Mohave County miner and our mineral wealth., 1918-10-12


 Argument-The terms of this law would make it impossible to collect compensation for the death of a wom- an employee whose husband is serving in the army in france.
 Note by the Bureau-Children of the wife under such circumstances would receive the full compensation. If no children then any major or minor de- pendents would receive compensation for her death.
 Argument-A beneficiary 20 years of age collecting compensation for the death of father or mother, killed in in- dustry, would be deprived of compen- .%tion after reaching the age of 21.
 Note by the Bureau-No other com pensation law in the United States or elsewhere is so liberal in this respect. Most compensation laws limit the age to 1S some to 16.
 Argument-The effect of the oper- ation of this law particularly in the Arizona mining industry would ere ate condition by which the employ CTS would refuse employment to work men with families or dependents, and preference of employment would be given to the migratory worker, the l. w. w., the alien, the bum, while the American workmen with families would be refused employment.
 Note by the Bureau-The natural re- suit of guaranteed high compensation anteed high wages-the attraction and retention of the highest class of labor, result that has attended operation of every compensation law of the kind pro- posed for Arizona.
 Argument-Section 15 (d) When read in conjunction with (i) will dis close the fact that no adequate com pensation is provided for such injur- ies as facial disagreement, the loss of an ear, or nose, the breaking of leg or arm, injury to the spine, kidneys or such other organs. Injury resulting in sexual sterility would not be con,- pensated for in any manner.
 Note by the Bureau-All of these things are plainly provided for. Section 15 O specifically provides for facial OR OTHER permanent disfigurements" with payment under present rate of wages to miner of as much as $2,370 and without conflict with payment for other manner of injury he may receive at the same time. Breaking of leg or arm, spinal, kidney or other organic in- jury are provided for at two-thirds of full wages during time incapacitated. Emphasis is given advantages of the amendment over present laws in these repects by the fact that whereas present laws require two weeks detention from work before the injured employe is en- titled to compensation. the proposed law fixes the time at one week. Under one week laws it has been found that 66 2-3 more persons received payments for in- jury than under the two weeks law.
 Argument-The cost of maintaining hospitals in the mining camps would be charged against the state fund without workers having a voice in thelr management.
 Note by the Bureau-The Amendment says under section IA: Nothing in this article shall be construed as preventing employers and workmen from entering into agreements providing for hospital accommodations and medical attention" disturb or interfere in any way with existing arrangAAnts. The law makes no mention of maintaining hospitals at the expense of the state fund nor was it intended to establish or control the administration of hospitals.
 Argument-The attempt at this time by profit seeking corporations to lower industrial standards and pro- tection of the workers, when so many of our Arizona workmen are in the the camps and the trenches [ lainly comes within the purview of those iniquitous practices of certain profit making interests that the na- tional government has been compelled to condemn. Organized labor in Ar izona has not approved this measure and was not considered; in the draft ing of this damnable law.
 Note by the bureau-Organized labor in Arizona has not been given opportuni- ty to approve or disapprove of the meas- ure and can not have such opportunity until the November election.
 Argument-The worker will gain nothing from the repeal of the exist ing laws and substitution of the pro- posed workmens' compensation law.
 Note by the Bureau-He gains death settlement up to $S,000 as compared with $4,O0O under present laws; in all cases of injury two thirds wages as compared with half; two thirds wages paid dur ing life in case of permananet disability as compared with possible maximum of S4,000 under present law
 Argument-On the other hand the adoption of this law would mean the destruction of industrial and legal standards that would require genera tions to rebuild for the protection of the workmen engaged in hazardous occupations, The rancher, the farm er, and other employers in agricul-