St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1914-02-25
COMPENSATION ACT

COMPENSATION All
Continued from page /.
to a salary not over $4,000. In Eu-
rope the limit is much lower than
this.
Where The Employer Loses.
Under this act the, common law
defenses are abrogated. The only
defense allowed an employer is that
of wilful intention on the part of the
employe or intoxication of the en-
ploye The industrial board should
be given some discretionary power
Mr.. Wright asked if the -compen-
sation really would not be taken
from the employees wages and was
answered that in Germany the work
men were assessed a small sum to
create a state fund and the employer
contributes to it as well. When en-
ployers take out liability insurance
they pay the expense themselves. In
some states the law provides there
shall be no part of the expense paid
by the employees.
f. I'll. Brooks.
F. H. Brooks, president of the E.
and T. Fairbanks and Co., said en-
ployes generally felt that corpora
tions were opposed to this kind of
legislation. He wanted to assure
them that if a reasonable act could
be formulated that would do justice
to both sides his corporation would
be in favor of it. The law should
also contain provision for the proven
ton of accidents and just law
would benefit both the employe and
the corporation. He would favor
following the California and German
laws as far as practical. He was
ready to cooperate in any way for
such a measure.
DIR. w. j. AIdFich.
DR.. Aldrich as representative was
called upon and said he should
heartily favor a reasonable compen-
sation act. He did not believe it
best to have it include municipal en-
ployes.
In discussing the effect of the law
on the farmer Mr.. Howe said he
could see no reason why they should
be opposed to it. Many farm en-
ployes were injured and it would
cost the farmer only $3.50 year to
insure so the compensation would be
paid by the liability companies. He
believed that better than putting
support.
Mr.. Cummings said he was pleased
to see a better feeling developing be-
tween the employee and employer. He
believed every corporation should be
compelled to insure against acct
dents. He also believed all employees
should be treated alike regardless of
how much or how little they earn.
C. H. Clark told about the expert
ence of his brother in Massachusetts,
who elected to go under the law and
was convinced it was a good thing.
1t had taken much responsibility off
from him.
w. A. Dutton.
States Attorney Dutton being pres
ent was called upon and said he
thought attention should be given to
the distribution of the expense of
this system. Mr. Howe said there
was no law in the state compelling
the e1nploye to bear any of the ex-
pense although statistics show that
employees are responsible for about
so per cent of the accidents. But
the workman is a loser anyway be-
cause the compensation is never
made equal to his wages.
Mr.. Dutton explained how under
the proposed law the three defenses
are taken away from the employer
and gives him no defence. If an en-
ploye is injured he must be paid
certain per cent of his wages. Since
so many of the accidents are due to
the employees themselves he believed
it would lead to greater care on their
part if they were made responsible
for a part of the expense. The pub
1-z - Gil nrs h n q
ficiary under the law because it will
be relieved from the necessity of
supporting many that now come
upon it for support. Therefore
he believed the public should bear
a part of the expense. State in
surance would be betttr than liabili-
ty insurance because in state insur-
ance all the money goes to the EN-
ployes while the liability Companies
retain a considerable share for their
own profit.