The Arizona copper camp., 1918-07-20
(By Folsom Moore, Organizer A. F.
of L., Tucson.)

of l., Tucson.)
! | notice in the last issue of the
Labor Journal an article from Alf
Madden wherein he undertakes to
criticise the proposed Compensation
Law. Mr.. Madden states that he has
ing" and after a thorough reading of
his criticism" l am inclined to think
| that in that one particular Mr. Mad
den is not mistaken. And before
go further let me say that | want to
see this bill discussed with the ut
most thoroughness, for by such discus
sion will all fair-minded men and
women be convinced that it is the
best compensation measure-from the
standpoint of the worker-ever sub
mitted to the voters of this or any
other state.
In considering the proposed Com
pensation Law, the workingman or
woman should go carefully into the
measure with view of ascertaining
whether it is better than the law un-
der which they are now working, and
whether it abrogates any rights now
enjoyed without giving as much in re-
turn, or something better | have gone
thoroughly into the proposed law and
am frank to say that it fnlfills just
those conditions-there is nothing
taken away that is not restored or
replaced by something better for the
worker and in addition it carries
many advantages which the present
laws do not. 1t takes the settlements
out of the hands of the companies
state; it carries a higher schedule
than any other compensation law in
existence or contemplated at the pres
ent time; it provides for the payment
of compensation at the time most
needed, that is, Immediately after the
injury or death, and as a final consid-
GRAFTON compensation is provided for,
the injured man and his dependents
and not for the many attorneys who
wax fat from the mama that falls
| from the gloomy heavens of the work
er's misfortune.
Present Laws Unsatisfactory
Mr.. Madden has made three points
in his article the first of which is that
the present compensation law is
"equitable-and suits all people" In
answer to that assertion, | would say
that Mr.. Madden is not in touch with
compensation laws at the present time
or he would never make the assertion
that law which provides for a COM
pensation of SO per cent of the wages
with a limitation of $4,000 is better
than the proposed law which provides
| for &c 2-3 per cent of mans wages
on the day he was hurt with no limi-
tation whatever for permanent in
| juries.
Compensation When Needed
| His second point is that the Ian
guage of the law is "most ambiguous
and. if adopted by the people-they
may kiss compensation goodbye" !"
Either Mr. Madden has not read the
law thoroughly or his ignorance is
colossal. The law is plain although
perforce voluminous; it's provisions
are clear; it's meaning easy of con-
structiOn. There is all the difference
in the world between the word "vol-
luminous" and the meaning of the
word Ambiguous" The proposed law
is not ambiguous. Nor shall we have
"kisesd compensation goodbye" with
the adoption of the proposed amend
ment; rather shall we have just begun
a just and fair compensation for in
| jury or death without having to go
through the travail of a personal in
| jury case wherein we got only part
of our just dues. No 33 1-3 per cent
attorneys fees coming out of the
| long awaited judgment; no wait of
weeks and months and years with all
going out and nothing coming in-but
a known amount coming from the
state twice each month to meet the
bills that accumulate while the
worker is unable to go about his
usual business.
Speaking further, Mr.. Madden says
that the proposed law provides for a
commission rather than for legal pro-
ceedings as at present, and adds that
''it also appears from a not over care
full reading that they (the employers)
may elect whether they will abide by
the rulings of the commission"
Again let me urge Mr.. Madden that
before he essays the role of adviser to