d 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 suppor