Arizona republican., 1921-07-19
w o R K M E N
 COMPENSATION ACT
 DECLARED INVALID
(Continued from Page One)


 might so conclude. The court would have been gratified to overrule the UjaclS decision and sustain the pres- ent legislation. for the reason that the state needs such an action and be- cause the court would have been pleased to sustain coordinate branch of the government But the reconsideration confirmed the opinion of the court of the soundncss of the Ujack decision.
 Justice Baker. in concurring, quoted from Montana opinion description of the evils sought to be remedied by just such legislation as that before the court: Whatever may be the reasons therefor. actions for damages for personal injuries and death have increased enormously in the numbers in the past few years. It Is notorious that but a small proportion of the moneys forced from the employer in these cases finds it's way into thel pockets of tho plaintiff. The re- mainder is frittered away in payment of counsel fees. witness fees. court costs and other necessary expenses of litigation. The records of this court disclose that our best and most high minded lawyers have, IS was their duty. advocated the causes of the plaintiffs in many of these cases: nevertheless the fact remains that the solicitor of personal injury cases is a hateful reality and much unneces- sary and ill advised litigation is re- suit of his activities"
 5 Remedy Lies With People Justice Baker added: While it is unfortunate that the evils referred to | must continue to exist and flourish, | 1t is not our function to provide F. s,.l 11~ -f-& remedy lies with the people. Both pelled to amend their constitutions before they were able to adopt bene- 1 ficial compensation laws"
 | The opinion of Justice MAllister l dealt at great ength with the con- l flict between the act with Section 6, 1 Article IS, of the constitution in re- l gard to the time of election of reme- dies and especially devoted himself | to the contention of the appellants that the act does not compel the final I election before injury, but only per mits it, and is not therefore violative 1 of the constitution.
 But Justice M'Allister points out that at the very threshhold of his em- | ployment the employe is confronted | by the necessity of making his choice of remedy in the case of injury. He l cannot avoid It, for IT he does not by | affirmative action reject compensa- tion. the law accepts it for him. The opinion comedies that the right of election is personal, but the justice asks '.Who then IS to elect finally in the case of sudden death after rejec- | tion before injury"
 Justice M'Allister differs from his associates in an apparent approval of the constitutional mandate, the others l by suggestion, at least, recommend ing an amendment of the constitution so as to permit the enactment of a modern compensation law. Says the justice: "To my mind it Is clear that Section s, Article IS, was placed there entirely for the benefit of the injured employe. It was u-ended to preserve his right to elect his remedy at a time when he could do it to the best advantage. If such construction ren- ders it impossible to enact in this state compensation law in the true sense of that term. my answer is that the fundamental law is our guide and
 where it leads, it is the duty of the court to follow"
 [ Reference is made both by the chief
 justice and Justice M'Allister, to a section of the act on trial providing , that if Section 50. providing for cleo ; tion. should fall, the whole should fall with it