New-York tribune., 1912-11-05

and there is to-day a statute OF New
York limiting the hours OF labor OF women
10 nine hours per day and hfty-tougr
hours per week (See labor law, sec. ~;
This statute is being enforced daily, ana
its validity has never been questioned.
The fourth case criticised by MT. Roose-
welt is the Ives case col N. I. zll, con-
cerning which he said: Perhaps, iilends;
decision against which we are In reVolt
was rendered In connection with tne
workmen's compensation act, when we
passed law for workInen's compensa-
tion practically identical with, In prln-
ciple, the federal law that had been de-
clared constitutional by the supreme
Court Of the United States, and wnlcn
had been declared constitutional by the
state courts of Iowa, oregon, Wasni,IS ~ ,eo
ton and other states. and yet on the same
language in the Constitution the Court or
Appeals declared that the Supreme court
Of the nation was In error, ana that tne
ten million people OF the State OF rev
York had not the power to say that when
brakeman or a switchman was crippled
for life or killed In the discharge OF M nIs
duty he should receive compensation Ior
the crippIing or his widow and chiidren
should be compensated for his DEAN IL
he was killed" 80,
AS matter of fact. neither the su-
preme Court of the United States nor the
state courts OF Iowa or oregon naSe tS,,
passed on any workmens compensa'ion I
act. nor has any other state passed an
act in its provisions equivalent 10 inc
statute which was declared TO be uncon
stitutional by our Court OF Appeals. ns.
statute declared the employer bound aO,
solItely to pay HIS employe certain nxeu
damages in case OF injury. even where
the injury is due solely TO the employees
own inexcusable negligence, when the en-
ployer is entirely blameless and mas Vlo-
lated no duty or obiga,l1,n, ana ana nas fore
sight that Is conceivable.
Liability Of Employers.
Although the court declared TINS act
unconstitutional, because IL arOltraInS
took the property of the employer anu
gave II to the employe, II nevertheless
emphatically declared that 1t was wlthlR
the power OF the Legislature to require ot
an employer the exercise OF the nis shoS.
degree Of diligence for the protecuon VI
his employees to compel the ADOPTION Oh
every possible safeguard that human IN
genuity could devise that would tend 70
the prevention Of accidents. that IL Inisn NJ
abrOgRte the fellow servants RUE as
well as the doctrine OF assumed risks, ana
modify the principle OF contributory neg
ligence. to the end that the SAFETY OF gu.
workingmen might be promoted me ~
which the court was called upon " az
5udicatc contained none OF these ieatui
II absolutely ignored the element OF iauIs
both on the part of the employer anu VI
the employe: and while the latter was
still permitted 70 bring his common laM
action TO recover damages, the employe,'
was bound. in any event to pay the STAT
utOry compensation. Speaking OF u,I'
very decision, the national comnisslon ap
pointed by Congress and the President ot
the United States, In It's recent report
said:
ut may we'll be argued that legislauon
which puts upon the employer this naked
burden. Irrespective OF fault. without the
comper sating circumstance OF being re-
lieved I'm any other direction. Is as arpl-
trary and unreasonable az to fall wlthl1
the Inhibition OF the Fifth Amendmen'
against the deprivation OF property with
out due process OF law
FLIHU ROOT,
John G.. MILBURN,
LOUIS MARSHALL.
WILLIAM u. GUTHRIE.