The above is the merest sketch, hardly even a sketch in outline, of the
reforms for which we should work. But there is one matter with which
the Congress should deal at this session. There should no longer be any
paltering with the question of taking care of the wage-workers who,
under our present industrial system, become killed, crippled, or worn
out as part of the regular incidents of a given business. The majority
of wageworkers must have their rights secured for them by State action;
but the National Government should legislate in thoroughgoing and
far-reaching fashion not only for all employees of the National
Government, but for all persons engaged in interstate commerce. The
object sought for could be achieved to a measurable degree, as far as
those killed or crippled are concerned, by proper employers' liability
laws. As far as concerns those who have been worn out, I call your
attention to the fact that definite steps toward providing old-age
pensions have been taken in many of our private industries. These may
be indefinitely extended through voluntary association and contributory
schemes, or through the agency of savings banks, as under the recent
Massachusetts plan. To strengthen these practical measures should be
our immediate duty; it is not at present necessary to consider the
larger and more general governmental schemes that most European
governments have found themselves obliged to adopt.
Our present system, or rather no system, works dreadful wrong, and is
of benefit to only one class of people--the lawyers. When a workman is
injured what he needs is not an expensive and doubtful lawsuit, but the
certainty of relief through immediate administrative action. The number
of accidents which result in the death or crippling of wageworkers, in
the Union at large, is simply appalling; in a very few years it runs up
a total far in excess of the aggregate of the dead and wounded in any
modern war. No academic theory about "freedom of contract" or
"constitutional liberty to contract" should be permitted to interfere
with this and similar movements. Progress in civilization has
everywhere meant a limitation and regulation of contract. I call your
especial attention to the bulletin of the Bureau of Labor which gives a
statement of the methods of treating the unemployed in European
countries, as this is a subject which in Germany, for instance, is
treated in connection with making provision for worn-out and crippled
workmen.
Pending a thoroughgoing investigation and action there is certain
legislation which should be enacted at once. The law, passed at the
last session of the Congress, granting compensation to certain classes
of employees of the Government, should be extended to include all
employees of the Government and should be made more liberal in its
terms. There is no good ground for the distinction made in the law
between those engaged in hazardous occupations and those not so
engaged. If a man is injured or killed in any line of work, it was
hazardous in his case. Whether 1 per cent or 10 per cent of those
following a given occupation actually suffer injury or death ought not
to have any bearing on the question of their receiving compensation. It
is a grim logic which says to an injured employee or to the dependents
of one killed that he or they are entitled to no compensation because
very few people other than he have been injured or killed in that
occupation. Perhaps one of the most striking omissions in the law is
that it does not embrace peace officers and others whose lives may be
sacrificed in enforcing the laws of the United States. The terms of the
act providing compensation should be made more liberal than in the
present act. A year's compensation is not adequate for a wage-earner's
family in the event of his death by accident in the course of his
employment. And in the event of death occurring, say, ten or eleven
months after the accident, the family would only receive as
compensation the equivalent of one or two months' earnings. In this
respect the generosity of the United States towards its employees
compares most unfavorably with that of every country in Europe--even
the poorest.
The terms of the act are also a hardship in prohibiting payment in
cases where the accident is in any way due to the negligence of the
employee. It is inevitable that daily familiarity with danger will lead
men to take chances that can be construed into negligence. So well is
this recognized that in practically all countries in the civilized
world, except the United States, only a great degree of negligence acts
as a bar to securing compensation. Probably in no other respect is our
legislation, both State and National, so far behind practically the
entire civilized world as in the matter of liability and compensation
for accidents in industry. It is humiliating that at European
international congresses on accidents the United States should be
singled out as the most belated among the nations in respect to
employers' liability legislation. This Government is itself a large
employer of labor, and in its dealings with its employees it should set
a standard in this country which would place it on a par with the most
progressive countries in Europe. The laws of the United States in this
respect and the laws of European countries have been summarized in a
recent Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor, and no American who reads this
summary can fail to be struck by the great contrast between our
practices and theirs--a contrast not in any sense to our credit.
The Congress should without further delay pass a model employers'
liability law for the District of Columbia. The employers' liability
act recently declared unconstitutional, on account of apparently
including in its provisions employees engaged in intrastate commerce as
well as those engaged in interstate commerce, has been held by the
local courts to be still in effect so far as its provisions apply to
District of Columbia. There should be no ambiguity on this point. If
there is any doubt on the subject, the law should be reenacted with
special reference to the District of Columbia. This act, however,
applies only to employees of common carriers. In all other occupations
the liability law of the District is the old common law. The severity
and injustice of the common law in this matter has been in some degree
or another modified in the majority of our States, and the only
jurisdiction under the exclusive control of the Congress should be
ahead and not behind the States of the Union in this respect. A
comprehensive employers' liability law should be passed for the
District of Columbia.
I renew my recommendation made in a previous message that half-holidays
be granted during summer to all wageworkers in Government employ.
I also renew my recommendation that the principle of the eight-hour day
should as rapidly and as far as practicable be extended to the entire
work being carried on by the Government; the present law should be
amended to embrace contracts on those public works which the present
wording of the act seems to exclude.