l the dangers attending its
use, and a new one appears that is less dangerous to use, the law does
not require the employer to throw the older one away and get the
other. It is true that in many States within the last few years
statutes have been passed by the legislatures requiring employers to
be much more careful than they were formerly in protecting their
machinery. Many injuries have happened from the use of belting, and
the statutes in many cases have stated what must be done in the way of
enclosing belts, and of putting screens around machinery, and in
various ways of so protecting it that persons will be less liable to
suffer. Furthermore, inventors have been very busy in inventing
machinery with this end in view. The old-fashioned car-coupler was a
very dangerous device, and many a poor fellow has been crushed between
cars when trying to couple them. A coupler has been made in which this
danger no longer exists; in truth, there has been a great advance in
this direction.

_An employer must also select suitable materials on which to work._
This is a well-known principle. If he does not, then he is responsible
for the consequences. In one of the cases a person was injured while
erecting a scaffolding from the breaking of a knotty timber. The
testimony was that the knot was visible on the surface and if the
stick had been examined the defect would have been seen. That seemed a
slight defect, surely, but the consequence of using the timber was
very serious, and the court rightly held that as this defect could
have been seen, had the timber been properly examined, the employer
was responsible for the injury to a workman who was injured by the
breaking of it.

_An employer must also select suitable places for his employes._ In
one of the cases a court said a master does not warrant his servant's
safety. He does, however, agree to adopt and keep proper means with
which to carry on the business in which they are employed. Among these
is the providing of a suitable place for doing his work without
exposure to dangers that do not come within the reasonable scope of
his employment. In one of the cases a company stored a quantity of
dynamite so near a place where an employe was working that he was
killed by its explosion. The court held that it was negligence on the
part of the company in requiring its employe to work so near the place
where this explosive material was kept.

It is said that if an employe knows that a