New Britain herald., 1914-07-27

opinion, indeed, there is in abundance
 that small employers are exempted as the law stands now But the at- torney general says not: and his opn- ion must control until it might be re- versed in court. So the best, as prob ably also the quickest way to remove all doubt will be by simple legis- lative amendment. Such an amend
 ment can be made without affect ing in any other respect the nature of the law. At the eleventh
 hour, just before the bill was to come
 up for passage, I foresaw the possi- bility of the broader interpretation and submitted to the four charmen in charge of the bill a slight change to make the intended meaning un- mistakable. My suggestion was disre- garded. If nothing better can be
 done, my old suggestion can be adopt ed in 1915.
 'The benefits of the act ought now to be extended to those suffering from industrial diseases contracted in the course of their employment. This will put an end to vexatious disputes as to whether such and such disabil- ities are to be taken as due to acci-
 dent or to disease: here are industrial
 posonings and certain other morbid conditions. Moreover. on the broad
 and ever solid basis of justice. there is no reason for distinguishing be-
 tween disability from industrial acci- dent and disability from industrial disease, no reason unless it be that 1 the industrial disease is likely to be the worse affliction. The world gen
 erally is including industrial dls- eases.
 ''The most recent experience of American states, and Connecticut
 among them, warrants the establish ment of state fund for assuring the
 awards to the injured and insuring the employer against crushing obliga- t1ons to pay awards. When I drew
 my first bill in 1911, I made provision
 for a state fund; and I have never since doubted that such fund ought to be established by every compensa- ton law. Let the stock companies insure also, if they will and can. But,
 by all means, let there be state fund, to which those may resort who prefer not to contribute to the great expenses and profits of the stock com panies. The presence of state fund will have an effect upon the rates of the companies. The New York com
 pensation law gives awards much more liberal than those of Connecti-
 cut; but the press tells us that the
 companies are selling insurance in New York lower than in Connecticut. There is state fund in New York
 Upon the establishment of a state fund in Connecticut provision ought to be made for the acceptance of the
 compensation system by small em- ployers. in case their unconstrained option brings them thereto. With the cheaper coverage by the state doubt less many a small employer would
 enter the system of his own free choice.
 There ought to be inserted a pro- vision that awards be doubled when the accident has been caused by the employers failure to comply with a statutory requirement for safety. Such is the arrangement in Massachu- setts: and there is much to be said for it. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is pro- vided in our law, as in others, that serious and willful misc conduct of the injured employe forfeits compensa- ton not only for himself but also for his innocent dependents. If an em- ployer, after notice, neglects to ln- stall safety devices required by the law of the land, that is serious and willful misconduct, and it should be penalized.
 The waiting period,' during which disability is not compensated, should be reduced from two weeks. That is the maximum found in any of the states; several have one week, and ie1 h.av~ 1G1t often a grievous hardship to be dis abled full two weeks with loss of income. The term should be reduced to one week. Even Connecticut con- servatism cannot balk at ten days.
 ''The period during which medical and surgical care are provided should | be extended beyond the present thirty l days New York, our great and close ! industrial neighbor. has sixty days; | Illinois has fifty-six; California, Min nesota and Wisconsin have ninety | days.
 T believe, too, that the basis of | awards ought to be raised from ffty 1 to siXty-six per cent. When our l law was enacted, fifty was the general | figure; and there was certain super ficial plausibility in the suggestion | that the two parties should share | equally the loss attending disability. | But it must not be forgotten that an injured employe bears something in which his employer has no part, the physical pain and the unhappiness which result from the injury. Some solace. at least there ought to be for | these Moreover, our circumstances have changed since our law was passed. Even then there were number of states in which the com pensations were above fifty per cent; and to these have since been added our two great industrial neighbors a.a aarnnatitors New York and Mas