The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1909-09-09

|
The general conclusion of the con-
ference as to the constitutional ques-
ton was well summed up by Mr.. In
gals. He said, speaking as lawyer,
the only thing for us to do is to
get the opinions of the best lawyers in
our different states and compare them,
but even then we shall be far enough
from knowing what the courts will de-
eide
1t was in this second session also,
that the first marked difference of
opinion found expression. The "pos-
slblllty'' of securing a Workmen S com
pensation law in the United States de-
ponds, obviously, on whether public
opinion can be brought to demand such
a law as well as on the attitude of the
courts after it's enactment. The chair
man of the conference expressed the
opinion that no plan would be or should
be satisfactory to workmen that re
CURED them to surrender altogether
their common law rights to sue the
negligent employer Mr.. Gillett, an
| employer of Minnesota, on the other
hand, was emphatic in the belief that
employers would oppose any general
compensation scheme that did not in
cldentally relieve them of their common
law Liability As a possible COM
promise it was suggested that the
definition of tfcriminal negligence
might be made more sweeping SO that
the careless employer would be liable to
society for his negligence even though
relieved of any special financial liabili-
ty to his employee. 1t was also point
ed out that insurance companies could
be relied upon to penaHze the careless
employer by charging him high rates
and that in this way negligence would
be subject to- further check. Mr..
McEwen, speaking for Workmen, was
of the opinion that wage earners would
be willing to forego their common law
rights if only they were assured
adequate compensation, irrespective of
the question of employers negligence.
The difficulty Of reeonciling employers
and employees to a reasonable compen-
sation law, though real, was thus dis
missed as not insurmountable, The
consensus of opinion touching the ques-
ton of possibility" was clearly that
the legislative obstacles to be over
come arel less serious than the consti-
tutional.
Having agreed as to the desirabili-
ty' of a comprehensive compensation
law and having discussed the s'possi-
bility of securing it, the conference
proceeded in it's third and fourth ses-
sions to consider practical aspects Of
the question. DR.. Frankel and Mr..
Dawson summarized in very interest
| ing and instructive way the informa-
tion they had collected in regard to
foreign systems, and their opinions as
to the adaptability Of different features
of these systems to the United States
The British, Austrian, German, Swe
dish, Dutch and French systems were
passed in review and the plan under
consideration in Switzerland was de-
scribed Both speakers agreed that it
would be possible to devise a system
for the United States "waving eonsti-
tutional objections as they say in
college debates-that would be better
than any one Of the foreign systems
they had studied. The features Of
such system which they made promi-
nent were the substitution Of weekly
or monthly stipends during the entire
period of disability for the lump sum
payments, great fexibility in the ma
chinery that employers should be allow
ed to devise for meeting their liability,
coupled with rigid insistence that the
liability should be adequately met, pro-
vision through the state for the prdtec
tion of employees the satisfaction of
whose claims might be baked by the
insolvency either of the employer or
of the insurance company on which he
depended, and, finally, encouragement
to all measures calculated to reduce the
number and seriousness of accidents.
At the close Of his address Mr.. Daw-
son advanced the view that the plan
that is after all least open to constitu-
tional objection in the United States
is that, which, to many, would seem the
most radical, that is, outright state in
surance supported by the taxation of
the employers whose employees are to be
benefited. He based this opinion on
the sweeping nature Of the taxing pow
er in comparison with the police power
on which any simple compensation plan
must, it was generally conceded, rest.
The adjournment of the conference on
the conclusions of Mr.. Dawson IS ad-
dress prevented any discussion of this
interesting suggestion.
At the same time that all phases of
the compensation problems were being
discussed in general meeting, a com
mittee appointed early in the session
was actively at work drawing up a
plan which would insure similar and
more REPRESENTATIVE conferences in the