The Butler County press. [volume] (Hamilton, Ohio) 1900-1946, 1923-11-02

Hz>-SsSs.'s Ss.'sss s
to control the local electric light and
power situation.
You, Mr.. Voter, of average intelli-
gence, should not need to be told who
to vote for. When your attention is
called to this matter and after think
ing it over, you ought to know what
is best for you and yours and so
vote it. If you fail to act, some day
in the future don't kick at any one
but yourself.
THINK 1T OVER, VOTE TO SAVE
THE ELECTRIC LIGHT AND
POWER PLANT!
Ia IA IA IA N
THE COMPENSATION AMEND
MENT
1t is gratifying to know that the
proposed amendment to the state con-
stitution, providing for just change
in the Ohio compensation law, has the
support not only of labor, but of la
boris employers.
This amendment would eliminate
the open liability loophole, by which
parties may elect to bring damage
suits in the courts instead of accept
ing the provisions Of the compensation
act. The necessity for such an
amendment arises particularly from
the recent fve-to-four decision of the
Ohio supreme court in the case of
the Automatic Sprinkler Company of
Youngstown versus Hannah Fender.
While the supreme court has now, by
| an almost unanimous vote, agreed to
rehearing of the case, decision
will likely be withheld until the people
| have expressed their will on the
amendment at the November election.
If the amendment is not adopted
and the court Sustains its former rul-
| ing after the rehearing, the effect will
| be practically nullify the principal
purpose of the workmen's compensa-
tion act, which is to abolish expensive
court litigation, and instead establish
and maintain an equitable standard
of justice for both employers and
workmen in the settlement of indus
trial injury cases.
Since its enactment the Ohio COM
pensation law has been subjected to
numerous attacks from selfish inter
ests who would profit by its annul-
ment. The proposed amendment is in
tended to further strengthen the law
and guard it against future assaults
| by those who seek to undermine and
destroy it.
1t has been shown from court rec
ords, that in ffty-eight suits brought
against employers in the courts, in
volving total claims of more than
| 81 100000, in the final settlement the
awards totaled only $174,000. Of this
sum the workmen's attorney fees and
court costs took over SCI 900, or mora
than third, leaving the net amount
! fo ofcompensation actually received
by the fifty eight claimants only $113,-
400 And to get this settlement by
the route of the courts and lawyers,
it required an average time for each
case of two years and five months.
| Had these fifty-eight cases been
| filed and adjudicated under the pro-
visions of the compensation act, the
compensation received by the claim
ants would have been nearly $164,-
600, and there would have been no
exorbitant attorney fees, no court
costs, no legal fret and worry, and
the cases would have been settled
without unnecessary delay.
In these cases the employers in
volved were also losers In defending
their interests they paid nearly $42,-
900 for attorney fees and court costs.
The total cost of settlement for them
amounted to more than $4,000.
Is it any wonder that employers
and employees are standing shoulder
to shoulder in support Of an amend
ment to stop the weak spot in the
law which permits such waste Of
money and time? The amendment is
opposed only by certain powerful pri-
vate interests, for whom that waste