The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1956-01-27
Editorial
WHY SHOULD GENERAL PUBLIC CONTINUE
SUBSCRIBING MINING INDUSTRY?

Or. F. M. held
opinion that the cost of Scosis benefits should be liability
the disabling industry rather than the general Montana tax
payer most timely.
Labor Farmers Union and other citizens have held
such position for To date, legislative attempts
place Scos and other occupational diseases under Work
mems Compensation have been to no avail No more
has been achieved via the initiative route at least three
occasions in the last twenty-five years
mining industry, with its omnipotent influence in the
legislature its and with its agents scattered
the state has successfully resisted all efforts to dves that
industry of its ree rider status the of all other
Montana taxpayers.
Why shouldn't Anaconda Company pay for sicosis
dsabement since the head of the Department of Public
Welfare states most Sicocs contracted the disease the
Butte Mne The Anaconda Company does for such phy
cal Impairment in every other state in which it conducts min
ing smelling and refining operations
Why should Montana be the only major mining state in
the nation where the general public rather than the disabling
industry taxed to sustain these unforunates after is
longer possible for them to support themselves because OF
silica dust absorbed in mining operations?
Four hundred eighty thousand dollars per is
pretty healthy subsidy for the people of Montana to be she'll
ing corporation which, in 1855 made approximately
xtyive million dollars in net profits And yet that $48OOOO
Montana digging each
carry this financial burden rghtfuy belonging to the Ana
conda In addition Mr. Keller statement shows Silver Bow
county Is per of all emergency welfare funds
distributed in the state to nothing of aid dependent chill
dren of Sicos and additional public assistance payments to
who possibly exc existence on
the S65 monthly dole paid them in direct Sicosis
benefits
This an election year The facts about the Scoss subsidy
Anaconda we'll known Every legislative candidate
should be contacted for fortnight whether or
not he will support legislation placing the and
other occupational diseases the Gripping industry
The record of incumbent legislators seeking reelection on
this available In the 1866 Legislature, members of
both houses sound occupational di
legislation In the House HR 1913 by Lee Cumming
McOmber In the Senate SD 1913 by Sem
Leroy Anderson of Pondera
1t is beyond comprehension (maybe) how legislator
after legislator from counties in which there isn't single Sill
against either HB 1913 SD 1913 and
continuation of this financial burden their
constituents.
Why example, did Sen Robins of Dawson county vote
against 1853 when continuation of Scoss benefits being
of Public Welfare funds that his 10508
situen continue to out in of $158OO
there isn't single Sicotc in his county? Or why
Rep Chaffn of Galatn (now director of Montana Power
CO.. opposed HB 1913 when Scoss benefits annually
900 constituents $4,000 in taxes although
there is only Sicotic in Galatn county?
might consult the voting recordand If legislator
against HB 1913 SD 6ask him why he voted
this unjust $780, 900 annual tax burden the backs
general public of Montana You'll probably get
interesting, if fantastic answers to that question.
SORRY-AiI Out -.
Although printed several hundred extras of the issue
containing Attorney General Olsens KXLFV
talk natural rates. the demand has been heavy
completely Apparently should have printed
at least couple of thousand extra.-EDITOR
FARM READERS -. !
week we'll have the complete story the Admins
rations peddle Ezra Taft Benson to the American
public as the friend" of the farmer-EDITOR.
rnosc DrNrcIrc Montan climbed 85