The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1918-01-31
COMPENSATION BILL
STRONGLY SUPPORTED
Representatives Of Many Large EnS
pIoyers, Favor Plan to Get Rid
of Damage Suits.
PUBLIC HEARING is HELD.
Provisions of Proposed Law Call For
weekly Indcmnities TO Injured En-
ployes, Total Not to Exceed $4,000
In Any Case.


the governor yesterday, and hearing
was held in the afternoon in the hail
of the house of delegates before the
joint committee on courts of Justice
on the senate bill embodying the
recommend a tions of the commission
and of which Senator Goolrick, chair
man of the commission, Is patron.
The report reviewed at length the
history of compensation laws in this
country, and included a tentative
draft of bill.
The bill before the committee pro-
yides maximum indemnity of So
600 for total disa bility. payable In
weekly installments equal to one-balf
OF the weekly earnings of the in
jured employs for a period not great
err than 500 weeks, but not to exceed
$1,000 nor to be less than $500
weekly.
In case of death provision is made
for weekly payments to dependents
of not more than $1,000 and not less
than $500 for a period of 500 weeks
II the deceased has no dependents in
the United states or Canada. the in
demnity shall not exceed $1,000
Indemnity for loss Of time through
accidents is not payable for the first
fourteen days. Other indemnities for
specific injuries, such as loss of limbs,
are appended.
Agricultural IA Dor, domestic help,
and steam railroad employees actually
engaged in transportation are eN-
cepted from the provisions of the bill
Employers are directed by law ~
make application for acceptance OF
the provisions and TO provide for the
payment of indemnitfes through liza
bility insurance. a penalty being Inn
-. aF1. 4p-- Va{
Provides For Commission.
The bill provides for the creation
of the industrial commission of Vir-
sinia to be composed of three menu
bers to be appointed by the governor.
one each for a two-year, four-year
and six-year term, with salaries of
$4,000 each. and says that they shah
devote the entire time to the super
vision and administration OF the de-
partment.
The bill provides that all the ex-
penses of this protection and indem-
nifty against death and accident shall
be met by the employers.
G. Edwin Michael, president of the
Virginia Bridge and Iron company,
a member OF the commission. spoke
for that body and stated that there
had been absolutely no opposition to
the bill in several hearings held by
that body. He believed that if the
pending bill was enacted into law
Virginia would have the best work
mems compensation law of all the
thirty-seven states that have already
adopted such a measure in their state
~policy In the. experience of his own
company they had found that they
paid a lower rate for liability insur-
ance In those states having compen-
vided. Hence he believed that there
would be no undue burden on en-
ployes under this law, that employe
and employer alike would be bene-
fited because of the absence of litiga-
tion now inevitable under the COM
mon law. He emphasized the point
that under this law there could be
no litigation over questions of alleged
neglect and az to responsibility.
Favored by Many Employers-
A b. Guigon. attorney for the Vir-
ginia Railway and Power company,
representing many public utility COM
panies favored the proposed law. He
was glad to so announce. because. he
argued 1t showed the sense of fairness
and "a spirit OF humanity animating
employers as class. Under the
changed Industrial conditions OF today,
vast enterprises and huge factories,
practically all classics of employment
were hazardous, and hence this pro-
lection should be given to the man
who labors. said Mr.. Guigon.
DIR. r. v. N. Painter, of Roanoke,
suggested three amepdments. one to
include farm labor, to establish
state insurance fund. and to provide
for state liability insurance, either eN.
elusive or In competition with the
private companies. the latter being
H.
ers against possible ovsroharge by the
liability companies.
The members Of the commission had
no opposition to this unless II was
reserved exclusively for the state,
However. they preferred the liability
insurance afforded by the private
companies.
H. NJ. Cousins, a member OF the com.
mission, who did not Join in signing
the report. stated as his reason there
for. that railroad employees other than
those engaged In actual transporta-
ton did not wish to surrender the
rights they had under the common
law, with certain legislative changes
in recent years. making their posi-
tion stronger. At present an employee
may sue and perhaps recover large
sums In damages. UP to $4,000, He
did not believe they would care TO
exchange that right for an indemnity
of ten dollars week.
The suggestion for state liability
insurance gave rise to a lively colioquy
between Senator Gooirick and mem.
hers of the committee. Senator Trim
kle was disposed to favor such an
amendment, Notwithstanding that the
commission discouraged it. Senator
Trinkle raised the point that in the
event of private company refusing
an employers risk, the latter would
be in a difficult situation.
The different coal companies of the
state were represented by counsel
among them being e. NJ. Fulton and
r. p. Bruce, of Wise: J. #. Buliitt, A.
X. Morrison and John w. Chalkley. OF
Big stone Gap, and Fl. r. Hawthorne,
of Taxewell.
Mr.. Lee Long. of Bath, one of the
gentlemen signing the report Is him.
self coal operator.
Following are the provisions fo-
specific injuries:
a. For the loss of a thumb. SO per
centum of the average weekly wages
during sixty weeks.
b. For the loss of finger, first.
commonly called the index finger, so
per centum OF the average weekly
wages during thirty live weeks.
c. For the loss OF a second finger.
so per centum of average weekly