The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-02-16

made law IN the sense that any judga
has substituted his individual opinion.
The law Is the outgrowth of centur-
les. The trouble with our common
law Is that modern indus rial condf-
tions have changed too rapidly for the
common law to keep pace with them.
Changing conditions require changing
relations between employer and en-
ploye, but the change should be a ra-
tional one-not the result Of an emo
son and good sense: o berwise 1t will
do more harm than good"
Mr.. Emory than went on to outline
very comprehensively the theories OF
Workmen's Compensation and En-
ployers' Liability acts. He contrast
ed the two methods and strongly at
tackled the theory of Employers Liza
bility. He quoted statistics to show
that in every State where Employers
Liability is in force. the result has
been to increase litigation enormous
ly. to increase friction between capi-
tai and labor. and on the other hand
the average award to injured work.
men had not increased appreciably.
by removing all barriers to the
amount Of damages. you simply in
duce a sense of legal desperation In
the defendant said Attorney Emory.
land the resultant litigation is more
bitter than ever before and more
fruitless."
Mr.. Emory said that the, employer
is not heart1ess brute, that he does
not want to see injured workmen
ground into the dust but that in many
cases the insurance companies which
insure. against factory accidents in
stst upon fighting the cases where the
manufacturer would like to settle.
The insurance companies in all con-
tracts insist on their right to litigation
and often the manufacturer who be-
a. A1-A ST. =,
made, is placed in, the undesirable
position of defendant in a lawsuit
which is really being forced by the
insurance company.
He then went on to draw a strong
contrast between Employers Liability
ing that under the latter system, the
delay and waste of litigation is done
away with, the friction between en-
ployer and employee is reduced to g.
minimum and many other improve
ments are carried with the system.
'tAnd a very important subject is
that of immediate relief, as afforded
under compensation acts" said Attor-
ney Emory, "for relief delayed is re-
lief denied
He stated that the men he repre-
sents are In favor Of compensation
of the present common law barriers.
He called upon Col. Pope. president
of the Manufacturers associat ton, to
sp. ak for that body.
Does your association favor a
workmen's Compensation act?" ask
ed Chairman Judson.
''It certainly does" replied Col.
Pope.
"Are you opposed to the removal Of
the common law doctrines Of fellow
servant, assumption of risk and con-
tributory neglfgence?"
Absolutely" replied Col. Pope.
"Do you favor the retention Of these
doctrines as an incentive to accept
Workmen's compensation" asked Mr..
Judson.
why no, not that exactly" replied
Col. Pope.
Later Attorney Emory explained
that he believed that the retention Of
the common law barriers would act
as lever in favor of the acceptance
of Workmen's compensation.
"Do you think you can draw a
workmens' Compensation act that
will cover all classes Of labor and
yet be constitutional? asked some
one in the audience.
ST think that the easiest way to
make 1t unconstitutional would be to
leave out class" retorted Attorney
Emory.
Prof Willard C. Fisher of Middle
town made a brief speech in which
he took UP some of the arguments of
Attorney Emory and indicated that
he will reply at greater length this
afternoon.
He handed the committee a Work.
mems Compensation measure drawn
up by him to cover certain dangerous
classes of labor.
tI think that this can be done con-
stitutfonally under the police power
of our state, as applied to the policing
of dangerous trades" said Prof Fish
err, but there are necessarily q num-
Der of trades which must be omitted,
and in behalf of these / advocate an
Employers Liability law"
The hearing adjourned at 5:15 ..
m, with the Indication of lively
continuation today.