The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-07-18
E.. Fl. DILLON & co.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

such employment as he offers and tack it's cost on the price of his pro- duct to be paid for by the ultimate consumer, than that the poor work man and his family should bear all this burden alone or else become a charity charge on the state? In the latter instance society pays the bill anyway in the form of taxes to sup port big char itable institutions.
 Charity and Justice.
 Workmen do not want charity; they demand justice. They do not care to face or have their loved ones face the humiliating alternative of beg country to-day is less charity and more justice; and if we had more real justice the necessity for so much charity would speedily disappear.
 The Injured workman as a rule has no account to charge up his loss to, if under the law he must assume the risks of his employment; but if this doctrine is refegated to the scrap heap of unjust and archaic legal doctrines, where it belongs, the employer can charge his damages paid to the wGk- man to the cost of production. He charged, and in this way recoup him. self from the public, who will pay no more than it does now under a de- grading system of charity.
 Disagreement Over Measure.
 We understand that there is a sharp disagreement existing among the members of the joint committee on Judiciary and labor concerning the proposed workmen's compensation act over this very question of the doc- Urine of assumed risk" If we are correctly informed, Senator Judson and his dissenting associates on the committee say it is not right or con f<v, %1,0 tx ,c> the damages for an exploding grind stone for which he is not to blame.
 Our opinion is that society should bear this damage as part of the cost of production. Wo do not hold that society should be charged where the accident results from the employees s own carelessn ess, but where the ac- cident occurs in the ordinary course of an employees work, while he is ex ercising due and ordinary care, of it sometimes willi. Then we say that cost the charge should fairly fall on the cost of running the business, not upon the workman or his innocent family
 If the constitution of this statet, as Senator Judson alleges, will not per init the upholding of a law framed to give effect to such just code. then it is high time we found it out and changed the constitution. The best way of which we are aware of finding out this matter is to pass a law abro- gating the doctrine of assumed risk and letting the courts tell lus, exactly here we stand in this matter.
 No Premium on Carelessness.
 The Union has no desire to place a workmen We feel that every em- ploye should suffer the penalty of his own carelessness. But where he is injured by those seemingly unavoid- able accidents that occur even when due care is exercised, by every dictate of fairness he ought not to suffer, ev en to the extent of one penny. Work men do not court injury and death. The instinct of self-preServation will act as a natural and an automatic check upon that just rule concern ing assumed risks that is proposed fairs.
 Want No Halfway Justice.
 In fact we do not believe that the friends in our general assembly of a better and more just rule of liability in these cases have gone half far enough. As Representative Chand- Ter pointed out recently, Under the financially one-half the risk (and in practice far more); so we are only asking the employers to share the to assume them. This lat ter point is important, and, strange to say, is usually lost sight of in this 
 It ought to be lost sight of. There can be no half way justice in this matter. Either the business ought to assume all 1.-the risks of accidents occurring to employees while exerc1s- ing due care, or 1t ought to assume no such risks at all
 We hope we have made our posi- | ton on this matter sufficiently clear. 1