The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1913-03-13
OHIO TAXPAYERS
WILL SUFFER
Green Compulsory COmpensa-
tiOR Bill Onder Fire.
EXPENSE is NOT CONSIDERED

instead Of Putting Burden On Tax
payers, the industry Should Stand
Cost Of Administering Insurance
System.
Columbus, O.-tSpecial) p rimarily
the adequate compensation of the in
jured employe, or the dependents of
the killed employe, is a matter be-
tween the employer and the employe.
Maniiestly, and admittedly, the ex-
pense is proper charge against pro-
duction--the consumer should pay it.
The compensation IS, in effect, con-
tract-the EN-. loyer in consideration
Of the honest and continued service
of the employe, agrees to compensate
the emplOye for loss OF employment
caused by injuries sustained in the
course CT his service, or, his depend
ents, in the event his life is lost in
the course of that service. The state
is indirectly Il party to this contract
in that it is a proper function, and
duty, Of the state tC see that the con-
the employer and employe. Since this
contract does not involve the expendi
tUre of a penny On the part of either
the employer or the employe, why
should ii cost the state money? And,
yet. 1t is going to cost the state A
MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, for the
Green bill, now pending in the general
assembly, provides that the expense of
safeguarding and administering the
provisions Of this contract shall be
paid out of the general revenue fund
AdrOitly it is made to appear that
the Ohio taxpayer has no interest in
the Green bill-that it does not con-
Germ him. What are the facts?
Loading 1t On the Taxpayer.
The taxpayer must foot the bill of
nearly HALF A MILLION DOLLARS
for direct premium to insure the pub
lie employees; i. e., policemen, firemen
(where no pension fund exists school
teachers and all others in the public
service, and in addition another
ROUND MILLION DOLLARS annual
ly to pay for running the machine.
One million dollars may seem some
what small to the TAX SPENDERS
who will profit by the establishment Of
this state monopoly. Apparently the
guardians of this measure in the
general assembly have succeeded in
making the representatives of these
TAXPAYERS think that ONE MIL
LION DOLLARS is a mere trifle, since
not a single legislator has, thus far,
raised his voice in protest against it.
Compensation for work injuries is
a good thing but in pushing it along
why should the taxpayer be saddled
with a portion of the cost which
should be paid by the consumer
whose use Of the product makes him
a participant in and beneficiary of the
toll necessary to it's production.
Compel the user and not the tax
payer to shoulder the load.
The idea of compensation was born
of the minds Of the workingmen. The
idea survived and developed to a
lusty majority because the working
men claimed. and proved that 1t
was not a hardship on the employer;
that it wouldn't cost him a dollar;
that the whole cost of it would be
added to production and paid by the
consumer; that it would mean
saving for the GENERAL TAX
PAYER because it would reduce, by
many thousands, the INDECENT victims
of accidents whom the TAXPAYER
has always had to house, and feed,
and clothe. And all this is true, in
theory, and should be made true, in
FACT. Contemplate, for moment.
this Green compensation bill. Find
in it, il you can,> sentence that win
save penny Of the taxes now being
paid for the maintenance of public.
charitable and benevolent institutions.
proposes to ADD to the load ONE
MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
But one excuse has ever been offer.
ed hy anybody, anywhere, to justify
placing even penny of the cost OF
| the administration of compensation
luUu Ou Tie StuGIdl LAX pdyS Sl, pTODdulJ
because it is THE ONLY POSSIBLE
EXCUSE. The excuse is that COM
pulsory compensation is HUMANE
TARTAN and for that reason society
| at large should help to bear part OF
the burden of it. That this excuse is
| ILLOGICAL is apparent. Consider
! the general taxpayer, the UNIT of
| SOCIETY! He is neither an EN-
I PLOYER nor an EMPLOYE. If he
| be one or the other the CON-
| cLUSION IS INEVITABLY THE
BAME. Most of the accidents in in
lustrial establishments are due to the
2arelessness or negligence of the EN-
oloyer, the employe, or of some fell
.ow employe. The MORE accidents
The MORE the general taxpayer has
70 PUT UP-and yet the general tax.
payer CANNOT DO A SINGLE
THING to prevent carelessness or
negligence on the part Of employer,
employe or fellow employe. He must
STAND HELPLESSLY by while ac-
cidents are occurring that COULD
and SHOULD be prevented and for
which he, he general taxpayer must
l,1Iv, -