The Birmingham age-herald., 1919-01-26
LETTERS TO EDITOR
Proposed Compensation Act

To the Editor of The Age Herald:
 I read with a great deal of interest and amusement a Montgomery dispatch in The AIe-Herald of January 24, under garing headlines of No Opposition to Compensation Act; Passage Assured" Why should there have developed any opposition? How could opposition devel- op from the manufacturers, coal opera tors or any one else interested in such legislation when it is a fact that very few people throughout the state know the facts contained in the bill as drawn. The effects of the proposed compensation act are by far more important to the citizens of Alabama than any other pleGe of leg islation proposed at this session, and in view of the fact that less than 50 people in the state of Alabama have real inside knowledge of the cause and effect of such ar act as proposed l think as hundreds l of other citizens think, the draft of the | measure should have been published | throughout the state in order that the people of Alabama might know and ap preciate the real importance thereof, and | be given sometime at least to consider | the effects of such a law.
 | The Montgomery report also mentions the fact that the provisions of the pro- posed compensation act establishes an al ternative election schedule of compensa- tion. said to be neither the highest nor the lowest, but medium scale in com parison with other states. This statement concerning the facts~~is so absurd and ridiculous that I feel compelled to light upon it for public consideration.
 First, the death benefit under the pro- posed act is fixed at s620o, as compared with Illinois, Nebraska and Vermont, sGSS5o0; Indiana, $395o; Iowa, Maine. Michi- san. New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Louisiana, s3000: Colorado, $2.N0; Mary land S4250; Massachusetts and Montana. sfO00; Minnesota, $S300; Ohio, $3150; Wis consin, si500; Kentucky and California, S50O0 Virginia, 5000, which became effec- tive January 1, 1919. If you compare these figures carefully the result will show the fallacy of the Montgomery re- port of January 24.
 With your permission and your valua- ble space, l could lead you through the many pitfalls in the proposed act, which
 is supposed to already have the O.. K. of the judiciary committee, which cer- tainly must be in error. My first infor nation was that this proposed act was referred to the mining and manufactur- ing committee If it was referred to the mining and manufacturing comm,ttee- then the mining and manufacturinf inter- ests of Alabama, should have had an op- portunity to appear and receive the proper hearing. Have they had any hearing or
  Not that l have heard of. People who pay the burden of a compensation act should be heard, otherwise We are reminded of revolutionary times, when our forefathers fought against taxation without repre- sentation.
 In conclusion, why the necessity of passing such an ali-important piece of legislation so hastily? Haste in this case will make waste. Should the present pro- posed act become law in Alabama, the employers of this state just as well have a milistone placed about their neclls. be- cause the benefits under this act must be charged in the cost of production, and on account of the material difference in the benefit amounts proposed for Alabama over her sister states Alabama manufac- tuiers cannot successfully compete in the markets with other states. The mainA question IS, shall we throttle industry in Alabama, thereby necessarily reducing wages to labor. shall we enact com pensation law equitable 10 both employer and empioye which will only become a truth when Alabama manufacturers of every character may successfully com pete in the markets of the world. A. J. ARRANT. Birmingham. January 24