories and shops of
New York killed twice as many people
as fell in the Spansh-American war.
Last year the railroads of this country
killed nearly 5000 people and injured
more than 10000. In % days of last
August the surface roads of New York
City killed or injured over $500 people;
and in the year 1908 there were 3,7s1
fatal accidents. and over $4,000 personal
injuries in the factories and shops of
a single American city.
The daily report of personal injuries
has become so regular that it attracts
little attention. Legislatures and courts
will continue to ignore this tremendous
human slaughter until a healthy public
sentiment is created demanding its pre-
vention.
1t is appalling that 80 per cent of per-
sonal injuries in this country would be
easily preventable with proper reguia-
tions, and that the pecuniary loss for
the other 10 per cent invariably falls
upon the injured party instead of where
it belongs-that is. upon the shoulders
of him who set in motion the dangerous
agency which produced the injury. 1t
is often asked. why is it that industrial
accidents are so much more numerous
in America than in other countries?" To
answer this question it is only neces-
sary to compare American laws for per-
sonal safety with the same class of laws
in other countries. America gives less
legal protection to life and limb than
any other civilized country.
Thirty-five years ago the English par
lament passed law providing:
Where. after the passage OF TINS act.
personal injury is caused to an employe,
who is himself in the exercise of due
care and diligence at the time:
"Q( BY reason of any defect IN the
condition of the ways, works or ma
chinery connected with or used in the
business of the employer, which arose
from or had not been discovered or
remedied owing to the negligence of the
employer. or of any person in the service
Of the employer. and entrusted by him
with the duty OF seeing that the ways,
works and machinery were in proper
condition; or
"(2) BY reason of the negligence of
any person in the service of the en-
ployer. entrusted with exercising super
ntendency whose sole or principal duty
is. that OF superintendent:
"(S) BY reason of the negligence OF
any person in the service of the en-
of any switch. signal, locomotive en-
gine or train upon a railroad the en-
ploye. or in case the injury results in
death the parties entitled by law to sue
and recover for such damages shall
have the same right of compensation and
remedy against the employer, as If the
employe had not been an employe of
or in the service of the employer or
engaged in his or its work"
After the passage of the foregoing act
of parliament the English courts in obed-
fence 10 English public sentiment very
properly held that the law meant exact
ly what its language imported and that
thereafter an employe injured through
the failure of his employer to furnish
a reasonably safe place to work and
reasonably safe conditions under which
TO work could recover his just compen-
sation. and that it was no defense for
the employer to show that the employe
that he did not assume the risk. This
decision of the English courts throwing
the financial burden of large class
of Industrial accidents upon the employ
er where it justly belonged had a great
influence in stimulating the owners of
shops and factories to exercise diligence
for the safety of employees.
American laboring men hearing of the
English act and its effect. at once be-
came zealous for its adoption in Ameri-
ca; and it has been adopted in nearly
every state. but it has been rendered
amendments and judicial construction.
example. in Colorado the act was adopt
ed. but it was also provided that no re-
covery should exceed $4,000; that no
recovery should be had unless written
notice was given to the employer of the
time. place and cause OF the injury; and
that if the employe knew of the defect
or negligence which caused the injury
before he was injured and failed TO give
notice thereof he could not recover.
These legislative amendments clearly
indicate that it was the purpose OF the
legislature to deceive lahorlng men into
the idea that they were passing the Eng
lish employers liability act. and at the
same time to cater to the business In