Bisbee daily review., 1918-08-16
The Compensation Bill
CFrom the Arizona Record)

ArlZOnd, through the influence and by the manipulation of few radical leaders, and misrepresentation by shyster lawyers, has been placed on record as opposed to the initiative measure to be submitted to the voters at the November election and known as the Workmens Compensation Law. Il should not be inferred, however, that all members Of organized labor in the state, or a majority of them, will accept the dictum of the Miami convention. Several of the members of that convention represent trades which would not come under the pro- visions of the proposed amendment, while a larger number of the delegates hold DO itical positions by favor of President Croaff, who led the opposition to it.
 L. Donnelly, prominent in labor cir cles, and a strong advocate of the proposed compensation law, speaking on the floor of the convention against the adoption of the resolution condemning the measure, said that he expected the report of the commit tee against the bill would be concurred in, and he warned the convention that before very long organized labor would see that this action of the convention was political frame-up to widen the gulf between capital and labor in Arizona.
 The entire proceedings of the convention in relation to the compensation amendment looks very much like a cut and dried affair The report of the committee recom- mending the adoption of the resolution con demning the bill bears the semblance of a pre-arranged plan. Many of the statements therein are erroneous. The measure Is not unduly long, neither are It's provisions com plicated as charged. It is shorter than the compensation laws of other states and it's language is simple and its provisions are free from ambiguity.
 It Is true that 1t Is not compulsory upon the employer to be bound by the compen- sation provisions of the bill, neither is 1t compulsory on the part of the employe, who is not denied the right to bring suit In court for damages for injuries sustained, unless he elects to be bound by the provi- sions of the proposed law.
 The list of works or occupations speci- fled as hazardous Is divided into twenty six classes and Is very comprehensive. Workers in occupations not specified in the proposed amendment as hazardous are not affected and lose no rights they now enjoy.
 The committee report further alleges that the burden of proof is upon the workman claiming compensation and that the law provides that the claimant must also pay ALL necessary expenses for witnesses, fees, etc
 Upon whom should the burden of proof rest if not on the complainant? Would the L-, ! EI dence to prove his own liability? The charge that the claimant must pay all the expenses for witnesses fees, etc., is mis- leading. It is provided in Section l7 (e) that each witness who shall appear by order of the board shall be entitled to receive, if demanded, for his attendance the same fees and mileage allowed by law to witnesses in civil cases in the superior court, which amount shall be paid by the party at whose request such witness is subpoenaed, unless otherwise ordered by the board The ex- pense would fall upon either the empoye or the employer, whichever requested that the witness be called.
 Other objections urged against the pro- posed amendment are equally misleading or puerile.
 Some of the meritorious features of the measure, as briefly stated by the Arizona Mining Journal, are:
 It replaces the present inadequate com pensation law.
 It provides insurance to the employer and a guarantee of fair compensation to the in- jured workman.
 Ii provides state insurance to the em- ployo at TO cost to himself and at only actual cost 10 his employer
 The injured person entitled to compen-