sure that this is not another case of " something for nothing" wherein disappointments are not unusual.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

It is not fair to say that railway companies are at fault in all of the accidents that result in death or injury of railway workmen. Dangers beset the workman in railway-train service at almost every moment of his employment, and with every precaution and the adoption of every safety device by railway companies, deaths and injuries will continue. But the number of deaths and injuries can be reduced at least one-half by the expenditure of sufficient money by railway companies. To me it appears just as practical and just as fair for the employer to charge this expense to the consumer as it will be to so charge expenses arising out of a workmen's compensation scheme. The same amount of money expended per year in safety devices as is proposed to be expended in workmen's compensation will prevent deaths and injuries to more than 10,000 railroad workmen each year, who will probably be killed and injured under a workmen's compensation law.

66

The Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission includes the following information:

Casualties to employees, years ending June 30.

You wanted to ask me some question, Mr. Brown, about increased accidents to railroad employees, I believe?

Mr. BROWN. I just wanted to ask you if you have the figures there showing the number of employees in the year ended June 30, 1909, as compared with the year ended June 30, 1910?

Mr. CARTER. I have not in this report, Mr. Brown, but of course, I took my information from the Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission and you will find it all there. There is no question but what there was a great increase, but the records show that with the adoption of the automatic coupler there was a great decrease in the number of deaths from coupling cars. It is the purpose of the commission in calling attention to these deaths and injuries that still occur from the coupling of cars, to show that these automatic couplers are not working as they should or the men would not be killed and injured in this way.

I want again to impress upon you this one point: Under the workhuge sums to be paid to the employees. They in turn are going to men's compensation act you are going to tax the railroad companies secure that by increased rates. Now, why not first adopt means to 30198°. Doc. 338, 62-2, vol 2–

-38

compel the railroads to adopt methods of saving life and limb and allow them in turn to recoup themselves for this added expense by increasing the rates? It is just as fair that the public should pay for these devices that are essential as that they should pay for the killing of men that is not essential.

The two points I want to bring out again are that workmen's compensation accepts these injuries and deaths as inevitable; that they have got to be killed. The advocate of workmen's compensation says "Let the public pay for them." I say: "No; they have not got to be killed. Let Congress compel these things to be done, and Congress can do it, and if it cost millions to the railroad companies let the railroad companies charge it to the public just as you propose they shall charge the workmen's compensation expense to the public."

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Carter, how do you think the adoption of a workmen's compensation law will interfere with the passage of laws requiring these safety devices to be adopted?

Mr. CARTER. I don't know. I have referred at length to the fact that when the employer is heavily penalized for his own fault or the fault of his agent he will remove the fault. However, under the workmen's compensation we say it is nobody's fault; it is their fate to be killed because they work for a railroad company.

The CHAIRMAN. But the workmen's compensation law proposes to go further and penalize the employer for an accident that occurs not through his fault.

Mr. CARTER. And they will charge it to the public.

The CHAIRMAN. Do not the railroads charge those expenditures to the public now?

Mr. CARTER. Not yet; they will, probably.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think that they do it now?

Mr. CARTER. No, sir; I do not think they do it now. I mean to say they have not taken express methods of recompensing the company for those losses, at least I do not know that they have; but I do wish that Congress would make it necessary for them to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me understand your point of view about that: The railroads of the country are paying out in the aggregate a tremendous sum of money for the various accidents that occur. Mr. CARTER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. In order to pay the judgments which are rendered against them in the courts. Do you think that those amounts of money that are paid out are not taken into consideration by the railroads in the fixing of their rates?

Mr. CARTER. Maybe I am wrong. I am not much of a rate man, but I think that under recent practices the railroads do not have much to do with fixing the rates. I think if they could they would, and I think they should.

Mr. Moon. Is not that an element to be taken into consideration by the Interstate Commerce Commission in fixing the rates! Mr. CARTER. It should be.

Mr. Moon. Is it not now taken into consideration by the Interstate Commerce Commission?

Mr. CARTER (continuing). And I hope the Interstate Commerce Commission will so consider it.

Mr. Moon. Of course Mr. Brown knows more about that.

Mr. CARTER (Continuing). And I wish that Congress, in anticipation of the Interstate Commerce Commission on this matter, would get in its work early so they would have to increase it a good deal in order to save those lives. I want to cite an instance that occurred last week in Peoria on a little switching road between Peoria and Pekin. They were switching upon a lead. A lead is a track leading from the main line to the switching yards. About 11 o'clock at night this switch engine was switching backward and forward and the fireman was leaning from the window watching for signals toward the back of the train, and while so doing another switch engine pushed some cars in so that they barely cleared the track on which the switch engine was working. When the switch engine passed these cars the fireman's head was caught between the car and the cab and crushed completely. The coroner's jury and the public say that it was an unfortunate accident for which no one was at fault; but there are many railroads upon which such an accident could not occur because they have a life-saving device wherby if a car had passed the clearing possibly only 1 foot it would have set a danger signal and this accident would have been avoided. I think the railroads should be compelled to install those safety appliances, and the Interstate Commerce Commission and Congress should allow them to charge the expense to the public. That is my position.

The CHAIRMAN. The point I was directing your attention to was this: That you seem to think that if we adopt a workmen's compensation law that all legislation then on the part of Congress providing for the adoption of safety devices will end.

Mr. CARTER. No; I think that the future action of Congress on safety appliances has nothing to do with either the employers' liability or the workmen's compensation except the penalty that is attached. If there be a penalty attached I believe that it will be cheaper for the railroad companies to equip their roads with every known life-saving device.

The CHAIRMAN. If the railroad company knows that it must respond in a sum of money for every accident which occurs to an employee in the course of his employment, will not that induce the railroad companies to adopt these safety devices?

Mr. CARTER. I think not, because they are going to charge it to the

consumer.

The CHAIRMAN. Will it not have that effect more than under the present system, where they probably escape in 50 per cent of the cases?

Mr. CARTER. No, sir; I think not. The theory of workmen's compensation is that the employer, be he with or without fault, shall escape from the burden, and the burden must be placed upon the industry and the public will pay the expense. That is the theory of workmen's compensation, and every writer upon this subject so expresses himself. The theory of employers' liability is that we penalize the man who through fault permits his workmen to suffer death or injury. The theory of workmen's compensation is that the employee may be with fault or without fault, and that is none of our concern. The only concern we have is that whether he is killed with fault or without fault of the employer he gets a stipulated amount. I say to you that the theory of workmen's compensation is that these accidents are inevitable; we must accept them as the fruit of modern

industrial conditions. These dead men and injured men are thrown aside just the same as broken-down machinery. That is repulsive

to me.

The CHAIRMAN. A certain number of them are inevitable, are they not?

Mr. CARTER. I will say to you that half of them could be prevented. The CHAIRMAN. Then you still will have a large number remaining?

Mr. CARTER. After we learn to prevent half we can learn to prevent

more.

The CHAIRMAN. They can be reduced but they can not be entirely prevented.

Mr. CARTER. Only by the expenditure of huge sums of money; it would cost the railroad companies of this country millions and millions of dollars to equip their roads with all the safety appliances. They can not afford to do it under the present conditions, but if you will permit them to do under an employers' liability act that which you invite them to do under workmen's compensation-that is, increase the rate and charge the public-they will do it; they will do it that quick [snapping fingers]. I do not believe if a bill was introduced in Congress at the next session requiring the railroad companies to expend millions of dollars in saving the lives and limbs of their employees with the understanding that the Interstate Commerce Commission would allow the railroads to increase their rate so as to buy those devices, that the railroad officials would fight it. I think they would willingly do it, because they do not want to kill their employees. To-day they can not afford to keep from killing them; it costs so much.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Do you not think, Mr. Carter, that they figure in the amount they pay now, in the rate?

Mr. CARTER. Oh, yes; but they had to do their figuring in advance. They did that figuring some years ago.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Can not they tell pretty well, taking the figures for a number of years, just about what it costs them annually under the present system?

Mr. CARTER. Yes, sir-well, no; they can not, and I will tell you why. They can tell the expense of those they pay for, but they can not tell anything about those they do not pay for those they beat in

court.

The CHAIRMAN. They can tell in advance pretty nearly as accurately what it would cost them under the present system as under an employers' liability law, because both are governed more or less by chance.

Mr. CARTER. Certainly. My idea is that the theory of workmen's compensation is that no longer will the employer be held responsible. The question of his fault or lack of responsibility has nothing to do with workmen's compensation. The fact that the man is killed or injured makes a certain amount payable to him or his family, and we do not care who is at fault. Whenever you adopt that theory then, as I have proven by European statistics, there are going to be more people killed and more men injured. But if you can keep it down to the theory of fault, make the penalties high enough and the employers' liability act broad enough, and make it possible for the companies to recoup themselves for the expense, you will save 10,000

workingmen a year from death and injury, and that is what I want Congress to do first.

Mr. MOON. Mr. Carter, no law that Congress could frame could impose upon the consumer this cost. We simply say as a theory that that is the natural result. What we are aiming at now is simply the compensation for accidents, and it seems to me that the fixing of the nations of all the earth. It is true that the consumer must eventually in one case as in the other, and that we are getting away from this discussion entirely when we talk about it. It is true that the report of the Judiciary Committee of the House, which I drew, and from which you have read, speaks about the customs of the civilized nations of all the earth. It is true that the consumer must eventually bear it. I have not a particle of doubt that the consumer bears it to-day and I have not a doubt that the consumer must always bear it or else the railroads will go out of business; but it seems to me that discussion is entirely aside from the question. We can not put into the bill where it shall be borne. We are only investigating the subject as to whether it is better to have a compensatory act rather than a liability act.

Mr. CARTER. That which you say applies to the ordinary industry, and it is only limited by the competition, by the severity of the competition, but to the railroad it does not apply. Whether railroads are required to expend millions of dollars in a workmen's compensation law or whether they are required to expend the same millions in the adoption of life-saving devices and thereby saving the lives of the men instead of paying for them, it all rests with the Interstate Commerce Commission as to whether the public will pay for it or not. Mr. MOON. Absolutely, and in either case we can not control it. Mr. CARTER. Yes; and I say first let us save the lives of all we can, and let the Interstate Commerce Commission provide means of paying for these life-saving devices, and then after having saved 10,000 lives and limbs a year let us compensate the rest.

Mr. MOON. I can not see, for the life of me, why Congress should stop saving lives if it provides for compensation instead of liability. The CHAIRMAN. You present the two things as alternatives.

Mr. CARTER. I present the two things as every writer on the subject does. Every writer says employers' liability and workmen's compensation are in conflict; that you must not hold the employer responsible for his faults.

The CHAIRMAN. You are presenting the subject as though the compulsory adoption of life-saving devices and workmen's compensation were in conflict.

Mr. CARTER. NO; I am talking about the penalty invoked under the employers' liability.

The CHAIRMAN. You say, if I understand you, in effect, that Congress should leave the workmen's compensation law and pass laws to compel the railroads to adopt safety appliances.

Mr. CARTER. I say so far as the railroads are concerned let us first see that the railroad companies are compelled to adopt lifesaving devices through safety-appliance laws.

Mr. MOON. Why first, now?

Mr. CARTER. Because, as I said in this statement, I would rather that only 5 deaths occur without a penny of compensation than that 10 deaths occur all of which are paid for under a compensation act.