South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1915-02-26

49, a 49, y. 49,
bill. but both agreed TO accept it.
Reps Hagerty Oyermeyer and Myers,
of Whitley, voted against the bill.
Several attempts to amend the
workmen's compensation bill were
made when the bill came up for third
reading as a special order of bus
mess. but excepting one instance.
these attempts were unsuccessful. The
one successful effort was made by
Rep. Eschbach, republican floor
leader, who had the measure amend
ed TO provide that the industrial board
of Indiana, provided in the bill for
the administration of the proposed
act, shall not have any more than two
members of any one political party IN
its make up of three members.
Rep. Harvey sought TO amend the
bill to eliminate some words in one
section which, he said, were superfiu-
Gus, but Rep. Sare, author of the bill,
moved to lay the Harvey motion on
the table and the house adopted the
Sare motion. Then Rep. F'eick sought
TO amend the bill in several particu
lars but was unsuccessful, Rep. Sare
telling the house that each of the
amendments had been thrashed over
in conference and that the bill as II
then stood represented a compromise,
could not recede.
Rep. Waltz sought TO amend, the
bill so as unequivocally to eliminate
the employees of common carriers in
Indiana, which do an interstate bus
mess, but the bill was unchanged
after the house had voted on the
Waltz amendment.
Feick's Efforts Fail.
Rep. Feick first sought TO strike out
til, I, ia
he believed would give the employer
of labor, who was made to pay dam
ages when the "fellOw-serVant' had
been responsible for the accident, the
right to sue for and collect the dam
ages from the fellow servant" Rep.
Sare protested that the bills o.
visions would not give the eTg' II
that right.
The Feick sought to amend it to
allow for recovery of damages within
two years. instead of the Oneyear
limit provided by the bill This also
was voted down, as was his proposed
amendment to raise the burial ex-
penses, provided in Section 81 of the
bill from 500 TO $500.
Rep. Sare then made an address on
the bill, saying that Charles Fox,
president of the Indiana Federation
of Labor, had said he believed the
bill was the best that could be OBJ
tanned as a compromise, and that
while he was not satisfied with its
provisions. he wanted to see it passed
in its present form rather than have
no bill passed.
Sare explained that under lndiana's
constitution compulsory workmen's
compensation was not possible and
that this bill provided for an optional
compensation law. the only thing
possible under the constitution. He
discussed laws of other states.
Rep. Sare dwelt at some length on
the fact that a compensation law was
promised TO labor by the democratic
party.
Not a Burden ON Employer.
Sare said that the argument that
the provisions of the bill would prove
very expensive TO the employer was
not true They would not put an ad-
ditiOnal burden upon the shoulders of
the business interests. He said the
bill provided that the employer in
sure his employe whom he may in
jure Sare said the, bill would force
the employer 10 further protect his
employe by adopting safety devices
and other means OF safeguarding the
employe from injury
TT puts upon the employer the
duty of protecting his employee" said
Sare in closing. land il serves one
other purpose which is much more
important. IL is bound. sooner or
later. To bring employe and employer
in closer touch with each other. This
is a most desirable end"
Fred l. Feick who had tried TO
amend the bill i'm favor OF the labor
interests attacked the provisions of
the bill on the ground that they were
not sufficiently drastic in favor OF la
Dor He cited variances between the
proposed law in Indiana and the law
in effect In the state of Ohio The
Ohio law has the state Insurance rea-
toure. not contained in the Sare bill.
and Feick objected 20 the bill because
this feature had been eliminated
we, the laboring men 20 the state,