The copper era and Morenci leader., 1918-11-01
AN IMPOSSIBLE OBJECTION.

The principal argument the objectors to the Wori,men's s Compensation law offer, is that under the terms employers more especially tie great mining companies might discrimln- ate against employees without dependents, men with no families. This is purely an as- sumption bern of that deplorable class hatred so chaiacteristic of that socialistic element which dreams of the time when there shall be neither employers nor employees; when all pro- duction shall be carried on under the state. Happy as that time shall be, it is not here now and will not be here for some years to come. The proposed legislation like all wisely pro- posed legislation is to meet conditions as they exist.
 We speak of the objections as it is honest ly urged and not as it has been put forward by labor agitators to whom the quarrels be- tween employer and employe constitute meat and drink and spending money, political pre- fes1nent and those other things to which dema- gogues aspire. Nor do we have reference to that class of lawyers known as 'ambulance chasers.'
 Those who wish to approach this question honestly should not do so in hostile spirit. They should assume that as they themselves ar, desirous of a solution of their troubles, the employers themselves are sincere. If they should however hold the worst opinion of en- rloyers as a class, and at the same time would exercise little judgment, it would seem to them that the employers could not afford to avail themselves of such loop-hold of escape from liability for personal injury as the objee- tors think they have discovered
 It would be impossible for an employer of 5000 1000 men much smaller number of men to exclude any considerable number of employees with dependents. War conditions make it doubly difficult for him to do so.
 But if he could and we feel sure that, no employer ever thought of it, he would but little. Comparatively few personal injury cases involve the death of the employe. In nine eases out of ten the employe survives an injury which may be trifing may be total Tn either case he would become the beneficiary of the law which would definitely fix the amount of his compensation without delay and without division with an ''ambulance chaser"
 Besides, under the proposed law an en- ploye killed would not be an employe 'paid for.' There would still have to be paid by the employer a stated sum into the state fund out of which compensation would he paid to other injured employees dead employees who leave dependents.
 The foregoing is, as we have said, in re- ply only to honest objectors. We have this now to say as to dishonest objectors: In the argument in the initiative and referendum publicity pamphlet against the act we find this
 ''To entitle beneficiary to compensation, dependency must be shown and the vicious t, ms of this law is such that woman work ing in industry whose husband is serving his country in France, would have no compensa- tion paid for her death.''
 We set against this misstatement the law itself which provides:
 Compensation due to beneficiares shall he paid to the surviving spouse, if any, until his or her marriage, etc.
 Here is plain intent to deceive of which voters should take notice.