ANNUAL ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT.

FRANK S. WHITE.

Gentlemen of the Alabama State Bar Association:

I congratulate you in having your meeting in this historic and hospitable city. I anticipate for you a pleasant sojourn. You can but enjoy being in an atmosphere where your memories will feast on the lives and conduct of Mobile's great men and women. They have contributed abundantly towards giving Alabama high rank among her sister states in the Arts and Sciences. Her lawyers especially have been conspicuous for their ability and learning. Her warriors were famous for their courage and skill.

The force of example set by these great men and women will not permit us to dwell too long either on them or their deeds. It inspires us to go forward in the performance of our task as they did theirs.

The task of our profession, as I understand it, is to administer the law and to advance and perfect the science. We are not only accountable for its administration, but for what it is. We must keep it in harmony with the times. In doing this we should neither act in haste, nor lag. Both of these extremes should be avoided. In discharging this duty we should not pursue a narrow or selfish course, taking into consideration alone the interest of the profession. Our efforts should be given a wider range. They should encompass the public weal. The welfare of society should be our main, if not our sole aim. How can we best serve the public? In what, if at all, does the legal system fail to serve the people of the State?

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CALLS FOR

LEGISLATION.

Alabama is fast becoming pre-eminently an industrial State. Conditions existing and approaching, caused by her rapid de

velopment, are, or at least I think are, accompanied with too much friction between the employer and the employe. Neither is content with the situation. Both are restive; both seem dissatisfied. Is the law or its administration responsible for this condition? To some extent I thing it is, but before considering the defects of the system it is well to determine who are affected by these differences. Not only the employer and the employe, but the public as well is involved. Especially is this true in strikes and lock-outs. In view of the disastrous consequences to the parties concerned and when I speak of the parties concerned I mean to include the public, I think the law has not made adequate provisions for adjusting these differences. It is true that the Legislature of 1911 passed an Act creating a State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, the members of which may be ordered by the Governor to the scene of disturbance and this Board is given authority to inquire into the cause of the controversy. The parties involved may by agreement submit their grievances or disputes to this Board. Without this agreement the Board is powerless to act. While this Act tends in the right direction it falls short of meeting the needs of the situation. This Board should be required by law to promptly proceed to the locality where a strike or lock-out exists or where they are seriously threatened, and require those on the side of the controversy claiming to be aggrieved to present in writing such grievances, then require the other party to make answer, and in default of an answer to assume in its future investigation that the grievances as stated are true. If an answer is presented, then proceed to investigate the situation and declare who is at fault in the controversy, and determine what either or both parties shall do in the premises. In case an appearance and statement of grievances are not made by the party ordered to make them, then make it incumbent on this Board to proceed of its own motion to ascertain the cause of the trouble and declare where the fault lies, and make its award in the premises. If no other means can be found to enforce the award, the third party to the controversy, the public, by force of its opinion can throw itself into the scale against the party refusing to comply.

This doubtless will be sufficient to compel compliance as experience teaches that few dare incur the penalty of its frown; all seek the smile of its favor. That it will be effective is shown by the readiness with which political parties, as well as nations, heed its behests.

I believe that by the enactment of a law along these lines, many, if not all of these unfortunate and disastrous conflicts can be prevented or brought to a close. At least it would be an improvements on the present statute and would be a forward step. Our profession cannot longer remain indifferent to a situation so perlious to the State.

INJUSTICE TO WORKMEN.

The next point where we find these forces arrayed in antagonism to each other is where the workman claims compensation for loss of life or limb which he has placed on the altar of our industrialism. Again we are confronted with the question,—is the law at fault? In the infancy of our industrial progress the courts, in order to encourage the development of our resources, took upon themselves the responsibility of fixing arbitrary rules for the determination of these questions. The rules are more to be admired for their refinement than for producing substantial justice. Of these the "Fellow-servant Doctrine" and the "Assumption of Risk" are striking examples. Experience has demonstrated the injustice produced by their full enforcement. The law in its endeavor to keep abreast of the times has by legislative enactment and more enlightened and humane judicial interpretation relieved these rules of much of their former rigor. The question now is, has the law advanced as far as it should in this direction? How long shall it "Stop! Look! and Listen!" It seems to me that it should keep step with the world around and about it in its onward and upward progressive march. Has not the law placed on the shoulders of the workman an undue, an unfair proportion of the burden incident to our industrial life? Should he, be made to carry, all the ordinary risks incident to the business, including what are termed pure accidents,

the negligence of nearly all of his fellow-servants, as well as his own inadvertence? To ask these questions is to answer them. In making him assume all these risks we have not fairly and equitably apportioned the burdens. He should not be made to take these risks as between himself and his employer. He receives no more benefit, he is in no better condition to stand the loss, than the employer. Morevover, when placed on him, he or his family bears all its evil consequences, and after crushing them, falls on the public intensified by the poverty, ignorance and vice which it entails. It thereby becomes a double loss. When imposed on the employer he only becomes as it were the “initial carrier," transmitting the load with the other costs of production under the inexorable law of trade to the consumer, where it properly belongs and is not a loss in the true meaning of that term. The consumer pays only the purchase price for what he buys. This price necessarily includes all the cost of production. Even if it could be called a loss, in this way it is placed where it can be better borne. The burden, if a burden at all, will be more generally distributed. The field of distribution is wider. It will be paid where the product is finally sold, by the consumer, and paid for at its real cost, whereas if placed upon the employe the loss is localized. It is borne first by him and his family, and then left on the shoulders of the immediate community where it occurred.

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT NOT TO BE EXTENDED.

If I am correct in saying that a condition exists which calls for legislation, then I take it that it would not be out of place for me to suggest a remedy. I am not inclined to widen the field of personal injury litigation by extending the scope of the employers liability act, if it can be reasonably avoided. This for many reasons. It is not conducive to harmony between the employer and the employe. It is attended with too much delay, uncertainty, and expense. It tends to create dissatisfaction and distrust in the courts, because the layman cannot appreciate the refined reasoning by which one seemingly meritorious case is