The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-07-14
Special from United Press.)

Hart1OrO, July l4-ln an effOrt to make plain the provisions of the workmen's compensation act and the employers liability bill, introduced into the Legislature this week. Sen- ator Thomas J. spellacy, of this city, prepared the following article for the United Press. MT. Spellacy is known as labor man. and was instrument tai in having the bill reported.
 By Senator Thomas J. Spellacy)
 With the exception of Portugal and one or two other countries of simi- lar standing, all the nations of Flu rope have compensation acts. In the United States two serious constitu- tional difficulties have stood in the way of adequate Legislation. Europe for the most part not being bothered with constitutions, has been able to do what we have been unable to ac- complish.
 These constitutional questions con sist, first in the guarantee that no man shall be deprived of his property without due process of law, and sec ond, a jury trial.
 These difficulties have prevented the enactment of compulsory compensation that an optional act is ineffective. Mayor Willard c. Fisher, of Middle town, who has unselfishly devoted his time to the question, solved the diffi- culty by providing for the enactment of liability law removing the com mon law defense of the employer and providing if the employer accepts the compensation act, in the event that he is sued, he will retain all of his com mon law defenses. This solution of Mayor Fisher has been adopted by a number of states, this year.
 Under the common law, an employ er's duty to his employe consists in:
 (A)-The duty to provide a reason ably safe place to work.
 B)-The duty to provide reasonably safe tools and appliances.
 (C)-The duty of being reasonably careful in hiring agents and servants fit for the work they are to do.
 O)-The duty of providing suitable rules for carrying on the work.
 Under our present law, if an em- ploye be injured by reason of the em- ployer, in any of his duties, the em- ploye can recover full compensation for his injuries-because of the fault of the employer.
 At common law, and still in Connec- fenses constituting so-cal1ed judge made laws. These defenses are:
 (Al-Contributory negligence
 B)-Fellow servant rule, meaning that if an employe be injured by rea- son of the negligence of 8 fellow ser want he cannot recover. This doctrine was first established in England, in 1887, and has been followed in this country.
 (C)-Assumption of risk This doc- urine provides, that an employe en- tering employment is held to assume and consent to the ordinary and obvi- ous risks of the employment. In many of the states, these defenses have been removed by statute. Offhand, I know of no State in the Union except Connecticut that has not some form of an employers liability act removing one Or all of these defenses. We are far behind the procession of human progress in liability legislation
 Part A of the bill reported to the legislature removes these dissensions to the employer who does not file his acceptance of the features of the compensation act. If he accepts the defense still remains but he then pays schedule for injuries provided in Part B of the proposed act. It is to be presumed that in this way, both employer and employe will take ad- vantage of the act, the employer be- cause it will be cheaper and the em- ploye because, with the employer in possession of these defenses, it is the exceptional case in which there can be any adequate recovery
 The old system is .wastefuf and de- structive. The new system will make the injuries of an employe one of the costs of the product and will cou- serve the interests of both the em- ployer and employe. It has been fig ured that of the money spent for ac- cfdent cases 33 per cent. goes to the person injured or his beneficiary, and 67 per cent. to the costs of adjust ment and legal expenses. The old system is a splendid thing for the lawyer but bad for everybody else It is also figured that under the naw system the employe will recover near ly twice as much as the employer will pay out 40 per cent. less and the lawyer will spend his time at some thing else. Under the present sys- tenn the large number of injured per sons recover nothing, some recover d ridiculously small amount in settle ment and a few get full damages. Under the new system all will re- cover fair amount without cost, de- lay or annoyance.
 from the bill as reported that part referring to the assumption of risk. If such amendment were adopted. it would, in my opinion, so weaken inc bill that it would fail The defense of assumption of risk is the most inn portant that the employer has. Over 51 per cent. of industrial accidents are attributed to this assumption of risk. Remove 1t from the bill and MT. Employer will not care to take advantage of the bill
 In brief, the compensation act pro- vides that if a workman is injured in the course of his employment. re- gardless of the fault of his employ