Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/908

 Rh rity known as a "recognizance in the nature of a statute staple." A gage of land with possession of the debtor to secure money obligations is, therefore, rendered necessary and possible by this development of credit and of pro cesses of judicial execution; and, very large ly for the benefit of the mercantile classes, an hypothecation of land may now be creat ed by judgment and by the registration or enrolment of contracts under seal. The pub licity essential to this form of gage is there by obtained: but it should be well observed that the new security breaks in upon the old law with its restraints on alienation and its requirement that livery of seisin is nec essary to the conveyance of rights in land. The old feudal polity is attacked and at tacked successfully by commercialism. JUDGE Epaphroditus Peck, of the Yale Law School, contributes to the Yale Law Journal for November an appreciative arti cle on "The Massachusetts Proposition for an Employers' Compensation Act," in which he says: Compensation to the employé for injuries received by him is no longer to rest on the imputation of fault, negligence or other, to the employer. The occurrence of injuries is treated, rather, as an inevitable incident of modern industrial activity, the cost of which should be borne by the business, and be paid for by the consumer in the cost of the arti cle. Every extensive factory must each year spend a considerable sum in the repair and replacement of machinery; but the business involves not only the breaking of machinery; but also the maiming and killing of men. •Why is not the latter as much an expense of the business, which should be borne by it, and charged into the price of the product, as the former? Why should the manufac ture be carried on so as to be beneficial to the general public and profitable to the pro prietor, but to cast a heavy weight of loss upon a few individuals the least able to bear it? These questions are answered in the pro posed ''Employers' Compensation Act" by the concise provision in the first clause:

847

"If an employé in any employment to which this act applies receives personal in jury while performing duties growing out of or incidental to such employment, he shall be paid compensation by the employer in accordance with the scale and conditions of compensation hereinafter provided." This removes all questions of the employ er's tortious negligence, and also all ques tions of the employe's contributory negli gence, or "implied assumption" of risks. The single exception is made in section 4 of injuries received "by reason of his own wil ful or fraudulent misconduct." Except for this the only question is. did the injury occur in the course of the employment? To obviate the natural opposition of em ployers actuated by fear of having the cost of manufacture greatly increased by this comprehensive liability, the act provides a scale of compensation which seems small in deed in comparison with the verdicts now sometimes recovered in personal injury cases, but which would probably compare more favorably with the net result which now comes into the hands of the victorious plaintiff after paying all his bills of litiga tion. The basis of computation is not the very difficult standard of the money value of the life of the deceased, of the pain and suf fering undergone by him, or of the grief of his surviving relatives. The effort is rather to make good to those who have suffered it the support of his wages which they have lost, so far as that may be done without too great hardship upon the employer. In case of fatal injury, his dependents, if any. receive an amount approximately equal to his aggregate wages for three years, "or the sum of one thousand dollars, whichever of these sums is the larger, but not exceed ing in any case two thousand dollars." If there are no dependents, only the expenses of sickness and burial are to be paid, not exceeding two hundred dollars. In case of total or partial disability, the injured man is to be paid a weekly payment, not exceeding fifty per cent, of his earnings, nor exceeding ten dollars a week, for the period of his disability, not exceeding four vears.