The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-06-01
principal speakers Representing the

pr1nclpal speakers Representing the Manufacturers Association of Con necticut) at the hearings upon this subject before the joint committee of Judiciary and Labor in Hartford some weeks ago.
 The views set down above concern ing the principles of Workmen's s Compensation are not new and MT. Emery has contributed nothing to the subject in compiling them. Students of industrial accidents insurance rec ognized these principles years ago. They are set forth very excellently in the report of the Massachusetts la bor bureau of 1907, which in turn takes them from the report of an English commission of very much earlier date.
 MT. Emery, the author, recognizes these principles, apparently. But torney for the manufacturers asso- citation, is blind to them. Else how can he explain the vigorous opposi- ton waged by him before the com mittee at Hartford, when it was pro- posed to abolish the present common law barriers which stand between an injured workman and his compensa- ton?
 MT. Emery, the lawyer, praised the common law to the sky. The Chinese wall which protected the Chinese from invasion was not dearer to the hearts of the Celestial merchants, than this common law wall to Mir Emery, protecting as it does, his cli- ents from the likelihood of dama ges for accidents suffered by their em- ployees.
 MT. Emery the lawyer, believes that the common law is based on justice, mercy and common sense, and that to abrogate it insofar as industrial acci- dents are concerned. is to disrupt the foundations of the commonwealth of Connecticut.
 Lawyer Emery believes that when a workman is injured in the state If Connecticut, he should have his law suit thrown out of the courts unless he first proves: CD That the acci- dent was one which doesn't naturally go with the trade, and for which. therefore, he is not entitled to dam ages; CD That one of his fellow work men did not in some way, directly or indirectly by negligence or care lessness contribute to the accident, in which case no damages are allowable; (3) That the accident was brought about directly by the employers neg ligence, and that the injured work man himself did not contribute to( the accident either by direct or indirect negligence; otherwise there is no Ha- bility on the employers part.
 Lawyer Emery clings. to these be- liefs when he is the paid attorney for the manufacturers' association. The first of them is known as the doctrine of the assumption of risks. In plain English, it means that when
  man accepts a. dangerous calling, he voluntarily assumes the risks of that calling, and that if an accident occurs, it is his own fault for choos- ing to engage irf that particular kind of trade.
 This contingency covers more than 65 per cent. of the industrial acci- dents. It is an iniQuitous and ever lasting barrier to justice in damage suits arising from accidents, and yet Lawyer Emery wants it retained in the state of Connecticut, despite the fact that Author Emery so plainly recognizes in his book, the fact that the responsibility lies not with the man who accepts the dangerous occu- patton, but with the man who creates it.
 How can Lawyer Emery maintain the common law theory of contribu- tory negligence against this principle of Author Emery's. Or the fellow servant rule?
 The Judiciary and Labor committee in it's infinite wisdom has appointed Attorney Emery one of a commission of three to draw up a Compensation act and report it back to the com mittee, which in turn will report it to the legislature
 Who will write that bill, Lawyer Emery, or Author Emery? PUBLIC SERVICE LEGISLATION IN