New-York tribune., 1911-04-09
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS
Weaknesses of Present Laws
Pointed Out at Science Meeting.
COMPENSATION LAWS URGED
Scranton Mine Accident Re-
ferred to by Speakers in Con-
vention at PHILADELPHIA.


Philadelphia. April s.-with the Scran-
ton mine horror the uppermost thought IN
their minds, delegates and guests attend
ing the annual meeting Of the American
Academy Of Political and Social Science
to-day listened to further addresses on the
question OF risks in modern industry Many
Of the delegates expressed their sorrow and
believed something more should be done to
lessen accidents and place responsibility.
AT the morning session. at which Profess
sor Samuel McCune Lindsay. Of Columbia
University, presided the subject Of defects
in the present liability laws was taken up.
The recent decision Of the Court OF APP
peals of New York declaring unconstitu-
tional the workmens compensation act was
referred to by several speakers.
There were divergent views on the de-
cision. Professor Lindsay expressed re-
Sret that the court found the law unconsti-
tutional. Joseph p. Cotton, counsel for the
Kew York Commission on Employers LA
b!lity stated that the decision was based
on the laws Of the land interpreted by
learned jurists He said that the courts
" ere not responsible for the laws, and inu-
mated that many of the acts on the statute
books to-day relating to employers liza
tlity were the views of Tories and two
hundred years old.
Walter S. Nichols. Of New York. editor
ot THE Personal Injury Law Journal" held
mat under the spirit II not the letter of
our Constitution no ordinary employer Of
labor can justly be made liable for an In
jury for which he was not actually or con-
structively at fault" and that every at
tempt 10 impose such liability is an at
tack on the manhood Of employers as Amer
lean citizens"
John MitcheIIs Views.
John Mitchell, vice-president Of the Amer
lean Federation Of Labor, speaking this
evening, said in part:
1t Is strange commentary upon our
D0asted American civilization that in the
United States nearly three times as many
persons, in proportion To the number em-
pIoyed, are killed or injured in the course
of their employment as in any other coun-
try Of the world.
Employers should be required to equip
machinery and working places with every
practical safety device II Is possible 10
secure. ana the state itself should establish
museums Of safety devices and industrial
hygiene. in which should be exhibited
drawings or models OF all safety appliances
in use in this and other countries. Further
more, the force of factory and mine in
spectors should be largely Increased, the
inspectors should be removed from the
sphere of political influence, and schools
should be established and conducted in
connection with the museums OF safety
devices in which inspectors should I've
thoroughly trained in the work the law re-
quires them TO do.
From time immemorial the workingmen OF
the United States have endeavOred TO have
enacted comprehensive employers liability
laws, and while I am in fun sympathy with
their efforts in this direction. yet II Is 10
be remembered that even the best system
of employers liability means expense delay
and litigation. whereas compensation laws
such as prevail In foreign countries work
automatically. benefits are paid immediate
ly, friction is eliminated and large meas
Ure of justice is done.
Under our present system workman In
jured is compelled To sue the only man on
earth upon whom he has q moral claim for
employment, whereas under an automatic
compensation system he receives as a right
not as q benefactOn--a definite amount
OF money-a sufficient amount to tide him
or his dependents over the period OF great
est distress.
James A. Lowell, chairman Of the Massa-
clIusetts Commission on Employers LA
bility and Compensation, said:
a blu proposed by the Massachusetts,
commission provided for compensation
equal to one-half wages, not TO exceed SO
a week, for three hundred weeks. All In
,juries lasting more than two weeks, which
were received in the course of employment
We're covered, and all kinds Of employment
where more than FIVE persons were regn-
larly employed. The amounts payable for
deaths varied according 10 the persons de-
pendent upon the deceased, but were not to
he larger than the above sum- The new
law was 10 be substitute for the present
employers liability act Of Massachusetts,
The injured employe could sue at the COM
mon law or proceed under the new act but
not both The proposed law would go far
to furnish speedy and moderate com
pensation, which would not be reduced, as
at present, by the payment Of large sums
for legal expenses.
p Tecumseh Sherman former Labor
Commissioner Of the State Of New York,
said
81 The compensation law treats ALI the nee
essary risks Of employment as joint risks
of which the consequence should be shared
between the employer and his injured
workmen. and il accordingly imposes upon
the employer a legal liability TO pay to
his injured workmen or their dependents
his share-generally one-half-of their wage
losses resulting from such risks. This con-
ception Of a Joint Occupational risk-of a
mutual responsibility for accidents from
Occupational risks. Of a moral partnership
in the resulting losses-is the great basis
Of the compensation liability.
in contrast with the compensation law,
our negligence law gives universal dis
satisfaction. Not only is 1t In many re-
spects absolutely unjust. but even so far
as It's theories are just IL falls 10 carry out
those theories In practice. but results in
stead In a medley Of cruel wrong. op-
pressve waste and delayed or compromised
justice.
Miles NJ. Dawson. actuary Of the Russell
Sage Foundation, said: