dent, without the employer has allowed his machinery to get faulty and has had proper notice of it, but the employe has no moral or legal right to ask his employer to pay for his own carelessness. There is not enough money at this time in manufacturing to warrant an employer insuring his employes, and he should not do so. If he was to do this the employe would become careless and would not take care of himself as he should, believing, and in fact, knowing that he would be paid for it if he were hurt. The moment the responsibility is shifted on the employer, the employe becomes careless and does not look out for himself as he should.

The manufacturers of Ohio are used to having the hooks put into them, and in fact any law enacted by the Ohio Legislature would not be fair or right to them.

The writer has been a laboring man all of his life, in fact he has never done anything but work, consequently he has as much feeling toward a laboring man as a politician who never did a day's work in his life. The laboring man should be protected, but he should also be obliged to protect himself.

Yours very truly,

THE SPRAGUE UMBRELLA CO.,

JAS. H. SPRAGUE, President.

APPENDIX XLIV.

EMPLOYES' LIABILITY COMMISSION OF OHIO.

COLUMBUS, OHIO, 1910.

The following letter was sent to the workingmen and women and labor organizations of Ohio:

DEAR SIRS: In accordance with an Act of the last General Assembly this Commission was appointed by the Governor to inquire and report in regard to the subject of the direct compensation law or a law affecting the liability of employers to employes for industrial accidents in this State.

It appears to the Commission that for the purposes of their inquiry, it is important that they should have before them the views of representative associations of workingmen and women, and they believe that you must have experience and information as to the working of the present law, and suggestions for its amendment which will be of value.

The Commission particularly requests that you will make answer in writing to the list of questions attached, and in addition, will be glad to receive from you your observations as to any other matters within the scope of the inquiry.

It is requested that you bring this matter before your organization, if any, and the members thereof.

The Commission requests that your reply be received on or before November 21, 1910.

Respectfully yours,

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION,
By JAS. HARRINGTON BOYD, Chairman,
W. J. ROHR, Secretary.

QUESTIONS FOR EMPLOYES.

1. What is your opinion as to the fairness of the law in this State with regard to liability of employers for accidents to their employes

are your suggestions as to the amendment of the law?

What, if any,

2. What is your opinion of the operation and adequacy of the labor law of this State in relation to the prevention of accidents, and what, if any, are your suggestions for its amendment in that regard?

3. Is the court and jury system for fixing the responsibility for industrial accidents now existing in the State satisfactory in its operation? If you answer no, state why.

4. Are you in favor of a system under which all accidents to employes shall be compensated for without regard to negligence, but under which the compensation paid shall be limited in amount? Please state reasons for your

answer.

5. If you are in favor of such a plan are you of opinion that the expense should be borne by the employer or shared by employer, employe and State?

6. What is your experience as to the value of relief associations of employes?

7. What are the methods and provisions of your local Union, if any, for the care of its injured members?

8. How large a percentage of the expenses of your local Union, if any, per annum, are paid for relief of injured members?

9. Will your furnish to the Commission any statistics as to the number of your members injured in the course of employment and compensation received.

(NOTE. Those answers appearing in full, under the caption of "Letters from Organizations," are not included in the following summary.)

1. What is your opinion as to the fairness of the law in this State with regard to liability of employers for accidents to their employes? What, if any, are your suggestions as to the amendment of the law?

Seventy-three answered in favor of a further strengthening of the present liability laws; six reported that they were satisfied with present liability laws, while seven failed to answer this question.

2. What is your opinion of the operation and adequacy of the labor law of this State in relation to the prevention of accidents, and what, if any, are your suggestions for its amendment in that regard? Seventy-five reported a further desire to strengthen present laws; two re-. ported as being satisfied, while nine failed to answer.

3. Is the court and jury system for fixing the responsibility for industrial accidents now existing in the State satisfactory in its operation? If you answer no, state why.

Fifty-ûve reported as being opposed to the court, but in favor of a jury system; 21 reported as being opposed to the court and jury system; seven answered that they were satisfied with the present system, while three failed to

answer.

4. Are you in favor of a system under which all accidents to employes shall be compensated for without regard to negligence, but under which the compensation paid shall be limited in amount? Please state reasons for your answer.

Seventy-two answered in favor of a workmen's compensation act; one as opposed to a workmen's compensation act, and thirteen failed to answer.

5. If you are in favor of such a plan are you of opinion that the expense should be borne by the employer or shared by employer, employe and State?

Seventy-two reported in favor of such a plan, and that the entire expense be borne by the industry; three answered to the effect that the industry, State and employe share the burden; five that the industry and State act in the matter, and six failed to answer.

6. What is your experience as to the value of relief associations of employes?

Sixty-three answers were opposed to voluntary relief associations in any form; three were in favor of such schemes, while 20 failed to answer.

In this connection it may be said that quite a number of replies were received which had no direct bearing upon the question.

LETTERS FROM EMPLOYES.

SUB-DISTRICT NO. 2 OF DISTRICT NO. 6, UNITED MINE WORKERS
OF AMERICA.

WELLSTON, OHIO, December 15, 1910.

Employers' Liability Commission of Ohio.

DEAR SIRS: Delegates to the 20th annual convention of Sub-District No. 2, of District No. 6, United Mine Workers of America, in session at Wellston, Ohio, on December 14th, 1910, adopted replies to the questions sent to the labor unions of the State by your commission some time since. While the time has passed in which you requested replies to be in, we hope you will give this communication your careful consideration.

Question 1. Answer. Very good, as far as it goes. No one can question the absolute fairness of the Employers' Liability Law in Ohio as it applies to railroad employes, because it seeks to place the burden for the loss of human life and limb upon those who receive profit from the railroad industry. if any changes are contemplated in the Norris Bill they should be to strengthen and broaden it, so that employes in the hazardous trades will have the same rights as railroad employes, and this can be done only by entirely removing the burden of the fellow servant, assumed risk and contributory negligence rules. No employers' liability law will ever be fair and just until it takes the burden from the backs of the widows, cripples, and the orphans, and places it upon the industry where it belongs.

Question 2. Answer. Totally inadequate, because much of the legislation now on the books is not in force and never will be until a fine and a workhouse sentence are added to the first offense. Any employer who deliberately violates the laws made to protect human life is the kind of a lawbreaker who should be put in jail, and that is the only way to compel respect for life-saving laws.

Question 3. Answer. Yes, as to the jury system, but the court system is not satisfactory, in that the present law permits judges to usurp the function of the jury, in taking cases from their consideration and entering a judgment for the defendant. We demand that the degree to which the injured may have been responsible be left to the judgment of his peers and not to the determination of the judge, who in many cases is prejudiced, technical and inclined too much to precedent. We further insist that personal injury cases be given precedent on all civil court dockets. The delay incident to such cases works an irreparable injury on the plaintiff.

Question 4. Answer. Yes, we are thoroughly in favor of a just system of workingmen's compensation that will result in placing in the hands of the widow and the cripple one hundred cents on the dollar, and not one-half or less than one-half, as is now the case under the law-suit system. But we are unqualifiedly opposed to any plan that does not give the widow or cripple the right to elect whether to accept a compensation provided by a Workingmen's Compensation Act or rely upon the rights extended under the Employers' Liability Act now on the statute books.

First. No sane person intentionally gets injured or killed, and in 999 cases out of 1,000 the injuries or deaths can be directly charged to commercial and corporation greed, and the killing pace at which modern day industry is carried

on.

Second. Because every civilized country in the world except the United States has a Workingmen's Compensation Law, by which the cost of accidents in industry is paid in full to the injured man, and is not frittered away by expensive litigation. New York state has just adopted this system. A recent journal of national repute says that while New York is now in advance of any cther State, it is only about as humane as Turkey.

Question 5. Answer. In the practical operation of a Workingmen's Compensation Law, the expense is never borne by the employe. It is borne by the industry. Therefore the industry should bear this burden, and no part of it should be placed upon the employe or the State.

Question 6. Answer. Relief associations conducted by the employes are generally satisfactory, but when conducted or dominated by the employers, they are invariably mere schemes for securing cheap releases from widows and orphans, and thus defrauding them of their legal rights. It is safe to say that the operation of relief associations by employers in the State of Ohio in the last ten years has resulted in cheating widows and cripples out of hundreds of thousands of dollars that they were legally entitled to.

WM. FENNELL, JR., Sec'y.

TIFFIN, OHIO, November 1, 1910.

Following are the answers adopted by Local Union 243 Carpenters and Joiners of America, at a regular meeting held November 1, 1910, to the questions submitted by the Employers' Liability Commission of Ohio:

Question 1. Answer - The Employers' Liability Law in Ohio, as it applies to railroad employes is very good, because it seeks to place the loss of human life and limb upon those that receive profit from that industry.

We think that the law should be amended so as to include employes of other hazardous trades, as having the same rights. No Employers' Liability Law will ever be just until it takes the burden from the back of the widows, cripples, and orphans, and places it upon the industry where it belongs.

Question 2. Answer - The laws are inadequate from the fact that they are not in force, and never will be until a fine and workhouse sentence, for the first offense, any employer who violates the laws made to protect human life, is the lawbreaker who should be put to jail, which would compel respect for life saving laws.

Question 3. Answer Yes the jury system is satisfactory, but the court system under the present law permits judges to usurp the functions of the jury in taking cases from their consideration and entering a judgment for the defendant. We demand that the degree to which the injured may have been responsible be left to the judgment of the jury, and not to the judge who may in some instances be prejudiced. We further demand that personal injury cases be given precedent on the civil court dockets in fairness to the plaintiff.

Question 4. Answer - Yes, we favor a just system of workingmen's compensation that will place in the hands of the widow or cripple one hundred cents on the dollar, and not one-half or less as under the present law suit system, but we are opposed to any plan that does not give the widow or cripple the right to decide whether to accept a compensation provided by a workingmen's compensation act or rely upon the rights extended under the employers' liability act now on the statutes.

First If any person intentionally gets injured or killed, in 999 cases out of 1,000, the injuries or death can be directly charged to commercial and corporation greed.

Second Because every civilized country in the world except the United