Norwich bulletin., 1913-12-11

| AA~OAA !! conducted under the auspices of the l Board of Trade this fall and winter | was given on Wednesday at the Wau- 1 regan house at 1 o'clock where about l 50 of the business men of the city came l together for luncheon and while they were at the tables listened to an in structive talk by Morris Penrose, con necticut with a Hartford insurance | firm, upon the new Workmens Com pensation act which is to go into effect on the first of January.
 President James c. Macpherson of l the Board of Trade presided. He made the announcement that Tax Commis- sioner William H. Corbin has promised to address the Board of Trade at meeting in January. His subject is to be the income tax
 For their dinner the business men were seated at small tables, accom- modating four at each. President Mac pherson introduced the speaker, who answered various questions about the application and operation of the law, after he had concluded his regular ad
 dress.
 He treated the topic along quite a different line than others who have been heard in this city regarding the workmen's compensation law. While in this city Mr Penrose made his head
 quarters at the insurance office of James L. Case.
 Mir. Penrose Speaks.
 Mr Penrose discussed the law in part as follows:
 It is with great pleasure l come be-
 fore you to discuss a subject as in teresting as the compensation law, l
 do not intend to weary you with a
 repetition of it's details but rather to talk about the causes which have led fn he of a
 feet on the merchants and manufac-
 turerers of the state.
 To the average employer the whole system of compensation seems unjust. Why should the employer pay for in juries for which he is only remotely responsible? This view is but natural. Our entire system of government, both state and national is founded on in- dividualism. We resent the intrusion of the government into our private al fairs, and we have the habit of regard ing our relations with our employees as one of the most intimate of of our pri- vate concerns We believe as an arti- cle of faith that as long as we conduct our business so as to do wrong to no one we should be allowed to do busi- ness in our own way.
 No Liability on Employer. As a result of this habit of thought which has been reflected by our courts, there has grown up in this country a code of employers liability laws which have been so contriVed Id con- strued that there was practically no
 liability on the employer. Casualty | companies sold what is known as lia- bility insurance which in effect was nothing more than a retainer paid by the employer to a concern skilled in the law, with a further agreement that if the concern was so unsldllful as to | lcse a suit it would pay any damages which might be awarded within narrow limits. According to the strict letter of the contract no damages were payable until they had been awarded by the court
 Originally every suit was defended as matter of principle. Of late years it has been the custom to settle small suits out of court, to avoid the heavy expense. of litigation. These suits were settled as a mere matter of expedien- cy. The justice of the claim was not considered
 Compensation insurance, on the oth-
 CT hand, settles at a definite rate for
 all occupational injuries involving loss of time beyond a certain period, un-
 less such injuries are the result of wilful misconduct or to intoxication. Please note the wide difference in the principle involved.
 Three Sufficient Defenses Formerly. In the past it has been a sufficient l defense against damage claims if the employer could prove that:
 l. The employe was negligent. 2. A fellow employe was negligent. 3. The employe had assumed the risk. which was inherent to the calling. You may readily see that the injured employe had but little chance under such laws. He was rarely able to car
 ry on a suit He was opposed by the very best legal talent in the country, trained to take advantage of every le-
 gal quibble to escape judgment delay l settlements and increase costs. The in jured man was worn down and dis couraged. His chances of recovery were so small under a, strict construction of the law that he could seldom get rep utable attorneys to take his case. He fell naturally into the hands of sharp CTS and shysters who speculated in his suit as they would buy tickets in a lot tery. Damages were alleged far in ex- cess of Q y reasonable demands. If by chance a suit were won the injured man received but fraction of the award. The larger portion went to the shySters a g their share of the loot Now as long as our industries were small and the master knew every em- pioye and took 9 personal interest In
 his welfare this did not work as badly as might be supposed.
 In late years cOnQlllohS nave WHOLLY
 changed We have seen the rise of the impersonal corporation with its twin evils of absentee ownership and divid-
 ed responsibility. We know that the
 majority of our workers are employed in concerns where they have neither knowledge nor contact with their real employer. We know that the average
 stockholder can have but meagre knowledge of the inner workings of a
 corporation. He considers only the
 dividends. The managers soon reflect this attitude. They get to look on their working force merely as parts of the
 machinery to be thrown into the scrap
 heap when their usefulness is ended. And now. gentlemen. at the risk of
 saying something unpalatable, I want
 to ask you as employers what has been your share in present conditions? Have