Case Name: Houg, Respondent, vs. Girard Lumber Company, Appellant
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1911-01-10
Citations: 144 Wis. 337
Docket Number: 
Parties: Houg, Respondent, vs. Girard Lumber Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 337–362

Head Matter:
Houg, Respondent, vs. Girard Lumber Company, Appellant.
October 25, 1910 —
January 10, 1911.
Appeal: Review: Questions of fact: Master and servant: Injury from unguarded machinery: Contributory negligence: Sufficiency of evidence.
1. While the verdict of a jury should not he disturbed on appeal as being contrary to the evidence if there is any evidence which, in any reasonable view, will sustain it, and the decision of the trial court denying a motion to set it aside should not be overruled unless clearly wrong, nevertheless, physical situations and impossibilities sometimes controvert the testimony of witnesses given upon the stand and must he given controlling weight.
2. Neither the statute relating to the guarding of machinery so located as to be dangerous to employees in the discharge of their duties, nor the common-law rule on the subject, applies to a situation where, in order to come in contact with such dangerous machinery, the employee must necessarily go out of the usual way and out of any way which he would reasonably he expected to take.
3. An employee in a sawmill was injured by having his foot caught between a sprocket wheel and a chain. One of his duties was to oil certain machinery about eleven feet above the floor. He had performed this duty safely for a considerable time in the usual way, ascending, as he had been instructed, by a stairway to a platform near the machinery. In so doing he did not come near the sprocket wheel. Before the accident, however, he had adopted a new way, ascending by a ladder on the other side of the machinery to a plank laid upon timbers. At the time in question he had stepped from the plank over the moving chain and then back again, in a stooping posture, to a slender foothold on a timber just below the chain, and was attempting, without returning to the plank or to the floor, to reach other machinery by moving along another timber close to the chain and the wheel and covered with frozen sawdust. He knew all the conditions surrounding him. His foot slipped and was drawn in between the chain and the sprocket wheel. Meld, as a matter of law, that he was guilty of contributory negligence.*
4. In such case it was no excuse for the injured employee that in going up the stairway he would have to pass close to a broken sawdust spout from which sawdust and other materials were being ejected, where such break was easily repaired and he had been accustomed to make similar repairs in the past.
6. The defect complained of being an unguarded set-screw projecting from a collar on the shaft of the sprocket wheel a few inches away from the wheel, and plaintiff’s own testimony showing that his foot was drawn in between the chain and the wheel until the wheel stopped because of the obstruction, testimony to the effect that the set-screw continued to revolve and cut into the flesh of his foot was incredible, and a finding by the jury that the injury was caused by such set-screw was unsupported by the evidence.
6. No amount of conjecture or weight of mere possibility can support a verdict in plaintiffs favor in an action for personal injury, but reasonable certainty as to the cause of the injury must be established to warrant a recovery.
Kerwin, Siebeckeb, and Timlin, JJ., dissent.
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Marinette county: Samuel D. Hastings, Circuit Judge.
Reversed.
Action to recover for a personal injury. Plaintiff pleaded that, while in the due performance of his duty as an employee of defendant, he was severely injured in his right foot by reason of its being caught by a revolving shaft, armed with a sprocket wheel, collar, and projecting set-screw, so located as to be dangerous to employees in discharge of their duties, unless securely guarded, and that no guard whatever was provided.
All material allegations respecting the circumstances of the injury were put in issue by answer.
On the evidence the main controversy was as to whether the injury occurred by reason of plaintiff’s foot having come in contact with the unguarded set-screw or it being carried by the sprocket chain against the sprocket wheel and caught between them; whether such set-screw was so located as to be dangerous, unless securely guarded or fenced, to employees in the discharge of their duties; and whether plaintiff was guilty of fatal contributory negligence.
The evidence was to this effect: Plaintiff was forty-two years of age. He had worked in and around the sawmill where be was injured for years and was familiar with all parts of it, particularly the part where the accident occurred. He had been oiler for some months before he received the injury and had been many times in the place where he made the fatal movement. The particular work preceding such accident was oiling journals at the tightener frame. In doing this he had to ascend from the basement door of the mill about eleven feet. The usual way was from the south side of the frames by a pair of stairs. Then there was a platform to step •out upon, which reached nearly to the frame. In going that way one did not approach the region of the sprocket wheel. There were no interferences except what was caused, from time to time, by escape of sawdust and pieces of wood from a break in the east sawdust spout. Such a break happened from time to time, but was easily repaired by nailing on two or three small pieces of boards. It was but the operation of a few moments to do that. It was not particularly plaintiff’s business to repair such breaks, but he was allowed to do it, as he saw fit, and on occasions did do it. Whenever repairs were needed the fact came specially to his attention, and he was particularly interested in the matter, unless he chose to approach the tighteners from the north side. Some pieces of boards were off the side of the sawdust spout at this time. He gave as a reason for not replacing them, that he did not think of it, and said, in effect, that he chose to do his work by going up on the north side of the frames, though had it not been for the interferences coming from the hole in the sawdust spout he would have gone up on the other side. For a long time before he commenced doing the oiling, the only way in use of approach to the frames was from the south side. He was instructed in that regal’d. He used that way for a considerable length of time and then discovered and adopted the way he was using immediately before the injury.
The situation was this: There were two tightener frames in the basement story of the mill hung from the floor above and reaching down several feet. They were in a line east and west and about five feet apart. A little north thereof, parallel therewith, and a little below them there' was an eight-inch square timber. Projecting directly down from the main floor, just north of the timber and a little west of a line drawn at right angles with the west side of the east tightener frame, there was a sawdust spout. East of the west tightener frame there was a similar spout. About midway between the two spouts on the eight-inch square timber the journal box of the sprocket wheel was located. It was eight inches long with and reached nearly across the timber, was about five inches high, and had an oil cup in the top. Plaintiff was accustomed to oil at that point about once a week. The sprocket wheel was slow moving, the revolutions being about twenty-four per minute. The journal did not need oiling on the occasion in question. Plaintiff did not approach it for that purpose. The shaft was two inches in diameter, was short, and ran north and south. It projected through the box to the north, somewhat. On the inner side of the box there was a two-inch-wide collar kept in place close to the inner end of the box by a set-screw projecting outward to within about two inches of the rim of the wheel. There was a little space between the inner edge of the timber and the south end of the box, which was cut out, thus making room, for the collar to' operate. It was inclosed, largely, in the south side of the timber. The sprocket wheel was fastened to the shaft about one and one-half inches from the collar, so the wheel was about three and one-half inches from the box, but only about two or two and one-half inches from the timber. It was seven or eight inches in diameter and one and one-half inches wide at the rim. It carried a sprocket chain made of links about three inches long and two inches wide. The projections on the wheel were about one and one-half inches long. They extended beyond the outer side of the links, as the latter engaged the wheel, and were rounded on the ends. The sprocket chain ran at an angle somewhat upward from tbe plane of tbe timber and to tbe east, so that at a point opposite tbe east tightener frame, tbe lower chain was a little above tbe lower cross-timber thereof, and tbe upper chain, by reason of weight and slack, was practically on tbe lower one. Tbe power was exerted on tbe latter which moved to tbe right, passing under tbe sprocket wheel a little below tbe level of tbe top1 of tbe timber. A ladder was provided for ascending to tbe place for oiling tbe journal, which was some eleven feet from tbe basement floor. Plaintiff in order to construct for himself a way of reaching tbe tightener frames and journal box, placed, securely, a plank of sufficient width to enable him to walk on it, in a somewhat stooping position, on account of tbe floor above, about fourteen inches north of tbe timber and on a level therewith. This plank spanned the space north of both tightener frames and the journal box, and was near enough thereto so that plaintiff, when standing upon it in front of either, could reach and grasp the side of the frame with his left hand, and, holding his oil can in the right, step, and partially raise himself to a standing position, on the lower cross-piece of the frame, in which position he would do the oiling. In the particular instance he placed his ladder against the timber at the east end of the plank. He then ascended to and stepped onto the plank and walked west to a point north of the east tightener frame. The sprocket chain was in operation. He passed his left foot over the chain to the lower cross-piece of the frame, taking a pretty long step in doing so, southward and upward. Grasping the east side of the tightener frame with the left hand he raised up so as to stand on the cross-piece, resting his whole weight on the left foot. He then put his left arm around the east side of the tightener frame, and there stood with his right foot backward and outward — the limb being outside of and near the moving sprocket chain — and did the oiling. That over, he endeavored to retreat by first placing his right foot on the timber just outside of and a little lower down than the chain. That not being feasible, as he thought, because of a frozen accumulation of sawdust on the timber, he passed his foot under the sprocket chain sufficiently to locate the toe thereof securely on the cross-timber of the tightener frame. Then he lifted the left foot over the chain and gave it a location similar to that of the right foot. Thus-he secured himself in place with the toes of his shoes resting on the tightener frame and the sprocket chain in motion a few inches above his feet and just in front of his lower limbs,, maintaining his equilibrium by leaning slightly forward and keeping a secure hold on the tightener frame. The next duty he had in mind to do was to oil the journals at the west tightener frame, located, as indicated, on the other side of the sprocket wheel. He could as readily have stepped back to the plank as he stepped from it, and proceeded to and down the ladder and then moved that west to the vicinity of the other tightener and thereby reached it without going near the sprocket wheel. That was the way he had ordinarily performed the work since he had chosen to approach the tighteners from the north, instead of the south side. As he stood in the position aforesaid, there was a floor timber at his back which came down sufficiently to render it necessary for one, in reaching a tightener frame from the plank or the plank from a tightener frame, to bend down somewhat. He knew all the conditions surrounding him, particularly the fact that frozen sawdust was irregularly located on top of the timber near the sprocket wheel journal. He concluded not to return to the floor and reach the west tightener frame by means of-the ladder, but to go along the plank, passing by the end of the sprocket wheel shaft, or along the timber and over the sprocket wheel box. Instead of stepping to the plank as he had stepped from it, he supported himself on the right by placing his hand or arm on the side of the sawdust spout, then — with his left hand grasping or left arm placed around the west side of the tightener frame, and so maintaining a substantially upright position — be reached bis right foot quite a good step outward and around the sawdust spout, for the purpose of locating it on the timber between the spout and the bearing of the sprocket wheel shaft. In doing so his foot encountered the uneven surface at the top of the timber, slipped inward, on top of the lower sprocket chain, and was quickly carried west to and caught between the chain and wheel and severely injured. When his foot, or some part of its covering at least, was carried between the wheel and chain, it stopped the machinery. Motion was transmitted to the sprocket wheel shaft by a friction, allowing the interference of plaintiff’s foot, as aforesaid, to overcome the contact and bring the sprocket wheel to a stop. It was so located that no employee in the discharge of his duties was liable to get in dangerous proximity thereto, as the work had been done prior to plaintiff’s choice of the particular way described.
There was some conflict in the evidence from the mouths of witnesses as to whether plaintiff’s foot came' into contact with the set-screw. Here is the evidence of plaintiff, substantially: The shaft was turning at a slow rate, about thirty revolutions per minute. The under chain was in motion toward the sprocket wheel. In trying to place my foot on the timber it slipped in on top of the chain and was caught between it and the sprocket wheel. The foot was dragged in between the chain and the wheel till the wheel stopped against the inside of my foot, and then the set-screw commenced to work, gouging piece by piece. The set-screw dug into my foot on the top and side down to the toes as it went around and around. The chain drew my foot right into the sprocket wheel. That stopped the wheel from running. Otherwise it would have wound my leg around the wheel. Everything stopped and that was the position I was found in. They had to take the top off the box and pry up the shaft to get me out. I then got out by crowding my foot down between the timber and the sprocket wheel.
That was tbe way plaintiff left tbe case at first. Then be testified about like tbis: My foot was in on top of tbe bottom chain and was drawn under and against tbe set-screw. Tbe big toe and toe of my rubber went under tbe sprocket wheel. Thewheel revolved some time after my foot was caught. My foot was caught on tbe right side in tbe sprocket wheel. My foot slipped right ahead. Tbe wheel caught my leg and dragged my foot in. My big toe was not hurt. My foot stopped tbe sprocket wheel when it got in tight enough. The wheel went clear around after my foot was caught. It did not have power to drag my foot clear around and break my leg, so when my foot was dragged in the wheel stopped. The wheel did not go around after the shaft stopped. It was going around when it dragged my foot in close. It went around several times. It did not have power enough to carry my leg under so the wheel stopped.
Again the matter was taken up and plaintiff gave about this: I do not think my big toe came under the sprocket wheel. There was room for the toe of my rubber to be caught without catching my toe. I was too scared and excited to know just how it was, but my foot was held there in some way.
Axel Peterson, who helped release the plaintiff, testified that the latter’s foot was not caught in the sprocket wheel at all; that his foot was fast under the collar, and that the set-screw pointed up; that the top of the box was not taken off in order to release him; but that they sprung the shaft a little with a handspike, “sprung her — gave it a little slack” and then worked plaintiff’s foot out without turning the wheel back.
The doctor, who testified in plaintiff’s behalf, described the injury as a lacerated wound on top and across the instep. He said there was no injury to the toes or the foot other than the wound across the top where the tissue had been torn away with probably some injury to the bones; that adhesions had formed binding the three bones connecting the three middle toe joints with their instep bones together and causing con tractions of tbe tendons of snob toes so as to draw them upward.
The cause was submitted to the jury, resulting in a verdict substantially as follows: There was an unguarded set-screw in the collar on the sprocket wheel shaft. It was so located as to be dangerous to employees of the defendant in the discharge of their duties. Plaintiff’s foot was injured by the set-screw. No want of ordinary care on his part contributed to the injury. It will take $4,651 to compensate him for his injury.
Judgment was rendered for plaintiff on the verdict.
Eor the appellant there was a brief by Eastman & Martin-eaUj and oral argument by E. 0. Eastman.
Eor the respondent there was a brief by Martin, Martin & Martin> and oral argument by P. E. Martin.

Opinion:
MaRshali, J.
The judgment must be reversed for three reasons. Each involves the sufficiency of the evidence to support some vital part of the verdict. In condemning the result as to each such feature, we keep in mind that this court should not disturb the verdict of a jury as contrary to the evidence, if there is any evidence, which, in any reasonable view, will sustain it; and also appreciating the force which should be given to this other rule: in case a trial court on motion to set aside a verdict as contrary to the evidence approves it, his judgment should not be overruled unless clearly wrong. But in reaching our conclusion we have also to appreciate that the manner of an occurrence as testified to from the mouths of witnesses is not necessarily to be taken as matter of fact even if not in like manner contradicted. Sometimes physical situations and impossibilities speak much more weightily than the vocal utterances of any witness, or number of witnesses. The former cannot falsify. The latter can and often do. The one is indisputable. The other never is.
The jury found that the shaft with the unguarded set-screw was so located as to be dangerous to employees of the defend ant in the discharge of their duties. Why so ? It was entirely out of reach of any of the employees in the discharge of their duties. It will be seen by the statement that the way of reaching it was by ascending eleven feet from the basement floor. There was no occasion for going near it except to oil •the bearing of the sprocket wheel shaft. In that, there was-no occasion for any part of an employee's person or clothing' coming in contact with the shaft where it was armed with the' set-screw. Really, it was not possible to do*so without actually invading the region some six inches beyond the oil cup on the journal box, which no-one, it -seems, -could.-reasonably be expected to do. An operator had, actually, to go outside any course which any one would reasonably be expected to take, as-respondent in fact did, in order to reach the uncovered setscrew. The evidence leaves no doubt but what no one would have supposed an employee would attempt what respondent did, — climb around on the narrow timber supporting the end; of the sprocket wheel shaft, cling by one hand-hold and one-foot-hold to the tightener frame, with his person hanging, as it were, out over the sprocket chain; then climb down over the chain, placing the feet on the cross-piece of the tightener frame, the rapidly moving chain coming just over the top of the feet, making it necessary to keep hold of some support with both hands to avoid danger of severe injury; then work along by the aid of hand-holds, in an endeavor to pass around the sawdust spout and get a footing on the uneven surface of the timber in the vicinity of the uncovered set-screw, or gain such footing as a prelude to stepping back to the plank with the idea of groping along it by the end of the sprocket wheel shaft to the other tightener frame. If there be anything in the evidence suggesting, reasonably, that appellant was chargeable with knowledge of any likelihood that an employee would do so, or get into dangerous proximity to the set-screw, we are unable to find it. He got there, as said before, by going out of the ordinary way, choosing to do his work in a different way from the customary one; a way which he discovered and arranged to suit himself.
The case is ruled, as counsel for appellant contend, by the doctrine that the statute and the common-law rule as well, respecting the guarding of machinery so located as to be dangerous to employees in the discharge of their duties, do not apply to a situation where the employee must, necessarily, go out of any way which he would be reasonably expected to take in order to reach it. Powalske v. Cream City B. Co. 110 Wis. 461, 86 N. W. 153; Miller v. Kimberly & Clark Co. 137 Wis. 138, 118 N. W. 536.
The foregoing, while condemning the finding of negligence in not guarding the set-screw region of the shaft, logically also condemns the finding that plaintiff was not guilty of any want of ordinary care contributing to his injury. It seems that his conduct invited the disaster which happened to him. He subjected himself to many serious dangers, from the time he made the first step from the plank to the tightener frame till he put his foot, or caused it to go, between the jaws formed by the sprocket wheel and chain. His conduct was specially negligent in that he departed from his previously used but dangerous way of reaching the west tightener frame by trying to contend with the sprocket wheel shaft and its connections, the timber loaded with frozen sawdust, the interfering sawdust spouts, and the narrow plank suspended high above the basement floor, — in attempting to go by a short cut from the east to the west tightener frame. Can one without feeling a sense of shock at the very temerity of it, contemplate the picture found in the statement of facts of respondent for a moment before and at the instant of the accident? See him partly hanging to the east tightener frame by one hand and to the sawdust spout with the other, his left foot just under, and leg close up to, the moving sprocket chain, just the toe of one foot reaching under the chain far enough to obtain a rest on the cross-piece of the tightener frame, his right foot out and around tbe sawdust spout; out to tbe top oí: tbe timber beyond tbe spout, bis line of vision naturally directed away from tbat foot, and bis dependency being upon sense of touch to obtain a safe lodgment for tbe foot on tbe sawdust covered timber. •See bim as, balf clinging by bis bands and arms, be feels for a footing at bis right till bis foot slips in on tbe sprocket chain dose to tbe sprocket wheel and is instantly caught between tbe two. Does not tbe whole proceeding appear to have been •almost foolhardy, when we consider tbat tbe ordinary way of approaching tbe tightener frames was from tbe opposite side, thus avoiding all tbe dangers which caused tbe injury, and tbat respondent chose to depart from bis own customary and dangerous way to one very much more hazardous ? Was be not negligent to tbe point of rashness, in view of the fact tbat be bad been instructed to approach tbe tighteners from tbe south side and would have done so bad it not been for tbe interference from tbe sawdust spout, which be could easily have remedied himself.
Quite as difficult, as in tbe respects we have treated, we find it to justify tbe finding tbat tbe set-screw did tbe injury to respondent's foot. At tbe best tbe evidence does not more than warrant tbe merest conjecture tbat tbe set-screw reached tbe foot which was injured. No amount of conjecture or weight •of mere possibility can support a verdict in a plaintiff's favor. It must not be forgotten tbat reasonable certainty, at least, must be established in plaintiff's favor in a case of this sort, as well as in any other, to warrant a recovery.
Eirst we have tbe fact tbat respondent's foot blocked tbe sprocket wheel so it stopped. Therefore tbe testimony tbat tbe set-screw continued to revolve after tbe foot engaged tbe wheel must be false. Motion of tbe wheel necessarily ceased, and tbat of tbe set-screw too, as soon as tbe man's foot was caught between tbe. wheel and tbe chain, otherwise bis leg would have been wound around it and crushed, as be admitted in bis testimony. So tbe injury to tbe foot must have been done by tbe time tbe wheel ceased to revolve. Tbe idea of tbe set-screw going around thereafter is too preposterous to be worthy of a moment's consideration. Again, respondent said the set-screw gouged his foot down from the instep to his toes. Opposed to that is not only the fact that the wheel and the setscrew must have ceased to revolve as soon as the foot was caught, since otherwise the leg would have been crushed, but the location of the wound was not from the instep downward to the toes, but across the instep, just where it would naturally be if the foot were caught between the sprocket wheel and the chain and rolled partly under it and thereby crushed and wounded. Again, with the foot between the sprocket wheel and the chain, as the evidence strongly tends to, if it does not conclusively, show, and we are not prepared to say it does not, and as respondent insisted it was to some extent at least, — it was not possible for the screw to reach the foot. There was no room for the foot to get under the collar because it was revolving in a cut-out place in the timber. It was also physically impossible for the foot to have been under the shaft, between the timber and the sprocket wheel. The foot, as it slipped in between the sprocket wheel and chain, must have gone in substantially at right angles, as respondent several times substantially testified. In no other way could it have gotten into the machinery and stopped it. Any other theory would be worse than speculation as to mere possibility. In no other way could the wound have been made across the instep, since the set-screw did not go in reach of the foot. Moreover, when he was found by those who released him, the setscrew was pointing upward. That must have been its position when the sprocket wheel was blocked by the foot because all motion, as stated, must have ceased at that instant. In the position respondent's body was, his foot could not have been turned lengthways of the south edge of the timber and just over such edge so as to have been drawn under the collar or shaft, if there was a place there, which would have permitted it to have been drawn in.
The testimony of the witness called to corroborate plaintiff was self-destructive so far as it was to tbe effect that the foot was caught under the shaft. He contradicted respondent as to taking the top off the journal box and lifting up the end of the shaft, and the incredible story of respondent as to his having reached and pushed his foot down and out. The witness •and others, as he said, we must remember, put a lever under the shaft and "sprung her up a little," "gave it a little slack," then worked the foot out while respondent "hung to the frame or something." When we think of the short two-inch shaft running in a box, which we must assume was in fair condition, we can comprehend, at once, that the idea that they "sprung her a little," was a mere picture of the witness's imagination, •or something worse. He testified to a physical impossibility. His words, "gave it a little slack," are the key to what was done. The only thing they could have given a "little slack" to was the sprocket chain. A "little slack" does not describe any movement that would have been required to get respondent's foot out from under the shaft, if it were possible for it to be there. Give it "a little slack" fittingly characterizes loosening of the sprocket chain. Rolling the wheel back slightly was the only practicable way to release the foot if caught between the wheel and the chain. "Pried her up," under the circumstances, in connection with the fact that the shaft was tight in the journal box, with "give it a little slack," tells the only true story it seems, i. e. they put the end of the lever under one of the projections of the sprocket wheel and against the timber or something for a fulcrum, or against the shaft on the south side of the wheel, and from there against the end of a link in the interval between two links at the side, •or in some other way obtained a leverage by means of which they turned back the wheel sufficiently to "give it," the chain, "a little slack," and then, as the witness said, "they worked his foot out by hand." We note that the evidence does not indicate what kind of a lever was used. It might have been a bar of iron permitting of giving the chain a little slack in the way suggested. ,We do not overlook the fact that the witness spoke of tbe lever as a "handspike," but that does not indicate but wbat it might have been of iron or in such form as to permit of the use indicated. Respondent must have been hanging onto something while he was being released, as the witness said, in-order to support himself. That something must have been the sawdust spout. Doubtless, as he testified at one point, he was so excited he could not remember just how the accident occurred or how he was released. It was simply impossible for him to have leaned down, as he said he did, and with both hands taken hold of his foot and crowded it down between the sprocket wheel and the timber. He could not have kept his place on the timber while making such a movement. Moreover there was no place, as we have seen, for his foot to be so crowded down and out. The gouged-out space was occupied by the collar, allowing the rim of the wheel to come within about two inches of the timber. Is not that plain when the whole situation is comprehended.
Again, crowding the foot down and out was impossible since it was caught at some point between the wheel and chain requiring the latter to be given "a little slack."
On the whole, it seems clear that the injury was not caused by the projecting set-screw. Too bad, we fully appreciate, the unfortunate plaintiff must irreparably bear his loss. • The law does not deal in charity, merely taking from one who will not suffer much by the deprivation, and giving to another who will otherwise seriously suffer. It does not judicially punish one for the benefit of another whom he has not wronged, however much that other may need the assistance. It takes from one who commits a wrong to another's loss, giving the net of that which is taken to that other, not considering any loss for which the one is not responsible, nor any loss for which such other is himself responsible.
By the Court. — The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to render judgment for defendant.
Maeshall, J.
{speaJdng independently). As tbe writer rests from speaking the foregoing for the court, may he not, appropriately and beneficially, soliloquize briefly upon the law's uncharitableness with distressing losses like that here-treated.
Why not such inevitable incidents of activities upon which all depend to satisfy demands of legitimate human desire, be-laid at once upon the subjects of consumption where they must in the end inevitably go for final liquidation ? .Why not with a minimum of anguish instead of with the maximum thereof ?' Is it not for the whole, indirectly toiled for but removed in general from the zone of danger as well as those who present-their bodies to the peril, that the latter be so ? If so, why should an element as to either, involving no moral turpitude,, be the deciding factor as to whether the one or the other shall be irreparably impaired? And moreover, why irreparably impaired at all, crushing human ambition, human hope, and human life as well ? Why should not the sacrifices for all betaken at once as the burdens of all; not scattering by the way human wrecks to float as derelicts .for a time, increasing the-first cost till the accumulation disappears from view in the world of consumable things ? Such losses, starting immediate victims, — particularly the weakest and humblest and often. the most indispensable of them to a lower level, — go on by trackless ways till, enhanced by transition over the long road, the whole, disseminated so broadly as to be at last unappre-ciable, comes to rest as noiselessly, imperceptibly, and certainly as moves the "breath of the summer night," — upon and is absorbed in, increasing the costs of subjects of human desire, there to be accounted for at the full money equivalent by the exchanges incident to consumption. Is not this a verity ?' Why then cannot such inevitable end occur without the added loss and arbitrary classification by which the majority of those-who feel the misfortune most deeply, are not compensated at all, and the rest only by transfer in each instance to one engaged with the bodily sufferer in mutuality of general purpose and mutuality of risk from inadvertences which can only be minimized according to the degree of natural infirmities of the mutual actor ? The courts cannot answer. They do not make the law. They only execute it, and must do that with fidelity and with care without sympathy or fear or favor. Only the lawmaking power can answer. At its door lies the duty to do so, and will lie any sin there may be in not laboring to that end. To there in increasing volume points and will continue to point unrequited sorrow till there shall be a remedy. If these words shall help to render humanity's petition effective they will not have been spoken in vain.