The Calumet news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 1907-1938, 1910-09-03
TO THE VOTERS OF CALUMET
TOWNSHIP,

ientlemen:--
I'm very long and laborious article
published IN the Calumet News. Sep
,ember first 1910. and also mailed 10
the individual voters in pamphlet
conn. Mr.. oates tried to Justify his
vote on some Of the important meas
nres brought up at the last session Of
, the legislature. and also asserts that
mis-stated the facts with regard 10
, his position on these measures and
THAT | made a mis-statement IN say
ing that he killed the Employers Liza
bility Bil in his Committee. Mr.
oates article I'm legal phraseology
would be called a Confession and
Avoidance" lie takes up three coll
umns of newspaper space TO tell the
voters how he killed the Employers
Liability Law, and to what Commit
tee the Railroad Employers Liability
Bill was referred TO; that | was mis-
taken in saying that the Railroad En-
plcycr's Liability Bill was doctored in
his Committee; that the facts
are, that this Railroad Employ
er's Liability BIN was referred TO
the Senate Judiciary Committee. and
when il was reported out of that
Committee, it made Liable only the
Railroad companies to their employees,
that he had nothing 10 do with the
doctoring of that bill I'm that Commit
tee. l viii stand corrected on that
statement | did not have the Senate
Journal at the time / wrote my letter,
but since Mr. oates has called my at
tention, L have investigated that. and /
am willing to give Mr.. oates the bene-
1T of the correction. But / still main
tain that Mr.. oates helped to kill the
other Employers Liability Law which
was referred to his Committee. That
bin proposed to help out the working
men i'm our mines and factories, and
the workingmen in other dangerous
employments IN this State And when !
this bill was referred TO Mr. Oates |
Committee, II purposely omitted the |
farmers from liability TO their en-
ployees, because the members who |
were seeking to pass the bill, wanted /.
TO make sure that they got the farm |
ers to vote for It.. And as a matter of !
fact, il did not make much difference
whether the farmers were included or |
not, because the farm hand was not |
the man that most needed the protec-
ton. Very seldom do we hear Of a /
farm hand being killed or injured |
Where, there is one farm hand killed |
or injured there are a thousand work. |
and factories. The purpose Of this |
bill was TO protect these workingmen |
that most need the protection. and TO /
make sure the bill was passed it was /
necessary &c sacrific this farm -hand. |
Mr.. Oates knew this, and with this |
knowledge as he says, I proposed the
to the bill TO include the
farmers, because Il see no reason why
a man injured on a threshing machine |
should not have the same legal rights |
as the man injured in any other bust
ness?" Was that the reason for this
knew that with that amendment at
tached to the bill, the farmers would |
vote against it and kill It, and he
would thereby protect the interests |
Of the Mining companies. If that Is
not the reason, why should Mr. Oates
get so interested in this poor farm
hand, and be willing to sacrifice the
interests of the ninety-five per cent Of
his constituents. who were working
men employed I'm the dangerous mines
who needed the protection, for the
sake of This poor Farmland who is
employed around danger
Gus threshing machines? How often
do you hear of these farm hands get
ting killed and leaving a wife with
eight or ten small children? How Of
ten do you hear of these farm hands
being crippled i'm the employment of
the farmers and thrown on the sup
port of the public? There might be
one that is occasionally injured but
he cases are very rare. While on the
other hand, we hear of men being in