Vol. XV.

I

N speaking of the trend of recent English labor legislation before an audience of business and professional men at the City Club of Chicago recently, Mr. G. Croydon Marks, of the English House of Commons, explained particularly the workmen's compensation act, which in Great Britain now replaces the antiquated fellow-servant doctrine, and provides that employers shall be liable for injuries received by their workmen and likewise for disease contracted in the course of employment. Mr. Marks said in part:

"Labor and capital, and the interests in association with labor and capital are not national questions any longer; they are international. The difficulties that we. have been through and the troubles that we have tried to meet, you will have to go through, and you will have to meet.

You have to remember, as we have had to remember, and take account of thisthat a workman has but one thing to offer; he has his physical powers, associated with that which belongs to his mind. But if you take away his physical powers you have taken away his use to the community, you have taken away his capacity for being

any good to anybody, and he becomes a charge upon the community sooner or later. That has to be recognized in the poor law system of every land, because it is a part of the tenets of every civilized country that no person shall be allowed to starve.

There is no such thing as individual liberty in a civilized community; there can not be entire liberty in a civilized community, or somebody would suffer. Liberty must be restrained for the good of the average citizen. A man may be impelled by certain motiyes which would inflict injury upon others unless he were restrained. He may be desirous of doing certain things perfectly lawful in themselves, but not expedient that they should be done in the society in which he lives, and therefore society says that although that which he proposes to do is not a crime, it is not expedient that he should do it, and laws have been passed to prevent him from doing those things.

Responsibility of Employers.

That brings me to the point at oncethe responsibility that capital has and the responsibility that employers have for the

physical powers of those whom they employ, and those whom they pay for. There are certain bisks in everything you put your hand to; but you provide for it.

You

can not build a house, fireproof though it be, next door to another man's house, without running the risk that his house may burn yours down, or burn you, or do some injury. You therefore insure against that risk, if you are a wise man. You look upon it as part of the stock-in-trade expense that you must meet. You can not cross the street, you can not take a journey without running the risk that possibly you may be inconvenienced or injured by the act of another, or you may by accident injure yourself; and you provide for that risk by insuring.

We in England have come to this conclusion: That no man can be engaged by another for salary or for wage without the risk of his life being put upon the person that pays the wage. We have come to the conclusion that a man must insure the risk of injury to the physical powers of those whom he pays, just as much as he insures the risk of his house burning, or the risk of accident happening to himself.

Now, that is a strong order; that is a big theory, but look at it! If you lose your money as manufacturers you can possibly bide your time and get more. If your man loses his health he has no time to bide, he is done. You can recover, but he can not. Therefore the law has said: 'Whoever employs a man for his own profit or advantage must, if the man is injured while in his employment or in the course of his employment, provide for the man precisely as though he himself were the man.' That is, if a man is injured accidentally or in some way due to the business that he is doing, the law now says it does not matter how the injury comes about; it does not matter whether or not it was due to the carelessness of somebody else.. provided it was not due to the man's carelessness, and provided it was not his work, the master must pay compensation after the first week.

The first week is necessary to prevent malingering, to prevent shamming. A man may hurt himself; after the first week it is found out whether it is serious or not and then he gets his pay. The pay that he gets is just one-half the average pay that he might earn, provided that sum shall not be less than 1 (about $5) per week. If the

man receives a permanent injury, or one that may last for years, that £1 per week will continue for years. If an injured man gets better and may take other employment, the difference between that which he gets and the £1 per week must be made up by the employer with whom he was when injured.

This money can not be attached; no debt is chargeable against it; it can not be assigned, and payment must continue, with this chance for the employer to check what might be malingering, and to check what might be a tendency to laziness; the employer can subject the man to an examination by medical men and if the man refuses to be so examined then no further compen sation will be paid him. If the medical man certifies on behalf of the employer that the man is fit to return to work and the workman dissents, then another medical man authorized by the local government board, an intelligent medical man, will make the examination and his decision will be final. The man may be told to go back, or the employer may be told to continue to pay him.

Liability Law of Great Britain.

If a man is killed outright the amount of money to be paid to his dependents is three years' wages, no matter whether he may have been employed one week by the employer or 20 years. If killed during the course of his employment three years' wages must be paid, figured on his average earnings during the past 12 months, or at the time of his death. But the minimum that shall be thus paid is 150. A man's life, therefore, is fixed at a minimum of £150. It may be that he would not have been earning £50 per year, but three times that sum is the minimum to be paid to his dependents.

If, however, the dependents are not solely dependent upon the man, but only partially, the extent of the dependence will determine the extent of the payment-that is, if it is only half, then only half the 150 will be payable. If there is no dependent then that which has to be done is to meet the funeral expenses. Nothing paid if no one dependent; everything paid if they are solely dependent; partially paid if partially dependent.

Now, there is no way of 'contracting out.' A master may suggest to a man when coming into his employment, 'Now, this

workmen's compensation act is pretty bad on us, and if you come you must sign a paper that you do not intend to make any claim.' The man may sign the paper, but it is ultra vires, of no account. The law says distinctly that contracting out is not provided for, and any contract that may have been entered into and that takes away from the man or those dependents his right to compensation can not be entertained by a

court.

If, however, there is an actual scheme whereby the employers suggest to the men: Now, you are earning 30 shillings a week; if you are injured the most you will get will be £1 per week; if you like to pay so much a month, we will contribute so much a month, and this scheme will be for your benefit;' the man may enter into such a scheme if he does so perfectly voluntarily. But no scheme can be put in force that is not approved by the registrar of our friendly societies, a government official; and no scheme can be entertained that does not make the benefits to the man greater than the 1 compulsory amount. That is, what the man pays must bring him an extra, and not serve to relieve the master of of his responsibility. Shop clubs may exist so as to help the men; shop clubs can not exist to relieve the employer.

If a man joined any such scheme he would be bound by it and must contribute. He can, however, withdraw at any time. The master can withdraw, too. But whatever happens, contract or no contract, the law has made a contract that requires no adherence upon the part of the man, and no sanction on the part of the employer. Ipse facto, if you employ a man, his life is in your hands, and you are responsible.

You have to recognize, gentlemen, one thing very clearly, that so long as a civilized society depends upon an elective representative body to make its laws, so long have you got to take a chance, and a very big chance, too, that a passing passion, a sweeping movement may carry men off their heads and may make them act not as men but as excited enthusiasts and as irresponsible beings. These things happen when a man thinks everything is going toward those who have and nothing is coming to those who have not. We have a little Socialist movement going on in England today, but not much. The reason that it is not much is that the trades unions

of England, the men representing the trades unions in parliament, are men absolutely against the Socialistic move

ment.

Cultivation of Good Feeling Between Employers and Workmen.

to

If you do not educate your men having some kind of good feeling toward you, if you do not recognize that they are human beings as much as yourselves, although employed by you, and taking your money and dependent upon you, the time will come when their unthinking votes will be caught by some claptrap orator who will make them do things that would set the country afire and check everything that you call good. You must lay hold of the men while they are reasonable if you want them to act in an emergency. You can not educate a country up during a sweeping election. Men's opinions will be formed before that day if they have any opinions at all. But the great difficulty lies with the man on the outside, who does not belong to one or the other party, but is the wabbler, whom you can get on the one side or the other; and that great unthinking mass controls the government of the country. It is an extraordinary thing to say, but it is absolutely true: Men do not turn over in England from being Liberals one time and Conservatives another. But the mighty body of men who do not think very much at all, these men can be swayed and brought to bear by the passing sensation of the hour. If you take those men— not at the passing sensation of the hourand treat them properly in their works, treat them properly as individuals, treat them, not as so many hands, but as so many human beings in your employ, you will make your country better as we are making our country better.

The country will be held and must be held by the people that haven't money. The people that govern the country are not you rich men. It is the great mass of voters that govern the country. Therefore, it will pay you, putting it on the lowest platform, to get the men on your side. You can only get them on your side by treating them fairly not by an occasional 'bean fest' as we call it in England, a kind of a feast holiday-not by giving a tea party now and then; that is cheap. Give them your good will all the way through; know your men