Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-02-15
hackers URGE PASSAGE OF
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT.
Trrom a star Correspondent

TRENTON, Feb. 15.-Employers' liza
bility measures were again the subject
of discussion in the Senate chamber
yesterday afternoon. The arguments
advanced differed in no great degree
fl in those expressed two weeks ago.
Former Assemblynlan James G.. Blau-
welt Endorsed the first section OF Os-
borne's bill, which seeks to make
every employer liable for an injury to
an employee through the negligence of
d fellow servant. But he recommended
the elimination from the bill of the
second section which permits the re-
covery of damages by employees even
though they are guilty of contributory
negligence.
Suppose" said Mr.. Blauvelt, that
a trolley car should run head-on into
a delivery wagon of the Adams Express
Company. The motorman, understand. is
en- drely responsible through careless
ness o Z recklessness for the accident.
The express company probably sues the
railway company for damages. and. of
course, no one will dispute the liability
Of the railway officials under the pres
ent law. The reason for that il the
courts position with regard to the re-
sponsibility of employers for the acts
Of their agents. The driver OF the ex-
press wagon Is injured and he sues the
railway company, too.
but what becomes of the conductor
of the car who has been manned and
not through his own fault? He has nc
redress. And why?. Simply because of
the fact that he Is paid out of the
same till as the negligent motorman,
and the employer is. therefore. not
liable. I favor this section in Mr.. Os-
borne's bill because it provides that
the employer must be, liable for dam-
ages to an employee who Is injured in
the Service of thai employer. even
though the injury has been caused by
tho negligence Of a fellow servant
Henry Carless, a Newark lawyer
favored Mr.. Osborne's bill in it's en-
tirety and added that he would rather
not see the measure reported at all
than to have the second section elirni-
mated. He explained that he was for
| some years a factory worker himself
and felt competent to pass Judgment
| upon the risk incurred by most fac
tory operatives nowadays. He charac-
terized the present law concerning
master and servant as ~antiquated, ex-
planning that 1t was formulated before
the advent OF machinery such as work
MEN are obliged to work around and
upon in these times.
Samuel Botherill, representing the
carpenters anion, confined his advocacy
to the Osborne measure, to a iauda-
ton of the provisions of the second
section. This section seeks to protect
the employee in any case where there
has beel. ~vntributory negligence on his
part. It's purpose is to place in the
hands of the jury the power to deter
mine how much the employee has con-
tributed to the accident as against the
proportionate responsibility Of the en-
ployer, and to award damages In ae-
cordance, with this proposition. Mr..
Both. rill declared that labor demanded
some such protection under the law
n meant to get It
Waiter Drew. who represen ed the
National Manufacturers Union, Sc
verely criticized the bill In it's entirety,
William d. Murray. Of Plainf1eld; Os-
a Keen, of Newark, and George
Holmes, counsel for the Central Rail-
road. also picked flaws in the Osborne
act and expressed their opinion that
the merits OF the Alderman bill should
first be fully tested. The latter has
been in operation only six months and
the speakers expressed the opinion
that this was scarcely a sufficiently
long time e determine whether or not
the act was satisfactory.
The hearing was adjourned until
Monday, March 7. in order to accom-
modate several who were unable 70 ex-
press themselves yesterday.