I notice in the morning papers that they seem to think that I have been following the Commission all around the State and trying to stir up a little animosity among the employers, if possible. I think the Commission will agree that there is no truth to these statements whatsoever. In presenting these answers and statements I have to make, so far as possible I am trying to represent the organized workers of Ohio at least.

I want to add that I am pleased to note this afternoon, because it is the first time I have seen it coming on the part of the employers, that there are some employers and attorneys who I understand represent employers occasionally, saying that they believed that the Norris law is fair in its application to the fellow-servant, contributory negligence and the assumption of risk rules, and I am satisfied that those employers who have made statements as to the unfairness of this law are not acquainted with the law as it reads. They have been mislead by others as to its application. As we understand the Norris law it applies the fellow-servant rule or common law equally to the foreign corporation as it does to the Ohio employers. To emphasize this I want to explain a particular case showing where foreign corporations were exempt under the former common law of Ohio, where had the accident occurred in an Ohio plant, or in the mines or any other department of works in Ohio, the plaintiff could have collected damages. The case was one against the American Stove Trust. A young man about seventeen years of age was working on a pressing machine in the Standard Lighting plant in Cleveland, met with an accident which cut his hand off, through the act of the foreman tripping the machine while repairing. The boy had called the attention of the foreman to the fact that the machine was out of order. The foreman had come there for the purpose of correcting or making the repairs and had the boy help him; and while the boy had his hand in the machine, under the direction of the foreman, the foreman tripped the machine and cut his hand off. The case was taken into the Common Pleas Court in Cleveland, and the company was sued for $10,000 and they made an offer to settle for $500, but the parents of the boy refused. The case was removed from the Common Pleas Court to the Federal Court, owing to the fact that the American Stove Trust was a foreign corporation, that being permissible under the federal laws, and owing to the fact that there is a difference in the common law rule of the Federal Court under which the foreman under the Federal law is made a fellow servant, while under the common law of Ohio he is a superior servant. The case was thrown out by Judge Taylor-one of the best judges on the Federal bench in our district, with the statement that the boy had no case under the fellow-servant rule of the Federal Court, the foreman being a fellow servant. Had the common law of Ohio been the statutory law, as it is now under the Norris bill, the Federal Court would have followed the statutory laws of this State and the boy could have gotten damages, and that is all, as I understand it, the Norris law does in regard to the fellow-servant rule.

Now, you have heard Mr. Stackhouse make the statement here, just a little while ago, that He believed that something additional should be paid by an employer other than compensation where the employer was criminally negligent in furnishing safeguards to his machinery, and he cited a particular instance of guarding a saw. The assumption of risk, as stated by the Ohio Supreme Court under the old common law made the employe responsible even if the employer was criminally negligent, and numerous cases were thrown out of court on the assumption that the employe continued to work knowing that the employer was criminally negligent in not furnishing proper safeguards. Now, the assumption of risk change in the Norris law, as we understand it, simply remedies that condition and makes the employer responsible where he is crim

inal in not living up to the laws in providing safeguards to the workmen. The contributory negligence rule, the section that applies to contributory negligence, states that the employer is only liable to the extent of where he is grossly negligent; that language is used "gross"

MR. CHAIRMAN: And the employes "slight."

MR. THOMAS: And the employes "slight." In introducing the law we used the language "greater," and some of the employers - some members of the House, thought we ought to use the same language which I think is used in the Federal law. We agreed so we could show, if possible, that we wanted to be fair, and that all we wanted for the worker was justice.

The laws regarding child labor state very emphatically that no child under sixteen years of age shall be employed in and around dangerous machinery. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that where a child was employed contrary to law, neither he nor his parents could collect damages. The Norris law corrects that. The section relative to the voluntary relief simply prevents the employe, on the fear of discharge, from bartering away his rights for a few hundred dollars where he is entitled to thousands. There is no injustice in that; and the sections in regard to the death statutes have been the death statutes of Ohio for a number of years; only that before the passage of the Norris law $5,000 was the limit.

MR. LYNN Ten thousand dollars for a great many years, for an employe MR. WINANS: You referred to the Williams bill. That provided under the doctrine of assumed risk that there would be a limitation of $5,000. MR. THOMAS: Wasn't there a $5,000 limit?

MR. WINANS: Five thousand dollars and $3,000 in case of injury.

MR. THOMAS: I was simply going to point out that there was a special bill limiting the amount to an employe of $5,000, while a passenger killed on the same train could collect $10,000. When a trainload of people were going to the inauguration of one of the presidents, the train was run into and practically twenty or more were injured and many of them were killed; the company in settling the cases told their attorney to simply settle with the passengers "We are liable there. You can leave the employes until we get to them." And it is our opinion that the employes who risk their lives and limbs in industries are certainly equally entitled with the passengers who ride on the train, to the compensation for injury and death. I say again, that I am pleased to note that there are employers who understand this law and do not regard it as unfair. And I do not think that many of the employers whom I have heard talk on these questions, and who understand the law as Mr. Kilbourne does, have any objection to it, as there is nothing unfair about it.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Commission, that one notice to an employer that he is violating the laws of the State in regard to dangerous machinery ought to be sufficient warning to make him respect that law. And the second offense, after being notified he should be arrested. There should be a more stringent penalty for the violation of the factory laws than those we have now, a fine of $10 for a minimum I think, and $25.00 for the maximum. It apparently does not have a great deal of effect in enforcing the law. I believe that where these employers with criminal intent - it cannot be otherwise-neglect to carry out the laws made for human safety, that the only way to make them respect the law is to do as you do with a poor man, as is done with a poor man who is not able to pay a small fine; give him a workhouse sentence until such time as he does respect it.

I agree with the factory inspector in everything he said last evening as to the needs of correction in the laws and additions to the force. The law should compel the employers to immediately, or within twenty-four or forty-eight hours,

I would not limit it to the minute or the hour, to send notice to the Factory Department of all accidents that occur in their factory so that the factory inspector may visit his place as soon as possible, and in consultation with the employer or his foreman or superintendent, talk over the causes that led to the accident and if possible find some means of preventing an accident of like character occurring again.

Mr. Stackhouse gave us the credit, the labor organizations, I believe, of being the instigator of most of the safety laws that are on the statute books of Ohio, and the most of the statute books of the country, and our object has been at all times not to get compensation or collect damages, but the object has been to prevent accidents; and when safety laws have been made and deliberately violated and accidents continue to occur with as much frequency as before, we have come to the conclusion that the only way in which the employers will eliminate accidents in his plant as far as possible is to make him liable for all that occurs; and then he will find it cheaper to buy safety devices than to pay damages. That does not apply to all employers. Law making, particularly that class of law making that seeks to protect the public against those that want to prey upon it - we undertake to make laws not for the purpose of making those that are already complying with the law do something more than they are already doing, the laws are made so that those who will not do these humane things that many of the employers have told us about in these meetings that they are doing in their shops, providing adequate relief for men who are injured and killed in their plants, to compel those who won't do anything, those that employ not shyster lawyers and ambulance chasers, but that employ poorhouse procurers in the shape of claim agents that go to the home while the body is yet there and rob the widow and orphan of what they are justly entitled to by trying to force, while they are mourning, a settlement that practically means nothing, and sends them to the poor house. It is all very well to talk about ambulance chasers and shyster lawyers, and I have no more respect for that class of lawyers who prevent reasonable settlements in all cases than the employers themselves; but I know lots of lawyers who are called ambulance chasers that are honestly and squarely doing their duty by their clients, and were it not for these lawyers thousands upon thousands of widows and orphans and cripples would be deprived of the compensation they are getting today for the injuries they receive. Yes, I know some of those lawyers who when they take cases pay to their clients and their families, if they are in need of it, sufficient money to provide for them during the period their case is going on, and take their chances of getting their return provided they are successful in their suits; and in some cases they lose out. I think it is only in justice to this class of lawyers that some one should say a word for them in these meetings and not permit every man who takes a personal injury case and makes the employers whom I refer to, who don't want to pay anything, do their duty in compensating for injury, to be classed with those who chase around and prevent fair settlements.

You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that employers, not all of them but most of them, who have answered your questions take an opposite view to our State Federation of Labor on this question, and I want to add to that statement this fact. That all of the things that apply to the common law rule which has worked an injustice to the workman, have come through the courts, through the judges, through decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court. In numerous instances in the history of liability laws in Ohio the legislature has undertaken to correct judge made law by statutory law by trying to remove some of the defects which the supreme court has always heaped up in favor of the corporation on the employe, and all the injustice which the employe has had to stand has come from the judge in the way of making the employe responsible for contributory negligence

and making him assume all the risks, and making him responsible for the act of a fellow servant no matter in what manner that fellow servant was employed. Had it not been for judge made law on these questions the probabilities are that we would not be discussing these questions as we are today, if judges had in any sense treated the working man fair in personal injury cases. Most all cases of equity in regard to property and other things are referred to juries for determining the amount to be paid, and the recognized functions of the jury as I understand it is that of determining questions of fact, leaving the questions of law to the judge. The employer has all the protection he needs after the matter passes the jury's hands. The judge who is serving with the jury can reduce the amount if necessary; and if that is not satisfactory he can appeal to the circuit and then the supreme court. And each of these courts have an opportunity to reduce the amounts awarded by the jury; so that the employer has no excuse, no fault to find with the protection that is afforded him higher up.

I feel like a great many of the speakers who have preceded me on this question, that the question as to whether or not rightfully to establish a compensation law in this State is finally to be determined by the Ohio Supreme Court, and judging by the actions of that court in the past, relative to questions of this kind, we are decidedly opposed to the adoption of any compensation act that is not legai and the repeal of the Norris or any other law before this particular question is finally determined. We have a constitutional convention coming in 1912, and our state convention at its meeting in Hamilton recently adopted a provision that we are going to ask the Constitutional Convention to adopt, making it a constitutional matter in Ohio, to adopt a compensation act, and it may be possible that we can wait until that time. It may be we will have to wait until that time before really determining this question, and we are opposed to any repeal of the Norris or Metzger bills until we know positively in Ohio that we can have a compensatory act that will extend to the workman, the widow and the cripple real compensation. I will add in addition to that that we do not consider a maximum $3,000 a compensatory amount for death. I am as much interested as the rest of you in the report made by Mr. Schwedtman relative to the working of the German insurance plan. But whether you adopt the English plan, or whether you adopt the German plan of compensation, or whether you make an American plan, is immaterial so long as you remove the three defenses that the employer has now under the common law, and make it positive that the crippled workman and widow and orphans can get the amount as suggested in the compensation act. We are not tied to any particular system. We are opposed to the workingmen contributing out of his wages any amount to this particular fund. Is it not enough that the workman contributes in the injury he receives, pain, loss of limb, etc., without asking him to pay from his usual small amount which he gets? The fact that even under the German system it is admitted that all over twenty-nine per cent of accidents are directly attributable to the employer or the hazard of industry ought to be sufficient argument even to the employer himself to show that the working man is standing more than his share when he loses an arm or a leg or is crippled in any other form. The widow and orphans have to get along, in case the husband is killed, with an amount about onehalf, or in some cases one-fourth of what they had or what the husband earned before, and it seems an injustice that the working man should contribute from his wages any part of this sum. There are only four countries in which compensation is paid that ask that the workman pay any of this amount, and I do not see why America wants to follow these four countries, or why Ohio does. It seems to me that the Ohio employer can be just as liberal as is Colonel Kilbourne and the rest of them can. He admits, while most of the rest of them don't, that in case the amount is paid by the employer it will be charged to the cost

of operation just the same as you pay fire insurance or any other kind of insurance, and just the same as casualty insurance is paid now. I know in the construction of buildings, any of the large buildings in Cleveland, a contractor takes out casualty insurance - some of our skyscrapers. He adds it to the cost of his contract and it is paid by the person who constructs the building and ultimately by the tenants of the building, and ultimately it is thrown on the public at large. The employer has that means of charging his amount on some one else, and as ultimately some of the products which are made goes back to the same worker as the consumer, you are asking that worker to pay double the amount - both as a wage worker and as a consumer, and that seems to me is hardly fair.

In reference to the amount of compensation that should be paid, that matter was not taken up definitely in our state federation. Our local federation in Cleveland was of the opinion that the maximum compensation should be in the neighborhood of seventy per cent of the wages paid. In Germany I think it is sixty-six and two-thirds per cent; and that the minimum amount should be at least $1.00 per day, the amount to be paid for partial or total disability, or to those dependent upon the party killed, to be based upon the needs and requirements of each case.

Now the question has been stated by the Chairman as coming from the Chicago meeting that it was the unanimous opinion of the people there that the amount should be paid in small amounts per week, the same as wages are paid. I am personally of the opinion that there should be some loop hole left in a plan of that kind. Sometimes there are opportunities for the cripple to engage i. some small business of some kind that may make a livelihood for him if he should be given the entire amount; or if it was invested for him it would probably bring him a better income than the amount that would be paid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under the German act it is left to the discretion of the judge whether it is to be paid in installments or in a lump sum.

MR. THOMAS: That is satisfactory to me. I know from experience that there are workmen that cannot be trusted with a large amount of money who are only used to handling their weekly wages. Some of them probably would get through with it in a hurry; and that is not confined to the workman alone. That will include also men in other positions besides workmen. I have particularly in mind a young man who got $21,000 out of that engineers' accident on the C. & V., and who had his faced burned. He was the most horrible sight you ever saw. He traveled the street and spent that money right and left. That $21,000 did not last long, and it ought to have lasted him for a life time and provided for him well if properly invested.

Our opinion in Cleveland as to the total amount that should be paid is that it should be based largely on what the Russian law calls for now, instead of payingas I understand the Russian law, it provides 663 per cent of the worker's earnings can be applied to the relief of the children, if there are sufficient chi!dren to add 163 per cent to each child. The widow received 333 per cent of the wages; or in case the family is large enough the total wages could be made for the support of that family, if it was really necessary. It also adds to that, that in case it is desired ten times the amount of pension should be added, and not a limited maximum amount at all. I feel as Mr. Stackhouse did, where the employer is criminally negligent in not providing necessary safeguards, as provided by law, the employe should get an additional amount, should be entitled to sue under the Norris law for an additional amount than the compensation. Just how this fund shall be established in Ohio I am not definitely prepared to say. We are satisfied with the German system of providing a State fund, for having the employers organize if you like and each industry pay to