Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-03-14
GEBHARDT
ATTACKS EDGE
LIABILITY BILL
Says II Prevents Injured Work
man Bringing Suit for
Damages.
tFrom a Stan correspondent

fFrorn a Stan correspondent
TRENTON, March 14.-Employers'
liability legislation occupied the at
tentlon Of the Senate this morning
Discussion was on proposed amend
ments to the Edge bill, the most radical
Of which were presented by. Senator
Gebhardt.
The latter attacked the Edge meas
ure on the ground that 1t is merely a
compensation act and not an employ
ers' liability bill. He commended the
Alderman bill, passed last year, and
added that this meritorious measure
would be wiped out by the Edge bill.
Gebhardt's principal objection TO the
measure was based upon the fact that
1t deprives the injured workman of the
privilege of suing for damages. For
example, he pointed out. a man VINO
has lost an arm or leg would be able
to secure only $500 under the Edge
bill, whereas under the existing legls-
lation he may recover $4,000 or sD,oVo
in a suit for damages.
Edge objects 20 Attacks.
Mr.. Edge objected to all the Geb-
hardt amendments. He admitted that
his bill was intended as a compensation
act, which feature he considered ats
greatest virtue, for tn reason tina it
specifies the amount that may be re-
covered, and thereby makes II unneoes-
ssry for the injured mar to go to count.
The passage of legislation of this
kind" said Mr.. Edge, means the dis
appearance OF friction between m
ployers and employees"
The Atlantic senator called attention
to the fact that legislation of the same
kind is In operation In Germany, Eng
land and other European countries,
and 1t had proven thoroughly salts &C
tory.
The fact that his bill holds employers
liable for every injury to employees.
Mr.. Edge believed, would have the
effect OF causing the employers to
throw greater safeguards around the
men in their employ.
Mr.. Gebhardt, resuming his criticism
the bill, declared that If the employer
fails to pay the compensation desig-
mated, the injured man must then go to
the expense of hiring a lawyer n i'll
the EXPENSE VI u AAih
Mr.. Edge ridiculed this suggestion,
because, he said, his bill specified that
such compensation was considered a
preferred lien, the same as unpaid
wages, and thereby the payment to the
man was absolutely guarante d.
"If 1t should happen" added Mr.. Edge,
that the money was not paid, the
workmen could go to court and the en-
ployer would have absolutely no de-
Both Silzer and Gebhardt opposed
that section Of the measure which re-
quires that notification of injury be
submitted to the employer within
ninety days. Under the existing law
they explained he is not obliged TO sub
nit any such notice and may bring suit
any time within two years.
Mr.. Frellnghuysen favored the ninety
days clause, because IL would benefit
insurance companies in keeping their
Mr.. Osborne called attention to the
fact that both parties pledged them
to pass legislation Of this kind,
a statement which brought from Mr..
Gebhardt the remark that the public
wanted an employers liability and not
a workmen's compensation act. The
Essex senator retorted that the public
had come to regard a compensation act
as adequate employers liability legisla-
ton.
Four of the five Gehhardt amend
ments had beer voted down when adj
came for lunch. Gebhardt
had only Silzer's support on three If
ht1f fhere vvaro aix votes for fha
amendment seeking to extend the limit
of notification from ninety days to one
year.