The enterprise. [volume] (Harlem, Mont.) 1899-1926, 1912-02-29
1AFT0N WORKMEN.S
COMPENSAT|ONLAW
TRANSMITS A MESSAGE 10 CON.
GRESs WITH REPORT OF
THE COMMISSION.
DISCUSSES THE REPORT
Believes Adoption Of Proposed Law
Will Relieve the Courts Of
Thousands OF Personal
Injury Suits. r."

Injury Suits.
Washington, Feb. 19.-President
Taft sent the following message to
congress:
| have the honor to transmit here
with the report of the employers liza
bility and workmen's compensation
commission, authorized by joint resolu.
ton No. IL, approved June 25. 1910
Ito make thorough investigation OF
the subject Of employers liability and
| workmen's compensation, and to sub.
NIT report through the president to
the congress of the United States"
The commission recommends a care
fully drawn bill, entitled, "a bill to
provide an exclusive remedy and com
pensation for accidental injuries re.
sulting in disability or death to en-
ployees of common carriers by rail.
roads engaged in Interstate or for.
eign commerce, or in the District Of
Columbia and for other purposes y
This bill works out in detail a compen-
sation for accidental injuries to en-.
ployees of common carriers in inter
state railroad business, on the theory
of insuring each employee against the
results of injury received in the
course of the employment, without
reference to his contributory negli-
gence, and without any of the rules OBJ
tanning in the common law limiting the
liability of the employer il such cases.
The only case in which no compen-
sation is to be allowed by the act is
where the injury or death of the EN-.
ployee is occasioned by his wilful in
tention to bring about the injury or
death of himself or of another, or
when the injury results from his in
toXication while on duty.
It is unnecessary to go into the de-
tails of the bill. They are, however,
most admirably worked out. They
provide for medical and hospital
service for the injured man, for no.
tice of the injury to the employer,
where such notice is not obviously
given by the accident itself, for the fix
ing of the recovery by agreement, if
not by agreement, by an official ad.
justor, to be confirmed by the court,
and, if a jury is demanded, to be
passed on by jury The amount OF
recovery is regulated in proportion to
the wages received, and the more or
less serious character of the injury
where death does not ensue, specific
provision being made for particular
injuries, in so far as they can be speci'
| fed. The compensation is to be made
| in the form of annual payments for
a number of years or for life. The
| fees to be paid to attorneys are
specifically limited by the act. The
remedies offered are exclusive of any
other remedies, the statistical investi
cation seems to show that under this
act the cost to the railroads would be
perhaps 25 per cent more than the
total cost which they now incur The
report of the commission has been
very able and satisfactory, the inves
LEGATIONS have been most thorough
and the discussion of the constitution
al questions which have arisen in re
spect to the validity of the bill is oil
the highest merit. Three objections
to the validity of the bill of course
occur.
In the first place, the question
arises whether under the provisions
of the commerce clause, the bill could
be considered to be regulation Of
interstate and foreign commerce.
That seems to be already settled b;
the decision of the supreme court in
the employers liability case.
The second question is whether the
making of those remedies exclusive
and the compelling Of the railroad
companies to meet obligations arising
from injuries, for which the railroad
woald not be liable under the common
law, is a denial of the due process O
law which is enjoined upon congress!
by the fifth amendment to the consti
tuition In dealing with the propert.
rights. This question the report takes
up, and in an exhaustive review of tn
authorities makes clear, as it seem,
to me, the validity of the act. Thi,
is the question which in the court o
appeals of the state of New York wal
decided adversely to the validity o
the compensation act adopted by tn,
legislature of that state. How far tina
act and the one here proposed diffel
it is unnecessary to state. 1t is SUI
ficient to say that the argument o
the commission is most convincing tt
show that the police power of thu
government exercised in the regula
ton of interstate commerce is quite
sufficient to justify che imposition
upon the interstate railroad companies