St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1914-03-18
Workmen's Compensation.


The Banner reprints to-day from
the st. Johnsbury Caledonian an ar
ticle on workmen's compensation
laws which is interesting because it
gives what may be called an accur-
ate resume of the views of an aver
age employer who has given no great
amount of study to the subject. The
editor of The Banner is member of
the State commission that is study
ing the question and is therefore try
ing to keep an open mind on the sub
iect, but we recognize the Importance
Of a full discussion of all the points
at issue that the final decision reach
ed may be fair compromise of all
parties interested. The Caledonian
suggests a form of State insurance
whereby the employers shall pay
one-third, the employed one-third and
the State one-third toward taking
care Of the victims Of industrial acct
dent "In this way" says the Gale
DOMAIN, the workman bears share
of the expense of the carelessness of
himself and fellow laborers." We
should like to ask the Caledonian to
consider the matter again and say
whether or not the workman isn't the
largest contributor even if he isn't
asked to pay any share toward the
compensation? He contributes the
accident. He suffers the pain and
agony. He loses earning power be-
cause of the accident. If he loses an
arm or a leg or is otherwise Crippled
he has given more, not only in suffer-
ing, but in decreased possibility for
the rest of his life that no system
Of compensation ever devised can re-
pay. In case of his death, as the
result of the accident, his family is
deprived of all the wages of all the
years he might have lived. We start
ed into this thing holding much the
same view that the Caledonian has
expressed but have gradually become
convinced that we were wrong. Edi-
tor Bigelow we know to be a fair
man deeply anxious that right and
justice should prevail. We hope that
he will give this matter further
thought. There is a public response |
bility that requires earnest study and |
patient investigation.
We gladly give space to the above
editorial OF the Bennington Banner
because II gives the thoughts of a
man much better informed than we
OH compensation laws and the SEN
timent II the State on this subject.
We confess we have not made an ex-
haustive stury Of the matter. We
have been told ~ senator Blanchard,
author OF the bin before the last
Legislature, that Slate Insurance has
not proved satisfactory where tried.
So our suggestions made a few weeks
ago have not been endorsed by the
best authorities on the subject.
The reason we suggested division
Of the responsibility cf conipensating
injured workmen is the fact employ
ers are in no way responsible for
many Of the accidents that occur in
factories and shops and It did not \
seem fair to make them bear the
total expense of compensation. Many
accidents are due to carelessness or
disregard of regulations on the part
of the employee or to the carelessness
of a fellow employee, conditions the
employer can not prevent or create.
{ that is true why should he bear
the whole burden of compensation?
We agree with Editor Howe that
the workman injured is a great loser
and that the direct results of an acct
dent fall upon him but the employer
often times is not at all to blame for
the accident and it seems to us
should not be penalized for it. We
may not hold the right view but offer
these suggestions for thought in the
hope that when.a sides of the ques-
ton have been considered the State
may formulate law that will do jus
tice to all interested parties-the
public, the employer and the en-
ploye.