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

compensation to the injured work
man upon the shoulders of the EN-.
Ployer for actual or alleged faults,
this requiring generally an action at
law, cumbersome IN procedure, ex'
pensive in process, and usually re-
sultfng, after long periods of litfga-
ton, in nominal relief, II any. for
the injured, after expenses and legal
fees have been paid"
Old Way Heart-6reakina
In describing the latter mode OF
deciding injury cases, the lecturer
might have added that the legal
fees" 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 Hfe-crip-
pied workman has to 60 through, with
the ultimate chance of getting moth
ing or at best q 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-proof
compensation law In 1919 II the pres
ent act be In the meantime finally
adjudicated q nulli.y. Most of the de-
eisions so far rendered, Of which only
brief reports are before the writer,
are upon statutes containing the cleo
tive feature-some giving the choice
&c 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
tice OF intention of submission or
otherwise to the enactment.
Compulsory Laws Favored
Nevertheless there are some gen.
eral principles enaneiated In the deci
sions II state courts and the Unitee
States supreme court which seem to
indicate that compulsory workmen' &
compensation laws are now feasible
tn the United States, enabling final
settlements Of compensation to injur'
ed workmel to be made outside of the
judicial tribunals without violating thu
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 for-eEen though limited, a2'
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 a
case where the Memphis Cotton Oil
Co. had appealed against a judgment
for damages for INJURY to an employe
relying--like 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 is held by that court that no
one has vested right in the com.
mon law. The law itself may be
changed at the will OF the leg.
islatnre, unless prevented by constt
tutioaal limitations II the appellant
had been possessed of property crea:.
ed by the comm n law, the legislature
could not deprive 1t of such property
by changing the Law, but that Is no:
this case"
New York Law Sustained
Judge Miller OF the court of appeals
of New York, in unfolding the conSti-
tutionality of the workmen's compSl'
sation act Of that state, also quoted
the federal supreme court In passing
upon the Ohio law, He mentions that
the New York law is compulsory, the
employer Hereunder being Subject ed
to penalty for not adopting one OF
the three methods Of insurance ailoT-
ed him, and the employe" having mo
choice at all, except possibly whether
he win enter one OF the classified Ell
ployments." In discussing the qaca'
toned constitutioaality Of the law tbs
court made the following pregnant oh-
seryations:
"This subjecs should be viewed Ia
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 fayors q more J:sst
and economical system Of pr .viding
compensation for accidental Injuries
to employees as substitute for waste.
full and protraetsd damage suits, usual
~ unjust in their resi- l's either 70 the
employer Or the srnploye, and scne-
times to both. Surely 1t IL competent
for the state In the promotion Uf 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 and adEan-
Nan Thu kaR -