Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-07-12
Business And Financial News ::
NORKMEES COMPENSATION LAWS IN
MAINLAND STATES; BEARING here

compensation to the injured work
man upon the shoulders Of the en-
rloyer for actual or alleged faults,
this requiring generally an action at
law. cumbersome in procedure. eX'
Pensive in process, and usually re-
sulting, after long periods Of Gtiga-
ton, in nominal relief, If any. for
tie injured. after expenses and legal
fees have been paid"
Old Way Heart-Breakino
In describing the latter mode Of
deciding injury cases, the lecturer
might have added that the legal
ices" usually meant a "fifty-fifty"
split between the claimant and his
LAWYER for the net amount OF judg-
ment after all costs were deducted.
Newspaper readers even in Hawaii
are only too familiar with the heart
breaking fight through the courts.
sometimes up to the highest tribunal
In the nation, the perhaps life-crip-
pied workman has TO 90 through, with
the ultimate chance of getting moth
ing or at best a Judgment so dis
counted In the process as to be worth
less.
Since Mr.. Vending delivered his
address, five years ago, many state
compensation laws have been sub
jected to the judicial crucible, with
results encouraging to the belief that
Hawaii can have a Sudiciary-prooI
compensation law in 1919 il the pres
cnt act be in the meantime finally
adjndicated a nullity. Most of the de.
n,csv.0s - FaH rnnlarn5 - xrh i,h ay,i "
brief reports are before the writer,
are upon statutes containing the cleo
tive feature-some giving the choice
tc both employer and employe to be-
come subject to the provisions for
compensation; and others giving the
choice only to the employer, in either
case a time limit being set for no
tiee Of intention Of Submission or
otherwise to the enactment.
Compulsory Laws Favored
Nevertheless there are some gen.
eraI principles enHnciated in the deci
stems II state courts and the United
States supreme court which seem to
indicate that compulsory workmen S
compensation laws are now feasible
IN the United States, enabling final
settlements Of compensation to injur
ed workmen to be made outside of the
judicial tribunals without violating tn,
inalienable right of trial by jury Acts
Of that nature which have been upheld
contain the feature Of the now chai.
lenged Hawaiian measure wherein an
appeal to q jury from the finding OF
an industrial accident board il pro-
yided forever though limited, a2-
parently, to the question OF rights
within the statute itself. AS to In
fringement of common law rights by
such enactments, Judge HUFF of thu
court Of civil appeals of Texas, in .
case where the Memphis Cotton Oil
Co. had appealed against q Judgment
for damages for INJURY to an employe,
the defendants In the
two pending Hawaiian cases-upon the
exclusive nature of the workmen's
compensation act, upheld the act and
in quoting the United States supreme
court, said:
1T 10 held by that court that no
one has vested right In the com
mon law. The law itself may be
changed at the win OF the leg
islature. unless prevented by consti
tutional limitations II. the appellant
had been possessed Of property creat.
ed by the common law, the legislature
could not deprive it of such property
by changing the Law, but that rs no:
this case"
New York Law Sustained
Judge Miller D: the court OF appeals
Of New York. in UNFOLDING the conSti-
tutionality OF the workmen's conFsG.
sation act Of tnat state, also quoted
the federal supreme court in passing
upon the Ohio law. He mentions that
the New York law is compulsory, the
Hereunder being subjected
to penalty for not adopting one Of
the three methods of insurance ailor-
ed him, and the employe" having mo
choice at all. except possibly Whethei:
he viii enter one Of the classified en-
In discussing the qacs-
toned constitutioaality Of the law ths
court made the following pregnant OBJ
-.-..:: .,...
This subject should be viewed In
the light of modern conditions, not
those under which the common law
doctrines were developed. With the
change in industrial conditions, an
opinion has gradually developed, which
almost universally favors a more J,>st
and economical system Of pr .Fiding
compensation for accidental injuries
to employees as \ substitute for waste
ful and protraet.5 damage suits, usual
~ unjust IN their resi- i's either to the
employer or the eInpleye, and scn:a-
times to both, Surely it is competent
for the state in the promotion Of the
general welfare to require both en-
ployer and employee to yield some
thing toward the establishment of a
principle and plan Of compensation
for their mutual protection anu ADJ an
tage. The act now before us SCENE to