this writing have followed the Wisconsin indirect system. Let us consider for a minute the advantages of this plan. Suppose that the employer does not elect to come under the new law but appears before the court on a question of neglect. The courts will say to him, "Why did you not come in under the act? If you wanted the protection of the act, all you had to do was to accept its provisions." As a result the employer is going to be dealt with harshly because he did not come under the act. Suppose on the other hand, that the employer comes under the act and then tries to quibble or form a case upon a legal technicality. Immediately, the court will say to him, "You accepted the provisions of this act with your eyes open. You accepted the jurisdiction of the arbitration board which is set forth in the act and the standards which it establishes." Consequently there will be a discouragement of litigation and after all, for what is a workmen's compensation act enacted if not to decrease litigation? The legislature abolished the great body of protection, due to legal technicalities and precedents built up around the employer and based the reward upon the findings of this industrial court. The aim of the law is to prevent litigation and an indirect system accomplishes this more effectively than a direct system. The latter imposing a club over every industry, will have to be carefully construed by the courts and that means litigation in the end.
