McEwen discovered that his own advisory group of fifty labor leaders was dissatisfied with the benefits in the bill that he and Mercer had proposed (Labor World, 4 March 1911; MSFL 1909, 21; Minneapolis Journal, 5 February 1911).
McEwen then testified before a Senate committee that the bill should be amended to raise the maximum weekly benefit from $10 to $15, increase the number of weeks of benefits from 300 to 333, and raise the overall maximum benefit from $3,000 to $5,000 (Labor World, 18 January 1913; MSFL 1913, 68).
The MSFL accused Gillette of "duplicity," noting that the group had vehemently opposed the negligence clause from the onset, yet Gillette now claimed that the MSFL had agreed to it (Labor World, 1 March 1913).
Although the MEA and the MSFL had essentially agreed to discontinue their disagreeing, a feud within the labor movement grew more heated as the Senate bill approached a final vote.
Although the MSFL (1913) was pleased to finally establish workers' compensation, its officials stated emphatically that "no satisfactory solution to the question of workingmen's compensation can be had except through the medium of state insurance" (68).
In October 1914 the MEA, the MSFL, the Department of Labor and Industries, and mining companies had agreed to amendments increasing the minimum weekly benefit from $6 to $6.
But the IFM worried even more about the emergence of the Non-Partisan League, which established state insurance as the first plank of its labor platform while joining forces with the MSFL for the 1918 gubernatorial election (IFM 1917, 6-7).
The MSFL urged that the amended bill be defeated, which it was by a vote of 9 to 57 (Lawson 1955, 353; Minnesota Senate Journal, 1919, 1148-49).