The Maui news. [volume] (Wailuku, Maui, H.I.) 1900-current, 1919-03-07

Judge of law perhaps the best judges
Of the amount Of damage a certain In
Jury warrants.
Workmen's compensation, on the
other hand attempts to furnish a de-
finite and guaranteed remuneration to
the worker on account of loss OF in
come from accidental injury, n to
compensate positively and intelligent
ly dependents for the loss of a bread
winner.
1t was the failure of the liability
system that brought about the adop-
ton of compensation laws in Europe;
and II was the all but universal con-
demnation OF this same system in the
United States that brought about the
enactment OF workmen's compensa-
ton laws in all but 10 of the states
and territories in the union during
the last decade.
The compensation principle recog-
nlzes the substitution Of a definite n
certain measure of relief for the form
er uncertainties OF redress through
litigation, and this relief is provided
in terms of the loss of services.
Against the right of action in dam
ages there is an assured, il limited,
measure of compensation; against ex-
cessive r~ecoveries in a minority OF
cases, a fair compensation for all in
juries is now granted and so distrib-
uted as to give the greatest measure
of relief.
The purpose of this bill is distinct
ly a step backward.
Unfair To Employers
AS drafted, the proposed amend
ment would be most unfair TO b en-
ployer since he would be compelled
not only to carry compensation insur-
ance or other guarantee for payment
of compensation for injuries, but
would have to protect himself as of
old, against actions in damages, by
means of liability insurance, or be ex-
posed to constant menace of eXpen-
sive law suits.
ConstitutionaIity Questioned
Montana's first workmen's compen-
sation law, effective October l, 1910,
was declared unconstitutional by the
supreme court OF hat state because
1t carried this double liability prov1-
sion; and there is no state or terri
tory having such ~unmodiied provision
as contained in H. B. 145. Suits for
damage are forbidden absolutely in Is
states, according to statistics up to
December 81, 1917. In q other states
employees are permitted to sue upon
certain conditions, generally for some
neglect on the part of the employer.
In but two states-New Hampshire
and Arizona-have employees the
right to elect after injury whether to
accept compensation or bring suit for
damages. The New Hampshire act is
practically imperative, probably on
this very account, it being optional
with employers to come under the
law, and according to latest statistics
available but 10 have done SO. In
Arizona the act applies only to a few
dangerous occupations and is conse-
Quently not Of great Importance In
industry Of the state generally.
Summary
The principle of workmen's COM
pensation has been adopted almost
universally for no other reason than
because of the failure of the liability
laws to give justice.
Workmen's compensation admitted
ly fails to give full compensation. But
1t is in degree and not in principle
that it fails. All efforts Of those in
terested in labor legislation is to-
wards getting a higher degree Of COM
~pensation for workers than at pres
ent. But to propose fighting out in
the courts the matter Of the neglig-
ence of an employer resulting in a
personal injury, is a proposal to go
backwards instead of forwards, and
will make it harder instead of more
easy for the employee to get com
plete justice in the future. And fin
ally. injustice to the employer. to the
extent Of making the validity Of the
proposed amendment questionable,
leaves little excuse for it's passage
save that 1t would open the way to
more business to lawyers and courts
at expense of both employer and en-
ployee.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) WILL. J. COOPER,
Member. Industrial Accident Board
for the COUNTY of Maui, Territory