The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1913-04-03
WORKMEN'S COM
PENSAT|ON ACT
Becomes Law and Pro-
vides for Injured
Roy L. Marston of SkoWhegan Ac-
credited with Most Of the Work
That Led to Its Adoption

course of their employment, was as
sured by the action of the House of
Representatives on Tuesday. Rep
resentative Marston comes in for the
lions share of comment in the news
paper accounts of the adoption of this
act and his speech in relation thereto
occupies about four columns of a
stenographc report of the house pro-
ceedings.
Several amendments were offered
in the attempt to exempt certain in
dustries from the operation of the
law. Upon one of them, relating to
the lumber industry, Mr. Marston
spoke as follows:
| am not member of the sub-com-
mittee, but | have been asked by the
subcommittee TO express their views
on this particular amendment, on the
ground that / am a lumberman and
an employer of labor in the lumber
industry who would be affected by
the provisions of this amendment.
| wish to say that it strikes me af-
ter very careful consideration of The
amendment and consultation with
eminent and competent counsel that a
large part Of the fear of that parti-
cular section on the part of the lum-
bermen Is without foundation. Ger
tainly the effect of this act upon the
lumbermen would not be greater than
the effect of the act which was unan-
imously 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
with practically no discussion and, as
| 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 might have
been some discussion upon 1t but ]
do not think there would have been
strong opposition to 1t. / believe the
particular section in this bill which
scares most people Is that part of the
title in which the word "compensa-
ton" appears. AS a matter of fact,
had 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 a 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 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 I
limit which has been sort of agreed |
upon as standard limit which / be- |
lieve most of the insurance companies |
consider of $4,000 for DEATH Is in ex
cess of what is provided by this com
pensation bill; and the ordinary limit I
that jures award for permanent in
juries or permanent disability is some
times in excess of what Is provided /
for In this compensation act The I
bill says that all shall be taken care /
Of and not a few who may sue and I
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 a lum
herman and representing certainly a
respectable percentage of the lnmber-
men of the State that | do not ask
and do not insist or desire that our
industry be favored any more than
any other industry; | do not ask that |
it be exempted from the provisions !
of the 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
dustres. But in spite of that, be-
lieve that there should be no exemp-
tons of any sort, that farm laborors
will be included in the provisions of
the act, but for the present | realize
that 1t is wiser to exempt certain
classes of laborers: and for these rea-
sons, Mr.. Chirman; | hope that the
will not be adopted.
Speaking upon the law as whole
Mr. Marston explained it's various pro-
visions and the manner in which they
would effect the relations and rights !
of employer and employee. His clos !
ing appeal for the enactment of the
bill was as follows:
81 do not urge you to vote for this |
measure, because you promised it to
the people of Maine. | do not ask |
you Progressives to vote for 1t be-
cause 1t Is tenet of the party placed |
there in the memorable speech of |
your leader then he insisted that every |
employee of this government should
be protected by 1t; | do not ask you !
Democrats to vote for 1t because your
great President in his inaugural ad-
dress, that most remarkable and able
public document Of mordern times
plead for it; and fellow Republicans,
do not ask you to stand behind and
defend this measure because that
greatest of our Progressive-R epub-
leans whom we miss so in our coun-
ellis today and whose memory will al
ways be green In the hearts OF Maine,
Herbert NJ. Heath, in his wisdom
wrote 1t in our platform, not because
our Governor extolled 1t and promised
It In his speeches and was elected by
the workmen Of Maine because of 1t
oil -