Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-04-02

peal OF tndl law VIII open the uOOf
wider for litigation of the employee
against the employer, and with the
condition existing that makes il al
most impossible for the poor sub con-
tractor to protect himself. 1t seems
to me it is unnecessary to go any
farther iii the discussion i'll this mat
ter. as far as House Amendment A is
concerned: and | move that this COM
mittce recommend the adoption OF
House Amendment y.
Mr. MARSTON of Skowhegan: Mr..
Chairman, | am not Il member of the
sub committee. but | have been asked
by the Subcommittee to express their
views on this particular amendment,
on the ground that | aim n lnmberman
and an employer of labor in the lum-
Der industry who would lie affected
by the provisions of this amendment
/ wish to say that il strikes me at
ter very careful consideration of the
amendment and consultation with
eminent and competent counsel that Il
large part of the fear of that parti-
eular section on the part of the lum
berTnen is without foundation. Ger
tainly the effect Of this act upon the
lurnL ermen would not be greater than
the effect of the act which Was unaRi-
m6uslY passed in this House and to
the passage of which no objection
was made by any of the lumbermen
present on the floor of this House.
viz. the act shifting the burden of
proof in case of accidental death.
That act went through this House
wit 1lNr f-scT1tGGinr and O
| remember it, without any opposition.
] believe that an employers liabili-
ty act which would either very much
modify or do away entirely with the
common law defence, as provided in
Section of this BILL would have
passed through this House without
much comment. There naight have
been some discussion upon it but !
do not think there would have been
strong opposition to it. | believe the
particular section in this bill which
scares most people is mat part of the
title in which the word "compensa-
ton appears. AS Il matter of fact.
bad we passed an employers liability
bill, such as was recommended by
both platforms. and such as would
have received favorable action on the
part of Il majority of this House,
there is no question and there can be
no question but what the employers
of labor would be more seriously in
jured than they will be in the passage
Of this law which provides compensa-
ton, instead of damages at the hands
of a jury, as they would in the case of
an employers liability act.
This act provides for the maximum
limit beyond which YOU cannot go.
that is, in the case of an accident.
The employers liability act which |
have mentioned and which would
have received favorable comment
leaves no limit and places no limit up
ON what the employer may pay. The
limit which has Leen sort of agreed
upon as Il standard limit which ! be
lievc most of the Insurance companies
consider. of $1,000 for death, is in ex-
cess If what is provided by this COM
pensation bill; and the ordinary limit
that juries award f5Is permanent in
Juries or permanent disability is some
times in excess of what is provided
for in this compensation act. This
bill says that all shall he taken care
of, and not a few who may site and
receive enormous damages, and who
are in turn obliged to divide what
ever damages they may get with their
lawyers and witnesses and the costs
of legal procedure.
Now, / want to say that as lum-
herman, and representing certainly a
respectable percentage OF the lumber
men of this State, that ! do not ask
and do not insist or desire that our
industry be favored shy more than
any other industry; | do not ask that
it be exempted from the provisions
of this bill; | do realize that there are
some conditions in relation To this in
dustry which are greatly different
from those relating to some other in
dustries. But in spite or that, / be-
lieye that there should be no eXemp-
tons of any sort, that farm laborers
will he included in the provisions OF
the act but for the present | realize
that it is wiser To exempt certain
classes of laborers; and for these rea
sens, Mr.. Chairman, l hope that the
amendment will not be adopted
Mr.. IRVING: j will ask the gen
tleman from Skowhegan, Mr. Mars
ton, if his lumber is not cut, as | sug-
gested a few moments ago. by sub
contractors?
Mr. MARSTON: l will say, Mr.
Chairman, that a great deal of our
lumber is cut by snb-contraet0rs.
Mr.. O'CONNELL of Milford: Mr.
Chairman, living in Il lumber section
of our State as | do. and realizing
from experience by working in the
lumber woods, | cannot see my rea-
son why the laborers of our principal
industry should be stricken out from
the privileges Of the WorHmen's COM
pensation act. The gentleman from
Caribou (Mr. IRVING has told you
that repeal of the law whore man
is injured from the fault of a fellow
workman would be ii ia mage. | say
that it would be a help. and it would
would give the lumberman j
chance to dodge the response
bility in case he may be liable. We al
ready have a weekly payment clause
1 will say that in Maine the lumber in
dustry is hazardous occupation; riv-
er driving is a hazardous o"cupatiOn
Why not nave This bill cover every Ia
berer in the State of Maine? II comes
right down to the fact that the cos
or The worl<menS compensation ac
adds IN tIlp cpSt of Dl,Dductio ion For in