We have hundreds more books for your enjoyment. Read them all!
|
|
There is one other matter to which I shall refer. It was made the
subject of great controversy during the election and calls for at
least a passing reference now. My distinguished predecessor has
given much attention to the cause of labor, with whose struggle
for better things he has shown the sincerest sympathy. At his
instance Congress has passed the bill fixing the liability of
interstate carriers to their employees for injury sustained in the
course of employment, abolishing the rule of fellow-servant and
the common-law rule as to contributory negligence, and
substituting therefor the so-called rule of "comparative
negligence." It has also passed a law fixing the compensation of
government employees for injuries sustained in the employ of the
Government through the negligence of the superior. It has also
passed a model child-labor law for the District of Columbia. In
previous administrations an arbitration law for interstate
commerce railroads and their employees, and laws for the
application of safety devices to save the lives and limbs of
employees of interstate railroads had been passed. Additional
legislation of this kind was passed by the outgoing Congress.
I wish to say that insofar as I can I hope to promote the
enactment of further legislation of this character. I am strongly
convinced that the Government should make itself as responsible to
employees injured in its employ as an interstate-railway
corporation is made responsible by federal law to its employees;
and I shall be glad, whenever any additional reasonable safety
device can be invented to reduce the loss of life and limb among
railway employees, to urge Congress to require its adoption by
interstate railways.
Another labor question has arisen which has awakened the most
excited discussion. That is in respect to the power of the federal
courts to issue injunctions in industrial disputes. As to that, my
convictions are fixed. Take away from the courts, if it could be
taken away, the power to issue injunctions in labor disputes, and
it would create a privileged class among the laborers and save the
lawless among their number from a most needful remedy available to
all men for the protection of their business against lawless
invasion. The proposition that business is not a property or
pecuniary right which can be protected by equitable injunction is
utterly without foundation in precedent or reason. The proposition
is usually linked with one to make the secondary boycott lawful.
Such a proposition is at variance with the American instinct, and
will find no support, in my judgment, when submitted to the
American people. The secondary boycott is an instrument of
tyranny, and ought not to be made legitimate.
|