Arizona republican., 1918-10-30

sufficient number of employers will contribute to it to make the fund large
 enough to take care of all accidents
 and and in that case. the only remedy | left to the employe is the common law.
 As to the argument that immediate | relief will be afforded to the injured | employe and his family, the right of | appeal is given from the boards de- | ciSion to the superior court and then l to the supreme court, so that instead of shortening the time taken to adjust claims, the final determination may be 1 heightened by just that much more, the time taken for the findings by the l board and rehearing upon their de cision, with of course the incident ad- | ded expense to the taxpayers of the | boards proceedings, so that. instead of the delay and expenses in two | courts, there will be the delay and eX | pense in three courts.
 The statement has been made that
 the reason some lawyers are opposing
 this amendment is that such an act
 in force would deprive the lawyer who makes his living on personal injury
 cases of his bread and butter Such however would not be the case, for
 each injury claim must be passed upon 1 individually, so that the workman would undoubtedly desire his interests in the examination looked after by legal counsel to offset the legal counsel
 of the employers. A-glimmering goes
 the philanthropic employers much
 lauded worthy object of saving the | injured employe the necessity of di-
 vidiug "a reasonable settlement with his lawyer; the empoye must make division of a smaller settlement and the difference between the two fees
 recoverable in a suit under the Elm
 ployers' Liability Act and in an award
 under the proposed law goes into the
 erstwhile philanthropic employers
 pocket.
 The schedule of adjustment set out
 in the amendment is the maximum,
 and a very low one at that, of a sliding
 scale. Take, for instance, an employe
 earning five dollars a day; in case of
 his death from accident in the course
 of his employment, his wife and child
 ren would get but 66 and 2-9 per cent
 of his daily wage for but 1900 days,
 or little over S6,000 while his chances
 of death from natural causes as con- !; puted by the American mortality tables : would have left him able 10 provide , for his family many years longer;
 furthermore, the proposed law restricts payments for death to $S000, so that ; the family of a man earning seven dol lars or more a day would get but
 SS,000, while the actual earning capac- ity of that man in the same length 5 of time would have been nearly double that amount. In the case of an un-
 married man but 50 per cent of his $ daily wages would be paid to his de- s pendent father and mother if living, Q and if neither were living, then but } 40 per cent 10 his dependent brothers and sisters under T years of age The r actual dependency of the father, moth l CT. brothers or sisters must be proved = Let us look at the schedule of com 0 pensation for partial disability. Who = of the ardent advocates of the bill f business men, mine owners. operators , l and lawyers, would consider two thirds !, of their earning capacity for 1850 days l sufficient compensation for the loss o1
 his arm above the elbow, or pay fol = 1480 days sufficient for the loss O n his hand? Twenty seven days il Q hardly time to allow the healing of r crushed finger. Seven. hundred days 0 partial pay for the loss of an eye seems y very small indeed.
 | The strongest argument for no . passing this amendment seems to mt Q to be the fact that the laboring man i! ' llOI tHuOlSlHS ll1e Dlll, lIidl lie ildS no s been consulted in the drafting of it y that as matter of fact, the Arizon; [. State Federation of Labor, through it - delegates in convention recently as o sembled at Globe, condemned the bil l. by an almost unanimous vote, anC l. that the four Railroad Brotherhood 1T of Arizona, through their joint legis l. lative board have condemned it un IT animously It is true that the bill ha = the support of two or three labor of 1t ficials who are, however, discredte, ,r by organized labor. Shall we fore n upon labor something that is not jus l. and that it does not want? What shal ,f we answer to our boys fighting at tn d front when they come home for hay l. ing in their absence voted away thei l. right of just and adequate compcn >, sation by passing a law which fixes
 schedule of compensation for death an l. injury which in many cases would b in far too lowi a law which is not com )t lpulSOry upon an employer to acCep