Norwich bulletin., 1913-03-10

! assembled in the Davis theater, Sun day afternoon at 3 o'clock, to hear l discussion of the Workingmen's Com pensation acts now in the hands or the l legislature by Prof W. c. Fisher, Of Middletown, under the auspices of the Central Labor union, the live interest taken in the matter here was very ap- parent. There were many women in cluded in the audience. Geer's orches- tra furnished an entertaining pro- gramme of selections at the opening of the meeting. Daniel Beebe, presi- dent of the local union presided ana presented His Honor Mayor T. c. Murphy, who welcomed the gathering, briefly and cordially.
 Professor Fisher Speaks. President Beebe presented Prof. Fisher who spoke in part as follows:
 Ut is to many, painfully familiar that modern industry is accompanied by very many accidents, but few real ize the enormous number of injuries which come to men and women in their employment. It has been esti mated after careful investigation that 35 900 are killed in industry and be- tween five hundred thousand and million are injured more or less seri ously each year in the United States. At the hearing in Hartford last week a representative of a factory employ ing 1900 hands stated that accidents averaged one every day there.
 Hardly a Penny Paid.
 Until the movement for compensa- tion was started there was no redress for injury or death. Perhaps one in ton but this was entirely inadequate, and in most cases not penny was ever paid. This was due to certain principles of law known as the com mon law. The three doctrines of em- ployers liability, or rather non-lia- bility were the fellow servant doctrine, assumed risk and contributory negl1- genee. These doctrines had their ori- gin in England. Thus person in- jured must prove that the accident was through no fault of his fellow workman, was not an accident in herent to the business and one which he assumed on entering the concern, and that he himself in no way con tributed to the accident. With all this to prove, great expense of litigation and long waits in the machinery of the courts, the employe seldom cared to take the chance of suing the em- ployer The result was that the in juries due to industry in this country were not redressed at all. Thus year after year industry has taken the life and blood of its workers. Whereas, the employer must replace a broken machine he was under no obligation to replace a broken man. He yas to remove the broken machine but the injured man crawls away or is taken away by his friends.
 Germany's Compensation System.
 Germany deve1opes for the world a system of compensation, in which the principal feature is the fact that all questions of cause are ignored. Modest pecuniary payment is made to the per son or his surviving dependents. re- gardlesS of fault in the cause of the accident. The purpose of such system Is to provide the companion in the simplest, least expensive way; so that the least possible amount shall be consummed in litigation and exc cution, and the most possible of that advanced by the employer shall reach the employe. It is better for the widow to have moderate amount one half her husbands salary coming in regularly for a certain period of year, than to have the poor right of suing the employer. Thus the com pensation system started in Germany and spread oil over the whole world but until years ago there was no compensation system in this country only the old astrocious system of so called employers liability.
 A New York Case.
 A bill was introduced in New York to insure immediate payment of compensation but it was decided in the famous Ives case that the em- immediate payment. Two years ago the Hartford Central Labor union drew up bill to escape the Ives de- cision. The principle of avoiding this decision lay in the provisions that the legislature abolish the three doctrines be much changed should employe sue employer. The second part required that if any employer agreed to pay the amount of compensation stated for various injuries, he would not be subject to the new law. Thus if the employe refused to accept the pay ment provided in the bill for his in- jury, then he could sue the employer only under the old common law Should the employer refuse to pay the amount then he could be sued, and the result of the case would not de- pend upon the cause of the accident. Thus there was an advantage for both sides, the employe was assured of swift payment of stated amount of which he would receive the whole, and the employer knew Just what the expense e, ents t;,1 would be @ to himself I drew laughed but now they all admit that it is good bill.
 Changing Sentiment Here.
 In six states today there stand laws on that same principle, and they are regarded as good compensation laws This went through the senate with 1t was killed, 150 to 66 7t was the farmer and small community man in the house which killed the bill The 50 who voted for the bill all represented manufacturing communities, and their votes stood for twice as many people as did the 15o. Many of the people of Connecticut who opposed the bill have since regretted their opposition, and the sentiment Is much more favorable this year towards the passage of compensation bill. It is generally agI eed that such 8 bill should be pass ed.
 The Four Bills.
 There are four bills in the hands of the committees. One was prepared by a commission appointed by the gov ernor, and may be termed the commis- sion bill The next Is the socialists bill. Then there is the manufacturers bill, prepared by the Afanufacturers association. and finally there Is the bill of the State Federation of Labor These four are seriously considered
 The Commission Bill.
 The commission bill is limited in it's scope, applying only to the industries named In the biil There are emissions of some important industries, and this will cause d feeling against it. The bill applies only te a business in which there are less than seven persons reg ulaFiy employed. The number is also