The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-04-02

Of reluctance, said that to thus shift
the necessary and inherent risks from
| the workman to the employer, and
make the employer pay the damages
caused thereby, unless the employee
was guilty Of serious and wilful mis-
conduct was clearly within the con-
stitutional prohibition against the TAX
ing of a mans property without due
process of law. Nevertheless, many If
not most of us did not see then, nor
are we able to see yet, after due re-
Election. that there was any taking by
| ty at all, even indirectly. Did not
the legislature have the power to shift
he necessary and inherent risks from
workman to employer? And did it
not have the power to modify or do
| away with the common law rule of
contributory negligence, and also the
| like rule of negligence of a fellow ser
want? Such a statute did no more
than add the expense of such acct
| dents to the employers cost of produc-
ton, and it is elementary that the cost
of production is included in the value
Or sale price of the finished article, and
that therefore the expense Of such &C
or those who buy the product. The
employer would meet with no loss in
the end. And yet they said his prop
.erty'' was being taken by the addition
| of this new expense Of production.
Where Recall Is Needed.
We are soon to have a new constitu-
tional convention in this state. and
| trust that it will make short work az
this decision-that it will recall 1t
without scruple or hesitation. It Is
pitiful to see such decisions in this
country. Thirty-two different govern
| ments of the world, in fact every. civ
ilized government in the world outside
of this country, has an employers la
bility act, also embracing provisions
for the taxation Of businesses in which
, wOrkmen are employed to raise a fund
for the payment of such damages for
deaths and injuries by accidents. Rus
STA has a model employers liability
and compensation statute. Three or
four years ago England amended it's
meagre employers liability statute by
following the Russian end other Euro
statute as early as 1S47. We are only
beginning to think Of passing such
statutes in this country. In this as in
other modern social and economic pro-
gress we lag behind the world. And
the first attempt we make at it is
met by these court decisions. If the
courts persist in such decisions, it will
be necessary to amend every constitu-
ton we have in this country, although
the people in enacting them never
meant that they should stand in the
way of such legislation.
But some of the decisions, like those
I have enumerated, are already becom-
ing obsolete. Every one is beginning
to see that they are far-fetched and
unsound, not to say, in more plain
speech, "a usurpation Of legislative
power. If we do not pass any con-
stitutional amendments to do away
with them, it is inevitable that we
=, To
skin; we will in the course of time
just shuttle them off and go along
! without them.
Warnings From the Past.
Any one who wants to realize how
futile decisions of the courts, ana ev-
en- statutes, are to Illustrate economic
and commercial progress in the long
run, has only to read the former stat
utes and court decisions of England
against "forestallers, regraters and en-
grossers'' A "forestaller" was one
who bought goods while they were on
their way to market. He forestailed
the market. 1t was made a criminal
offense. The "regrater'' was one who
sold goods in the same market in
which he had bought them. That
was a criminal offense. An "engros-
SER was one who purchased food pro-
ducts, and stored them up in gross,
and held them to sell at his own time
at higher price if he could. He
was the ch-monopolist, and severely
punished by statute also. If such
laws had existed in the time of Joseph
in Egypt he could not have laid up
during the years Of plenty for the
coming period of famine. But they
know no such folly in those days. In
stead of doing good, these and like
laws worked nothing but mischief and
injury in England, and in the other
countaries of Europe in which they
were enacted. They could not
change the natural course of trade.
By hampering it, however, and sub
jecting merchants to constant penal
danger, and extraordinary expense,
they did the exact opposite of what
was intended; they lessened produc-
tion caused an imperfect distribution,
made prices unstable, and even brought
on famine
Regulating The Sun.
The legislature might as well try to
regulate the seasons. In the words Of
Macaulay, 'sIn spite of the legislature
the snow would fall when the sun
CONTINUED on Page 1o)