The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1910-11-25
Continued from page L.


quehtly' under our present system of
legal procedure, with all of its male
quacles, with all of its delays and all
its rules which seek apparently to pre-
vent recovery there exists no hope for
compensation in over fifteen per cent
of the cases.
AT least eighty per cent of the en-
ployers OF this country are protected by
what are known as accident liability
policies, and during the course of the
last five years they have paid to the
accident or to the liability insurance
companies $95,000,000, and during that
time the insurance companies only paid
to those who were injured 100000 coo.
The result was a pure loss to this coun-
try of $55000000, which went to the in
surance companies to pay the expenses
OF administration. or went as court
costs or attorneys fees in resisting the
claims of those who brought suits
against employers. Five million dollars
more was received than was paid to
those who were actually hurt. I know
it will be unnecessary to say to this
audience that of the $4O.OOO.O00 that
actually went. or was supposed to 90
to the man who suffered the injury,
not over fifty per cent actually reached
him. because the expenses of litigation
and the attorneys fees consumed fifty
per cent. In fact this feature of the
case is best presented by the story of
the lrishman who was hit on the head
by a brick. He finally succeeded in
recovering damages. but only got a
small per cent. In a spirit of indigna-
ton he asked the lawyer Say was it
you or myself that got hit by that
brck?' | think all who are familiar
with the result of such cases will ad-
nit it was the freshman who was hit
by the brick
Another chapter and another phase
of this proposition is that the expense
in the court costs, what the people
themselves pay for the support OF that
portion of our judges who are employed
in the trial of this class of cases, is
greater than the amount recovered by
the injured persons, and consequently it
would be cheaper from public stand
point for the people to do away with
one-third of their judges ana pay to
those injured in modern industrialism
the money than to retain our present
system of litigation. If we could adopt
some different rule for giving cOmpen-
sation to those who are injured in mod
ern industrialism we could do away
with at | EAST one third of our judges
and perhaps one-half of our lawyers
and that, according to the minds OF
many people is a consummation de
voutly to be wished.
Efforts to bring about a correction
of these conditions in the past have
principally found expression in the pas
sage of child labor laws, factory in
spection laws and laws intended to Sc
cure greater safety in the operation OF
dangerous industries. 1t is significant
to know that all of these laws have
been tested as to their constitutionahtS
in the courts. The employing CLASSES
have apparently never recognized The
ultimate benefit that would be derive
by society from the greater protection
to those who conduct our modern sys
tenn of industrialsm. 1t has been usu
ally the experience that when factory
or mine inspection laws, or laws limit
ing the hours of labor in dangerous anC
injurious occupations are taken int
the courts, the first experience has beer
that the courts have declared them un
constitutional One of the unfortunate
experiences has been that many of oul
tous about protecting the rights o
property than they have about protect
ing the rights of the people.
AS you all know, in he state OF New
York, the bakeshop law when frs
passed was declared unconstitutional
and because one of the great leader
of national thought and action i'll thi
country-and | might say in the civil
lied world Theodore Roosevelt. under
took to publicly criticise the reason
upon which that decision was based h
was bitterly assailed, because it wa
said he was assaulting the very citadel
of our liberty, when he criticised tn
courts. | have never recognized tina
any department of our government
immune from criticism. | know tn
executive department has never bee
immune from criticism, and | know c
no more reason why a man who
elected to a judicial office should EMO
any immunity from having the correct
ness or the wrongfuness of his act
or of his reasoning subject to publ
criticism than should an executive O
a member of the legislative department
In fact, it seems to me as though til
protection of the just Judge is to es
tablish the rule that men who ren1e
lust decisions based upon good reason
49, hax iaiS11 a