The Sun. [volume] (Price, Utah) 1915-1932, 1920-10-08
UTAH FUEL QUESTIONS
AWARD RECENTLY
MADE
KNIGHToN CASE BUT ONE OF
SEVERAL OTHERS.
Suit In Supreme Court TO Be Heard
This Month Appeals From Decision
Of State Industrial Commission and
Is Intended to Establish Powers Of
the Mining News

The powers conferred by the am
ended Utah workmen's compensation
act on the industrial commission of
Utah are In violation Of the constitu-
ton of the state and even Of the consti-
tuition of the United States, and spec
fically the fourteenth amendment toI
the nations basic law, it is argued by
the Utah Fuel company in a caso soon
20 be heard by the supreme court Of
this state. The case, which is one Of
several that are to come before that
court early in the October term. isl
deemed to be- among the most import
ant bearing on the status Of the COM
mission. The 1919 legislature amend
ed the compensation act to permit re-
view of the proceedings of the indus
trial commission only in the supreme
court of the state The law % passed
in 1917 permitted review in The dis
trict court, but It was the argument
of those supporting the general theory
of workmcn's compensation legisla-
ton that this resulted in defeating
one of the main purposes Of such laws
that of insuring prompt payment of
benefits 10 injured workmon md de-
pendents of workmcn killed by acct
dent ut the time when benefits are
most needed. IL was argued that IL
constant appeals are TO be allowed to
the district court the compensation
law delays, rather than assures, the
prompt payment.
Utah Fuel company in the present
case is appealing from the decision Of
the commission which awarded 10
Clyde L. knighton, formerly ma cm-
ploye Of the company and now sup
posed 10 be "A sufferer from 'progrcs-
siye' or creeping" paralysis, COM
pensation at the rate Of twelve dol.
lars n week w long rs he is disabled
IL the diagnosis of at least some OF
the physicians who testified az IN,
hearing before Il. ID. Nebeker, refere,
for the industrial commission, IL cor
rect the Utah Fuel company will hay,
90 pay knighton twelve dollnrs
week for the remainder of his life
unless the award is revoked. Tn
company, in It's petition for n review
of the proceedings which constitute
the only legal appeal at present, set
out the grounds permitted in the com
pcnsaiion act for such appeals /
contends that the commission was act
ing beyond lbs powers and that Their
~ no evidence 10 connect knighton
present condition with his employ
ment, about one year before the hear
ing was held, with the Utah Fuel con,
pany. On the other hand, IL claim
that the evidence proves that the dis
ease had already attacked Knightoi
before he took employment for tn
company.
The fuel company, however, goe
farther and contends that the CON
mission is an administrative body an
that the law does not attempt 20 Civ
IL the power 10 determine controver
sizes between litigants as ~ ultimat
liability. In other words, that the con
mission is usurping Judicial power I
violation of the state constitution an
of It's own law, when il assumes sue
judicial power. Further, the con
pany asserts, II the law AS amende
does attempt 10 give the eommissio
such judicial power, this would max
the commission in legal effect a cour
and that therefore the law would /
unconstitutional aud void. In spn
of the amendment Of the 1919 legisll
ture, the fuel company contends thu
the law cannot take from the con
pany the right TO appeal to the d
trict court, and 10 have the facts
the ease passed on in a regularly col
stituted court,
"lf claim is made alleging injui
in the course of employment" Il
brief of the fuel company says, "ar
the employer denies such injury
claimed and introduces any substa
tial testimony in support of his deniI
this (the supremel court may eXamiI
the record for the purpose of dete
mining that such conflict does exis
and when that fact is determine
then il is the duty of this court to s
aside the decision and award of n
commission on the grounds that IL
without or in excess of the power
the commission to hear and determil
such a controversy. The eorrectne
of the decision by the commission
immaterial. Ii simply has no juri
diction TO render any decision, not
do aught except to dismiss the pet
ton"
The company contends that eve
ON evidence presented in tho case Il
decision of the commission is wrong
Canyon Coal Deposit.
PROVO, Oct. 2.-Sherff j. T. vi
lams aud Frank Ramsey return'
last NIGHT from an insDeetiOn trim