NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1015, 3 January 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The Workers' Compensation for Amendments Act has come in for a good deal of criticism in England recently, and on various grounds. Yesterday a cable message from London stated. that The Times, in commenting on the Bolton collicry disaster, expressed the view that the Act had produced a multiplication of certain classes of accidents and tended to foster carelessness. Tho Pall Mall Gazette, it was also stated, had estimated that the claims under tho Act arising out of the Bolton disaster would total at least £60,000, and the paper adversely criticised a'public appeal for funds for the sufferer's. Presumably tho Gazette considered that tho relatives of the victims would be quite well provided for by the provisions df tho Act. According to latest English files there has been quite a flood of litigation under the Act and some of the cases that have been dealt with arc both curious and interesting. For instance, a recent action, Kealino v. the New Monckton Collieries, Ltd., a widow's claim on account of the death of her husband killed in a collicry accident disclosed, how farreaching the liabilities of employers really are. It appears that some 22 years ago tho plaintiff loft her hus-

band because of his cruelty, taking her four children with her. There was no formal' separation releasing the husband from his liability to support her, but during the 22 years up to the time of his death, he had not paid a single penny towards her support. She kept herself, raising some assistance from her own parents with whom her children lived until t-hcy.jjrew up.. On her husband's death in a colliery, accident she claimed that she was partially dependent on his earnings within tho meaning of the Work.men's Compensation Act, and ob- J

tained an award of £263 as com-, psnsation. Appeal was made to the Higher Court, but the award was uphold. The Master of the Rolls' certainly referred to the want of uniformity in some of the decisions given in those cases. The reasoning upon which the decision in this case was based is stated as follows: "There is a legal presumption of fact that a wife is dependent upon her husband. It is not a conclusive presumption, but it is not rebutted by proof that tho husband dosei-ted her, or was contributing nothing at tho timo of his death, or that the wile was maintained by her relatives, or by her own efforts, or in tho workhouse. It would, indeed, appear that something amounting to a release of his liability by the wife must be forthcoming. By tho death of her husband, tho widow was deprived of nny further opportunity of compelling him to contribute to her support." No doubt most people will sympathise with tho widow in • such circumstances, and be very pleased to think that she at. least derived some benefit from her husband's death, even if she had received nothing from him. during the 22 years since she had left him. But the case serves to' show how the liability clings to tho employer and the extent to which he is compelled to provide for his workmen and their families.'

In connection with the attitude of the Pall Mall Gazette in adversely criticising a public appeal for relief funds for the sufferers by the Bolton colliery disaster on the ground that they are already, well provided' for under tho Workers' Compensation Act, it is worth noting that this is merely one of many signs of tho effects of recent legislation.. It was inevitable, no doubt, that the imposition of fresh liabilities on employers should lead to some curtailment of expenditure on their part in the way of voluntary donations; just as the piling up of class taxation is said to■ be : closing the founts of private charity. Liberty and .Progress, 'an' Australian journal, "published in the interests of - the commercial, manufacturing, trading, producing, and home-Own-ing sections ,of. tho Commonwealth." in its last issue, commented on this latter aspect of things, "From statements appearing in.'.the..public press," the journal mentioned states, "it seems that, many public institutions arc missing their accustomed annual donations from, landowners, owing to tho extensive preparations the- latter are making to enable them to part with the lion's share of their incopo to the Federal Taxation Department. At this action there is naturally a howl of rage from tho supporters of tho. idea that it is not robbery to appropriate a large part, or even the whole, of a landowner's income. To meet their view of the situation, a landowner, when his cloak is taken away from him, ought to offer his ooat also." After dealing somewhat caustically with those who, in face of penal taxation, expect landowners to denudo themselves for.'charitable purposes, Liberty and Progress continues in tho following strain:;

It is evident that' many channels through which surplus wealth from the laud used to flow, doing a great deal of good by the, way, will now oo dried up. Many useful. bodies will suffer accordingly. As for the money ■ itself, it will bo ■more or less wasted by tho Government. There, aro. strong points about excessivo and oppressive taxation which appeal to many. It is, for instance, tho only we spoil which "the have-nots". can' use against tho "haves." But .'though.- they gratify their spite, their action does hnrin in many unexpected ways. Historical writers have often demonstrated that taxation is i dangerous: weapon " to"- wield. Ordinary taxation can always bo imposed without causing economic disturbances, but oneo it extends beyond tho point of moderation, and in tho direction of tho confiscation of much of a man's wealth, it produces ill-effects which extend far' beyond tho individual immediately concerned in its payment. We wonder what our Australian contemporary would think -of the confiscatory clauses of the New Zealand Government's Land Bill of last session 2. We refer, of .course, to the new compulsory leasing scheme which, as introduced, was the most barefaced -attempt at confiscation ever brought down by any Government in the British Dominions. Even those who recognised that the South African team of cricketers had all tho worst of, the luck in the first test match against the Australian eleven will probably be greatly surprised at the splendid stand that is being made by tho visiting team in the second game. The score recorded by_ the Australian eleven, 348 runs, is a good one, and no doubt the supporters of the Commonwealth representatives although,, perhaps, after the first display, cxpcctirig move, were well content. Tho. South Africans, however, have already exceeded that _ fo'r a loss of only five wickbts. While this was . mainly duo to the. magnificent effort of Faulkner, there is a reasonable prospect 'of a fairly' substantial addition to the total ere the innings is brought to a close, and, as' the Australians usually can be relied on to play a good uphill game, an interesting, and possibly exciting-.finish may be seen.