The following address shows the Emperor in one of the little-known phases of his amazingly versatile career. It exhibits, likewise, his command of detailed knowledge in a field where we should least expect it and his solicitude for the welfare of faithful subjects. Besides his interest in the sea, he has also for many years been much interested in agriculture; and his estate in East Prussia has been in a sense an experiment station. He prides himself on being a pioneer and in personally supervising his domain and is occasionally pleased to call himself a farmer. He attended the meetings of the Prussian Agricultural Commission and at one of the sessions took part in the discussion on the means of safeguarding the life of the laborers.
Two points have occurred to me which I would like to ask you to consider. It is worthy of note that during my reign there have been brought to my attention many striking cases in which laboring women have been killed through accidents with machinery. I receive regularly from the Minister of Justice tabulated lists of requests[6] for pardon, and it seems to me that there is among them a striking number of cases of women farmhands who have met with accidents in tending machines. As has already been said, I am not granting these pardons as freely as formerly. It is to be noted, furthermore, that a great difference prevails in the adjudication of the cases in which penalties may be inflicted and in the penalties themselves. I next inquired why these women workers—it was especially girls working with the thrashing-machines—were killed, and it usually appeared that the girls were caught by their dresses in the transmission pulleys and so became entangled in them. Then I asked if there were no means of protection there. Yes, indeed, they said, according to the police regulations the pulleys must have a cover or a box must be put over them, but in each of these cases this had not been attended to. There also appeared here, on the one side, a certain indifference either on the part of the owner or of the person who was conducting the work concerning the life of the women in his employ and, on the other side, an indifference on the part of the women themselves, who had become accustomed to working near the moving parts of the machines and to stepping over the pulleys, and finally the accident happened. Therefore, may I ask you that in using the word “machines” these provisions regarding power transmission be not forgotten. Many of the machines stand in one place and the apparatus for transmission is in another place or in the yard, and that is a chief cause of the accidents. For every one passes through the yard, and especially if there are children playing there, all too easily some misfortune may occur.
[6] From employers, of course.
Let me, therefore, remark, concerning what one of the preceding speakers has said, that I myself have come to the same conclusion as Professor Schmoller. I believe that it is not sufficient that the state should lay upon the worker the obligation to be careful and that it should give him directions how to conduct himself with regard to the machines. This cannot be carried out.
I am much more of the opinion that, if such is your desire and if it is plain that harm has resulted from the fact that the workers move about too carelessly, it is much better that the obligation should be put upon the owner or upon the person commissioned to conduct the machines and that he be required to watch over the employees more carefully. If the owner cannot burden himself with it then he should have such officials as would have sufficient influence with the worker to make him be careful. We must not forget what, for the most part, such a worker is like and what he knows of machinery. Frequently he knows only that it cuts or that it is otherwise dangerous. A certain grip is shown him—he must do it like this—but the rest he does not understand and regards with indifference. Consequently regulations which concern only or more particularly the laborer would not help, for the people would not understand their aim and when the regulation caused them annoyance or trouble would fail to consider it and thus render themselves liable to accident.
I believe, therefore, that it is most important in the question of the conduct of agricultural machinery that we should work toward proper supervision over the laborer by the employer. When this happens accidents will begin to diminish.
It has interested me very much to learn here that it is not the machines but altogether different circumstances which cause most of the accidents in agricultural operations and that particularly in all provinces where horses are employed accidents are frequent. I am therefore pleased that this phase of the question of protecting against accident has also come up here and that the gentlemen are now engaged upon it.
For the rest it has been a great pleasure to me to take part in these deliberations.