es of this
debate, it is immaterial to us whether this change is brought about
by a simple extension of the employer's liability, or whether it is
accompanied, as in many of our states, by a system of workman's
compensation. Likewise, it is a consideration extraneous to the
issues of this debate, whether the employer shoulder this risk
himself, whether he insure it in a private insurance company, or
whether he be compelled to insure it in a company managed by the
state. At all events, and under any of these plans, the proposition
of the Affirmative will be maintained, the employer will be deprived
of his defenses at common law, and the employee will recover his
damages regardless of questions of fault.

Assuming then the full burden of proof, the Affirmative propose to
demonstrate that the assumption of risk and the fellow-servant rule
as defined and interpreted by the common law should be abolished,
first, because whatever reasons may have justified these doctrines
in years gone by they have no application to industrial conditions
in our day; and, secondly, because the abolition of these common law
defenses will but place the burden of industrial loss, as in justice
it should be placed, upon the ultimate consumer of the product of
the industry.

Mr. Watson, speaking for the Negative:

The proposed abolition of these two common-law defenses, like every
change of law or any suggested reform, is brought to our attention
by certain existing evils. The advocates of this reform have a
definite proposition in mind and that proposition is definitely and
clearly stated in the question. It is a question in which people in
every walk of life are concerned. Since it is of such widespread
interest, let us lift it from a plane of mere debating tactics, in
which a question of this kind is so often placed, and where a great
deal of time is spent in arguing what the Affirmative or the
Negative may stand for according to the interpretation of the
question, let us lift it from that plane, and consider it as
practical men and women who are interested in the outcome of this
great problem. It is, then, in its larger sense, a legal question
and must be considered from the standpoints of justice and of
expediency.

It is not enough for the Affirmative to point out evils that exist
under these