Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-04-10


persons. in proportion 10 the number eui-
ployed. arc killed or injured In the course
Of their employment as in any other coun-
Try OF the world.
"As an Hesitation OF what has been ac-
compiished in Europe through wise lcsis-
lation and as an evidence Of what could he
accomplished by proper legislation in the
United states. your attention is directed
to the tact that taking ali the mining
countries Of the old world, the average
annual number Of Industrial fatalities Is
only Las per 1000 employed. whereas in
the United states the average annual
number OF fatalities in mines Is S.46 per
1000 employed.
Operatfop at Present.
In order that we may extricate ourselves
from the humlliating and disgraceful po-
sitlon we now hold in respect to this ques-
ton II is imperative that the factory and
mining laws Of all our states, which at the
present time are wholly inadequate, should
be greatly extended and should be enforced
with the utmost vigor. Employers should
be required to equip machinery and work.
ing places with every practical safety de-
vice it Is possible to secure; and the state,
itself, should establish museums OK safety
devices and industrial hygiene In which
should be exhibited drawings or models
Of all safety appliances in use in this and
other countries. Furthermore. the force of
factory and mine inspectors should be
largely increased, the inspectors should be
removed from the sphere Of political in
fluence, and schools should be established
and conducted in connection with the
museums Of safety devices in which in
spectors should be thoroughly trained in
the work the law requires them to do,
what wOrkmen Want.
What the workingmen desire and de-
mand is not so much compensation for in
jury as prevention OF injury, and believe
that industry should bear the pecuniary
loss sustained by workmen as result OF
industrial accidents. just as It is now re-
ouired to repair its machinery and offset
the losses caused by depreciation in the
value of it's plants.
From time immemorial the workingmen
Of the United States have endeavored to
have enacted comprehensive employers liza
bility laws and while l am in full SYM
pathy with their efforts in this direction
yet il Is to be remembered that even the
best system OF employers liability means
expense, delay and litigation, whereas com.
pensation laws such as prevail in foreign
countries work automatically benefits are
paid Immediately, friction is eliminated
and a large measure of justice is done.
1T is, of course, impossible to say what
the exact cost Of automatic compensation
would be. but it is not difficult to conclude
that II would not require much more tc
compensate injured workmen in America
on the basis Of the British workmen's com
pensation act, than is now paid by Ameri.
panies.
During the eleven years from 1894 to 1sOl
the employers liability companies Of tho
United states took in 500 s5sO7s in premium,
| from American employers. These com
panies paid out in the settlement OF claim,
Of injured workmen t43,599,l9s or 43 per cen'
! OF the amount they took in. OF these s43
59s, 4es paid in the settlement of such claims
it Is safe to say that 35 per cent was ex
/ pended by the injured workmen in the pay
ment of attorneys fees and court expenses
so that, in the final analysis the injured
| workmen received less than S30OOOO0O on
of the 500 900 paid by employers durins
this period in premiums to liability com
panies. Allowing $15O00,Oo0 for the admins
| tration OF the liability companies and fol
reserve it would mean that S55,OOO,OOO wer,
wasted-were worse than wasted becaus,
the money was USED IN Durdening on
courts with litigation and in delaying OF
defeating the settlement of claims. man,
of them Just claims. when it should hav,
been used, and would be used under a wis,
compensation system, for the immediate re
lief of the men and their families who ar,
the victims of the hazard of industrial DUR
suits.
~ am not prepared TO say that ever
though the entire S1O0OOO,OOO had been pai,
| directly TO the injured workmen II wouIt
have been sufficient to have indemnifie,
them for their losses but I do believ,
that it would not have required very mucl
more TO have compensated them on III
basis of the British workmen's compensa
ton act
system should he Changed.
''On the whole II would seem to me tina
in every consideration OF sound business
judgment, political economy, and fair deal
ing between man and man. we Shout,
not hesitate longer in abandoning a system
that has been productive of SO mucl
misery and injustice, to say nothing Of tn
friction and ll-feeling engendered between
workmen and employer. Under our presen
system workman injured 10 compelled I,
sue the only man on earth upon whom H.
has moral claim for employment
whereas, under an automatic eompensa
ton system he receives as a right-not a
a benefaction-a definite amount OF none,
"a sufficient amount to tide him or hi
dependents over the period OF greatest dis
tress."