Governor WoodGOVERNOR WILSON ON THE row Wilson, in DEMOCRATIC FAITH his address at the National League of Democratic Clubs, in Indianapolis, on the 13th of April, did more than define the objects and describe the spirit of the Democratic party; he defined the object and described the spirit of that large body of men who are both in the Republican and Democratic parties, and who are interested in the present campaign to bring the special interests under the dominion of law, or, to state it still more briefly, to make plutocracy subservient to democracy. Special privilege has its supporters in both political parties, and the strife to-day is not between the Republican and Democratic organizations, but in both organizations between the people and special privilege.

"By privilege," says Dr. Wilson, now fight it, we mean control of the law, of legislation, and of adjudication, by organizations which do not represent the people, by means which are private and selfish and worthy of all condemnation. We mean

...

the exploitation of the people by legal and political means. We are not attacking men, we are attacking a system. The men are, most of them, honest. The great majority of them believe that in serving their own they are serving the interests of the country at large. Their conception of prosperity is that it will best proceed and gather under their management. They are willing, indeed they are anxious, that the people should share in it, but it must originate with them and be under their experienced control. They stand at the wrong point of view; they seek their objects, not by public argument, but by private management and arrangement; by influence, not by open political

process.

To this admirable definition of the issue involved, Dr. Wilson adds a clear-cut statement of one of the means most potent in promoting the special interests. Legislation is not conducted in the open, but

framed, digested, and concluded in committee-rooms, so that the people never learn what the proposed legislation means until it has been enacted and comes to adjudication in the courts; and he cites as a striking illustration both of this method of operation and its results "the outrageous Payne-Aldrich tariff law." He also lays stress on the fact that entirely illegitimate extensions have been made of the idea of private property for the benefit of modern corporations and trusts, and he exposes what appears to us to be the fundamental error in a certain class of judicial decisions in this pregnant sentence: "A modern joint stock corporation cannot in any proper sense be said to base its rights and powers upon the principles of private property. Its powers are wholly derived from legislation." In his definition of the objects of the Democratic party he has, with characteristic courage, thrown down his challenge to political and financial forces which are very powerful in the Democratic party. We shall look with great interest to see how far his definition is accepted by the party organization.

A CHARGE OF WHOLESALE MURDER

William J. Burns is a detective of extraordinary acuteness and patience. He has become known the country over because of his successful work in the San Francisco graft cases, in the land claims frauds, and in arresting and procuring the conviction of dangerous counterfeiters, so that the story of his exploits as it has lately been told in "McClure's Magazine " is full of the interest that attaches to things that are both strange and true. Last week he brought about the arrest at Detroit and Indianapolis of three men charged with being involved

1

By

in the destruction of the Los Angeles "Times " building in October, 1910. that explosion many men were killed outright and others injured, while on the same night bombs were found at the homes of the publisher of the "Times" (General Otis) and the Secretary of the Merchants and Manufacturers' Association. A bitter warfare had existed between the "Times" and the Los Angeles labor unions, and the "Times" has always asserted confidently that the explosion was the work of labor leaders or their sympathizers. Mr. Burns declares that he has proof that the three men now arrested (John J. McNamara, Secretary of the International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, his brother, James B. McNamara, and Ortie McManigal) were not only directly concerned in the Los Angeles outrage but in other dynamite explosions in various parts of the country. McManigal is reported to have made a confession involving the others arrested, and also two men, M. A. Schmidt and David Kaplan, who have at this writing escaped arrest. McManigal told of the storing of dynamite in Tiffin, Ohio, and in Indianapolis, and it was found in the spots indicated. The three men have been taken to Los Angeles on requisitions from the Governor of California. Out of the arrest in Indiana of J. J. McNamara a charge of "kidnapping or illegal action has arisen. Mr. Burns, Mr. Ford (the Los Angeles assistant prosecuting attorney), and others were arrested in Indianapolis on the assertion that McNamara was not given a chance to procure counsel and take out habeas corpus writs, and that the police justice before whom McNamara was taken acted without jurisdiction. The resemblance of the case in some points to the Hayward and Moyer prosecutions in Idaho has been noticed, and Mr. Moyer, who is President of the Western Federation of Miners, says: "The arrest of McNamara shows on its face that it was a frame-up. He was treated exactly as we were. He was not given a single show either by the Governor of Indiana or the courts of Marion County." On the other hand, Mr. Burns, in an authorized interview, says:

I do not believe that organized labor stands for murder, and I believe that when

the whole story is laid bare every big labor leader in the country will renounce and denounce these fellows, for I do not for a moment believe that any labor officials higher up than are these men were cognizant of what was going on. McNamara, the brains of the band, had worked himself to a pitch where he believed any course justifiable in upholding the principles he advocated, and I charge that this same gang is responsible for similar outrages in all parts of the country. McManigal is said to have confessed that the gang of which he was one carried on a regular business of dynamiting, and caused explosions which cost 112 lives and destroyed $3,500,000 worth of property. The Indianapolis Grand Jury has been investigating the records and accounts of the International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers to discover what sums were paid out by J. J. McNamara, and for what purpose. It need not be pointed out that it is impossible to reach just conclusions about these arrests and charges until the evidence is presented in orderly and complete form, and that the accused are entitled to a suspension of public judgment until their defense has been heard. In the "kidnapping

kidnapping" charges the questions involved are purely legal, and it is equally unfair for the public to assume any wrong-doing or illegality until the courts have passed upon the points raised. As in the Idaho cases, the charges of crime and conspiracy are astounding in their extent; if they are susceptible of proof, they will unite to form one of the blackest chapters of murder in history. As yet the people have only fragmentary and disconnected statements to go on, but it is clear that the most searching inquiry into all the circumstances will be demanded. In his editorial on another page Mr. Roosevelt expresses not only his own views, but also the views of The Outlook

and, we add, those of all right-thinking · Americans on the present chief aspect of this case.

out policies in accident insurance companies. Of course at present employers do that, as a rule, in order to avoid losses that might come through heavy damages that are always possible in liability cases. As

66

a consequence of the passage of the Com-pensation Act in the State of New York, the accident rates were raised. In commenting upon the nullification of this Act by the Court of Appeals, The Outlook stated that this measure met the approval of everybody except a few employers, a class of not highly esteemed lawyers, and certain accident insurance companies." The President of the Travelers Insurance Company, of Hartford, Connecticut, Mr. Sylvester C. Dunham, writes to us a letter in which he says: "Believing that you have mistaken the attitude of the insurance companies, I wish to bring to your attention the fact that no responsible company, so far as I know, advocates the continuation of the old method of paying for occupational injuries, which is obsolete and wasteful." This statement by the President of one of the great insurance companies of the country is of great importance, for it is testimony from a witness whose practical experience in the matter is wide. Mr. Dunham, in an address a copy of which he has sent us, points out one of the elements of wastefulness in the old liability system that is commonly overlooked.

He says:

"The courts more than one-half the time are engaged in settling controversies between employer and employed. In New York sixty per cent of the suits at law are negligence cases, and probably fifty per cent of all the money paid for conducting the courts of the country is consumed by cases of that character. It is an enormous waste, to which employers, employees, and the public contribute about equally, and under a well-devised plan of compensation all these sums might go to the injured persons and those dependent upon them." At the time of delivering this address Mr. Dunham further pointed out, in answer to questions, that there was "little room for doubt that one effect of a workmen's compensation law would be to further increase the adoption of safety devices by employers." This testimony by the head of an accident insurance company is particularly significant when it is

remembered that the judges of the Court of Appeals in New York nullified the Compensation Act largely on the ground that it would not promote the safety or wellbeing of the people! Mr. Dunham, moreover, in the course of his letter, points out that the injustice of the old liability method is not only not avoided by merely taking away the old common-law defenses, but is actually enhanced through the consequent multiplying of lawsuits. We wish to emphasize Mr. Dunham's contention that strict liability laws should always be accompanied by measures limiting the amounts of compensation. The failure of the insurance companies to support the New York law was, Mr. Dunham explains, because they felt that it was inadequate and that its validity was questionable. Mr. Dunham cites as a law based upon a uniform and just theory of compensation the Compensation Act recently passed by the Legislature of New Hampshire. The principle of this law embodies the optional system embodied in the New Jersey law, which The Outlook has already described. Of this New Hampshire law we shall have something further to say at another time.

Of all forms of waste, the least excusable, as well as the most calamitous, is the waste of human life. And human life is wasted, not only by death, but also by those other causes which impair or destroy the usefulness of life. A prolific source of waste in human life is provided by industrial accidents. With this there are two questions : first, how shall they be diminished in number? second, how will their evil results be most fairly distributed? In the old days, when labor was individual, and the relations between man and man in a measure were very direct, it was fairly just that each man should bear the burden of any accident that brought him injury, unless it was clearly due to his employer's fault. That, however, is very far from being just to-day. In the very great majority of cases the man who suffers from an industrial accident at present is like the soldier who receives a wound in battle. He is disabled either because of a general defect over which he has no control, or as a consequence of one of the inevitable

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
AND THE WORKMAN