The Evening Post. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30,1898. WORKERS AND ACCIDENTS.

Evening Post, Volume LVI, Issue 79, 30 September 1898, Page 4

The Evening Post. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30,1898. WORKERS AND ACCIDENTS.

The Workers' Compensation for Accidents Bill parsed its second reading in tho Legislative Council yesterday, after a careful discussion that showed the Upper House to be fully cognisant of its importance. The ablest contribution to the dobate was made by tho Hon. Mr. MacGregor, who went to the root of the matter by explaining that the Bill introduced a new aud even revolutionary principle into our law regarding the relations of employers and workers. Hitherto an injured worker has been able to obtain compensation from his employer only when something in the nature of negligence could be proved against the employer, his superintendent, his overseer, or some other responsible employe*. A modified form of the doctrine of "common employment" has existed iv the colony even since the passing of the Employers' Liability Act Amendment Act of 1892, and "contributory negligence" has up to the present been held iv law to bar all claims to compensation. Thus, however much may have been done to increase the responsibility of an employer for the life and limb of his workman, and to impress upon him the absolute necessity of takiug all reasonable safeguards against mishaps, it has, generally speaking, been an essential feature of our legislation that the employer was not liable in cases of what are commonly termed mere accident, nor in cases where the injury was brought about through any carelessness on the part of the workman. Iv order to recover compensation the victim of an accident has therefore been obliged to prove some defect in ways, works, machinery, or plant, or some default on the part of employer or overseer. The decision in the Bruuner case was founded on a special piece of legislation, that could not be said to have directly contravened the general rule that, without some default on his own part or the part of his accredited agent, the employer was not liable for the damage done by accidents. The Workmen's Compensation Act of last year introduced into the law of the United Kingdom an entirely novel principle. It is true that it did not apply that principle universally in the industrial sphere, but selected for its operation certain of the more dangerous trades, in which accidents were found to occur with comparative frequency. Still it did introduce the principlo, and soma of the prominent supporters of the measure hinted that if the experiment proved successful the area of operations would be extended. The principle in question is one in full accordance with the humane spirit of the age, and is the inevitable outcome of the changed views of industrial relationship that are now growing up among all classes of society. Briefly stated, it is that the worker who suffers injury in the course of his work at any trade shall receive adequate compensation from that trade, instead of being abandoned as a sort of human derelict to the tender mercies of private charity and official benevolence. Under the present industrial system' the control of industries is individualistic— that is to say, in the hands of yi«m-independent employers. In order, thurefore, that the wage-earner, whose only stake in the industry is his skill, should be assured of due " compensation from his trade in the event of an accident, the liability has to be thrown upon the employers— the governing class of the industry in question. This is the principle laid down iv tho English Act, and .it appeals doubly to our souse of justice. Not only does it seem right that injury received while working at a trade should bo reason for compensation out of that trade's profit.*, but, further, laying responsibility on tho shoulders of those who control the industry would increase the precautions against accidents. The measure, thurefore, may bo looked upon as one not only for tho coinijeuMition of injured

worker. 1 ;, but also for the better prevention of accidents. As hns been explained in these columns before, tho Imperial Act consistently adheres to the principle euunciated above, and, though its scope is somewhat narrow, it is logical and consistent in its insistauce upon accidents being made a charge upon the inrlußtiry in which they occur. So far as the Bill before Parliament carries out this fundamental idea, we have no cause of quarrel with it. It marks a step forward i in the evolution of an industrial cosmos out i of the lawless uncertainties of commercial chaos. For a short time, it is true, it might 1 lead to a certain amount of hardship in the , case of individual employers and even of individual workmen. An illustration of ' Una is alforded by a discussion that occurred [ last month at a meeting of the Yorkshire ■ Miners' Association. It appears that owing ' to tho Workmen's Compensation Act several old miners have, been discharged, and their . grievances came up for tho consideration of ■ the Association, which recommended that a | scheme should bo arranged for providing old age pensions. This item of news not only shows tho temporary dislocation that must r arise from even the best of Labour Hills, but 1 also makes evident tho essential interdependence of the various schemes of social reform, and the need there consequently is for treading cautiously, and keeping throughout a broad statesmanlike grasp of the problems to be solved. In spite, however, of passing inconveniences from the Compensation Act, its ultimate effect should bo for the advantage of national industry. The burden must gradually adjust itself to the broad back of the community after it has been passed on from employers to wageoarners, and from the lalt&r to the general 'public that uses the proilucls of the industry. The enforcement of compensation mall cases of accident not due to wilful error on the part of the worker will also tfive. a security to the wage-earning classes that has long been wanting. The more tho asperities of "chance" can be toned down in individual cases the greater must be the efficiency of the whole industrial machine. Unfortunately the Government measure, as we have pointed out on a previous occasion, departs from the principle of the Imperial Act in its endeavours to secure greater certainty for the worker, and inasmuch as it does so, especially in respect of going behind mortgages (clause 17), it introduces a feature that must be hotly contested, and would probably imperil the effectiveness of the measure if passed. The conception of the Bill is good, and should be carried out in the cause of humanity; but the Bill itself needs the most careful revision, and should be looked upon with grave suspicion wherever it does more than extend the area of operation of the Imperial Aofc. The already notorious clause 17 should be radically amended at all events, and we would earnestly ask those legislators who call themselves the friends of the workers to pause before thay jeopardise such an excellent measure by such an abortive addition.