Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-04-30
Compensation for Industrial Acct
dents.


The movement to fix by law the
compensation of workmen for injuries
sustained in Industrial accidents has
suffered a severe setback by the de-
cislon Of the New York court of APP
peals adverse to the constitutionality
of the workmen's compensation law
enacted in that state. This decision
rests squarely on the proposition that
any plan to compel the employer to
compensate for loss from accidents
for which he is not at fault is an in
vasion of property rights without due
process of law, and that the police
power OF the state does not extend to
the point of transferring to the en-
ployer all the risks of industry now
borne in whole, or in part by the en-
ploye.
II this court decree we're to be ac-
cepted as final the whole movement
for workmen's compensation would
nave to be abandoned so far as it con-
templates compulsory legislation. For,
although the court is careful to ex-
plain that IT is constituting merely a
conflict between the law and the bill
of rights embodied in the state consti-
tuition Of New York, 1t would be of
universal application, because the
same guaranty against the taking of
property except by due process of law
| is incorporated into the Fourteenth
amendment of the federal constitu-
ton, and would be equally effective
regardless of any state constitutional
Limitations.
From expressions emanating from
those actively Interested in the reform
which this law is designed to bring
about it is certain that the New York
decision will not be the last word.
Workmen's compensation laws have
been enacted in two or three other
states, in which they will have to run
the gauntlet of the courts, and eventu-
ally make test which may be carried
up to the supreme court of the United
States and elicit ruling by our high
lObl JuulCldl IIlUuudls OluST ways VI
accomplishing the desired object by
methods not subject to attack may
likewise be worked out.
plan of compensation leaving 1t
optional with both sides to take ad-
vantage of it's provisions would be
feasible and legal, but 1t is feared that
in extra hazardous undertakings,
where employers would welcome such
relief, the workingmen might reject it,
and similarly in industries where the
workmen would prefer automatic COM
Ipensation the employers would be
tempted to stand upon their rights in
court. In European countries this
difficulty is obviated by paying the
benefits out of fund made up by en-
forced contributions from employers,
employes and the public, and it is pos
sible an equitable apportionment could
be devised for this country which all
concerned would regard as desirable.
But here We find an obstacle in the
way of using public money to compen-
safe INDIVIDUALS Tor losses incurred by
accidents in private industries, the
courts having invariably held that
public money must be used for public
purposes only.
Incidently, 1t may be noted that the
workmen's compensation bill which
failed in the recent Nebraska legisla-
ture was an optional measure, but
would probably, unless amended
come within the scope of the New
York decision. II is perhaps Just as
we'll that no action was taken, for by
the time another legislature meets
two years hence the ground should be
better charted and the way cleared fol
effective progress.