committee shall be appointed by the incoming administration to be known as the Committee on Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Law. Certainly we will all agree that a necessity exists for the appointment of a committee like that, but before that is done it seems to me we should give that committee broader authority and more definite instruc tions than are now given to them. A year ago I was delighted with the fact that a committee of this kind was appointed, and more than delighted again when I observed the personnel of that committee. I was disappointed when I read the report, because it is absolutely without recommendation. That report shows great learning and shows great labor. It shows that they investigated this subject to the bottom, so far as legislation is concerned now on the statutes of a few States that have made experiments in that direction, but they leave us absolutely without recommendation and without suggestion.

Now, the fact is, in my opinion, that the lawyers of Indiana should take the initiative upon this proposition and do practical things, and today in appointing a committee like that without any special authority or instruction, we would be forgetting the fact that within a very few months the Legislature will be in session again and laws passed on that subject, and when the Legislature comes to pass laws on that subject you will find men there with sinister purposes will be on guard. They will have their arrangements made. The casualty companies and the accident insurance people will be there in force, and the manufacturers will be there in force with skilled agents and representatives, all with a selfish purpose; whereas, the great mass of people that ought to be represented by the Bar Association of Indiana, because they are the broadest-minded men, as a class, that live on

God's earth, will not be represented, and will not be prepared to say that we want a law passed that will be fair in all its provisions, that will be within the confines of Magna Charta and the Constitution of Indiana.

Now, I am sorry that I haven't time to discuss the proposition, but I wish to mention it a moment. I think there is no necessity for a compulsory act in Indiana. I think that that is a question that so far as liability is concerned rests entirely and solely with the employer; and that an employer should compensate the employe for injuries received in the line of his employment that are in the absence of willful negligence, that is a rule, I think, to start with, that is elementary. I think every man within the sound of my voice will agree with that proposition.

Now, "man's inhumanity to man causes countless thousands to mourn," and because of that fact, ever since the days of Magna Charta, which was so well pictured to us, and the throes of human misery out of which it was born, in Judge Cox's paper-ever since that day we have had courts established for the purpose of redressing public and private wrongs. Now the chairman of this committee has seemed to believenot in the written report submitted to us, but in his remarks this morning-that the State ought to take away from the courts the right to settle this question, and ought to appoint some sort of a "commission"-take away from the judiciary the judicial power and the judicial right, and invest that in some sort of a commission appointed by the Governor, and along with that was a suggestion that there should be some sort of compulsory arrangement, some kind of an ironclad arrangement by which a scale of prices should be fixed that should be paid to men for injuries. Let me make a suggestion. Would a rule of that kind be fair? Certainly not. Take the

case of a man seventy years of age, suffering with tuberculosis, and he loses his right arm by defective machinery. Here is a cast-iron arrangement that provides he shall be paid $725 for his right arm. Over here in another shop is a man in young and vigorous manhood, without disease and without blemish, with education, with red blood, with strength, with skill as a mechanic. He loses his right arm. He has a wife and three or four children just on the threshold of life. He is their breadwinner, and he loses his right arm. Here comes your arrangement and gives him $725. These are details. There are a thousand of them that stand in the way of taking away from the courts the rights that belong to them.

Let me say what we want, if we could get it, and I look to these wise men to find a way to do that, and that is to simply bring about a change in the few rules that control the trial of the cases, such as we have under consideration. We do not want any new laws. One of the curses of the times is the appointing of commissions on every account; a commission to help the court, a commission to help the county officers, and this and that and the other, and then advisory members to see that they do their duty. Let's get back to simplicity and common sense on this proposition.

As a man who is in the habit of standing down in the bull pen and trying these cases, from that standpoint, and seeing the difficulty and embarrassment an honest judge on the bench has to see that justice is done, let's see for two minutes what is the matter. To get down to brass tacks, there are three questions embarrassing in these cases. One is the assumption of risk. Let me illustrate that just a minute. I have a case in mind. Here is a man in a factory told by a sub-boss to go up a ladder and adjust a belt. The man in the presence and hearing of some of the co-laborers, says, "I

don't hardly think that ladder is safe; it is broken on the side." The other man said, "Hurry," and he went up the ladder. The ladder gave way on the broken side. The man was hurled into that shafting and came down a lifeless pulp. He could not recover. He had assumed the risk. The evidence showed beyond any question that when he went up the ladder he had noticed that the ladder was probably not safe, and made a remark of that kind-the last remark that passed his lips before he went before his Maker. We want to get that rule of law changed in some way. Let this legislative committee see that this is done, would be my idea, my tentative suggestion.

Another is the question of contributory negligence. I need not discuss that here this afternoon. Every lawyer here knows that and knows what the trouble is.

The other is a modification of the rule of the conduct of fellow-servant. Now, what I want to impress upon the Bar this afternoon, as strongly as I can in my feeble way, is that we want simply some changes in the rule that will abolish the condition that exists now, and what is that? The condition is that the casualty company is occupying a place in this field where it has no economic and no moral right to be. For every hundred dollars that it collects from the employers of Indiana, it pays back less than forty dollars to those that have suffered injury. Let me cite you to a case I know, a case where a man by reason of a defective tool he held in his hand in an iron mill lost an eye. The court held, after some misgivings, that the complaint stated a cause of action. He refused to compromise. He was young and vigorous and strong, and had six children and a young wife. He had been laid up in the hospital and had lost an eye. The night before that case was set for trial the claim agent gave

that man sixty dollars and a ticket for Chicago and got him drunk and induced him to abandon his family. The next day the suit was dismissed, and that agent boasted of what he had accomplished. This simply gives you the conditions which I pointed out. That casualty company has no place here, neither has the State of Indiana. It is a square fight between the employer and the employe. There are no two peas exactly alike; there are no two men alike; there is individuality everywhere, and there is individuality about every lawsuit, and again and again, every court of last resort has said everywhere that each case must be tried upon its own facts. There are no two of these cases that are exactly alike. The question must be threshed out before a jury under Magna Charta, under the Constitution of Indiana. A man must have a fair trial; it must be determined what the probabilities of his life were, who is dependent on him, what his habits were, what he was worth to the community, himself and his family. There are no two cases alike and no cast-iron arrangement will do.

I have taken more of your time that I intended, but my heart is full of this subject. I hope this committee will be appointed, and I hope these same able gentlemen that represented us last year will be on this committee, and that they will go before the Legislature and not attempt to bring about any ideal condition or to travel out into the land of paternalism and dreams, but simply see if they can bring some simple statutes that will place this burden where it belongs, and give the injured man a fair chance to go before a jury of his peers and demonstrate how much he was worth before he got hurt and how much less he is worth now, and pay that differ ence to himself or his family, and at the same time give the other side a fair chance. I think we, in fact, need no new laws at this time. Let us wait until the court of last resort