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

i've. AS Tar as am perSfi3H4 con
cerned. | should be in favcr. bf doing
away with that limitation nliog.ther
The SUBJ committae and hA commit.
toe in our discussion became convinced
that it was necessary for us 10 Put
some limit in there In order TO sc
cure a passage of the measures. This
Is q big step in the right direction.
and We believed that we had better e.
part way this year and consequently
we agreed on placing the limit at ten.
which it seemed to lis wOuid he fair
10 both the employer and the emriovee
For that reason / move that this
amendment be rejected.
Mr.. NEWBERT of Augusta Mr..
Chairman, those of us who believe in
this measure certainly want to have
a good measure. If the compensa-
ton act before us has merit then |
say we should be very careful In the
consideration of these exemption mat
tefs. If the principle embodied in this
act be correct principle, then 1 sub
nit that II should apply 10 all EN-
ployers Of iabor and protect all the
employees. | doubt serlou3ly whether
farm hands should be exempted. but
tHtS seem 10 We, diiu WIZ lot. VIE
euss that issue. | am very certain
that the great number Of men en-
ployed in the lumber industries should
not be exempt. end that amendment
has been disposed Of.
If We are to get fair bill that
means something like e;act justice
between the employer and the en-
ployed. there viii he no osdef niions in
1t l oppose, on tbtt PRINCIPAL. th.,
exemption cfzaRy groPp Of ,1tets MN
bering 10 a. otherwise ca1ine, mr.
derstan3 how il is that "a assta1s III
this city ono building Contractor should
not come under the provisions of his
act becatse ne employs bue II or less
carpenters ard maSons. md why &c II
that upon the otiliT Side of the satne
street that q contracting Cilder come
under the Provisions Of this act be-
cause he chances to nploy liz o.
more men. Nef can / see the Justice
of such exemption when, beeausesa la
borer works for an employer who en-
ploys 10 or less, that he shall not
come under the provisions OF this act,
under its protection, While the labor
er belonging to the same class and. IN
the same city but working in a larger
crew does come under the protective
principle of this compensation get /
cannot see the justice of that.
am so unfortunate as to be 4 membsr
of small concern making bricks in
Augusta. We employ in the early part
Of the season / think fewer than 10
men, and and my felloNs-in this ccri-
panv would be exempt under tie terms
Of this act, and these employees at this
brick yard would not come under the
protection of this act. But have 9TH
ef men in mind up on the Kennebec
who make bricks rs we make bricks,
bat who employ some - or more men.
ana these employers in this larger
brick yard will be brought under the
provisions of this act, while we shall
escape. so that their men have The
protection of this act and my men will
not have it. Now you will get faircr
Till II you strike out the exemption
entirely; but if it is necessary 10 bring
it down fine then that may do FOR II
time. In the interest OF all concerned
and in the interest of exact justice be-
tween the employed and the employer
! say there should. Re no exemption at
all. ! rm in favor of an amendment
Which ,hrngsAit down 10 five, # that is
all we cam get.
Mr. SMITH of Aubur1t: do not in
tend 60 say anything further. but
there is one thing that occurs to me.
This amendment strikes out lines
ainc and ten and substitutes in place
thereef the following. This section
Shall only apply to employers who enl-
ploy dHe or more, worfmen or opera
tives in the same business Thisswill
allow the emploves. Of the gentleman
from Augusta Gfr Novbertl toecome
under this act If their employer saw
fit TO accept the provisions thereof AS
have said. personally r,slould be glad
to see all limitations or exceptions
wiped away, but In making as great a.
step as this, do not believe it is wise
for US to do it at this time / think
the amendment should 30 rejected.
The question being npon the motion
recommending the rejection of House
amendment F,
viva voce vote being doubted.
a division was had and the motion
was lost by vote of A to A..
Mr.. Descoteaux of Biddeford then
moved that the committee recommend
the adoption of House Amendment T.
4 viva voce vote being taken,
The notion was agreed to, and House
Amendment f WAS recommended II
be adopted. -
The CHAIRMAN, The Chair will
next lay before, the eommittee House
Document No 6s3. the. same being
House Amendment G 10 Senate Docu-
ment Nc. $40. ~
MI v 81 REOuSE Of kennebunk:
iir. CHI rruy1t t,elg Amendment G
has refel epcatto asssf,s ing employers
It simply H;<as cesta!I ind clear and
definite via tAe.p royiAons of this
section ART Th4tas 10 say, supposing
an employer was engaged in more than
cue kind OF business. and he visited
To become an asserting employer III
a'le pf thep and an Understanding enl-
ployer i'll another, lie would have tina.
privilege 50 10 do. This section merely
makes clear aud plain that provision,
anu the sub ommittee has seen ut TO
recommend the adoption of this amend
mcnt: aid | therefore move tina; this
committee recommend the adoption Of
| House Amendment G.
| The question being on the motion
tL.,t { Ton hn