The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1915-11-27

lite and often two lives.
1t does not follow, of course, that we should
have no more steel frame buildings. But it does
follow that there is some sort of law here law
which indicates what happens to human nature
working under certain conditions
1t is easy to say that the human life sacrificed
for each steel frame building stands for contribu-
tory negligence.
The loss may be due to contrbutory negligence
or it may not.
Unquestionably the loss is due to the weak
ness of humanity, if weakness that quality may be
called, which differentiates from inferior in
sects like flies or machines.
Let US assume for the moment that the work
men, crippled or killed, do in some cases con-
tribute to their misfortune by negligence. Have
we any reason to assume that they ought never to
be negligent? Are these workers of such superior
ealiber that negligence ought not to be among
their qualities?
As matter of fact, in many cases, the workers
are Of the humblest grade. The exceptions are
comparatively few and these exceptions are
chiefly included in the kinds of work where the
risks are extraordinary.
As a rule, injured workmen are among the least
paid of all workmen.
For the risk the average workmen assume they
receive pay whatever.
In other words, most workmen are expected to
provide considerable skill and self-protecton
against danger without receiving cent of COM
pensation for such skill or for being subjected ito
risk.
Accidents will happen" says the old adage.
And if they will happen in the best regulated fam
lilies, they surely must happen in our complicated
modern industries
e e.
definite instance is really distinct thing, thing
to be calculated.
1t is just as definite item any form Of ex
pense, that is, in average.
II creates distinct factor in industry.
And it ought to be dealt with as distinct fac
tor. 1t ought to be recognized in its nature and
it ought to be placed exactly where it belongs.
Besides being matter for moral concern,
risk is economic thing.
Inevitably it must be paid for.
Now who is responsible for risk in industry?
And who therefore, ought to pay?
The contractors of industry are apparently re-
sponsible for it is they who establish the con-
ditions that make the risk
Risk is unquestionably part of their invest
ment.
In their investment there should be ample al
lOWdncc OF estimated Dy inc law OF average
For by dealing with risk as part of an invest
ment put another burden on capital.
The world has horror of burdenng capital
But if to capital belongs the burden, capital
ought to bear the burden.
But don't waste sympathy. Capital won't suf
most of its burdens. 1t will exact payment for
the burdens. 1t will exact payment for the bur-
den from the public.
Ultimately it will be the public that will pay
for the risk exactly it should pay under our
present system
For the risk is more in the interest of the pub
lie, for the purpose of keeping industry going.
You profit by that industry. | profit.
Why shouldn't we share the burden?
The whole matter, you see, reduces itself to in
surance
If the responsibility were placed where it be-
longs, capital would to larger extent do just what
it does now. 1t would insure itself against risk,
and it would make this insurance part of its m
vestment expecting the public to reimburse.
There those who believe that the assump-
tiion of risk on the part of capital will develop
earelessness among employees. They think that the
greater than the desire TO protect life and limb
Here they make unconscious acknowledge |
ment of the pitiful conditions of workers.
A workman must be in dire straits il he can
be willing to subject himself to injury for the sake
of pecuniary advantage.
There may be such workmen But if there arc,
it is safe to assume that they rare exceptions
for there is no protection against such selffmmo-
lation that be compared with the lift instinct
1t is said that in the days of the decline of
Rome, the Roman mobiles mutilated themselves to |
escape military service.
But the American workmen have not reached |
such depths:
The marvel is that there should be any opposi- !
ton to the employers liability BILL anywhere, by
any people, least of all by the employers
The burden, 1t is conceded, will ultimately fall |
not on the employers, but the users of the util
tiles made by the combined efforts of employers
and workInen.
1t will fall on ourselves
Are we unwilling to bear the burdens
Can we endure letting the workmen serve u.s. !
become crippled and meet death for u.s. and leave |
their wives and children to the mercy of fate? |
providing compensation