The Calumet news., 1910-09-01
Laurium. Mich. Sept. /. 1910

BY reason of my duties I'm connection
with MIR. Chase ;. Osborn's campaign
for the Governorship, have been un-
able To see each voter personally con-
cerning my candidacy for re- election to
the Legislature. In the limited time re-
manning | realize the impossibility of
seeing every person, but am outlining
herein "a brief review of my record
i'm the last legislature and some of the
measures | am i'm favor of IL again
honored by your choice for a second
term.
Before doing this. however, L desire
first TO correct certain statements made
by my opponent MIR. Anthony Lucas,
I'm circular letter recently sent to
the electors of this District In re-
viewing the history of the Employers
Liability Bills. submitted to the last
Legislature he has misstated certain
matters, which ii not corrected might
result in a decided injustice to me.
The following paragraph of his let
ter is the one / refer to:
There were two Employers LA
bility Bills introduced I'm the last
session of the legislature. Both
were referred TO the Judiciary COM
mittee of which Mr.. William r.
oates was member. one of those
bills was reported out and passed.
1t was what is now called The
Railroad Employers Liability Bill
a ,Aln In
the hands of Mr.. Oates committee,
il included all corporations en-
ploying labor. When IL was re-
ported out and passed, IL made
liable only the Railroad companies
to their employees. The other
bill was never reported out. 1t
was killed in the committee, and
/ have II from Mr.. Oates himself
that he helped to kill that bill and
he told me just how he did 1t.
asked him why he did this.
and he said i'm substance, because
] had to look after the interest of
the Mining Companies"
The history of all legislation and the
record of each legislators vote Is con-
tanned i'm n House and Senate Journal
What are the facts concerning the LA
bility Bills referred to as recorded In
those Journals? Has Mr.. Lucas exam
ned these records? The proofs which
w''l submit leave the question to be
answered by the voters.
I'm the first place 1t should be re-
membered that there are two Judiciary
Committees-one in the Senate and
the other in the House of Represen-'
tatives This fact has undoubtedly
been overlooked by my opponent. l
was member of the latter Committee
My opponent draws your attention first
to the Railroad Employers Liability
Bill and says:
When that bin was first placed
II the hands Of MR.. OATES
COMMITTEE 1t included all corpor-
atiors employing labor"
This Is Mr.. Lucas positive statement
contained i'm his letter. What are the
facts? What does the Journal say? At
pages 5S2-S3 of the Senate Journal the
pill referred TO (Senate Bill No. 81 to
he accuratc) was so AMENDED BY
THE SENATE to make it apply only
to common carriers. To remove any
question concerning the object of this
measure it will be observed at Page
727 Senate Journal that the original
title of the Bill was changed in the
Senate to read as follows: "A bill to
prescribe the liability of common car
rler railroad companies to their em-
ployees." The unassailable truth of
the matter Is, then, that the Senate of
which was not member excluded all
corporations but common carrier rail-
roads from the purpose of this bill and
then when IL was received by the
House judiciary Committee of which
was a member, 1t DID NOT INCLUDE
ALL CORPORATIONS employing la
Dor but referred ONLY to COMMON
CARRIER RAILROAD COMPANIES.
The statement that / was the member
of q Committee which excluded from
the purpose of this bin all corpora
tons excepting railroad companies Is
not borne out by the records. Neither
tne Juulcld1y 0oIllllltttc OI tilc f1ouSt
of which was a member were respon-
sible for the changes made in this bill.
Why does my opponent say that when.
that bill was first placed in the hands
of Mr.. oates Committee II included
all corporations employing labor?" The
statement is unwarranted and unjust,
and | believe my opponent will will
lingly correct the mistake he has made.
His reference should have been made
to the Senate judiciary Committee.
TO clinch the absolute truth of my
statement and to show also by the rec
ords of the House. what this bill (Sen-
ate Bill No. 91) was when received by
that branch of the Legislature, permit
me to draw attention TO the following
message received from the Senate as
contained on Page 1141 House Journal
1909. Message received from the
Senate transmitting Senate Bill 81
ENTITLED, bill to prescribe the LA
billy of common carrier railroad COM
panies to their employees" This bill
was read and then referred to my
Committee. The records (also of the
House), now prove that when this
measure was received by the House, II |
referred only to railroad companies. so