The labor advocate. [volume] (Cincinnati, Ohio) 1912-1937, 1916-05-20

/
| marked the submission today to the SI1-
premc Court of the final arguments in
the custer suits of the State against La
bility insurance companies to drive them
IRON the workmen's compensation insrr-
ancc field and to prevent them from in
surfing employers of labor against dam
age growing out of failure to observe
lawful requirements and willful acts Of
employers The arguments, which were
anticipated in by the Attorney General,
counsel for labor organizations, insur-
ancc companies and "friends of the
Court" continued through the entire dav.
The keen interest of the Justices on
the bench was attcstcd by voley after
voley of questions designed to clear up
contested questions. The greater part
them were directed to the attorneys for
the insurance companies, and particular
stress was laid on the contentious Of the
companies that they have right to in
sure against violation of law and against
wllliul acts. At one point the question
was asked from the bench directly
whether the law itself does not forbid
this sort OF insurance, query which was
answered in the negative by the insur-
ancc lawyers.
The counsel for the State and for the
labor organizations, with the exception
of Judge George b. Okcy who CON
tended that Section %, which permits
employers to assume their own risks
under the Workmcn'S Compensation law,
is unconstitutional, ccntercd upon two
main propositions.
Two Points of Law.
One of them is that the section of the
law, 9jl0 of the General Code, which au-
thorizcS the making of insurance of vari-
Gus sorts, does not recognize workmen's
compensation, and that, therefore, the
insurance companies have no right to
make this sort OF insurance. As ex-
pressed by the Attorney General, Edward
{. Turner, the liability of the Work
mems Compensation law is not the liza
bility of Section 9510, which was enacted
many years before workmens compensa-
tion was known in Ohio.
The other proposition was that the
Workmcn's Compensation law does not
permit employers to protect themselves
against consequence of violation of the
law or against willful act
IN the other hand, the insurance at
torncys argued that under Section 81 OF
the Workmcn's Compensation law the
companies are authorized to make inSur-
ancc that will guarantee to injured en-
ploycs the statutory compensation, and
that employers may protect themselves
against the open liability Of the com
pcnsation law when the fault is that OF
their agents and employees rather than
their own personal fault.
! he representatives of business or
CARNATIONS and companies appeared to
argue the validity of Section %, the
Scli-insurancc provision. Chief of these
lawyers was Daniel J. Ryan, general
counsel for the Ohio manufacturers AS
soCiation, He did not concern himself
with the other phases OF the case.
Representing the State Industrial Com
mission, James l. Bougcr appeared to
support the contentious that the insur-
ancc companies are barred from partici-
patton in the compensation scheme.
Labor Well Represented.
The interest of labor in the litiga-
ton was attcstcd by the presence of
John Noll, of Iancsvllc, President, and
/. J. Donnclly, of Cincinnati, Secretary
of the State Federation OF Labor, and
delegations from all parts of the State.
They included Representatives Henry
OFT, Charles y. Wirmcl, Thomas IT, Mu-
gavin, Charles staff, of Cincinnati; Fred
Schultz, Fred Telschow, John J. Owens
and William Morgan, of Cleveland
Otto Bruck, of Toledo; II, w. Weller,
of Youngstown; John Van Ilisc, of Co
lumbuS; Representative O. b. Chapman
and William A. Cunlffe, of Dayton;
Charles Vaughn, of Hamilton; O. NJ,
Patterson, of Canton; Arthur Muhlman,
Of Coshocton William A. Abraham and
Louis Ilerdcr, of Portsmouth; ]. ].
Graney of Youngstown; T, j. McKit-
rick, of Dayton ]. ]. EiScn and r. T.
Creagcr, OF Springfield
One of the features of the case was
the argument OF J. harrington Boyd, of
Toledo, one of the members of the com
mission which framed the original
Workmcn's Compensation law during the
administration of former Governor Jud-
son Harmon. Judge Harmon appeared
today as an insurance company attor-
ney fact to which Turner referred in
opening for the State when he cited
Governor lIarmon'S dcnunciation Of in
surancc company methods few years
ago.
One of the points made by Turner
was that the General Assembly required
employers to be of sufficient financial
ability to carry their own risks before