The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-04-06

7 T you were laid up" and your wages
stopped, and you began to worry for
your family as your savings dwindled
away-how much difference would 1t
make to you whether the trouble came
through an accident or an illness due
to your work?
There was the case of Schroeder. who
went to work for "Uncle Sam in the
Brooklyn Navy Yard. One of our big
warshps, the Ohio. came to the dock
and Schroeder was sent down into the
water tight "coffer-dams" to burn off the
Ole coat of paint in preparation for a
new. As a result Of breathing the fumes
of the lead paint Schroeder was inca
pacitated for work by acute lead poison
ing. He lost 81 days on this account,
and he applied to the government for the
payment of compensation equal to the
wages he had lost
But Schroeder got not one penny. It
was not an accident but necessary
incident in his job. The law only COW
cred accidents. said the attorney for
the government:
1T cannot be said that these fumes
were inhaled by accident. The fumes
were necessarily produced by. the work
he was engaged upon. The inhalation
of such fumes was to have been expected
and probably could not have been avoid
ed. Lead poisoning, under the cireum-
stances, was the natural. If not the In
evitable result"
A few months after the unfortunate
Schroeder case man named Hill was
employed at placing floor plates in the
engine room of the warship ST. Louis In
the Puget Sound Navy Yard. Meantime,
lead and white lead paint was being ap-
piled in the bilges of the vessel AZ
a result of this exposure to lead fumes
Hill contracted disease of the eyes
which incapactated him.
But Hills claim for lost wages was
approved because he was victim of an
accident" Said the attorney for the
government: "The injury to the claim
ants eyes was neither reasonably to be
expected, nor the natural or inevitable
consequence of the work he personally
was engaged upon The injury must
therefore be ascribed to accident The
claimants particular work had nothing
to do with the painting operations going
on about him. His work as a ship filter
related to the laying of plates in the
boiler room; the painting was being done
by Others"
Suppose, however, instead of Hill, one
of the painters had been poisoned and in
capacitated by the fumes of lead paint.
He would have had no valid claim, for
1t would have been a necessary Incl
dent" of his job.
The federal government since 1908, and
10 states during the past two years, have
recognized the wisdom and justice of the
compensation principle in dealing with
the victims of industrial accidents. Now
comes the demand athat the American
people, through Congress, adopt exactly
the same principle in dealing with federal
employees who are ineapacitated for work
by occupational diseases.
Aside from the fact that lead poison
ing in the case of Schroeder was really
preventable, aside from the fact that
several enlightened nations have abso-
lutely prohibited the use of poisonous
lead paints for the interior of their war
ships, and aside from the fact that there
was no one Ito warn Schroeder of the
dangerous nature of his occupation, there
is one big final fact. The financial cost
of this unnecessary case of acute lead
poisoning. in addition to the personal suf-
ferins, fell upon poor Schroeder. Most
men will agree that such financial loss<~
should fall upon the employer In this
case the employer was the nation, which
means all of us, you and me.
We owe Schroeder something more
than an apology While the federal
government is publishing excellent re-