Bisbee daily review., 1918-07-21

WORkMENS CONVERSATION LAW
 Argument-Under the present law an injured work has recourse to three remedies-the common law, the employers liability law, the workmens compen- saton law and he may elect his remedies after injury. The present workmens compensation law and the em- poyers liability law while not perfect, substantial bulwarks for the protection of workmen injured n- dusres and have salutary effect in making the em- poyer (partcuarly in the mines careful in the safety of his employees.
 Note the right action exists in not more than out of six and this startling limitation the fact that unSer u"S r'1Rs'sbiiRS the iisbiiy system
 Argument-This proposed law being initiated pro- poses abrogate the present employers liability and workmens compensation law and seeks to set up Tn their place vicious provisions born and bred in the minds of the profteerng copper magnates of Arizona Among these vicious provisions are
 It establishes the doctrine that the employers capable of exercising their judgment but the work CTS are presumed be capable of proper judgment and herded like sheep under the provisions of this proposed measure.
 the present employers liability law the imperative work mss @ @ 1% S Ps S @ p @ o0o aoy s n s~ % @ s the ambulance chasers bread and butter.
 The proposed law is elective to both employer and eploye and will give to the injured workman oOmpensaOn in excess Of any state in the Union without aid of lawyer The ambulance chaser who would receive under the prsts of securing larger verdict n out of business and Perforoe would staVe
 Argument-Any employer who elects to pay com pensation provided Tn this entitled to all of the old law defenses fellow doctrine assumed risks etc., if the injured ploye refuses to accept the meager compensation fixed by this law. WIG % @ bs a sbs n T amy 6ea by socdnt 2 Be PgR%eU TO DesND ARY SUIT AT PAW the grounds that the mPye negligent that the injury pIOye employer DOES ELECT receives compensation
 Argument is not necessary for the employer to pay the required premium into the state fund.- he may stand outside and receive the benefits.
 Note the eeG.agThe above have been PreaOn is apparent Under circumstances can the employer or it The law for both
 Argument Dependency must be shown to entitle beneficiary to compensation.
 by 5ureau-Beneiciaries dependents r,s d p T t a s @ e - m @ @ gI"ge sI fI U e p % ving until remarrisse child chi age yesrs "aIOr dependent sisters under the of 2i years"
 Argument-The terms of this law would make it inn possible to collect compensation for the death of wo ar employe whose husband Is serving in the army in France.
 by sureau-chldren such stances would receive the full If no children then any
 ArguInent-tA peneIclary ZO years or age conecung compensation for the death of father mother killed industry, would be deprived of compensation after reaching the age of 2l.
 Note the 5ureau-No other compensation United States elsewhere liberal this respect Most compensation laws limit the to 1s to te
 Argument-The effect of the operation of this law particularly in the Arizona mining industry would create a condition by which the employers would refuse poyment to worknen with families or dependents and preference of employment would be given to the migra tory worker, the W. w., the aen and thebum, while the American workmen with families would be refused employment.
 Note by the high pnsaon for injuries the that of guaranteed high the has attended every of the kind posed for Arizona
 Argument-Section 15 (d) When read in conjunc- ton with ll will disclose the fact that adequate conn