The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram., 1911-01-11
Neither Compensation Act
Will Pass if Miners Un-
ion Can Prevent.
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY
Measure Is What Union Men
Desire A Sample OF
'Jokers' in Bills.
palladium Specially


workmen's compensation act intro.
duccd In the senate Tuesday will pass
n the United Mine Workers of Ameri-
ca, districts S and II, comprising all
Indiana union miners. can prevent.
Aligned with the mine workers in
such "a fight Is the Indiana Federation
OF Labor. This statement Is made
ON the authority OF Henry w. Bullock,
attorney for the mine workers.
There are two reasons. One is the
bills themselves. The other in that
union people feel they are entitled TO
employees liability inasmuch as they
were promised employers liability.
And until they get 1t, they intend to
fight. Governor Marshall was under.
stood TO favor the promised legisla-
ton. but recommended In It's stead
workmens compensation.
But leaving Governor Marshall and
pledges out of consideration, union
men say the bills won't do at all as
labor measures.
The bills were introduced by Sena.
tors Roysc Of Terre Haute. and Long
Of Nashville. Tho former Is com
pulsory act and the latter optional.
The latter Is the measure drafted by
the Legislative committee of the In
diana bar association OF which Addi.
son &. Harris liz chairman. Neither
measure can bear the Y. Il. Marshall
label. as neither provides an indus.
trial court as recommended I'm the mes
sage. But the Long measure has
been heralded some time and will at.
tract considerable attention because OF
It's bar association backing.
ealk on Long Act.
The Long measure displeases union
labor In several respects. The most
Glaring defect. from the union view.
point. is embodied In little sentence
tucked away. IL provides:
1T shall be lawful. however. for the
employer or workman to disaffirm an
employment under the provisions OF
this act by written contract between
them or by written notice given by
that effect before the day of the acci
dent"
This paragraph gives the employer
the right by simply serving notice In
writing. to escape the workings ol
the law. and. labor men argue. what
ever benefit the law brings to working
men will be neatly dodeed.
Another sentence. n little less evi
dent In defect, but held to be quite as
ii. .l..sA ezlt II Il.
Of compensation for death:
when the death OF workman re
suits from the accident within six
months thereafter. and the workman a,
the time of his death leaves widow
and minor child or children. or other
kin depending on such workman's
earnings for support and education
then the employer shall pay to the
personal representative of the deceas
ed workman for the exclusive benefi,
of such widow and child or children
a sum equal to one half Of the wages
or earnings OF the decedent as afore
said. but In no event more than tn,
sum OF three thousand (s3.O0OO dol
lars
as NuV sSutVHNC dppcui y
the question has arisen just what sun
is the minimum. The sentence doe.
not qualify the amount that must IN
paid. and labor men say II may be hal
Of one months wages. one week.
wages or one days and still be legal
because II Is n sum equal to half o
the wages Of the decedent."
The real joker is In the phrase. de
termined as aforesaid" The onl.
place In the bill where there Is an,
provision for determination OF tn,
wages or earnings Is in the claus,
which relates to benefits In case o
injury incapacitating n workman. II
that event he shall be paid MONTH,
benefit equal To one.half OF his aver
age monthly wage during the preced
Ing year. But the clause relating I,
the amount to be paid In event of dealt
does not specify any period of time a
basis for computing one half tn,
wages. The implication which &
thrown out as blind is that IL is {,
be one.half the wages earned for
year. but the clause does not say so.
Even were II so, the bill would still
be undesirable for death compensa